The Internet: strengthening dictatorships and empowering people since 1990 (Entry 10)

Ever since we started watching TED videos in class for COM 125, and I realized that there are TED talks about almost any topic, I've been coasting YouTube to find TED talks, and I found this one by Evgeny Morozov about how the Internet, instead of liberating people like how we've always observed it to, it can actually continue to enslave people in despotism.

The Internet only fully liberates people when despot governments do not know how to use it or underestimate its influence. However, that's hardly the case these days. There are entire sectors of governments dedicated to figuring out how to best use the Internet, and they've pretty much figured it out by now. Censoring dissident ideas doesn't work. Ideas spread like wildfire, so deleting one comment will not do anything about the other hundred that spring up because of it. Now, the way to go is to use the same channels used by dissident voices to spread pro-government sentiments, sometimes bordering on disinformation.

With this knowledge, our idea on what's true and what's not is now confounded. Of course, I'm sure none of us ever believed that everything on the Internet is true, but we used to have this notion that voices on the Internet that ran against an establishment are usually truthful, because they have a somewhat altruistic, truth-driven purpose for voicing these concerns online. Now we know that governments have the power and the smarts to "turn" dissident voices and to spread their own ideas in the same manner as dissident voices, so once again we have to rely on our own rational logic in order to figure out what's right for us and what is not.

Although Morozov paints a somewhat bleak picture of the current state of cyberliberalism, I think this could be a good thing for us and for anyone who feels the need for any and all governments to be subjected to checks and balances. This would teach us to not be overly reliant or trusting of these "dissident voices" and to exercise our own judgments. In other words, this teaches us to think for ourselves and discern for ourselves what is right and what is wrong, which is a skill we all need to develop. Mindlessly listening to dissident voices is no better than mindlessly listening to the government. There are good and bad people on both sides, and either side has the power to do social good and to become misguided in that effort. We have to discern for ourselves when right is right, wrong is wrong, and right becomes wrong. Only then can the people act as the safeguards and checks and balances to both governments and dissidents as we rightfully should.

This is, after all, as much our world and our Internet as it is anyone else's, and so we rightfully should have a say in it.

Our government isn't a tweet whore (Entry 9)

We all know by now that social media is so pervasive that anyone who knows how to make proper use of it puts themselves at a great advantage.The effect of social media is too great to ignore. Take, for example, the McDonald's curry sauce debacle.

McDonald's recently had a shortage of curry sauce. We now know that it's because they were coming in with a new shipment of curry sauce with new packaging and all (and some people say it tastes funny), and there was a delay in the shipment. However, during this period, hundreds of people were outraged with McDonald's because they thought that McDonald's had discontinued curry sauce like they did with mayonnaise.

This was a guess at best, because McDonald's never released any official statement on the matter because they didn't think it was a big deal. Temporary shortage. So what? The only thing that people had to base their information from is when they went to Mackers and the lady at the counter says "No more curry sauce." They probably meant "We are out of curry sauce" but people probably heard "We no longer supply curry sauce". This rumor spread like wildfire on the social media networks, and before you knew it, a significant part of the population was lit up over Macs not having curry sauce anymore. Only a few days later did McDonald's respond on their Facebook page explaining the temporary shortage, but the damage had already been done.

On to my main point. We all know by now that social media is an important tool in any company ot organization's PR efforts. Why, then, does the government still insist on not utilizing Twitter properly? Anybody who follows the PAP on Twitter knows that there's almost no point in following the PAP on Twitter anymore. Their Twitter account is practically dead!

Let me compare two shots, one of the Democrats' Twitter page, the other of the PAP's Twitter:

The Democrats

The PAP

Can people not see the disparaging difference in usage between the two? It only seems that the PAP tweets during election or National Day Rallies, basically only during times when they want the people to listen to them. That shouldn't be the case. they should be up to date and connected all the time, for when the people want to hear from them. The Democrats tweet all the time, as they understand how they can use these social media networks to further disseminate their information effectively, not only by tweeting it, but by their followers retweeting them.

In terms of usefulness, it's obvious that not a lot of people find the PAP Twitter the least bit useful, considering the 5,124 followers as of this post, as compared to the blogger Xiaxue, who has 84,571 followers. The government needs to step up and recognize that here lies a very crucial tool that they are letting go to waste. They could be utilizing this and become more credible and connected in the eyes of the people.

The Prime Minister recently pledged for a new PAP. Let's hope this includes being more well-connected and in touch with the population.

A global digital media network (Entry 8)

That there's the tagline of DigitalJournal.com, and this is a screenshot of the site. Digital Journal is one of the many citizen journalism sites out there, but to me it seems to be one of the better and more professional ones out there.

One thing about them that sets them apart from most other citizen journalism sites is that they QC their writers. In order to be approved to contribute to the site, you have to submit a "resume" article to show that you're a writer of quality before you're allowed to contribute regularly. This serves to control the quality of articles featured and increases the credibility of the website in general. Non-approved users can still contribute, but only via uploading photos and blogging. When it comes to articles, only quality ones are featured.

At first, I thought that this defeated the purpose of citizen journalism, since not all people that want to contribute are allowed to. Then again, it's not about the sheer number of contributors, but how pervasive and spread out they are, to ensure that there is wide and instant coverage. How normal news agents and wire services work is that they get information mainly from PR agencies, other news sources or on-the-ground reporters. With citizen journalism, these on-the-ground reporters are literally everywhere. There's always news coming from the ground.

Another thing that's cool about Digital Journal is that they pay people who contribute, based on how popular or successful their reports. They mainly draw revenue from ads, and they're willing to share that revenue with contributors. This, I suppose, will get more people to contribute, which would make the website more rich and useful, which would increase traffic and increase ad revenue, so that makes sense.

The only thing that I'm bummed about is that there isn't that much about Singapore-based news. Admittedly, we're a 'small market', and so we would need a dedicated local citizen journalism site. Something better than STOMP please. STOMP is now just a place for people to bitch about ugly behavior.

Is the doctor the mad scientist too? (Entry 7)

For years, I've been hearing this rumor that I've never been able to confirm, and I'm sure that many people have heard of this too. The reason why Norton is regarded as the safest antivirus software, and the reason why it defends against just about any virus, trojan or other assorted malware out there, is because...

Symantec writes its own viruses to which only they have the cure for, and releases them into the Internet. This means that other antivirus programs, like MacAfee, AVG and that crappy one that Jackie Chan advertises for, either cannot find solutions for these viruses or will take a long time to do so. This gives Symantec a great advantage over the rest. *insert gasp here*

Holy shit, right? Well if this were true, then Symantec could be charged with a number of Internet crimes in a number of countries, and probably even in the International Court of Justice. Then again, if this were true I reckon that Wikileaks would've exposed this by now. Or maybe they're too bust exposing corrupt governments and child porn peddlers to care. After all, these so called viruses don't seem to be causing a problem, are they?

Well, if you're using Norton along with almost all of the online world, then of course it wouldn't be a problem. But a substantial amount of computer users use free versions of MacAfee and AVG, so those people will be vulnerable. Then again, if you're too cheap to buy a computer but not antivirus software, like buying a car but not maintaining it, then maybe you deserve to catch an Internet virus.

But I digress. After looking online a bit, I realized that this claim is also extended to MacAfee and basically any company that creates antivirus software, all in an effort to boost sales for their product and to remind people how relevant they are. However, of course the PR departments of these antivirus companies are going to deny releasing anything malicious online with the intention to mess with people and their data. Also, we have to consider the fact that for the many years that people have been using antivirus, there haven't been any major lawsuits against antivirus companies for purposely releaving malicious software on the Interwebs (not that I've heard of, anyway). That argument may not be entirely valid as would be argumentum ad ignorantiam (saying something is false because there is no evidence of it being true). So we're going to have to rely on the words of Internet analysts, and by that I mean some fat, jobless guy in his mother's basement who just spends all day coasting the CNET forum. I kid.

Anyway, I found a post that might help. Essentially, this guy says that yes, antivirus companies do release viruses, in two scenarios:

1. Some viruses pose as free antivirus programs in order to entice people who believe that they're smarter than Norton users because they've found a free alternative. Well, good luck to these people who think they can get a free pass. As the local saying goes, not every day is Sunday.

2. Norton, MacAfee and gang, the established antivirus programs, do release minor viruses for research purposes, in order to figure out how viruses spread. These viruses wouldn't be debilitating, and would be able to be easily deleted by any decent antivirus software. It's the same thing as these companies employing white hat hackers to crack their system and find exploits so they can fix them and improve.

However, whether or not these companies actually release malicious programs to justify their own existence, we may never know. For now.

Wikileaks has some homework to finish.

Google Buzzoff (Entry 6)

That was Google's video introducing their (then) latest combatant to the social networking wars, Google Buzz. This was Google's answer to Facebook, and was slated to take over and revolutionize the social networking scene, as most Google apps and tools so often do in their respective fields. February 2010 was to be the beginning of the end of every other social network. Facebook was to be finally reduced to a social network pariah, or as it's commonly known in the industry, Freindster.

Notice that I used a lot of the past tense in that paragraph. For obvious reasons.

Buzz ran into a brick wall of assorted issues as soon as it started up. The main legal debacle was how people were angry over the privacy issues and that resulted in a lot of lawsuits. Apparently, most people can only stand at the most one social network site that infringes on their privacy without their knowledge, and Facebook was doing that pretty well already. Also, there was the sad fact that people were so into Facebook (or MySpace, if you were a crappy band) that they never knew that Buzz existed in the first place.

That was such wasted potential, though. It wouldn't seem that way now, what with Google+ and all, but I'll get to that in a minute. The thing that Buzz was going for was that it wasn't a dedicated, separate social networking site per se, but it was more of an app that was seamlessly integrated into the rest of the Google universe. Kind of like learning to whistle loudly with your fingers, as opposed to bringing a giant police whistle around with you in your pocket everywhere you go. It would eventually feel like second nature to the masses of Googlites (or Googlers... whatever), and turn Google into more than just a social networking website. It would be a complete online interface, through which ALL our inline interactions would take place.

Sadly, because of all the hiccups that Google walked into and/or didn't foresee, this didn't happen. Buzz would continue to lie in our pile of cool but unfortunately flawed and eventually disused stuff, along with the MD player, the Sega Dreamcast and the Zune (I can never say the word 'Zune' without at least laughing out loud in my head). And now, with this announcement by Google four days ago, it turns out that Google is finally pulling the plug on Buzz. I like it when the latest news coincides with my assignments.

Well, at least the death of Buzz wasn't in vain. For those of you who (like me) never bothered with Buzz until now, and are seeing the intro view for the first time, you would notice how similar Buzz is to Google+. Google managed to use basis of Buzz and the lessons they learned from it to create Google+, and with 40 million users in Google+ and rising, it looks like they learned quick and learned well. However, there's still the thing about interest in Google+ waning, and that Google+ only served to shake Facebook up enough that they improved themselves.

So, do you think that Buzz would've survived if they had not run into all those legal issues, or was it destined to flop anyway?


Let me know in the comments section down below!

Meet my classmates: Ling, Alex, Keisuke, Yuri and Mahmoud (Entry 5)

The chapter on learning and e-learning got me thinking about a reading that I did a project on when I did Intercultural Communication under Prof. Armstrong back in Summer. The article was about this concept called the Global Classroom, and in a nutshell, it was an initiative to use technology to break down the physical barriers that prevent true intercultural communication.

It started in 2003 with Dr. Rosina Chia and Dr. Elmer Poe from East Carolina University, who started the Global Classroom project. They utilized a webcam chat over a H.323 connection, which required very little bandwidth, to set up video conferences with classes from different countries. The images on both sides were projected on walls and adjusted accordingly such that the image of each class would appear life-sized to the other, to further simulate the reality. Their first partnership was with Voronezh State Agricultural University, located 400 kilometers south of Moscow. Despite certain technological limitations, such as lag time, and cultural barriers, within time, both sides grew accustomed to each other, and grew closer as friends despite the incredible physical distance between them.

This got me really interested in the concept, especially since the premise of the article alone allowed my group mate Tracey and I to come up with a presentation that was far more interesting than the usual stand-there-and-read-off-your-slides drab. We managed to set up a webchat meeting Tobias Reynolds-Tylus, who was a former UB student and spent a year here in Singapore. We chatted in between lags in the connection (I had to tether my iPhone to my MacBook and use my 3G connection, because that would still be faster than using the infernally laggy WiFi connection provided by our dear school). It was rather interesting, and considering the time we had to prepare, I felt that it was a good effort. Certainly better than people who just plain read off their slides.

That demonstration was to show just how technology has not only permeated the classroom, but has now enabled us to do things that we were never able to do before. Sure, there's always a chance to "interculturally communicate" in multicultural Singapore, but is that really intercultural communication? Not to me, because to me, we all come from the same culture (Singaporean). Even if we spoke to foreigners here, we would be speaking to foreigners who were socialized to our ways to some degree. Real intercultural communication would involve regular face-to-face correspondence from someone who was from an entirely different culture, and who was just as immersed in their culture as we were in ours. Of course, Toby spent a year here, so he's quite familiar with Singapore, but this demonstration was meant to illustrate the concept that technology can now be used to bridge such wide gaps, which is truly amazing.

This, to me, is certainly one of the best innovations to the classroom yet, but some of you may disagree. So what do you think is the best innovation to help improve the way students learn? Let me know in the comments section down below!

How to succeed in business without really getting out of your study chair (Entry 4)

I'll be honest from the get go: I know nuts about e-commerce. The only things I purchase online on a regular basis are my Norton updates and the occasional extra mission packs for a few games I play. Beyond that, I only observe when my female friends borrow my MacBook to "online window shop". However, after surveying a few blog sites about e-commerce strategies and considering what my friends look for when online window shopping, basic marketing strategies and common sense, I believe that I've isolated a few key tips to note when creating a successful e-commerce business.

1. Friendly user interface

This is a given, I think. You need an interface that is easy to access and navigate to what you want. Search bars help here, as to command bars at the top or the side that help navigate. These bars should have as few categories as possible and use dropdown subcategories when you mouseover the button, like:

this.
Personally, I like clean looking sites that grab your attention at the beginning, and then show you where you want to go, like the Prada website (which I know isn't technically a dedicated e-commerce website, but still the look of the site is clean.

I didn't really like Blogshopcity's look. It clutters too much in the front page. People get annoyed and confused especially first time users who don't really know their way around.

2. Don't make website memberships compulsory for purchases

Most sites will have you register or log in first before you can purchase anything. It may seem like it's for security of identity or whatnot, but frankly a PayPal account or a functional credit card can do that. Besides, the risk in the transaction is mainly on the consumer because s/he's the one ponying up the dough. Memberships are meant to get people to return to the site because they already have a membership. Kind of like inducing brand loyalty. However, most one-time shoppers are put off by this and turn away from sites that demand a membership. "I just want to buy a damn dress, and now I have to key in my address and the name of my first pet?!"

One-off shoppers do make up a significant portion of the online consumer demographic, so it wouldn't be good business ignoring them. What should be done is to make sign-ups optional and have the site recognize when purchases have been made from a particular IP address multiple times. That indicates that someone is actively returning to your site. Then ask those people to sign up.

3. Socially moderated user reviews

Saying a product is good because the seller says it is good is just silly. Of course, they're gonna say their product is good, even if it isn't entirely! That's just business. People now recognize that, and now buyers are more likely to listen to people who aren't obligated to say nice things about a product, like previous buyers. Thus, people (or at least members) should be allowed to comment about products, and site administrators only need filter out obscenities and spam messages.

Of course, having a product reviewed by only one very disgruntled consumer might not be the best business. That's why these comments should be socially reviewable, in a "xx users found this comment helpful" and like and dislike buttons.

4. Know the Web

Running an e-commerce business is different from running any other business in that you are in a different environment. In the same way that a shop owner should know the environment that his shop is in (what demographic shops in the area and such), e-commerce business owners should know the environment that their business is in (the Internet). E-commerce business owners should be able to gather info like hits, stickiness, internal site traffic and such. This will give them knowledge about who goes to their site (which could be anyone), especially since you can't judge them by looking at them. Y'know, because you can't see them.

There are, of course, more factors to consider, but this post is quite lengthy as it is, to be honest. If you're still reading, I am touched. So what other factors can contribute to the success of an e-commerce business?


Let me know in the comments section down below!