Griefers

In Mutilated Furries, Flying Phalluses: Put the Blame on Griefers, the Sociopaths of the Virtual World, by Julian Dibbell, she discusses the term griefers. These people “take pleasure in shattering the world of play itself.” The weird thing is that griefers do not dislike playing online games, but they like making other players not enjoy playing them. Once they get one of their players to log off pissed off, their work is complete. In the 1990’s the term griefing was used to describe “antisocial behavior” in multiplayer games. Since then, griefing has advanced into an entire culture. Griefing has become an organization within its own structure. Griefers crash a sim with a penis. They target high profile events and utter obscenities. They constantly use bad language and hit people with malicious scripts causing people’s avatars to do things you don’t want it to do. Griefers put more and more objects in rooms so the computer has a harder time working, causing the computer to crash because it is unable to cope with the pressure in the room. This is hard for people to stop, similar to viruses.

I find it ridiculous that people spend their times trying to piss users off enough, until they log off. How can someone get satisfaction out of pissing someone off? Do they honestly have nothing better to do with their lives?

Curious about different griefing incidents, I found a really messed up article. This article described an incident in which griefers attacked a non-profit epilepsy foundation. People who have epilepsy have visual triggers that cause them to have seizures. On the epilepsy foundation website, griefers decided it would be a good idea to put up flashing GIFS and links with flashing patterns and lights. This caused people with epilepsy to have migraines and seizures. How could some people be so heartless and stupid as to do this? Griefers really stooped too low to do this. This is morally wrong and absolutely distgusting. People with epilepsy go on the epilepsy foundation website to meet other people with the same condition and to learn things that they can’t learn from doctors, hear experiences, and get support from others with epilepsy. Why would griefers attack such a serious website, as to make people not want to go on this website again to get help for their SERIOUS condition? That is really drawing the line. The internet is serious for health purposes. Are griefers trying to say that epilepsy is not a serious condition? Is giving people seizures and migraines really fun and games? This article really pissed me off. Attacking online game users is one thing, but attacking people who have epilepsy and nonprofit epilepsy foundations is another. Griefers have really crossed the line and there needs to be justice done.

Jake Baker Case

After we read “A Rape in Cyberspace” by Julian Dibbell, "Multi-User Dungeons and Alternate Identities," by Howard Rheingold, and “Tinysex and Gender Trouble," by Sheryl Turkle, I instantly thought of a court case that I heard about on the news years ago. This court case was about Jake Baker, a student from the University of Michigan who wrote a detailed fictional story about him raping, torturing, and killing one of his classmates. Someone got alarmed when they read this story and notified officials. Public officials then searched Baker’s dorm room and read his e-mails and files on the computer. In one email, Baker talked to another man about a plan to kidnap, rape, mutilate, humiliate, torture, and kill a female. The type of crime that was committed in this case was the communication involving any threat to injure or kidnap another person. If convicted, this person can be fined, and or imprisoned for up to 5 years. Baker was charged with violating this law. However, there were many debates as to whether the Government violated Baker’s right to the first amendment, freedom of speech, or not. Some argued that it was Baker’s right to the first amendment to write these stories, and they could not be considered a crime. Others believed that Baker intended to execute the actions in these stories. Baker’s defense was that he was just role playing and using these stories as a form of therapy instead of actually acting them out.

This court case reminded me of these readings because the student who Baker wrote about in his story was psychologically affected from this incident. The student who Baker wrote about in his story was psychologically affected from it. She needed to seek counseling after the case. Even though she wasn’t actually raped in real life, there was a description of her being raped on the internet. This is similar to “A Rape in Cyberspace” because even though Legba was not raped in real life, she read the description of her virtual character being raped. This made her really upset. Whether being raped in real life, or seeing the scenario on the computer about being raped, you still have thoughts in your mind telling you that it is real. The text on the computer tells your mind that it is real.

This court case also reminded me of "Multi-User Dungeons and Alternate Identities," and “Tinysex and Gender Trouble," because these articles describe how people create alternate identities to explore things that they cannot explore in real life. This was Jake Baker’s defense. He said that he was just role playing by writing this story and using it as a form of therapy to act out his anger through these stories and through role playing instead of in real life.

For more information about the court case, go to this link.

“The Cult of the Amateur”--Andrew Keen

In “The Cult of the Amateur,” Andrew Keen discusses how the noble amateur is causing a cultural revolution of the Web 2.0 and “threatens to turn our intellectual traditions and institutions upside down,” (Keen 36). According to Keen, an amateur is “a hobbyist, knowledgeable or otherwise, someone who does not make a living from his or her field of interest, a layperson, lacking credentials, a dabbler,” (Keen 36). Today, on the internet, amateurs instead of experts or professionals are creating information on the internet. Trusted and reliable references run by professionals are being replaced by references run by amateurs. Websites such as Wikipedia are being “run on democratic principles,” (Keen 36). Through this, everyone has a say and voice. This includes all amateurs who may have no idea what they are talking about.

On Wikipedia, anyone can edit or add any information they want. The problem with this is people use Wikipedia as a credible source for their information. If the information on Wikipedia is written by amateurs, it may be wrong because according to Keen, “The voice of a high school kid has equal value to that of an Ivy League scholar or a trained professional,” (42). This poses the question of how can a garbage man be considered credible in an argument with a trained chemist on a chemistry topic? The Web 2.0 aids in promoting these questions. By allowing amateurs to post what they want on the internet, we are challenging professionals who post truthful credible information. By challenging the professionals, the information posted by the amateurs threatens our professional institutions. According to Keen, the readers and internet users pay for this, they get “’ a state of intellectual enervation and depletion hardly to be distinguished from massive ignorance,’” (45). It makes it difficult for internet users to understand what is credible and reliable, and what is not. Many internet users assume that the information on the internet can be trusted, but it can not. With an increasing amount of information created by amateurs, “we will have no choice but to read everything with a skeptical eye,” (Keen 46).

Curious about the unreliable information found on the internet, I came across someone’s blog. This blog discusses many websites that have information that are unreliable. The question with this, however, is if this blog is reliable or not? How do readers know if this blog writer/amateur is writing credible information or not? The answer is, we do not know. This is the problem that the Web 2.0 is creating, which Andrew Keen discusses in “The Cult of the Amateur.” http://quackfiles.blogspot.com/2004/10/quacksites-most-unreliable-health.html

"Reach out and Elect Someone"

Neil Postman’s “Reach Out and Elect Someone” discusses how commercials use emotional appeals and “not tests of truth.” Commercials deal with what is wrong about the buyer, not about what is right about a product. Commercials make it seem like all problems can be solved instantly. They sell solutions instead of presenting questions or problems. Political campaign commercials do the same thing. They deal with what is wrong with the nation, this ties into how the potential president could fix these problems.

This is shown through the “First Obama Presidential Ad.” In this commercial, is starts off by asking if we participate in politics of cynicism or politics of hope. It then says to replace fear with hope. This shows what is wrong with people in our nation-that they are fearful. It then presents a solution- replacing the fear with hope. It then deals with Obama’s ways to replace fear with hope, through giving everyone the opportunity to get jobs that pay living wages, that no one should be bankrupt when they get sick, that everyone should have access to decent healthcare, that every school should be adequately funded, and that every child should have the opportunity to learn ad go to college, even if they don’t have a lot of money. Obama then puts his arm around a smiling little girl and bends down so he is on her eye level. Obama positions himself on her eye level to show that he is not talking down to her and that he respects her. This scene lasts a few seconds on the screen to emphasize the emotional appeal to make the image stick in the audiences’ heads. The commercial then says how he believes every citizen should retire with dignity and respect. As this is being said, he is hugging a smiling senior citizen. This image is shown very slowly so it stays on the screen for a while. This shows the emotional appeal that sticks in the viewers’ heads. The commercial ends with the line, “We can make the right choices with challenges that face us.” “Believe Again” then flashes across the screen as Obama shakes hands with someone smiling. This shows the solution to challenges that people face. The solution is to make the right choice by electing Obama as President.

Clearly Obama cannot give everyone the opportunity to get jobs that pay living wages, or to give everyone the access to decent healthcare, or give everyone the opportunity to go to college, etc. He is just stating things that appeal to viewers. These are things that people would like, whether they are all realistic or not. If Obama became President, would everyones’ fear really be replaced with hope? Obviously not. He is just trying to appeal emotionally to the viewers, so these images stick in their heads when they are voting for President.

The link to this commercial is here:http://http://youtube.com/watch?v=UPy7RnHwvmA&feature=related

Virtual Sex

LINK IT: HERE

Sheryl Turkle introduced us to the concept of Virtual Sex in MUDs in the reading we had due for class on Monday. This whole concept is very interesting and intriguing in my mind. We have spent the past few classes discussing MUDs and the concept in general and some of the pros and cons of using them. We have just recently gotten into some very interesting questions regarding what actually goes on in these MUDs and in particular the concept of Virtual Sex. Turkle elaborates on this concept and defines it as, “consists of two or more players typing descriptions of physical actions, verbal statements, and emotional reactions for their characters.” What we discussed in class to a certain extent is how people that are playing as different genders engage in these activities with genders that in real life would be considered homosexual relationships. I mean you have women playing men, men playing women, people playing animals, and people playing as transsexuals.

All of these people are having sex with one another and most of the time is basing their entire online experiences around these sexual relationships. Turkle gives us an example of Tim and Janet, where Tim was having online sex with a virtual partner without his wife, Janet, knowing about it. Once Janet found out about this, Tim swore he would stop, but Janet is still wondering if his activities have ceased. This leads to the question that we have posted on the forums, discussed in class, and find here in the readings, “Are these sexual experiences in these virtual communities hurting marriages and real life relationships.”

Another example that Turkle gives is with Rudy and his girlfriend. While dating he found out that she was regularly having sex on the internet and it was usually with women. He broke off the relationship after this information was uncovered. A great quote that I think sums up this whole topic we are discussing is from Rudy, “We are not ready for the psychological confusion this technology can bring.” I believe this sums up the idea of virtual sex has done for relationships, marriages, etc. It seems to bring about a sense of confusion to all parties involved

The article that I have chosen to back up this point is from the website WebMD. The article is, Virtual Sex: Threat to Real Intimacy? The article discusses how the Internet is here to stay and how online sex is something that we will have to deal with. The first part of the article discusses where cheating on the internet is the same as cheating in real life. A quote from the article sums this up well, "It's hard to give a blanket definition of cheating, because it's based on the morals and beliefs of the marriage. But what matters is: does your spouse consider it cheating?" Many people have different ways at viewing this, but many believe that if you engage in virtual sex, it is just as unforgivable as the real thing. The go on to state the virtual sex is only going to continue to evolve and be something that is here to stay. The line to draw between virtual and real world is something that should be kept very separate. If this is the case then we will continue to evolve in terms of opportunities for virtual sex, but at the same time keep some of the moral backgrounds we have based many of our relationships and marriages on.

Virtual Communities

Howard Rheingold introduces the concept of computer-mediated communications (CMC) in Virtual Communities: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. CRM is basically all of the computers and the switched telecommunication networks that carry the information back and forth between people. The Net as we know and Rheingold tells us, is an informal term for the loosely interconnected computer networks that use CMC technology to link people around the world into public discussions. It is these discussions that are shaping the way in which our World functions on all levels. These discussions are carried on through the Net through a number of people and after enough time begin these people, using human feelings, form personal relationships in cyberspace.

Rheingold then goes in to discussion how important it is for these communities and discussion to continue into the future. He states that because of the potential influence on so many people’s beliefs and perceptions, the future of the Net is connected to the future of community, democracy, education, science, and intellectual life. This means that in order for the people’s voice to be heard we need to continue to foster these relationships and discussions online. The future of the Internet has become way too important for us to let specialists and special interest groups to influence how it is used in our daily lives. Rheingold then discusses that as the Internet becomes more and more popular and influential, the people need to be having a say in how funds are being applied to the further development of the Internet. With this in mind the people can change their communities, democracy, education, sciences and intellectual life all with the power of the Net. The voice of the people needs to be heard though. Rheingold then goes into stating that if we do not develop a vision and let our voice be heard, the future will be shaped for us by large commercial and political power holders.

I don’t think one specific example can make the point that Rheingold was trying to make. The peoples voices are all around us in different situations that we have all heard of in the past. I mean we are using YouTube to help influence political campaigns and debates. We are using blogs to discuss political activities that the major news networks pick up on. These blogs are also discussing issues that have to do with the internet. We have formed communities to foster our beliefs through Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn and a variety of other sources. We find one another through these websites, form friendships, marriages, and form together to have a common voice on certain issues. We as ordinary citizens are shaping the way in which we use the internet and letting ourselves be heard as to how we want to continue to have the internet be used to let our voices be heard. If we were not to have had all of these different websites to facilitate this, the internet could very well be shaped by these large commercial companies into the future.

Fake Wikipedia

Link to Wired article

In class on Monday we were presented with the reading by Andrew Keen from his book, The Cult of the Amateur. One concept in particular that was talked about in class and in this book was that of a noble amateur and a concept of something known as the Web 2.0. Keen believes that these noble amateurs and the use of the Web 2.0 “threaten to turn our intellectual traditions and institutions upside down.”

He defines and amateur as a hobbyists, knowledgeable or otherwise, someone who does not make a living from his or her field of interest, a layperson, lacking credentials, a dabbler. He states that these amateurs on the internet are being praised for being amateurs and not because of their expertise. The Web 2.0 is also a concept that was discussed heavily in class. The Web 2.0 is web based meaning that it runs completely on the web. Such as Outlook mail, facebook, java applets or Half Life. IT is also built completely on social networking and collaborative content creation. Overall it can be said that the Web 2.0 is one of the biggest marketing gimmicks out there. Keen argues that this is what is ruining America are these amateurs out there that are acting like professionals and taking away from what the true essence of a professional is. This can be seen in the example with Wikipedia and the user “Essjay.” He claimed to be a tenured professor of theology with four academic degrees, but in reality was a 24 year old high school graduate with no academic background. There has been a lot of skepticism by the public and Keen makes this known that posts on Wikipedia cannot be relied upon because of these amateurs that are able to post anything they want.

An example of this can be seen with the news article I have selected where someone out there pulled a similar stunt compared to Essjay and Wikipedia. While Essjay was posting frequently on Wikipedia a similar incident happened in 2005. A man made a fake post linking John Seigenthaler, a journalist, to the assassination of JFK. The post was made by Brian Chase as joke with a fellow co-worker. After Seigenthaler caught word of this outlandish post of the internet he went looking for the man who did it. Brian eventually confessed to the incident and actually resigned from his job that he was currently at. Brian claimed that he did not realize that Wikipedia was used as a serious resource and for Seigenthaler a close friend of the Kennedy family, this was something all too serious. Thus, pulling into question the same points that Keen was making regards to these amateurs being able to post anything on the website. Seigenthaler actually blasted Wikipedia and its credibility in an article in the USA Today. He does not plan on taking criminal actions against Brian, and is not supporting more regulations on the internet, but he said, “Wikipedia is inviting it by its allowing irresponsible vandals to write anything they want about anybody." This is exactly the kind of situations that Keen is talking about and this example goes right along with the act of amateurs being able to edit Wikipedia at their own will.