I think the issue of control, brought up in Chapter 3 by James Beniger is very interesting. He begins the chapter by describing the evolution of walking paths in Harvard Yard. He says, “As new buildings open, both on campus and off, and popular courses move from one part of the university to another, the resulting shifts in Harvard’s pedestrian traffic are recorded in new footpaths cutting across the various lawns of the Yard…Harvard does not attempt to reseed- it simply paves over all the new paths chosen by sufficient pluralities of feet. In choosing to act this way, Harvard has eschewed top-down control in favor of a bottom-up variety, forsaking the centralized control of the landscape architect in favor of decentralized control by emergent popular habits.” (P.60) Fordham, on the other hand, does not take this approach. In September there was a path of beaten down grass, between two trees, leading from the street by Spellman Hall to O’Hare. Maintenance reseeded this area and put barricades around it to prevent students from walking on the new grass. What makes them think that students won’t walk along the same path once the barricades are removed? Or will the barricades be there forever, suggesting top-down control?
Beniger likens Harvard’s bottom-up paving of popular footpaths chosen by students to the bottom-up development of the Internet. In the early days of the Internet, before it became what we know it as today, it was simply a computer network run by the U.S. Defense Department. Beniger describes how the Defense Department tried to stop the rise of a virtual community of science fiction fans. However, the community was so strong and vocal that they succeeded in gaining “control”. The Defense Department, like Harvard was forced to allow a bottom-up development of the Internet by frequent users.
This brings up the question of control. While Harvard owns the concrete paths they have paved, no one owns the Internet. James Gleick is quoted as saying, “It isn’t a thing; it isn’t an entity; it isn’t an organization. No one owns it; no one runs it. It is simply Everyone’s Computers, Connected.” (P.61) While I’m not sure what will happen, in terms of control to the Internet in the future, it’s interesting to think about it’s current state of decentralized control.
I like the metaphor used in this post. I think you brought up a good point in trying to identify the issue of control, and who now controls the internet. You can even zero in on something as small as this blog. Who truly controls this blog? Is it us, the students and participants? Or is it Dr. Strate, since he created the group? If we can't even derive who controls something as small as this blog, what does that say about the internet on a whole?
ReplyDeleteThe great tension that exists today is between what you might say is the natural bias of new media towards user control and involvement, and the traditional desire of those in power to control what's going on.
ReplyDeleteYou raise a great point. It makes me aware of how lucky we are to have as much freedom as we do within the parameters of the web. We can esentially do almsot anything we want- whereas internet users in other countries, under strict governmental controls, have limited scope and ability to do what they'd like to. Their usage is constantly monitored.
ReplyDelete