Information Rules

"Nowadays the problem is not information access but information overload. The real value produced by an information provider comes in locating, filtering and communicating what is useful to the consumer" (Varian 6). This quote is interesting because it brings out the fact that we have to wade through tons of useless information to get to what we need. But there is so much information out there that this is very difficult to do. Sure Google has made it much easier to filter content in order to get to our information, but what if net neutrality, the concept that every webpage gets to have equal bandwidth, doesn't play a role anymore. What if someone can just pay money to have their information show up the quickest, or at the forefront of all other information, does this beat out competition in a negative way?

This obviously creates problems since anyone with enough wealth can pay to have their information seen, which may not be the best or even the most relevant information available, but because they shelled out money, they get the attention. Is fair when you might be able to make a website with the "best" information but isn't able to get any views at all because you don't have the funding to pay your way to the top. This stifles innovation, creativity and even quality of content because all you need is money. The Google and Verizon deal is the perfect example of this loss of net neutrality, in which they both agreed that total and complete net neutrality will negatively affect the system. Of course there can be many positives that can come from this , but so much negative can also come from it. It is the doorway for others to jump on this, and bigger corporations will demand more and more that they have higher bandwidth. This basically allows those that are already on top stay ahead of the game while making it extremely difficult for newcomers to penetrate the industry.

Privacy

Privacy is a curious subject, and an extremely interesting one. In this day and age of the digital technologies, we are more and more concerned about privacy and how technology is beginning to strip that away from us. But is it really? Sure technology has advanced to the point where it can do that, but it is still our choice to use that technology to do that. In the first article by Samuelson it talks about how we are using technology to turn ourselves into exhibitionists. We enjoy being in the limelight, to attract attention from anyone and everyone because we seek it. Admit it, we log onto Facebook to see what others are up to. And how do we know what they are up to? Because they choose to post their personal lives and feelings on the internet where almost anyone can go on and see where they are at, what they are doing, and how they are feeling. People talk about their problems, post embarrassing pictures of themselves for others to come to pay attention to them. We shop online, some knowing while some don't, the fact that advertising companies know where we are and even what we like based on search and shopping histories. This is all written in the end user agreement, and sure most of us don't read it, or even pay attention to it and just click agree without a second thought. And yet in the end we blame others for our "loss" of privacy when it's really ourselves who are to blame. Because we are willingly ignoring to choosing to expose ourselves to others using these technologies in which we are putting the blame on. I'm definitively not saying that privacy doesn't matter, all I'm saying is that we are subjecting our own exposure to ourselves and we have to take responsibility, and not blaming others for our ignorance.

The Knowledge Cartel

It's interesting to see David Parry's perspective on the situation that he calls the Knowledge Cartel. He believes that certain big corporations are trying to own everything that they possibly can and make profit off of that. His example of how educations companies and journal publishers such as Elsevier is taking hold of most of the licences on these academic journals, and then in turn making everyone pay for that service, whether it be a subscription or buying an article. He states that this is completely wrong and even though David Parry had more of an extremist view and idea on this situation, i cannot help but agree with him under these circumstances. 

By holding these licences and copyrights to these articles when no one else can have them, they are creating what David Parry is calling an artificial scarcity. But because some people have no other option but buy it from them at a high price, they can create a monopoly in this industry because they can set the price. And if you don't pay them, then you can't get the job done, whether that's for a class or work. Other companies hold these similar rights for textbooks where they can put it at extremely high prices here in the US just because average statistics show that we could afford them at that cost. When in reality students are eating chips and salsa for every meal just to afford a $300 textbook. 

How else are we going to gain this knowledge? These corporations are stifling innovation and further progression because it is limiting only those with enough wealth to buy these books. David Parry's solution of pirating and stealing these articles are a bit extreme. But one can't help but agree with him under these circumstances where there is really no other alternative.