Week 10 Notes

Week 9 Lecture Slides

 * Tuesday (5/31): https://zulip-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/42198/F6wTHqVOvThRCNTiUUlilCgj/ICS-3-Week-10-Tuesday-Public.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIEVMBCAT2WD3M5KQ&Signature=zqwARQ14JAXV75hEVU89jr4Tt4o%3D&Expires=1654391260
 * Thursday (6/02): https://zulip-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/42198/Xj8v1sheAAHl98J9eUOx6zts/ICS-3-Week-10-Thursday.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIEVMBCAT2WD3M5KQ&Signature=L3CZd9H0Su6Rwn8Xkncxwc3MBEk%3D&Expires=1654393284

Course Theme/Loss of Control

 * Deceptive design
 * Data collection
 * Consolidation
 * Privacy/Security
 * Misinformation
 * Lack of accountability
 * DEI/A Issues

Taking Back Control

 * Digital platforms as public utility (from last week’s lectures)
 * Adversarial interoperability
 * Federation
 * “Re-decentralizing” the Internet


 * Alternative views (not just federal government agencies to manage internet)
 * Decentralizing the internet

What does it mean to be interoperable?

 * “One through the other” - student
 * The ability for disparate or competing systems and services to exchange information
 * Email, telephone networks, SMS text messaging

The core of interoperability is a protocol (supportive of interoperable systems):

 * HTTP (web)
 * SMTP (email)
 * SIP, SIMPLE, XMPP, IMP (Instant Messaging)
 * Exchanging messages between different platforms
 * Matrix (real-time communication)

Indifferent Interoperability
2 companies, 1 company develops a product, other enhances it in a unique way
 * Ex: cigar lighter in a car, a feature that was added to cars and became very well liked that eventually became replaced with whatever modern needs are

Cooperative Interoperability
2 companies cooperate, “this is how we want our devices to work together”
 * Ex: headphone jack -> connecting speakers with an audio system; evolution -> other connection devices (bluetooth)

Adversarial Interoperability
Forcing interoperability by going against what the original company had intended
 * Ex: Google reverse engineers Apples protocols and implements it into their own products
 * Microsoft creating a new free browser with its own language to bring over different people towards their browser

What does it mean to have “adversarial interoperability”?

 * The ability for disparate or competing systems and services to exchange information, without permission from the companies that make them

Case study: Microsoft Office

 * Dominant suite of productivity tools, kept users on Windows Operating System
 * Formats were proprietary (.doc, .xls, .ppt), barring interoperability with other programs
 * Only someone else with that program could have access to those files
 * Apple and later Google, reverse-engineered Microsoft’s formats and created their own iWork software suite
 * Microsoft did not share their format with Apple so that Apple programs could not interact with Microsoft programs
 * iWork (and later Google docs) could open and export to Microsoft Office products
 * Microsoft eventually moved to an open standard due to competitive pressure
 * They realized it was better to open their market (which led to the extensions that end in ‘x’ pptx/docx)

What does it mean to have “adversarial interoperability”?

 * Converts market dominance from an asset to a liability

Case study: Facebook and MySpace

 * Before Facebook opened to public, MySpace was dominant platform
 * Facebook started as a college only platform (had to have an edu account)
 * Facebook reverse engineered its way into MySpace messaging, allowing users to connect through a bigger platform (using a school tool to access everything else on MySpace)
 * Facebook to MySpace messages were branded with Facebook advertising
 * Effectively served as a recruiting tool as MySpace users were the exact market Facebook desired to acquire

Interoperability over regulation

 * Regulation that makes platform companies responsible for their conduct, risks strengthening their market dominance
 * Meeting regulations costs money, prohibitive to start-ups
 * Only dominant platforms can afford to meet regulatory requirements (eg security, copyright, disinformation, content filters, etc all which are costly)
 * Makes it difficult for small startups to launch their platforms, eliminating competition
 * Interoperability could pull a FaceBook on FaceBook allowing new markets to benefit from network effects too
 * “Requiring dominant players to ensure data interoperability may be an attractive and efficient alternative to calling for the break-up of firms- a way that allows us to continue to benefit from the efficiencies of integration” - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-antitrust-technology/force-tech-giants-to-share-data-rather-than-break-them-up-acade mics-idUSKCN1RG1IF
 * Allow new organizations to come into the market without relying on extensive resources

Tuesday Socrative Quiz

 * Do you regularly use Facebook?
 * Yes — 27%
 * No — 52%
 * Never — 20%
 * If you could interact with people on Facebook without the company storing your data, would you? → he was not happy with his own question and therefore created a third :o
 * Yes — 66%
 * No — 34%
 * If you could interact with people on Facebook without the company storing your data through a different platform, would you?
 * Yes — 63%
 * No — 16%
 * What the huh? — 22%

The Metaverse

 * Two influential books that describe VR/Metaverse
 * Neuromancer (1984) - William Gibson
 * Coined the term cyberspace
 * Snow Crash (1992) - Neal Stephenson
 * Coined the term Metaverse
 * As described by the students…
 * Half baked, advertisements claim VR is not as limited as it really is. Restricted by the tools given to the consumer
 * Very limited, needs a lot more work to reach full potential
 * Natural evolution in technology
 * Requires safety tools and improvements
 * Ex. Meta and sexual harassment online
 * MIT Wearable Computing Group (1995)
 * Contributed to VR
 * VR and AR improving over the past 10 years
 * Close to what it would have been imagined to look like in the 80s and 90s
 * Largely associated with games
 * People who play games receive a negative connotation
 * Anti-social, socially challenged, addicts, waste of time, etcetera
 * BUT.. studies have found that
 * Online spaces are highly sociable environments
 * Fosters and helps create new friendships and even strengthen old ones
 * Can be more inclusive than physical alternatives
 * Despite any beneficial uses, we retain many preconceived notions about VR
 * Big Tech’s “Metaverse” initiative
 * Ex. Facebook moving towards metaverse (Oculus)
 * Horizon Workrooms
 * Seeking to normalize the use of VR/AR gear
 * Connecting people
 * Working and collaborating remotely
 * “[A] transformative and disruptive technology that [will] enable users to experience the impossible”

Use of the Metaverse to Solve Issues

 * Limitless possibilities of VR can be a solution to the Internet’s problems
 * VR experiences help “beta-test” the virtual bodies of powerless and radicalized people (refugees, prisoners, women, etc)
 * Ex. VR life of a transgender, wheelchair-bound person
 * A more empathetic, non-toxic, and inclusive experience for users
 * Immerses user in a world of compassion and empathy
 * 6x9 game on Oculus
 * Mimics solitary confinement
 * Shares the experience of marginalized groups
 * Through embodied experiences in VR
 * Can be a cure for callous or racist individuals online
 * Can be argued that it will make trolling or harassment worse by adding new methods
 * Will the frame applied by big tech solve the problems of the platforms we have discussed?
 * No, the experience doesn’t always create an embodied experience
 * Doesn’t seem to be different than looking at someone in solitary confinement

Lisa Nakamura

 * University of Michigan, Professor of American Culture
 * Gwendolyn Calvert Collegiate
 * “These and other virtuous VR succeed because they create a sensation in the body that mimics the implied presence of another, not knowledge about another.”
 * Argues that these experiences are “beta-testing” the virtual bodies of “most powerless and racialized” people in our society

Four Questions about the Metaverse

 * VR can bring action, perspective, and truth
 * Cost: truths are only a proxy of other people’s suffering and promotes touristic gaze
 * Why is this a problem?
 * Can lead to a fake sense of empathy, or “touristic” gaze/actions
 * Who makes the technology?
 * Who consumed the technology?
 * People who can afford it
 * Who benefits or is harmed?
 * Allows us to witness true and real events

Making the Metaverse Right

 * Must include laws and regulations to protect the user and the verse
 * Communities must benefit from being inclusive and empathetic
 * Empathy and Compassion, while good, are superficial (sometimes) solutions to the online suffering of others
 * More steps must be taken in order to ensure the Metaverse remains enjoyable