The Commons

Public Libraries are important for democracy because without this vast archive of free information, we would not be protecting our right to freely expand our knowledge and stay educated. Public libraries relate to the Internet, because just like the Internet, we must keep our free flow of information alive. This is shown in Bollier’s quote from the text stating, “For me, librarians have always embodied some of the most fundamental virtues of Western civilization. They are dedicated to the freedom to read and learn and share information. They are committed to the free flow of knowledge, which is indispensable in a democracy. Americans must not only have free access to knowledge and creative works, we must be able to re-use and share them in order to create still other works.” For years public libraries have been the way for any common man to gain knowledge at his or her wish, and the Internet provides us with that same ability, only in better, faster, more precise ways.

Vaidhyanathan compares the “anarchy” in the library to the chaotic way in which the internet works, and the ways that it has potential to be limited due to its nature. We have so much information and data at our hands that it can nearly be overwhelming at times, yet we need to preserve this means of acquiring information in order to not let it slip away to the powers at large trying to restrict it and its use. I like that both the authors refer to “the commons” and the ways that we must keep this forum alive, and yet they realize that it is not always easy to do so (in fact, it can be quite hard, due to what Bollier refers to as our “void in our cultural vocabulary”).

Public Libraries are not exactly a “hip” place to go anymore like Jeff pointed out, and in fact I would say that the numbers of frequent library visitors is dwindling by the day. However, I still think we need to find a way to preserve these information outlets, for they truly are a staple to democracy and Western Civilization at that. I feel weird thinking that I might have to reminisce to my grandchildren about what a public library is, yet at that point they might already have a Wikipedia program implemented into their mind computers that allows them to instantly access the information to any term (what a tangent that one is!) Also, just like Jeff pointed out, I think that the term “the commons” will become synonymous with piracy because more and more we are seeing the expansion of the file sharing of information and media formats, yet more and more it is being made criminal. We need to find a happy medium ground between today’s copyright laws and complete anarchy of file sharing.

The Commons

When reading the material assigned I found myself lost throughout almost half of it. The one topic that really confused me was how a democracy was being tied into a library, so I referred to the dictionary, and found the same material that Bailey used. I used the 3rd definition as well, because to me that was the only way I could tie in a democracy to a library. I feel the 3rd definition is the best because it stats that a democracy is a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges. By this definition I feel that it is saying that and public person is welcome into the library to use their resources for the person's needs or wants. I feel people now are amazed by the internet and feel that the internet is the best place to get info instead of the library like the maybe once thought. Libraries do not get the use out of them like they used to and it's a shame, I find myself guilty of this as well. When we had to go to the library for class the other week I found myself completely lost which isn't a good at all!

When trying to comprehend Vaidhyanathan’s article I found some trouble, I was having a hard time really understanding what he was saying, from what I got out of it though he was basically saying that we need to utilize our libraries because they are like an anarchy in a way, they like to share free information.

Commons

Public libraries are very important to democracy because we live in a world run by a democracy where we are free to say anything we want, practice any religion we want and so on and so forth. With public libraries that democracy and that freedom comes into play. Most libraries holster a variety a books, and they also have many of them, all containing different stories, different characters, and most all different genres. You could be reading a book about love and romance to a horrific slasher who knows? Also books are a great way of LEARNING! Hello College. A public library holds very knowledgeable books where we are free to read and learn about whatever we would like, and without that freedom and that free will just to go to a public library and read a book and learn something new, I'm not so sure that our freedom and our democracy would exist today. If you think about it, books are what teach us, I mean teachers teach us obviously, but where did they get there notes, and where did they learn what they will be teaching us? FROM BOOKS!

After reading Vaidhyanathan's article, he very much wanted to get the point across that we should appreciate our public libraries more, and I feel that he succeeded very much. I realized that libraries and books are a good sense of freedom, and without that freedom there would be no democracy, and that's how public libraries really reflect democracy with the freedom to read and learn about whatever we want.

The Commons

First off, I'd like to say wow, Boiller's article really opened my eyes as to why libraries are so important. I am not the type of person who goes into a library to pick out a few books either for personal or academic use, but reading about how the government and copyright officials are speculating that libraries are a form of piracy is just weird. I remember going to the public library in my home town when I was really little for story-time. I go to meet new kids and enjoyed the librarian using funny voices to imitate the characters in the book. I got to pick out fun books and sometimes magazines, that normally I would not get to read. That's what libraries are about.

Libraries are extremely important to democracy. Democracy is all about letting people have a say in what happens with their lives and the government. City libraries have the word "public" in front of their name for a reason, anyone has access to it! That's the whole point. I understand why some people can see that as piracy because the knowledge is just right there for anyone to grab, but there are trying to take about a person's right to free knowledge, basically saying that you cannot learn through reading a book unless you purchase it. This is also related to the internet today because both can allow free access to a number of resources such as books, movies, newspaper articles, and magazines. They are both sharing networks, just different ways of going about it.

I found that Vaidhyanathan's article was a little difficult to read, but once I understood what he was getting at, it wasn't too bad. Okay, I think he means that anarchy in the library is a good thing because he does say that stronger efforts towards control can backfire, leading to less controllable, and less desirable conditions. I think this means that if people are contained to only creating or accessing certain things, then they will be more prone to act out. For example, I think that parents who keep their children more sheltered and put too much pressure on them, the child is more likely to rebel. I'm not saying that this happens all the time, but I have plenty of personal experience with this. People need to be able to create whatever they want, as Vaidhyanathan says, "these are valuable behaviors that help creators and citizens shape their world." Ultimately, he is hoping that the government and public can find a happy medium between anarchy and oligarchy because lets face it, we do need to be controlled sometimes otherwise our world would be total chaos.

The commons

“Librarians know better, of course. Librarians realize that the free dissemination of knowledge is not only the highest calling of their profession, but a vital function in our democratic society. Because libraries “give away” information, they educate our children, help citizens make informed choices, and constantly reinvigorate our cultural heritage,” (Bollier).
Public libraries are important for democracy because without democracy we wouldn’t have a control on everything that is important to us today. If we don’t have access to the information that tells us how we are free or how we got here today, why do we have a government? It’s all apart of who we are and are standard ways of living. I think if we didn’t have libraries there would have been no start to all this wonderful information online. I mean our class is mainly based out of a library somewhere someone posted all this information to allow us to learn copyrights, differences, and voices. The function of public libraries relate to the internet by that’s where it all started. No one learned engineering or electronic information on their own, they read a book or learned from a teacher that received books from that library. To all end up one day having that book teach you how to build a computer, where leads us to the internet.

Siva described “anarchy in the library” as less and less every day. Our power to distribute our information or to read others material is more restricting everyday. Our copyright laws have made the anarchy in the library. People are stubborn as Vaidhyanathan says. He describes us as trying to always push the buttons to the max before actually understanding the limits. Its like when you were little you go to mom and ask a favor to do something, but she says no so you go to dad. He discusses hope for our world to open more availabilities up in an anarchy way instead of the oligarchy route. The oligarchy shows us a system that is controlled more and more by government. In a way his hope is for us to be less ok with the situation and take actions in hope for more of an anarchy controlled democracy.

-Kelsey Krueger

The Commons

Public Libraries are important for democracy because they are dedicated to the freedom to read and learn and share information, according to Boliers article. Libraries share the free flow of knowledge and “give away” information. They are used to educate, help make informed choices, and reinvigorate our cultural heritage. Without the free access to knowledge and information I believe democracy would not exist in today society. Libraries and the Internet serve as the same purpose, to gain free knowledge and information. Individuals are relaying more and more on the Internet instead of the public library to find information. To be honest, the Internet is my library. I hardly ever go to the library to search for information. People are relaying more on the Internet for research and gaining information. This information that they are receiving was originally in a form of a book. Libraries are the most reliable source of information that is taken for granted.

From reading Vaidhyanathan’s article I got the impression that he was trying to inform the audience on how we need to appreciate our libraries more and that they are too members of the anarchy party because they share free information and knowledge. Individuals should be able to have the opportunity to share free information and knowledge with others and that is why public libraries reflex democracy.

The Commons

I believe public libraries are important for democracy because the library and librarians are committed to free knowledge. The library is pretty much the old school version of the internet. We get free information from the internet, just like we do from the books from the public libraries. If you think about it, the internet got their information from the information from libraries.


Siva Vaidhyanathan is trying to say that sources for information isn't all that easy. In the intro, it states that "the proliferation of such peer-to-peer networks may appear to threaten many established institutions, and the backlash against them can be even worse than the problems they create." This means that the copy right laws are making it harder for us to get free information. I think what Vaidhyanathan is wanting is to balance out the total freedom vs. complete control.

THE COMMONS

Ok, we’ve already thoroughly established that libraries are good for democracy because the free information aids the process by keeping citizens educated. Also, the point that the internet should have plenty of commons (just like a library is a commons) has also been established.

Vaidhyanathan compares the “anarchy” of completely free-flowing information with the strict control "the man" wishes to dole it out with. Obviously, Vaidhyanathan (along with most sane adults) wishes to explore and debate the topic, until some reasonable “middle ground” practices are agreed upon.

Both authors described the difficulty involved with trying to show the value of commons, which exists due to the limited and negative vocabulary we rely on to make our points. Instead of arguing over the copyright terms, let’s start using different approaches and focus on the positive aspects of commons. I loved the story about how the environment couldn’t be properly cared for until the term “the environment” became part of our vocabulary. It goes to show you the power of words…….how large ideas can be put into perspective.

Now, here are some of my thoughts. First off, I think libraries are going to have to evolve, or they’re going to disappear. How many young people actually go there, NOT because of an assignment? Stop into the public library on a summer day, or on a weekend, and take a stroll. I take my niece there when I have the time. Do you know where all the kids are? The bookshelves are like a ghost town. All the kids are at the computers playing mindless games. They’re not using Wikipedia, playing learning games, or checking out the National Geographic website. They’re playing free flash games, which are so brainless I can’t describe them in words. My nephew has the same garbage on his Ipod. Basically, the games are as simple as “whack a mole.” Please spare me the nonsense about time limits, because they don’t enforce them. I walked up to the librarian at the desk by the kid’s computers and said, “THAT is sad.” She looked up from Facebook (or whatever she was doing) and said, “I know, right?” The adult scene is equally lame. The books are for the most part ignored, and people are sitting at the computers checking their email or Facebook. If you don’t believe me, like I said, go see for yourself.

These stupid copyright policies have to lighten up. A modern library should grant you access to ANY and ALL forms of media. Movies, songs, television shows, Ebooks, online journals, and everything else should be available at the library. I would have no problem if they implemented some DRM strategy to make media checkouts expire after a certain time. It’s the same with a book……….unless you want to return it in a couple weeks, you’ll have to go buy a copy. If the library remains solely as a place to shelve books and get internet access, they’ll eventually become obsolete. They need to be transformed into a place to legally (and temporarily) download all forms of media.

My second point is regarding the commons. Many people will accuse me of being a fundamentalist for saying this, but I will anyway. In my lifetime, I’ve learned one thing from watching the Supreme Court. They are immoral AND partial towards big money. Call me un-American if you like, but that’s my 2 cents. I’m not counting on them to make any just decisions. SO……(I promise I have a point)……I don’t expect them to protect the commons. I think big business will win in the end, and our society will go further down the rabbit hole. I think more and more as the years go by, the term commons will become synonymous with piracy.

The Commons

Well, sometimes I don't really understand what some things mean, so first off let's start with a definition of democracy. I pulled this from dictionary.com:

de·moc·ra·cy

  [dih-mok-ruh-see]

–noun, plural -cies.

1.

government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

2.

a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.

3.

a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.

4.

political or social equality; democratic spirit.

5.

the common people of a community as distinguished from anyprivileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.

Well, I still don't fully understand half of what this means, but it makes sense that libraries are important to democracy in the sense of definition three. Libraries provide everybody in a community with the opportunity to learn from the literary works. It is an equal opportunity for all involved and readily available. It is a basic starting point for any sort of learning or inquiry. It is also a place where people come together with one common goal in mind. I don't think you can get any more democratic than that. In relation to the Internet, public libraries are basically the same. They both provide a plethora of information, yet the way people obtain the information is different. Libraries are generally solid copies of materials, yet some are more advanced and provide you with links to online resources where you can read the material. The internet is lacking in that it doesn't provide full works and sometimes has major gaps in information. I feel that libraries are more reliable, yet I know that much information on the net is more up to date and possibly more relevant. It is because of this lack of being up to date that libraries fall behind when people are learning new things. Also, libraries are more difficult to navigate than the net. Many people have grown quite accustomed to typing in a search bar rather than searching for a specific section of a library manually. Essentially, the use of libraries is a quickly diminishing art. However, I do realize that a lot of Internet sources gain their information from libraries.

I can honestly say that I barely understood what was being said in the book by Siva Vaidhyanathan. I don't fully grasp the whole idea of anarchy and public libraries. I even read some posts from other students I guess what they're saying makes sense, but I still don't understand it. It's confusing because to me, anarchy is the total loss of democracy and order which is the exact opposite of a library. I don't see how libraries are portals for pornography and the like. They are very scholarly in my opinion. I guess the only connection I see of libraries to anarchy is free information, but isn't that the main problem of the internet? I think he wants for libraries to live on, but I really don't know.

The Commons

The key concept of libraries are completely important to democracy because it has to do with sharing knowledge and information openly and for free. Without the access to knowledge, information, books, etc., democracy could barely exist. As Bollier states, both libraries and librarians are dedicated to instilling the virtue of freedom to learn and read and share information. The concept of libraries is similar to the concept of the internet, they are both spreading and sharing information for free (not completely free for all of the internet). Together, the internet and the library create the vast majority of information that is stored in our world. However, if the information in the library turns into marketed information, and the internet becomes more secure and privatized, the democracy and sharing of information will have some issues. This is when the concept of the commons vs. market comes in. The libraries and most of the Internet are considered a commons because the information travels and is shared freely. But the market puts a price on everything and looks at success as how much money one makes.

Vaidhyanathan describes the difference between anarchy and oligarchy as completel opposites with barely any room in between to settle on. The libraries and peer to peer networks (all sorts of them) are the anarchies because they share information without much structure or guidance. He describes this as a “radical democracy”. On the other hand, the ridiculous laws that are coming into play lately, such as copyright and piracy etc, are moving towards the oligarchy side. As Vaidhyanathan explains, the cyber world is not becoming the real world, the real world is becoming the cyber world. This is a little dangerous. Vaidhyanathan hopes that we can mediate between the two extremes so our society does not dig ourselves deeper. 

The Commons

I hadn't thought much about libraries' role in democracy, or in this new information movement we are in, until reading Bollier's quite interesting speech.  I probably went to the library every single week day as a kid, and spent at least and hour there most visits.  As I grew up the internet became my library and/or I bought books because I wanted to mark them up with my own notes and comments (and that is quite frowned upon by most librarians).  Never, until now, has it occurred to me how vital these facilities are to democracy.  


As Bollier points out, spreading knowledge is an essential part of democracy.  America was founded, after all, out of a need to escape one-minded ideals, and yet it seems that more and more democracy is failing.  Libraries are a piece of our society that are still, for the most part, wholly democratic;  they offer knowledge and information to everyone free of charge.  It is saddening to read and think about the financial cutbacks that libraries are being faced with, an underhanded effort to control the information they distribute freely.  It seems that Bollier wanted to encourage librarians to embrace the Internet and the Commons, not be against it as I think they sometimes may be.  Anymore, libraries, especially university libraries, have their own digital database of articles and even entire books at times.  It is a commons within a commons.  Given this, librarians can look to even more ways to expand democracy and encourage the commons, they just have to keep building on the original ideas in place.  They especially need to develop a new philosophy as Bollier mentions.


~~


Anarchy has a negative connotation; just chaos and disruption, not beneficial but overly radical.  Siva Vaidhyanathan turns that idea however, and looks at anarchy as we encounter it every day.  Anarchy in the library does exist and has existed thus far; the library functions or should function outside the authorities.  These facilities may be funded federally, but that is supposed to be the end of government interference with libraries - they are to have no say over what and how knowledge and information is distributed.  This freedom is in danger however, oligarchy seems to be creeping into libraries slowly but surely.  I believe that Siva hopes for the educated to stand up and discuss this issue more indepth, coming to solutions via human interaction and discussion not quick [hopeful] fixes via technology.  We can find ways around laws and restrictions all we want, but it won't make any difference if the attitude toward the entirety of the commons doesn't change.  


One thing I found particularly interesting was Siva's mention of the "collapse of inconvenience" and how that sparked all these laws and restrictions in an attempt to prevent the mass public from getting percieved "bad stuff" easily.  Democracy is suppose to allow freedom of thought and speech and ideals, yet they try to give us tunnel vision claiming it is better for society and democracy.  I know that Siva mentions fearing anarchy while not turning your back on it; he also points out that a "'smart mob' is still a mob." This is true.  But, for the time being, I say we embrace anarchy.  Sometimes the only way to get change is to be radical, at least for a little while.  I think we can all see, not just with the problems of copyright and information restrictions, but with everything in our current society, that democracy is kind of failing, and both of these readings as well as the website are calling for efforts to change that.

The Commons

A lot of people get their information from the computer and the internet, but where does that information come from normally? Someone wrote it down that’s where. No one would have known about Thanksgiving or Independence Day if someone did not write it down. Our history is from books. The library is a place where people can go to look up information in books and not just type things in and hope what you are looking for comes up on Google. The library has the books that will get you the very best information.

When I think of the word anarchy I think of chaos or freedom particularly from government. With the ease of getting all this knowledge there could be anarchy because anyone can get information because you can download things legally or illegally. While this may not be a bad thing for people using the free information or could be a bad thing for people who want to make money from the information. Either way the people using the information want free reign on it and the people that have the information want it to be limited to people so they can make money off of it. Anarchy can be good with the sharing of information. I think people should be able to share things for free some of the things that people don’t want to share could save people’s lives which I find ridiculous to try to hide.

Commons

I believe that common knowledge is essential for a democracy. How can we be expected to lead when we are unable to know what we are supposed to lead? One must equip themselves with the necessary tools required for making a decision. This is coming from a girl who spent everyday in a library after school for six years. I learned so much when I was there. When I got tired of reading the Boxcar Children or the Babysitter's Club, I turned to things like books about animals and biographies about real people who went through real things. If I went home and rotted my brain (that's for you, Mom!) by watching TV, I probably wouldn't be the avid reader I am today.

The internet is like our own personal public library. Google becomes our card catalog. You can discover anything online for free!

What I got from Vaidhyanathan's text was that we should cherish our libraries, and that they are members of the anarchy party because they share free information for anyone instead of charging people to learn or copyrighting the crap out of stuff. If we were limited to what information we could share, we wouldn't be a democracy at all.

THE COMMONS

I feel that libraries are extremely important for democracy, because they allow us to all be able to attain and access information that in some places might otherwise be hard to see. Public Libraries help us gain knowledge and the fact that they are free exemplifies the fact that they are very important to our democratic way of living in this society. It relates to the internet I think in various ways, first off like I mentioned it contains a vast variety of differnt information that can be accessible by all. Although it is more physical and the fact that you must do things manually, libraries are similar because like the internet there are a lot of things in it which are interrelated and help in the process of learning.
Siva is describing the "anarchy in the library as a side of it attempting to control the flow and disbursement of information while the other side is more of an approach of "anarchy" as in trying to release it and allow it to be accessible by everyone. He also goes on to speak about how the more traditional structures of power such as big companies and corporations are trying and increasing their efforts to control the free flowing of this information in this digital age that would otherwise be restrained. Things of this matter he says have changed alot of differnt aspects of society such as trade, economic structure, and just over all globalization. He examines the different effects and measures being taken against this "anarchy".

The Commons

Public libraries are important because they play a role in the circulation of FREE information, which is (as all the reading assignments have been asserting) becoming more and more rare as copyright laws continue to repress information sharing, manipulating the landscape of the internet/digital environment.

Once again, we come back to the idea of Democracy (which is like freedom and sharing and stuff), and Bollier explicitly states the connection between libraries and Democracy: "Librarians have always embodied some of the most fundamental virtues of Western civilization. They are dedicated to the freedom to read and learn and share information. They are committed to the free flow of knowledge, which is indispensable in a democracy." The function of the library is essentially identical to that of the internet, which is to promote the spread of information/ideas/creativity to EVERYONE, not just those who have the money to pay for it (I think it is fascinating that we can read books for free at a library, but the eXact same thing costs us money (in most places) when we read it online).

And this also has to do with the commons, (which Bollier defines as "a generic term that refers to a wide array of creations of nature and society that we inherit freely, share and hold in trust for future generations") which is, most importantly, "'owned' by a defined community; it is managed with long-term goals for the good of all; and it is very careful about commodifying a resource, lest that lead to its degradation or social inequities." I like the distinction made here between the goals of a "commons" (free info and stuff) vs the goal of a market, which sees everything in terms of money. And these goals are the reason that copyright makes no sense at all to those that aren't making a shitload of money off it.

I like Vaidhyanathan's characterization of anarchy as "radical democracy" because usually I just picture a bunch of punk kids from the early nineties with leather pants and mohawks beating each other up. But it makes sense, because (for Vaidhyanathan at least) the opposite to anarchy is oligarchy, which is a system of more and more governmental control (things like censorship, copyright, etc) which is why people are so concerned about the future of information sharing. As far as libraries go, the last thing that we need is oligarchical control, which would only further limit the way information is shared between people, so I guess, yeah

"go anarchy."

The Common

Libraries are a very important cornerstone to our lives. With today's copyright laws you need to constantly be on the look out to see if you are breaking some of the rules, whereas if you go to the library those books have already been copyrighted and you are able to look at the information without any worries. It makes me very leery that we are so reliant on the Internet to get all of our information. We really need to go back to the basics and use the libraries for what they are meant for instead of just a building that is filling a space. Bollier makes a very good point at the end of his reading where he is saying that the library is here to stay and if the library goes it is going to have a domino effect and it will trickle down to where the Internet will have no value to us anymore. I feel that going to the library gives you a state of ownership because you can physically hold the book in your hand where as with an e-book you are reading a screen. I agree that the e-books may be a little more handy but we really need to go back into our stomping grounds and use more stable resources. They are so important to us as a democracy because this is the one part that we still own. When you go on the Internet to read a book you may have to subscribe and give personal information to buy whereas with the library you only have to have a membership card and then you are on a loan based. I do feel however that the libraries may need to do more to draw the people back to their place because people and companies like Barnes and Noble are taking your customers away from you with better incentives.

Vaidhaynathan is describing anarchy by terms of people that we are stubborn people and we want to mess around with the system first to see if we understand it and then ask questions when we don't get it. Technology is very strong in today's world . WE are controlled by the government because the government acts as a big brother always watching our every move. Instead of letting them control our every move we need to understand what and why they are watching us. Essentially Vaidhaynathan is saying that we are not very stable at all and that if we just sit back the stability will get even worse.

THE COMMONS

Libraries are important for democracy because they provide free information to citizens and people. If there were no libraries then open dialogue and free information would no longer exist except through the internet. Even though this information would be available through the internet, many forces are trying to restrict free public access to the internet, such as copyright, technological systems, and budgets, among others. Because libraries are providing free access to information, they function like the internet. If we do not protect the library for democracy then libraries could face the same limitations in information availability as the internet does.

This one I am not sure about… I think Vaidhyanathan is describing the library as a peer-to-peer system in which we are empowered through information sharing. The anarchy in the library comes from the addition to new anarchy and oligarchy that is present in new information sharing technologies. Anarchy is seen in the library because of the ways corporations and governments have reacted recently to peer-to-peer sharing. Libraries have been seen as an excellent resource in the past and yet recently have taken some criticism because of the way they have been used. I also think that Vaidhyanathan uses the term library in a general sense, at times, to speak about peer-to-peer systems. Vaidhyanathan wants us to understand anarchy; he wants us to understand the benefits of anarchy and peer-to-peer sharing.

The Commons

After reading Boiler and Vaidhyanathan, I have come to realize that democracy, freedom, and libraries are all things that are quite taken for granted. Especially here in the U.S., it is my opinion that those previously mentioned nouns are extremely significant, however new technology is especially taking over libraries which in turn effects our freedom and sense of democracy. According to Boiler, the art of stepping foot into a library and scanning for a relevant book is nearly lost to the new age and Internet. Although previously functional, it seems that the Internet and online books is slowly consuming readers. Not only is this effecting how people view and gain knowledge in books, but now copyright is becoming an even bigger issue as well. In regards to fair use and who can use and view these online books, the lines are blurred and confusing it seems.

In Vaidhyanathan's reading he discusses anarchy and oligarchy. He explains that our freedom and democracy is being challenged since the power to distribute and share information is essentially becoming controlled through the Internet and government digitizing (only specific) books. His hope is that anarchy and oligarchy will be mediated and explains that "We have only begun to consider the long term ramifications of these revolutionary technologies and the behaviors they will enable or inspire."

Overall the power of libraries has been somewhat lost to the new technology and ease of searching online to find the information we need. Instead of having to look for it, we now have the 'power' (if you will consider it that) to view a book with just a few clicks as opposed to thumbing through the pages. Either way the future of knowledge and power is to be determined by how we utilize our current freedom and democratic powers to benefit us!

Google

I don't really think I'm like Firger. The only thing I use Google for is to search to web, and now, I guess, surf YouTube. The only reason I have a gmail account is because it was a requirement for this class. I'm a big believer in my good old fashion planner so I write everything down instead of using the calendar.


I think Google Ads are everywhere! My fiancee has a sweet new phone and Google has all of these applications that are so cool. I think a huge amount of their advertising comes from that. Cody has "Google Goggles," Which is when you take a picture of any product and Google will search for it and tell you all about it. Sweet.

The only reason I use Yahoo! is for movies. They've always got show times and stuff in every area, so it's nice to just type in your zip and away it goes. I guess I don't use it for anything else because Google is everywhere. Internet Explorer has a Google search bar, so I use the most of the time. The only time I use Mozilla is if I'm on campus.

Google

When asked if I think I am remotely similar to Dan Firger, my response is yes, I am addicted to using google and spend about 8 hours a day at least on my computer. I rely on google for everything, I use google analytics for my business, google webmaster tools, gmail, google website optimizer, igoogle, anything that google has out I pretty much use on a daily basis.

On the topic of what I know about google advertising, I feel that I know quite a bit about it just because with my business I am having to shift my strategies according to google's changes. For instance, if google is starting to not count the links in blogs as good content and a good way to build links for my site I have to adjust and start using adwords"a way to advertise with google, so you can get some hits to your site, PPC.") Even though google is constantly spending around 600 million a year to operate they are also not doing bad for themselves. They make a ton of money on "PPC", another neat thing with google is their Adsense program. They will pay you depending on how many clicks you get on your website.

When being asked if google is "aptocratic" I can simply answer yes in no time. Google only hires good well rounded people, why would they waste their time on someone that isn't worth while, they would rather pay someone a ton of money to get their absolute best work rather than pay someone little next to nothing and have them slouch at their job.

As far as yahoo, well they get about 12% percent of the online traffic for e-commerce shoppers, so by knowing that they have fallen off a ton, they used to be the big dog until Google came around and took them out of the competition, however they have merged with Microsoft"Bing" and will get approximately 24% of the traffic, so this is something to watch out for. I predict that in a couple of years bing will make a huge push and try to take over google, I don't think they can outdue google though.

Google

After reading these articles I've found that the only way that I am really like Dan Firger is that fact that technology is a huge part of my own life, because it really is! I am a constant computer user, and CELLPHONE USER! I am constantly on my computer whether it's to check facebook or be on Google, I am one of those ones who LOVES Google, I mean I guess it's really because I've always really used it, and I find it a lot easier, because all of the links at the top of the page make it really easy mainly because Google is just a search engine. As I said before I am also a really big cellphone user, because that's a huge part of my life, my phone is really the only way in which I can talk to my parents and brothers everyday. I also am always checking the time, and if I got a text or email and if it should be anything of importance.

Google just owns a lot of sites, and I guess that's there main strategy, and I don't know if this has been mentioned a lot, but YOUTUBE!!! I am in love with YouTube, I am always on it watching certain videos that make me laugh or just stupid little videos when I'm bored. Since YouTube is owned by Google, if you ever look up a certain video there are always side links from Google, giving you more information or stuff like that, that if you click on it, it will take you to a Google site, I do believe that Google is Apocratic.

To be honest even as a kid I really didn't use Yahoo I think I might have used it just a couple of times, but it was never used to an extreme point, the only reason I used Yahoo was to play games, because they have so many links on the side and one of them happened to be Games, and as a little kid that's what I was always drawn to. Also to this day I don't really use Yahoo, I really only use Google, mainly because that's what I have always been using, but if I ever do use Yahoo, no... It's not to play a game, but look for different opinions on a certain research topic, that I wasn't able to find on Google. I think another reason why Yahoo has kind of gone down is that as I mentioned before there are a bunch of links on the side of the screen, so it's completely cluttered with current events, links, and other stuff, whereas Google has like seven links at the top of the page, why make is more difficult with all of the clutter?

Mashup addition

Here is the video of my Mashup that I was unable to show the class on Tuesday, sorry that you had to wait! The video is basically the same as I had it before except that I added a clip from the movie, There Will Be Blood to it. The movie follows a man who quickly gets overwhelmed with greed and will stop at nothing to become a filthy rich oil tycoon. I thought the movie (and its message) worked really well with the Mashup I already had, so adding it at the beginning seemed like the right thing to do. Hope you enjoy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Google

After reading the article "Planet Google Wants You", I believe I am like Dan Firger. I do not exactly rely on Google, but technology is a big part of my life. I don't know what I would do without it. I check my cellphone constantly, seeing if I got any text messages or phone calls from anybody. I also use my phone's calender a lot. I have an ap on my phone where I can enter all my friends' and familys' birthdays, and it reminds me kind of like an alarm. Facebook is also a source I use to keep me updated on everything. I guess I do use Youtube, which is owned by Google. to watch the newest music and funny videos. I think without technology, our society would be lost!

I believe just by owning many sites, is a strategy of Google advertising. They do own Youtube, one of the most popular website on the web. For an example. When I go and watch a video on makeup, there's always an advertisement of makeup on the side, and google suggest other videos I should watch, or blogs I should read. It's kind of weird seeing some of the advertisments that pop up on the side. I sometimes look back on what I searched, wondering why random advertisments pop up. Some are very mysterious! Because of the smart people who did good on tests, I believe Google is Apocratic.

I used to use Yahoo a lot. . . When I was younger!The main page is very cluttered with different links. The other day I went on yahoo to find movie times and it took me a few minutes to find the movie link. Recently, not only with webites, but everything out there is trying to go plain and simple. Like food lables and car models. Yahoo is the complete opposite of this. Google just has their famous Google title with a few links at the top, and every once in a while for special occasions the font is changed. I think people like myself like things simple. Why go to site where it makes things inconvenient for us? I believe Google will always be stronger than Yahoo and all the other browsers because they own everything.

Google

Comparing myself to Dan Firger, I think it is safe to say that I am a Google addict and advocate.  I use Chrome (googles browser), gmail, gchat, and of course google search.  I have several google documents,  I browse google books, I have highly customized my iGoogle home page(s), which I update/change once or twice a year.  I use blogger, which is a Google site as well.  Also, I refuse to use anything but google maps for directions, nor will I take directions from anything but that (my dad likes to annoy me by trying to use the outdated mapquest).  As soon as they come out with an actual social networking site (I thought it was suppose to be wave, but it kind of fell through...?) I will surely be joining.  I could go on but I think you get the point: I am definitely a Google addict.  However, despite all the google tools and applications I use, I do not use google calendar like Firger does.  I have never liked it, but perhaps that is because I use iCal on my Mac.

I don't know any specifics about Google's advertising strategies;  I guess I always thought it was somewhat like the Facebook ads, taking into account my browser history and supply ads based on that.  I can't be at all sure though.  As far as what Google owns, I  feel like the question should be what doesn't Google own?  From what I know for sure, they have YouTube, as we read, as well as Picasa, Blogger, Google earth, SketchUp, and Knol (a sort of Q&A site).  I'm sure there is more beyond this as well.  Google has definitely become a fully integrated part of our society, there is no denying that.  I don't see any slow down in the future either.  I expect Google to come out with the next big social networking site (I think that Facebook has to fall eventually - unless Google buys it of course).  Google has a great handle on keeping up with what is so-called "hip."  They know what consumers want and they keep everything up to date.

As far as being Apocratic, I think it is safe to say that Google "excels at regimented procedures."  If it didn't it wouldn't be as popular as it is, because it wouldn't be nearly up to date.  I think that what really makes the company apocratic is the employees; like Siva says in "Google and Aptocracy," Google hires the best.  With employees who have excelled their whole lives and are able to think and create quickly, how could the company be anything but apocratic.  A huge part of the interview process to get hired is thinking on your feet; I was once told about the suitcase question Google puts to hopefuls during interviews.  Given a suitcase of random items they have to describe how it may be used (regardless if they even know what it is).  This company isn't just looking for the brains, but the street smarts too.  That goes a long way.

Oh Yahoo...my very first email was Yahoo.  To be honest, I just liked the smiley face guy.  I know a lot of people have been saying that Yahoo has fallen behind, but what I took from the Yahoo article was that they were trying to BE Google without coming right out and announcing the fact.
Look at the two screen shots (aside from the fact that the gmail one is a lesser quality):

Aside from a few header differences, the two are nearly identical in formatting.  This clip of Gmail is actually a little outdated, but you can still see the similarities.  The chat box is exactly where it is placed in the new Yahoo, and chat popups come up in the lower right hand corner just as shown above.  Yahoo has "folders" where Google has "labels," and it is minor differences like these that allow them to make this "new formatting" without Google saying that it was a copy.



Aside from mail formatting, look at the "new customization tools" Yahoo is implementing.  Essentially they are taking Google's idea of customization for the consumer and integrating it into their own system, including customization of the Yahoo homepage (iGoogle) and customization of the email inbox look (also available in the gmail settings).

Despite these attempts, Yahoo is still lagging behind.  As has been mentioned by others, they are still just too cluttered, the home page is a mess of boxes and widgets.  Google has claim to that simplicity style, and I just don't think Yahoo can compete with it.