From the category archives:

internet

Sarah Seltzer:

The last time a doctor was murdered in cold blood for providing abortion care to women, we were not in the digital age. While the pro-choice community in the 90s reacted to Dr. Bernard Slepian’s murder with the same outrage and hurt as it has this week to Dr. George Tiller’s, the Internet has provided us with tools that have enabled us to more effectively shape the discourse.

Yes, many TV shows and mainstream pundits (ahem! Chris Matthews and Will Saletan, popular offenders) have trotted out the expected all-male panels and high-minded philosophical musings in the wake of an unspeakable tragedy. But a strong counter movement calling the incident “terrorism” and pointing out the the far-right “pro-life” movement’s rampant hypocrisy has emerged online. We owe this to an engaged, savvy and active blogosphere and twittersphere of feminists that have been able to launch accurate, appropriate language into circulation and gather evidence that this assassination was part of a larger pattern of purposeful hate and intimidation.

Link

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Which brings me, finally, to the next generation of attenders, the so-called “net-gen” or “digital natives,” kids who’ve grown up with the Internet and other time-slicing technologies. There’s been lots of hand-wringing about all the skills they might lack, mainly the ability to concentrate on a complex task from beginning to end, but surely they can already do things their elders can’t—like conduct 34 conversations simultaneously across six different media, or pay attention to switching between attentional targets in a way that’s been considered impossible. More than any other organ, the brain is designed to change based on experience, a feature called neuroplasticity. London taxi drivers, for instance, have enlarged hippocampi (the brain region for memory and spatial processing)—a neural reward for paying attention to the tangle of the city’s streets. As we become more skilled at the 21st-century task Meyer calls “flitting,” the wiring of the brain will inevitably change to deal more efficiently with more information. The neuroscientist Gary Small speculates that the human brain might be changing faster today than it has since the prehistoric discovery of tools.

Link

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

There is a new phenomenon in today’s information society, the anxiety of which becomes pervasive when one realizes the dangers and fragility brought upon by the interconnected Web 2.0 sphere. This is the problem of online oversharing: the tension in finding the right balance of what parts of one’s subjective identity should be put online. This is an anxious search, because, at first, it is understandably hard to realize that the internet is a totally new space with its own novel dynamics; any attempt to categorize it as public or private sphere or any of the classical categories would fail just as miserably as any attempt to introduce old-market commodity dynamics to the remix culture of intellectual property. As such, adapting to the new big Other of the internet becomes even harder.

How much should our online avatar, our novel cyber-embodiment, resemble our stupid, abrupt, physical identity of existence? Of course, we have all the big postmodern theories about how everything is no more than a simulacra, how reality and fantasy becomes blurred, that we live in a state of hyperreality, etc. But I think this idea is a little too naive for today’s society — rather than the blurring of fantasy and reality, is it not more true that the condition of our second embodiment, one I dubbed the monitor phase, calls for an inversion of fantasy? What I mean is quite simple: as our lives are today more and more lived on the other side of the screen, is it not, then, only logical that when the simulation is more real than the reality itself, reality becomes more and more like our fantasies?

Link

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

An article about social networks, but mostly about Twitter – Viv

by Clive Thompson

. . . Social scientists have a name for this sort of incessant online contact. They call it “ambient awareness.” It is, they say, very much like being physically near someone and picking up on his mood through the little things he does — body language, sighs, stray comments — out of the corner of your eye. Facebook is no longer alone in offering this sort of interaction online. In the last year, there has been a boom in tools for “microblogging”: posting frequent tiny updates on what you’re doing. The phenomenon is quite different from what we normally think of as blogging, because a blog post is usually a written piece, sometimes quite long: a statement of opinion, a story, an analysis. But these new updates are something different. They’re far shorter, far more frequent and less carefully considered. One of the most popular new tools is Twitter, a Web site and messaging service that allows its two-million-plus users to broadcast to their friends haiku-length updates — limited to 140 characters, as brief as a mobile-phone text message — on what they’re doing. There are other services for reporting where you’re traveling (Dopplr) or for quickly tossing online a stream of the pictures, videos or Web sites you’re looking at (Tumblr). And there are even tools that give your location. When the new iPhone, with built-in tracking, was introduced in July, one million people began using Loopt, a piece of software that automatically tells all your friends exactly where you are.

. . .This is the paradox of ambient awareness. Each little update — each individual bit of social information — is insignificant on its own, even supremely mundane. But taken together, over time, the little snippets coalesce into a surprisingly sophisticated portrait of your friends’ and family members’ lives, like thousands of dots making a pointillist painting. This was never before possible, because in the real world, no friend would bother to call you up and detail the sandwiches she was eating. The ambient information becomes like “a type of E.S.P.,” as Haley described it to me, an invisible dimension floating over everyday life.

. .. As I interviewed some of the most aggressively social people online — people who follow hundreds or even thousands of others — it became clear that the picture was a little more complex than this question would suggest. Many maintained that their circle of true intimates, their very close friends and family, had not become bigger. Constant online contact had made those ties immeasurably richer, but it hadn’t actually increased the number of them; deep relationships are still predicated on face time, and there are only so many hours in the day for that.

But where their sociality had truly exploded was in their “weak ties” — loose acquaintances, people they knew less well. It might be someone they met at a conference, or someone from high school who recently “friended” them on Facebook, or somebody from last year’s holiday party. In their pre-Internet lives, these sorts of acquaintances would have quickly faded from their attention. But when one of these far-flung people suddenly posts a personal note to your feed, it is essentially a reminder that they exist. I have noticed this effect myself. In the last few months, dozens of old work colleagues I knew from 10 years ago in Toronto have friended me on Facebook, such that I’m now suddenly reading their stray comments and updates and falling into oblique, funny conversations with them. My overall Dunbar number is thus 301: Facebook (254) + Twitter (47), double what it would be without technology. Yet only 20 are family or people I’d consider close friends. The rest are weak ties — maintained via technology.

Link

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

By: Mark Kernes

Posted: 08/07/2008

PITTSBURGH - Karen Fletcher, the Donora, Pennsylvania woman who ran the RedRoseStories.com Website, which the government charged contained obscene text pieces involving sex with and torture of underage characters, today pleaded guilty to six counts of “using an interactive computer service to distribute obscene materials.”

Fletcher, whose site had 29 subscribers worldwide and charged $10 per month for access – then her sole source of income – received, under a plea agreement worked out between U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan’s office, Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephen R. Kaufman and Trial Attorney Michael Yoon, both of the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS) of the Justice Department, and defense counsel Jerry Mooney and Lawrence W. Walters, a sentence of five years’ probation, including six months of house arrest with electronic monitoring, plus a $1,000 fine. U.S. District Judge Joy Flowers Conti pronounced the sentence, and could have imposed as much as five years in prison, but the government agreed that such a sentence was not appropriate.

(more. . .)

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Look, kiddie porn and terrorism are bad. Obvious. But what better way for a government to push through controversial legislation quickly than to harness their emotive properties? After all, what self-respecting member of the US House of Representatives would vote against legislation called Securing Adolescents From Exploitation-Online, or SAFE? Only two, it turns out (Rep. Paul Broun from Georgia and Rep. presidential candidate, Ron Paul), with 409 members voting yesterday in favor. The new bill requires everyone (that includes you and Starbucks) offering an open WiFi connection to the public to be on the lookout for report known “illegal images” and “obscene” cartoons and drawings. The reporting requirement extends to cover social networking sites, ISPs, and email providers. Failing to dutifully report what you’ve seen (or haven’t seen but are unwittingly complicit in) could leave your data seized and in debt from fines of up to $300,000. This isn’t a call to arms, however . . .

(more . . . )

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Be careful out there, kids.

Jefferson

by Josh Olseon

I met Audrey back in the nascent days of the Internet, when we were both on AOL, regular contributors to a message board devoted to screenwriting. I was just starting out as a writer, and might have optioned one or two things for a few hundred bucks (if that), and Audrey was someone who enjoyed the witty banter of writers. Her posts were funny, acerbic, unsentimental and smart, and one of the many things we bonded over was our enormous admiration for author Harlan Ellison.

Eventually, Audrey (one of two people and a dog whose names I’m changing here) and I met in person, and found that the friendship we’d had on the Net translated well to the real world. She and her boyfriend Simon (the other name I’ve changed) became good and regular friends. Simon’s a nice guy — British, and a little distant and shy, but I always liked him. They were good friends to each other, but they made no pretense that it was about love. When they got married, it was more for convenience and legal gain. Simon always seemed like someone to whom love was a sticky joke, something to be avoided. And Audrey always claimed she liked it that way. She’d been through a lot of shit in her life, been married once a long time ago, and was happy with the arrangement. “He doesn’t bore me,” she’d say. “That’s better than love.”

As well as I knew them, I was dead certain about one thing all along — no matter what she said, or how much she stressed what a great arrangement she and Simon had, she was not happy. She loved him, or, at the very least, wanted love from him. She wanted what we all want — someone who doesn’t just understand us and laugh at our shitty jokes, but someone who’ll be there to hold us in the cold, dark nights and help us cope with the indescribable loneliness of finite existence.

Years go by, and my career takes off. Harlan Ellison becomes a fan of a film I wrote, A History of Violence, and invites me to write with him, adapting his short story “The Discarded” for the ABC series Masters of Science Fiction. In the process, we become spectacular friends.

Harlan is one of America’s great short-story writers. He’s won more awards in more categories than you can count, for stories like “ ‘Repent, Harlequin!’ Said the Ticktockman”; “I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream”; “A Boy and His Dog”; “Jefty Is Five”; and “The Beast That Shouted Love at the Heart of the World.” He edited the wildly successful and influential science-fiction anthology Dangerous Visions. He’s also famous for his seminal work in TV criticism, The Glass Teat, not to mention his work in television itself, having written some of the most memorable episodes of The Outer Limits, The Twilight Zone, and one episode of Star Trek that is acknowledged as the single greatest episode of that show, “The City on the Edge of Forever.” He has been a tireless crusader for civil rights, the Equal Rights Amendment and a host of other worthy causes. He also cooks a mean chili.

So now it’s about two years ago. AOL is ancient history. Audrey is getting her Internet fix on the HBO Deadwood message boards. And that’s where she makes a friend named Janna St. James, who lives in Chicago. Janna’s a former reporter who worked out of the Associated Press office in Aspen, Colorado. Her claim to fame was that she conducted a major interview with serial killer Ted Bundy. Audrey and Janna exchange e-mails, stories are told; I suspect some secrets are revealed, or at least hinted at.

Anyway, Janna knows this guy named Jesse, and she thinks he and Audrey would get along. She “introduces” them online, and they hit it off. Jesse is an amazing dude, a volunteer fireman, a cowboy, a tortured poet, a man with a past. He has an ex-wife he speaks of fondly, and a son. He lives on a ranch with llamas. He’s got posttraumatic stress disorder from having been in New York on 9/11. He knew some of the firemen who died, or something. An exceptional man. He and Audrey just click, in that special way we all hope can happen someday.

Photos are exchanged. Sweet nothings fly back and forth. At some point, they start talking on the telephone.

And they fall in love. They’ve never met. Just e-mails, pictures, and long, meaningful conversations on the phone. But it’s real. I mean, really fucking real. It’s so real that Audrey changes. No longer a dark cynic, she’s now the world’s last true romantic. You’ve never had love this special. Your life is gray and empty and you can’t possibly understand because even if it came your way, your soul is too small to comprehend the love that Audrey and Jesse were experiencing. Their love lights the skies. Us gutter dwellers, we’ll never understand.

(more . . . )

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Alexandra Rankin Macgill writes:

Everyone has a friend or two who takes that much longer to respond to emails because they just don’t ever check their accounts, who don’t want to join social networks and who never pop up on IM and gTalk. What happens when you fall in love with someone like that?

A friend in a serious relationship has declared herself as “single” on Facebook, the social networking site, not because she isn’t madly in love with her boyfriend, but because her boyfriend won’t create a Facebook profile. As a compulsive Facebook user (she updates her picture weekly and has at least 5 new posts on her wall every day), many of her social and family ties are maintained through communications via Facebook. In not joining Facebook, her boyfriend misses a part of life that is important to her.

(more . . .)

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Please do some activism on behalf of sexual freedom between consenting adults.  Do it now before September 10th.

The federal government is proposing regulations that would effectively kill adult social-networking sites. This is being done under the guise of fighting child pornography.  The proposed regulations would force adult social-networking services to obtain and maintain personal information about their users, including the user’s photo ID (driver’s license, passport, or military ID).  While this activism is being done by the NGLTF, it affects heterosexuals, too, both kinky and vanilla.

Read more here and send a letter.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Jiang Ming of Chengdu city promised his wife, He Ling, that he would not go on the internet anymore, and would instead spend more time at home to take care of their newborn son.

But after a short time he started to sneak into nearby internet cafes again to have video chats with girls.

“I was on the internet, and suddenly felt a numbness in my right hand. The arrow on the screen stopped moving,” says Jiang Ming.

“Then I found that my right hand was on the mouse pad, and blood was shooting out.”

In court, the husband pleaded with the judge to release his wife, since he was to blame for breaking his promise.

The court has adjourned and will announce its verdict on another date, reports Chongqing Evening News.

Link 

[via guykawasaki's Twitter]

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Women are more likely than men to search online for health information, search for more health topics, seek online support for medical issues, and search on someone else’s behalf. Our reports on these data sets had observed the gender difference, but this study proves the case beyond a reasonable doubt. (more. . . )

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

by Regina Lynn

The internet has become a proving ground for trying out relationship styles, and anyone who’s ever done so knows just how serious online relating can become — even if all you intended was a quick look to see what all the fuss was about.

These relationships can and do become the catalyst for drastic and painful transitions in your life. They can help you “get it out of your system” and confirm your relationship choices, or they can open your eyes to Your True Path. Whether your partner wants to walk that road with you is a whole ‘nother thing.

Given the impulse to interact and connect with other humans once we’re online, you might think that a virtual relationship — a relationship with a fictional partner — would be an even better way to learn about how we relate to one another, without risk of heartbreak or life-changing decisions.

That’s one of the questions behind a recent University of Illinois study that took three groups of subjects through three variations of a virtual relationship to see how attachment styles — how secure or insecure one is about intimacy — correspond to actions in a relationship. (more. . . )

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

“You know you spend way too much time looking at internet porn when you Google ‘cream pies’ and are surprised when the top results are all recipes for banana-and-chocolate cream pies,” writes Audacia Ray, whose book Naked on the Internet: Hookups, Downloads and Cashing In on Internet Sexploration hits stores Friday.

Ray interviewed more than 80 women, a wide selection of bloggers, chatters, daters, models, geeks and non-geeks. What she found is perhaps not all that surprising but you won’t hear it on the evening news: Women have wide-ranging sexual interests and are savvy enough to figure out how to harness technology to pursue our erotic desires — and occasionally make some money doing it.

Naked on the Internet (Seal Press) is a serious look at how women are incorporating the internet into sex, and while the occasional wry comment and the deft use of individual stories leavens the academic tone, they don’t undermine the gravity of the work.

Most interesting to me is how Ray includes sex workers as legitimate voices in the changing realm of female sexuality. The internet itself has changed sex work significantly, but it has also brought more women into the field, many of whom don’t think of themselves as “sex workers.” If you model fetishy outfits once or twice a year for cash to spend on a new tattoo, are you a sex worker? If you dance naked on webcam in an adult community but don’t get paid for it, are you a sex worker, an erotic artist or both? (more. . . )

=============
For Audacia’s upcoming book tour appearances, please check out the right hand sidebar.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Sam Sugar writes:

In the world of porn the implications reach far. Personal ads, adult site memberships and social networking profiles can all contain potentially damning information, and may all enter the public record. For the cost of a second-world data-miner anyone can connect the public and private dots which link our physical and electronic identities in ways we often don’t desire. If you think you’re anonymous, think again.

In five years, when teenagers who have never lived a life which didn’t extend to the wires cease to exist, the issue of what’s relevant, what’s private and what should be rightly forgotten will be raised again. In the UK, at the age of 16, a minor’s criminal record is hidden from view, effectively expunged for all but those at the highest levels of power. Online we’re becoming our own jailers. The web doesn’t care how old we are and forgets nothing. We’d be better protected if we sent our blogs to the local police station. (more . . .)

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

You can pre-order it from Amazon.com.

Here are her upcoming appearances:

June 2: C*lick Me netporn conference & European debut of The Bi Apple, at Paradiso in Amsterdam

June 4: SMUT reading, Galapagos Art Space, 8 pm at 70 North 6th street, Williamsburg, Brooklyn

June 5: Bluestockings Bookstore, 7 pm at 172 Allen Street, NYC

June 6: McNally Robinson Booksellers Seal Authors Event with Jessica Valenti
and Helen Boyd, 7 pm at 53 Prince St, NYC

June 7: Brookline Booksmith, 7 pm at 279 Harvard Street, Brookline, MA

June 11: Museum of Sex panel discussion with Lux Nightmare, Ellen Friedrichs, Madeline Glass and Marie Lyn Bernard, 7 pm at 233 5th Avenue, NYC

June 12: KGB Bar $pread celebrates Naked on the Internet, time TBA at 85 East 4th, NYC

July 10: Center for Sex and Culture, 7 pm at location TBA, San Francisco

July 11: Modern Times Bookstore, time TBA at 888 Valencia Street, San Francisco

July 14: Writers with Drinks, The Make-Out Room, 7 pm at 3225 22nd Street, San Francisco

I’m going to try to make as many of the NYC appearances as I can.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }