Addition to blog post 1---published by TOI on 27 Jan 2011

US video game inspired Moscow airport attack? 
Moscow: Russian media has pointed out the similarities between the bloody scenes depicted in a popular US video game with attack at Domodedovo International Airport, sparking a heated debate on the content of the game.     The bloody scenes of the Moscow attack are reminiscent of what can be seen in an year-old video game, the scenario of which controversially involves a character urged to kill civilians in an imaginary Russian airport, a TV channel said. The blast at Domodedovo Airport has sparked hot debate on the stuff of a popular American video game ‘Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2’, sold worldwide.     “Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 has become a shocking reality,” English language Russia Today TV noted. Earlier last year several Duma members had asked the ban on the video game in Russia and in just a few months, its sales surpassed $1 billion worldwide.     In the mission dubbed “No Russian” the player goes on a terrorist rampage, helping to massacre civilians in a fictitious Moscow airport. It may have seemed too tragic ever to come true. But far-fetched it is not, for the events at Domodedovo International Airport are very real indeed.     Thirty-five people have been killed, and over 180 injured in what investigators believe was a terrorist attack committed by a suicide bomber inside the international arrivals of Russia’s busiest airport. As for the video game scenario, it appears a lot more people have been involved in the violence. AGENCIES ‘Bombers were trained in Pak’     The suicide bombers who carried out the Moscow airport attack were probably part of a suicide squad trained in Pakistan’s al-Qaida strongholds. A newspaper published a warning issued in December to the Moscow police, which said there was credible intelligence that a suicide squad was headed to Moscow, The Telegraph reported. The memo said the team had spent time in Pakistan and Iran. ANI Medvedev fires police chief     In the wake of the deadly bombing of Russia’s busiest airport, President Dmitry Medvedev fired a top official of the country’s transport police and lashed out at “passive’’ officers who guard the country’s transport centers. Medvedev did not specify the reasons for dismissing major general Andrei Alexeyev, head of the transport police for the Russian region that includes Moscow. But he did criticize transport police in general. AP

source
article


B.Vamshi
EE09B104

Read more »

Do digital artifacts have politics

digital artifacts is any  man made tool not real but digital .

Eg:- software’s , game etc.  

 So the topic is do digital artifacts have politics. We can analyses the above by taking an example. 

By politics what  we mean here is that every one who get a access to the artifact is not discriminated by any means.

Now talk a example of racists discrimination in video games.

Racism is understandably a very sensitive issue.

The world in the video game is virtual. 

You do all crimes and still get away with no punishments. 

All these are acceptable. But some one points out the racist discrimination in the video game, how to take it , can we take it as accidental error , or a planed act of the programmer.

Let us take a example.

A PC game called “Ethnic cleansing” , the game requires players to wonder through urban street and tunnels and to attack African-American Hispanic and Jewish characters.

This game also includes repeated racist images and audio content. And how are we suppose to take it as accidental error in this game.

This is not the only game ,there are many ,this is just an example.

So the people who play this game have more chances of developing a racist character. 

So when we compare this article with langdon winner article . Langdon winner argues that the bridges to beaches and recreational parks is so low that buses could not pass under them since , at that time , blacks were not rich enough to own private cars, this meant that designer without any apartheid laws, without even the appearance of impropriety , could maintain his beaches as a free of any miscegenation as if he had created racist police to enforce his edict:

“For whites only”

Hence winners conclude : not artifacts have politics , but its most peevers of all since they hide their biases under that appearance of objectivity, efficiently or mere expenditure.



Gokul
CH09B065

Read more »

POLITICS IN SEARCH ENGINES ??– INTERPRETIVE NATURE OF AN INTERNET ARTEFACT

INTRODUCTION:

                    Web search is critical to our ability to use the Internet. Whoever controls search engines has enormous influence on us all. They can shape what we read, who we listen to, and who gets heard perhaps, controls the Internet itself. Today, no one comes closer to controlling search than Google does. In this post, I’ll describe a few of the ways that individuals, companies, and even governments have tried to shape Google’s results to serve their goals.


INEFFECTIVE LINKED SEARCH & GOOGLEBOMBING:

                    In 2001, a college student named Adam Mathes noticed something interesting about Google, almost accidentally. He found out that the genius of Google is that its creators didn’t come up with a great organizational scheme for the web. Instead, they got everyone else to do it for them. The heart of Google’s system—called PageRank—is that it looks at who links to whom online. Every time you create a link to another web page, you’re in effect telling the world that the web page has on it something important, or interesting, or useful, or funny, or whatever matters to you & each such link is a kind of vote. Very loosely put, Google goes around the web, counting links & hence pages with more links pointing at them have been “voted up” more often,  must be more important, and therefore Google displays them higher in its results. Whats more - they are marked as presumably trusted and influential, counting its own outbound links as being ‘worth’ more!!
                   Moreover, Google used links not just to learn how important a page was, but also what it was about i.e., the more pages that link using a given phrase, the more Google will think that the phrase accurately describes the page. But that would mean that Google could be tricked; all you would have to do is get a lot of friends to create links using particular words. Such a trick was referred to as Googlebombing.
                    It started as a joke, but Googlebombing has been used to send some serious messages. So many people use search engines, and their results appear to be so sophisticated, that any message you can sneak through in the form of a Googlebomb has at least a veneer of legitimacy. Thus, the most famous Googlebomb of all time is probably the one many Democrats launched in 2003 to link to George W. Bush’s official biography page with the phrase “miserable failure.” This is a significant new form of politicking. Land a bomb like this and you can convince the world that Google agrees with your position. A successful Googlebomb doesn’t just reflect the consensus of web users; it can help construct that consensus.

INTERPRETIVE  EXAMPLES :
1) SEARCH: “JEW”
                    Consider a more serious example: In 2004, the No.1 Google hit for a search on “ jew” was jewwatch.com, which describes itself as “An Oasis of News for Americans Who Presently Endure the Hateful Censorship of Zionist Occupation” and features a wide assortment of paranoid anti-Semitic content. Upset at this placement, a Jewish activist asked people around the web to link the word “ jew” instead to a Wikipedia article. This touched off acounter-Googlebomb as some neo-Nazi sites tried to point the term back to Jew Watch, but ultimately attempts to make “ jew” point to the comparatively neutral Wikipedia page was successful. There’d been Googlebombs before and there’d be Googlebombs after, but this one did something that no other had: it drew a response from Google. At the top of the Google results page for “ jew” is a box reading, “Offensive Search Results. We’re disturbed about these results as well.”
                     The same campaign that produced the Jew Googlebomb also included a petition to have Google remove Jew Watch entirely, so that no Google search—and certainly not on the term “ jew”—would ever return it. The activists certainly had a point. Google could easily have changed their software so no trace of Jew Watch remained in its results pages, no indication that anything other than the usual process of looking for relevant results had ever taken place. But that’s not what Google did. Instead, it left the results alone—that is, left it up to the back-and-forth push-pull struggle of the Googlebombs and counter-bombs; may he who gets the most links win. Google was insistent that it wouldn’t intervene in the results. The reason is a feature of the company’s corporate culture that goes even deeper than its “Don’t be evil” motto. It deeply believes in throwing huge automated processes at a problem & just feeds the Internet into its server farm and waits for a result to emerge, unsullied by mere mortals. Thus, the “Offensive Search Results” page that Google put up to explain why “ jew” takes you to Jew Watch is Google’s way of saying “don’t blame us, the computers did it.”
                      Is that really true? Is it really the case that search engine results are purely automated, impersonal things that don’t reflect anyone’s opinion at all? Who, after all, gave the computer its instructions?
                       The programmer did. A computer is just a glorified abacus; it does what you tell it to. Google’s programmers may not have specifically told its computers to rank Jew Watch highly and to call George Bush a miserable failure. But they did feed into the computers a list of criteria—each link from a weblog is worth so many points, pages less than a week old get a 10% newness bonus, whatever—and those criteria lead directly to these conclusions.  Even the employers of Google would prefer return results that the users believe to be useful. They optimize their algorithms all the time to make the results more relevant to their users’ questions. They don’t want you to get Jew Watch if you search for say “Hitler.” This isn’t to say that what Google is doing is right or wrong, just that the distinction it makes between objective “automatic” results from the computer and subjective “beliefs and preferences” doesn’t really hold up.  Call this problem the Google Dilemma. Google has the ability to shape its search results to prefer some web sites over others. Indeed, whatever choice it makes—alphabetical, by link count, by politics, by whatever—will result in some sites being on the first page of results and others not.

2) SEARCH: “SEARCH KING”

                         Google isn’t the only one facing the Google Dilemma. Lawyers, judges, and legislators deal with it, too. There have been dozens of lawsuits against search engines. Each of those lawsuits requires the court hearing it to confront the Dilemma.  Consider a famous example in search engine lawsuit of all time. An Oklahoma web company called Search King had a web site that was highly ranked for certain queries on Google. It had “PageRank 8”: on Google’s 0–10 scale of how important a page is, Search King was an 8, which means many people were used to it.
                          Then, one day in late summer of 2002, Google utterly destroyed Search King’s Business overnight & kind of drop from 8 to PageRank 4 is a disaster. Suddenly, instead of showing up high on the first page of Google results, Search King and its clients were lucky to show up in the first few pages. For a local business dependent on Internet orders, that’s the kiss of death. Businesses had gone up and down in Google’s rankings before, but Search King made history by being the first to sue Google over it. Search King claimed, in essence, that Google was libeling it. Demoting Search King to PageRank 4 was the equivalent of telling Google’s users that Search King was unimportant or a bad source of information.  One might expect that Google’s reply when confronted about “search king” would be the same reply it gave when confronted about “ jew”: “Don’t blame us, the computers did it.” Instead, Google gave an intriguingly different answer. Buried beneath the legalese, Google said something more like, “We’re not admitting to anything, but if by some chance we were to have hand-tweaked the results a bit to punish Search King, then we would have had a good reason to.”
                          Consider the possibility that Search King wasn’t quite the innocent Internet entrepreneur it made itself out to be & Search King was in fact running a large and cynical version of a Googlebomb called a “link farm”(which was the case!). A link farm operator has decided that getting thousands of people to link to her to raise her PageRank is just too much work. Instead, she created those links herself. They’re designed to look enough like real web content to trick a search engine, but consist mostly of links to other pages in the link farm itself. It’s a web form of spam. If she creates enough fake links to look as though tons of people have suddenly decided this, then her previously-obscure site is now the world’s foremost authority. For this, Search King’s link farm had its clients link to each other.  Google’s guidelines for website creators specifically prohibit link farming and link exchanges of the sort Search King was engaging in, and when Google realizes someone’s been running a link farm, it retaliates and demotes the link farm in its rankings.
                           As it turned out, Google won the Search King lawsuit. The court held that Google’s choice of how to rank its results was a form of speech protected by the First Amendment for search engines on similar grounds. This seems like the right result; if search engines didn’t have a fairly free hand to demote sites in their rankings, the Internet would be completely overrun with junk from link farms. Still, the First Amendment reasoning is worrisome as it would suggest that the government is powerless to make the search engines stop, even in cases where the re-ranking was obviously malicious and dishonest. There are many  who’d disagree, but I hope at this point everyone would at least agree on one thing: Google has a choice to make, one that matters a lot.

CONCLUSION :
                           Search Engines being an internet artefact is interpretive, and hence can be interpreted in either way of possessing politics in their nature or not(as in the above examples) depending on the perspective of the interpreter. But finally, the power lies with the search engine companies to make the truth accessible. Its thoughts about “ jew” have changed over time, as has its opinion about “search king”
                           Search results matter: to culture, to business, and to society. Every decision about search, and every lawsuit about search, has these inescapably political questions at its heart. That is Google’s dilemma, and ours.

By
Syed Ashruf
AE09B025

Read more »

PHOTO MANIPULATION

DO ARTIFACTS HAVE POLITICS?
  Digital artifacts have politics, they have a great affect on politics and people. I have taken the case of photo manipulation to show how they affect the politics and opinion of the people.   

PHOTO MANIPULATION

While it’s been said the camera doesn’t lie and there are many who would take issue with that axiom, it’s an unfortunate belief that photographers (or more likely those who handle their pictures) can at least fudge the content of an image. Particularly pictures intended to sell products or ideas. Photography has lost its innocence many years ago.

Photo manipulation is as old as photography itself; contrary to the idea of a photo having inherent verisimilitude. Photo manipulation has been regularly used to deceive or persuade viewers, or for improved story-telling and self-expression. Oftentimes even subtle and discrete changes can have profound impacts on how we interpret or judge a photograph which is why learning when manipulation has occurred is important.
 
As early as the American Civil War, photographs were published as engravings based on more than one negative. Officers, politicians etc have used or may be still using the art of photo manipulation to deceive people. No softwares were used in the early stages of photo manipulation, instead more than one negatives are used in the dark room to develop a manipulated photo.
 
In 1860, this nearly iconic portrait (in the form of a lithograph) of U.S. President Abraham Lincoln is a composite of Lincoln's head and the Southern politician John Calhoun's body

                            
Joseph Stalin made use of photo retouching for propaganda purposes. On May 5, 1920 his predecessor Lenin held a speech for Soviet troops that Leon Trotsky attended. Stalin had Trotsky retouched out of a photograph showing Trotsky in attendance. Nikolai Yezhov, an NKVD leader photographed alongside Stalin in at least one photograph, was edited out of the photograph after his execution in 1940.

A notable case of a controversial photo manipulation was a 1982 National Geographic cover in which editors photographically moved two Egyptian pyramids closer together so that they would fit on a vertical cover. This case triggered a debate about the appropriateness of photo manipulation in journalism; the argument against editing was that the magazine depicted something that did not exist, and presented it as fact. There were several cases since the National Geographic case of questionable photo manipulation, including editing a photo of Cher on the cover of Redbook to change her smile and her dress. Another example occurred in early 2005, when Martha Stewart's release from prison was featured on the cover of Newsweek; her face was placed on a slimmer woman's body to suggest that she had lost weight while in prison
        
  The growing popularity of image manipulation has raised concern as to whether it allows for unrealistic images to be portrayed to the public.Silicon Graphics computers running Barco Creator became available in the late 1980s which, alongside other contemporary packages, were effectively replaced in the market by Adobe Photoshop.



BY

N.HARDEV
CH09B066                             

Read more »

Amazon.com & What politics has to do with it?

"Do artifacts have politics?" This has been the hot topic for many Anthropologists and it also spread to our HS class this week.I will explain this by taking an example of world renowned website "Amazon.com".

Amazon.com, is a US-based multinational electronic commerce company.It is America's largest online retailer, with nearly three times the Intenet sales revenue.
Jeff Bezos founded Amazon.com in 1994 and launched it online in 1995.It was named as Amazon because the Amazon River is the largest river in the world, showing its vastness of resources and partly also because it start with "A", the first letter in the Alphabets, and therefore strives to be the top most consumer satisfactory company.

It started as an online bookstore, as most of us know it as, but it soon diversified, selling DVDs, CDs, MP3 downloads, computer software, video games, electronics, apparel, furniture, food, and toys. It also provides international shipping to certain countries for some of its products.

It was spurred by what Bezos called "regret minimization framework" , his effort to fend off regret for not staking a claim in the Internet gold rush.
Its logotype is an arrow leading from A to Z, representing its goal to have every product in the alphabet.

So how such a consumer oriented company can fall into what Winner said "Artifacts have politics"?
Amazon's initial business plan was unusual: the company did not expect a profit for four to five years. Its "slow" growth provoked stockholder complaints that the company was not reaching profitability fast enough. When the dot-com bubble burst, and many e-companies went out of business, Amazon persevered, and finally turned its first profit in the fourth quarter of 2001: $5 million or 1¢ per share, on revenues of more than $1 billion, but the modest profit was important in demonstrating the business model could be profitable. In 1999, Time magazine named Bezos Person of the Year, recognizing the company's success in popularizing online shopping.

And now ,The company remains profitable with nearly 1 billion transactions going on every year, far more than its peer companies.It has the largest demand now living upto its name Amazon.

So, almost it seems like as neutral as Aesop's tongue, striving to have its roots in the world economy, working hard and finally got a place where it waves its flag like a mountaineer waving his country's flag on Mt.Everest but the website Amazon.com also has its pitfalls attracting criticism and controversy from multiple sources over its actions, such as its "1-Click patent" claims, anti-competitive actions, price discrimination, anti-unionization efforts, Amazon Kindle remote content removal, and low corporate tax payments. Various decisions over whether to censor or publish content such as the WikiLeaks web site, LGBT book sales rank, works containing libel have been controversial. Recently Amazon removed Wikileaks's content from its EC2 cloud service, but later insists it did so because the content could cause harm to people and did not belong to Wikileaks – and that it was not due to political pressure or the hacker attacks against the site.

Amazon is now also attracting backlash from the film and writing community for launching its Amazon Studios, referred to by writers as Scamazon Studios, for insisting writers give a free 18 month option on their scripts, and by claiming exclusive rights forever, without a legitimate contract - thus acting outside of International Copyright Laws.

Though it was surrounded by black clouds it perfected itself and now still remains as the leader in online shopping.

Conclusion:
So, Digital artifacts do have politics in some cases, but when they trace their path they have trod, searching their roots, they can become value neutral consumer objects to help society grow better and healthier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon.com
http://www.amazon.com/

G.Abhilash Roy,
CS09B012.

Read more »

DO ARTIFACTS HAVE POLITICS?---Google Earth

Google Earth

 

Onto a personal opinion artifacts can have politics or even not depending upon the “eyes” through which we watch them and the artifact we watch. In Future, chances of monopoly over internet may lead to authoritarianism.  We started by stating the presence of technology as being political. Taken into account the essence of technology’s impact on society; Such as the automobile, cell phone, internet, i-phones, i-pod’s, are described as democratizing. The idea of control over internet and technology holds to that of a big responsibility and wouldn't work in a democratic society, is an example of technology dictating politics. Artifacts play an important role in the “way of life”.Some times we change according to the artifact. As a matter of fact an artifact can affect the “being of life”. Some artifacts have politics and some do not. Remembering the example of Robert Moses redesigning New York parkways, he made sure that the bridges giving access to his beloved beaches and recreational parks would be so low that buses could not pass under them. And enforcing his edict “For Whites only”

To concrete my statement I would take the example of “Google Earth”

Going to an informal definition of Google earth is to see the world and not leave your seat. I am sure everyone knows about Google Earth already. Google Earth lets you fly anywhere on Earth to view satellite imagery, maps, terrain and 3D buildings. You can see everything from galaxies in outer space to the canyons of the ocean. You can explore rich geographical content, save your toured places, and share them with others. Technology can really make our world smaller and our horizon much bigger. Imagine the rush you would feel if you could actually go around the world literally and take photos and videos of everywhere you went.Using Google Earth we can see every place in the world and even peep out towards to the sky to an extent which cannot be viewed from a telescope. And this power is in your hands. Google Earth allows users to search for addresses for some countries, enter coordinates, or simply use the mouse to browse to a location.3-D view of places is also available. In addition to obvious uses, Google Earth is useful for many day-to-day and other purposes.

Google Earth can be used to view areas subjected to widespread disasters if Google supplies up-to-date images. For example after the January 12 2010 Haiti earthquake images of Haiti were made available on January 17.With Google's push for the inclusion of Google Earth in the Classroom, teachers are adopting Google Earth in the classroom for lesson planning, such as teaching students geographical themes (location, culture, characteristics, human interaction, and movement) to creating mashups with other web applications such as Wikipedia.

If we don’t see the 2^nd side of the coin, means we are blind. The same Google earth are used by terrorists for attacking a place. It is revealed that terrorists who attacked in Mumbai, India’s financial and commercial capital were highly trained for such attacks and used technologies such as satellite phones, and global positioning systems (GPS), means Terrorists used Google Earth to plan attacks in Mumbai. Indian security agencies have complained that Google Earth exposed Indian defense and other sensitive installations. Other nations, including China, have made similar complaints regarding military locations. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam warned in a 2005 lecture that the easy availability online of detailed maps of countries from services such as Google Earth could be misused by terrorists. Security agencies have called for the wealth of data available on Google Earth to be limited for several years amid fears the freely available application may prove invaluable for militants planning terrorist attacks.

                  


Going to another example: Terrorists attacking British bases in Basra are using aerial footage displayed by the Google Earth internet tool to pinpoint their attacks, say Army intelligence sources.
Part of Arunachal Pradesh was shown as a part of china which lead to an acute tension between the two countries.
Recently part of Kashmir was shown as an integral part of Pakistan lead to a misunderstanding between the borders of the two countries.

BOTTOM LINE: Basically “Google earth” is developed to be democratic but it resulted in empowering terrorists.The basic use is to be used by the common people.but it can also be reached to terrorist.this was not the ideology by which it emerged.

links to know more 

google earth

google earth accused aiding terrorists

arunachal pradesh issue

POK

B.Vamshi

EE09B104

click here to give your feed-back

Read more »

Do Digital Artifact have Politics ?

 DO ARTIFACTS HAVE POLITICS?
[from Winner, L. (1986). The whale and the reactor: a search for limits in an age of high technology. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 19-39.]
No idea is more provocative in controversies about technology and society than the notion that technical things have political qualities. At issue is the claim that the machines, structures, and systems of modern material culture can be accurately judged not only for their contributions to efficiency and productivity and their positive and negative environmental side effects, but also for the ways in which they can embody specific forms of power and authority. Since ideas of this kind are a persistent and troubling presence in discussions about the meaning of technology, they deserve explicit attention.
Within the realm of digital media, the development process takes a big influence from the society inside of it. It brings back the high school memories where everything is a popularity contest. Whichever website or service provider gets the most buzz receives the most attention and consideration. This is the politics of the Internet. In Langdon Winner’s “Do Artifacts Have Politics?”, he establishes a clear relationship between society and technology. The example of the construction of Long Island highway roads was brilliant. He pointed out that they were developed so only people who could afford their own cars were able to access those roads. This separated the rich from the poor, since the poor usually had to take buses as a means of transportation. It was clear that the development of the roads were well thought out before construction occurred and who ever had the money had a voice that was heard. Even before the age of the Internet, there already existed politics within the development of technology.
Referring back to the popularity contest on the Internet, Google seems to be the clear winner when it comes to search engines. Many Internet browsers come with a Google search bar already embedded next to the address tab. This is also common among cell phones and other pda devices. In blackberry browser there is a Google search bar right next to address tab. Even if you didn’t like using Google, the user-friendly accessibility just makes you want to use it. It is clear that Google is the heavy favorite when it comes to search engines. Tim Wu’s Net Neutrality, points out the network discrimination that can occur in the digital media. Internet service providers can make deals with certain popular/favored digital companies where they would be prioritized against their competition. This can essentially limit users to choose to use certain services over others, especially if the Internet speed is clearly different from one another. Why use a website that takes twice as long to load up when you can use their competitors’ site in half the time? As Internet policy is getting developed, network neutrality should be taken into deep consideration. I agree that the Internet should be open, accessible, and neutral to all users and providers. Otherwise the Internet will become a capitalist world. In some ways, it already is.


CH09B071
R.SURENDER NAIK

Read more »

FACEBOOK......Get Addicted !!!

 

It starts of with a simple exploration of your friends on the site and suddenly you are logging on 10 times a day to see if any of your friends have made updates to their profile, changed their relationship status or have posted new videos or articles. Suddenly you are glued to your computer monitor and the only thing on the screen is "Facebook."

 A growing body of research in the area of addiction suggests that Internet Addiction Disorder is becoming a real problem, it is a psycho-physiological disorder involving tolerance; withdrawal symptoms; affective disturbances; and interruption of social relationships. The most common one is Facebook Addiction Disorder (FAD).

 1/ The first thing is tolerance. This refers to the need for increasing amounts of time on Facebook to achieve satisfaction and/or significantly diminished effect with continued use of the same amount of time. They often have multiple Facebook windows opened at any one time. 3 is usually a sign and over 5 you're helpless.
2/ After reduction of Facebook use or cessation, it causes distress or impairs social, personal or occupational functioning such as wondering why your Vista is so fast and improved etc. These include anxiety; obsessive thinking about what is written on your wall on Facebook etc.
3/ Important social or recreational activities are greatly reduced and or migrated to Facebook. Instead of sending an email you post a message on your friend’s page about canceling a lunch appointment. You now stop answering your phone call from your Mom and insist she should contact you through Facebook chat.

4/ This is getting serious if you start kissing your girlfriend's home page or a VRML virtual walk through a park is your idea of a date.

5/ Your bookmark takes 20 minutes just to scroll from top to bottom or 8 of 10 people in your friend's list you have no idea of who they are.

6/ When you meet people you start introducing yourself by following "see you in Facebook" or your dog has its own Facebook profile. You invite anyone you've met and any notifications, messages and invites reward you with an unpredictable high, much like gambling.
Call it Facebook addiction or fetish, I see this as progress of enlightenment for the modern life. Our modern culture is unconsciously penetrated by the information (useful and useless) and we are all struggling with it. Social networks collapse the difference between culture and practical life and our culture is codified and distributed through the Internet. As a result the ‘culture’ industry is now being expanded beyond fashion, music and magazines.

Much of this information that we’re exposed to on the Internet does not at all ‘signify’ true information or freedom from deception but it has reduced significantly the impact of any mass deception. The people's need to connect, along with the growth of social connectivity, would raise the quality of the social whole to a new and higher level. The organic composition of our social networks is growing. That determines networks as means of finding self-identities and not only as resources. Addiction may not be such a bad thing after all.

know more about facebook
FAD

B.Vamshi
EE09B104

Read more »