This is a very interesting question to me, since I have yet to see what one looks like.  I’ve always managed some excuse to not visit these candidate’s websites; the biggest excuse I’ve used was predicting that I wouldn’t get much more than a huge dose of partisan support for whoever the site represented. But despite this rather cynical hypothesis in mind, I’m really starting to think – literally, for the first time – what would I want one of these sites to represent?

My first thoughts are:  I want, front and center, a complete outline – in detail – of the candidates’ plans.  I want a user-friendly button bar, with links to Gay Marriage, The Economy, Social Security, IRAQ… I want everything organized.  I’d love to see some sort of campaign trail mapping, showing where the candidate went, and see streamlined speeches, with the text of the speeches available as well.  I’d like to see comparisons to other candidates, and many other multipartisan things of this nature.

——

I almost feel as if I should re-emphasize that my earlier statements were before I looked at the website.  The very first things that I saw when we opened up these campaign websites as a class were the site attributes that I had been hoping for, and had described earlier in my blog!  Seems I shouldn’t have cynically written off the possibility for these websites to be very informative campaign sources. 

Surf through the site and jot down your general impressions.

I chose to surf through McCain’s website. I thought it was funny, how before you even get into the website, he asks for donations for his campaign.  I wonder if this is standard… I did find that a whole list of issues was actually present, under the title bars, while front and center (thank god) was a set of informative links on McCain’s plan for the economy.  However, I think that a number of issues really important to me are missing.  Also, the way that about half of these “issues” categories are phrased spell a bit of bias to me.  Even so, I have to say that I’m happy to have found at least some of the stuff I was looking for, just by browsing around at first glance.

Are you able to find the information you were looking for? How does the candidate present him/herself? How does the candidate use Web 2.0 approaches (e.g. community-generated content, RSS feeds). Comment on this analysis of candidates’ use of YouTube as a campaign medium.

After the initial discovery of the issues section, I continued finding the things I’d been hoping for.  The tracking of the campaign trail was interesting.  It was a link with shifting photos that showed a picture a day of McCain during his campaign.  Although that part wasn’t too fruitful, the section covering speeches was.  There was a day-by-day archive of McCain’s speeches available, as well as separate sections of video and audio.  Also present was an archive of McCain’s comments in the news, in case anyone was interested.  McCain presents himself as extremely experienced and successful.  He has a strong repertoire of past leadership, which he lays out first and foremost in his “About McCain” section.  As for his use of web 2.0, he has a blog for his supporters, and a McCainSpace page.  This page was more interesting.  Besides just being able to comment and communicate in classic web 2.0 fashion, this page was designed to “connect… McCain supporters.”  It invites supporters to “be a part of ouur team [to] be able to connect with other supporters to build our network of grassroots activists…”  This was a bit more than I had expected.

Next (in the spirit of the recent NY Times article), compare the website you have examined to that of a second candidate of your choosing. How do the two sites compare in style? content? How important is the webpage as a representation of a candidate?

I compared Obama’s site to McCain’s, and right off the bat, I feel more welcome at Obama’s site.  Instead of a picture depicting strength, Obama is shown – happy and smiling – with his family, making a promise of change.  He asks for your email and zip code, instead of money, on the introductory page.  The first thing that hit my eyes on Obama’s page was an interactive set of possible links:  “Make a difference, make calls, find events, register to vote, volunteer.”  I’m kind of disappointed that I didn’t get a full spread of answers to the economic crisis, like McCain offered. 

However, the issues bar – although in much the same format as McCain’s – touched on many more issues, including ones that I had been missing before.  Civil Rights was at the top, and Disabilities and other such categories were included; these issues seemed to speak to the more humanitarian focus of Obama.  He even had a whole other bar dedicated to issues for certain kinds of people. McCain’s content, however, was much more down-to-business in it’s presentation and style.

Although I didn’t see nearly as many examples of campaign content (which was very disappointing), Obama’s web 2.0 content was definitely way past that of McCain’s.  He had a blog for every state, and within the blog page were links to sites like Digg and Del.icio.us.  I think that the website is a very important representation of the candidate, like an extension of their projected selves.  This was very obvious, considering the way that both candidates approached their layouts, connectivity, and foci within their websites.  McCain’s site:  always straightforward, and very much like a resume, which is exactly how he is trying to sell himself in the current election.  Obama’s site is the same:  given his rhetoric on change and equality, his focus on the people’s actions (lots of opportunities to get involved, or get connected via web 2.0) as well as a multitude of issues concerning the underrepresented worked well to underscore his particular campaign and rhetoric.  However, just like McCain and Clinton keep pointing out, Obama’s lack of experience shows.  His site seems more like a place for open dialogue about what a president should do, but doesn’t show the heft of leadership and experience that McCain’s loaded site (and rhetoric) readily displays.

According to recent survey, fewer than 8% of respondents had visited a candidate website. However, the internet is an increasingly important source of information people use to make electoral decisions. Given this information, what role do campaign website play in this election?

I think that this positions the campaign website as a powerful image tool.  Although a candidate can’t always control the way a debate turns out during their campaigns, or control the way other media portrays their stances or comments about issues, a candidate can always control their image on their webpage.  I think that, considering the increase in legitimacy of internet personas, this tool will eventually (if not already) be considered indespensible.

However, although the Frontline video we watched didn’t do much to quell my fears, I’ve found that my concerns have shifted dramatically the more I’ve learned about the internet.

Whereas once I had feared the internet as a monolithic mass of information and connectivity I would never be quite comfortable with, I feel as though I am now a much more able navigator of the internet.  I know much more about what’s out there, so now I feel more at ease, and even excited, about the potentials for the economy, for discussion, and for support of all kinds that the internet is bringing.  I feel that the intellectual property lecture, the web 2.0 lecture, the internet economy lecture, and at least a few others have opened my eyes ways that I can enter into this scene.  Although I’m not so sure that growing up inundated with this technology is the best idea, I do see many more positive aspects of the internet than I ever have before.

However, this appreciation of growing creative opportunities at my fingertips has ultimately been bittersweet:  as many of my old impressions of the internet have melted away, it has been replaced with a growing awareness of the power struggles, of those wishing to control and manipulate these opportunities.

The abolition of net neutrality is one of my biggest fears, especially when coupled with not only the idea of cloud technology, but the idea of cloud technology commerce.  The fact that this unfathomable informative power will become a part of politics, will be bought and sold as a service, rather than carefully and equally provided, leaves me worried in a way I can’t quite explain.  I can see magnanimous things coming from this technology… however this does not necessitate immediate excitement and praise.  Although it must have seemed like the biggest tangent on the face of the planet, I truly believe that everything Aimee and I discussed in class was relevant.  I think that the way this technology is controlled will change everything:  it will reframe our concepts of ourselves; it could cause a split between our understandings of both our animal and abstract selves; it will reshape ethics; it may rewrite important parts of our constitution, as well as important concepts that constitute “being American,” beginning with our ideas of freedom of speech; the ability to juggle both truth and image for the common man could be shattered, leaving only those with the “looking” power any sort of secrecy. 

What a strange and scary world we might have in front of us, one in which we can’t hide from ourselves anymore, and must therefore either reconfigure our interpretations, or fall back to bondage.  Hahaha… ARMAGEDDON!

Although I can find a sense of humor in all of this, I do often think about these sorts of things.  I know that my own particular brand of biases, knowledge, interests, and overactive imagination constrict just how much truth there could actually be to what I see for the future… however, I do make an effort to see past these hindrances and learn as much as I can.  But, after all, I’ll just have to accept that none of us will ever really know which way the fate of the human race will go when the next future social upheaval arrives… not until it’s well underway, and happening before our very eyes.

I must say, however, that my inspired observations are much more a product of Lessig’s performance on culture ownership, than Felton’s presentation.  Felton took a much more historical, rote manner about presenting information, while Lessig seemed fueled equally by his passion as well as his knowledge.  However, some similarities (and many differences) lay between the two.

Both Felton and Lessig added interesting perspectives to the historical evolution of technology.  They both  found it necessary to apply history’s lessons and patterns of legal copyright matters to the current debates, decisions and trends involving this evolving technology and copyright.  I found this aspect of both their presentations to be one of the most fruitful parts of the overall discussion.  However, I definitely found some differences. 

Although it might seem that Lessig was a more radical speaker/advocate of free culture, his presentation of how secure the decisions of old were – regarding legal matters and evolving technology – could have used a bit more depth, like Felton’s lecture did.  Felton showed how Sandra O’Connor’s decision on the VCR was shaky, and only at the last minute did she decide to make the VCR legal; had she not, the VCR would have been controlled by Hollywood, leading to a number of frightening implications.  Hollywood would have been able to decide who bought a VCR, had cash royalties to whatever the VCR touched, and would have ultimate control over this technology’s design.  I thought that this insight to intense resistance would have only worked to strengthen Lessig’s point of view, given the outcome of O’Connor’s decision:  although Hollywood was terrified of the VCR, it only helped to drastically increase revenues for them.  Felton took care to cover this part of history, an effective choice I wish Lessig had made.

However, the number of evolutionary steps that Felton highlighted was limited to one:  he only included a story of the VCR’s impact.  I feel like Lessig’s careful tracking of many examples of both technological  evolution and initial reaction to these steps in this evolution were both funny and necessary for a full understanding.  I wish Felton had researched and touched on the many technologies Lessig had taken into account, because he was not nearly as thorough in his reporting of technological evolution.

However, Felton also then (albeit slowly) continues on through his discoveries that occur after the “earthquake”:  the creation of the first CD player in the 1980s, and thus the bridge from analog to digital technological capabilities.  However, Felton seemed to get caught up in describing the nature of digital vs. analog; although I am someone that can appreciate what he was presenting – as a once-aspiring Computer Scientist myself – I thought more attention could have been paid to implications of the technology, rather than how the technology actually works.  (Unfortunately, it was about this time that my computer refused to allow me to upload any more of the lecture, so I am left to continue with this last comparison, then move to my response).

Lessig also highlighted the move from analog to digital very strongly, but in a new way:  he showed the many different ways that digital media manipulation and creation far surpasses any other technology we’ve ever known.  In fact, much like Felton constantly stressing “the earthquake” (the move from analog to digital), Lessig in turn focused less on this move in a historical sense, and focused on the potential at our fingertips right now.  It was interesting to see how each person approached these issues differently, yet both added something I believe to be absolutely necessary to this discussion.

I think that if Lessig and Felton got together and collaborated, they would have a presentation to end all others.  Even so, I was happy just to be exposed to all the different truths about copyright.  The most impressing pieces of information, though, came from Lessig’s lectures.  There were two things that really stood out to me.  One was his “refrain” about copyright.  The theme of Lessig’s first lecture revolved around the history of copyright.  Lessig characterized this history as a time-old power struggle between the present and the past, where the intent is the preservation of the past via the control of future technology.  At first, this concept is joked about (Lessig claims he can’t sing ), and tossed around like just another idea.  However, the way that Lessig’s lecture flows allowed a constant return to this refrain, which kept gaining more and more significance, right up until its crescendo of meaning at the end.

The second part that really impressed me was the conclusion of Lessig’s “Who Owns Culture” lecture.  I was taken aback by the way he called to those creators with ideas, those artists, to find a way to “sing to us,” that America might be distracted from the war-like stance now dominating the copyright rhetoric, as well as our general rhetorical attitudes towards most other things.  I felt like he was speaking to me, and I was proud to be a creator, an inventor, an artist… I haven’t felt so personally moved by a message like that in a long time.  After hearing Lessig’s speech, I felt as though I had an obligation to take advantage of these new discursive opportunities.  He’s right, after all:  this discussion, this awareness, should NOT be in his hands… it should – and will – be taken up by those artists that continue to drive towards a societal realization of the potential… the potential that lays in our very own creative abilities.

My Response:  This research paper idea could prove to be very fruitful; it will underscore many aspects of the Chinese culture in general, as you work towards understanding how a communication tool as diverse and powerful as the internet is treated and controlled in such a society.  More interesting, however, is that by researching this topic, you will not only analyze the underlying socioeconomic and political influences that have created Chinese culture thus far, but will touch on the possible evolution of these influences.  I think some interesting questions might be raised.  For instance, is the spread of the internet in modern Chinese society creating any sort of counter hegemonic force against pre-existing social, political, and economic constraints… or do the government-imposed restraints not allow for this, manipulating the internet so that it only works to strengthen the law of the land?  Is the people’s acceptance set in stone?  What can we see for future generations, of both law and society’s interaction with this law?  I believe that a good starting point for answering some of these questions (as well as others) might be to begin with one current event in particular.  I heard about this over a year ago now, but it was so striking to me that I haven’t forgotten it (I brought it up in class, in the beginning of the semester):  the Google scandal in China.  It involved Google creating a search engine primed for the kind of censorship practiced in China.  Across the globe, criticism was expressed for this botched business move on the part of Google.  However, if there was any way to find some sort of feedback or blog on this issue from the Chinese themselves, it might give you some good examples of the basic points of view held by the public.  It would definitely give you the perspective of why (if they do) the Chinese might support such restrictions in general, or wish to fight them.  This could also work to strongly reflect the general culture (depending on the kinds of responses you find), as people’s opinions of right and wrong vary considerably with their culture.  However, I have no idea if this kind of self-expression would be restricted in China, and I’m not sure if finding the perspectives of Chinese living in other countries would be useful to you (I’m not aware of how specific you plan to be when analyzing opinions of the Chinese).  Since I’m not aware of the limitations (although I’m sure I’ll know much more after your presentation) I can’t offer much else for advice or thoughts… Good Luck! 

The interactive, infinitely creative nature of web 2.0 is something I feel as if I am just now beginning to wrap my mind around.  I’ve barely spent time imagining what this means, but already I can see potential for the spread of information and creativity, changes in what constitutes legitimacy for this information and creation, and the evolution - maybe even convergence - of their respective definitions.  Wesch’s video, “The Machine is Us,” really worked to outline the consequences of these modes of thought, and I watched, I was blown away.

It’s an exciting time in which we’re living.

However, I also didn’t even think about the potential for new forms of control, or rules, that would be set up to regulate these new tools.  The way this evolution has already taken place is extremely obvious in Wikipedia’s methods to “handle disputes and abuse” on their information sites.  The ”sock puppet policy” was such a surprise to me, as I realized how users can manipulate tools meant for objective information gathering/creation to support their own viewpoints:  by actually creating fake user names and using them to weakly argue against their point of view, so that they support their own agendas by making the opposition look stupid or close-minded.  Obviously, even the policies for information manipulation have already shifted in their focus (the individual) and their parameters for problems, in relation to the creative abilities now available to web 2.0 internet users. 

Lastly, though, I was very surprised (and humbled) when, on some blog sites, I detected the strong sense of responsibility that’s being established for these tools, and the kinds of discussion that they create.  I’m going to be interested to learn more, especially for my research paper.

What does Web 2.0 mean to me?  Well, I’d have to say I’m unsure.  As of now, I feel very outside of the movement, by my own choice.  I feel like I’d like to understand what this whole other world of potential opportunity and change is actually going to do to those inside the movement before I join(something I’m not going to know any time soon, if at all).  I guess I’ve been very tentative about the whole idea, but I’m too interested not to begin integrating myself into this movement.  I feel it’s something I want to give myself the freedom to do, before net neutrality sets in, before it might be too late.

What does Web 2.0 mean to me?  It means something scary, something beautiful, something ungodly huge and growing at ungodly rates that is going to take us to places we can’t even fathom right now.

What’s Web 2.0 to me?  The future, whether I’m going to like it or not.

However, my first reaction was to feel uncomfortable.  I don’t want to be chatting with online friends while someone else is there to watch and research me.  This is MY space - why are YOU here, telling me I can leave, if I don’t like what you’re doing?  Plus, perhaps I’m just paranoid, but there’s no way to know whether they will follow the researching rules they’ve supposedly offered.

Then, after looking back again, I realized that the researchers involved actually gave a number of ways to quell fears. 

First of all, they notified the chatters of their presence.  They obviously could have not said anything, and could have gathered research in it’s most natural form, without any potential self-censorship from chatters who know their being watched.  In fact, I can actually see the researchers’ move to make their presence public actually impeding more on their ability to gather research than the lives of chatters, in the long run.

Besides that, they gave the chatters the option to not even be included.  So power of self-censorship given to the chatters could extend to total blocking of their conversations.

Besides this, the researchers were upfront about their research, and what it’s for.  This alone might make the chatters feel a bit better, knowing that even IF these researchers MIGHT use their conversations, they would be used for research x, y, and z.

And – for the more paranoid chatters – a way to track these researchers and figure out whether their research study exists (and whether they’re telling the truth about the use of chat conversations) is made available.

After some thought, I think this is the best possible way to approach research of this kind.

Then the discussion opened.

I found that Aimee and the girl with the blonde hair (sorry!) had some good points to discount my rationale of security.  Aimee had the best way to describe my initial reaction earlier.  I have to say, after hearing them speak, I’m agreeing with my earlier notions again.

First of all, I’m not an avid chatter, so I didn’t even think of what the blonde girl did:  once the initial message notifying the chatters would be sent, it would quickly disappear, and new chatters that join later when the message has already scrolled up… they wouldn’t be aware of the researchers. 

She said it hardly happens that people who sign on to chat look at the entire page of messages.  Therefore, either the researchers would have to constantly send messages – and be a HUGE nusaince – or they would let some people (who might have had a problem with being used in a study) slip through the cracks.

However, despite this obvious problem, it was Aimee’s observation that really pushed me to resist the idea of chat research again.  She compared this mode of “warning” chatters after stepping into the chatroom to a group of researchers stepping into a neighborhood pub, and then saying, “Hey, if you don’t like the fact that we’re here in your bar, you can always just leave, or try to ignore the boom mikes in your face.”

Since I’m not a chat user, I forget how personal this act of communication might feel to those who chat regularly.  Because of these factors, I think I’d have to second-guess whether there was a possibility for ethical chat research.

This site’s purpose and business model is just like EBAY:  it’s a forum for buying and selling items online.  It makes its money by requiring a fee for items to be sold when they are posted on their website.  If you don’t agree to pay the fee, the item does not get included in the online market.  It is not a retailor; it merely works as a middleman for these business transactions.

What is its “niche,” or comparative advantage?

This site buys and sells handmade things.  Among this already interesting focus is a plethora of ways to access or search for items.  There is a tool bar on the left side of the web page, under the title “ways to shop.”  This is a list of different blogs for items based on:  color, gift searches, etc.  Besides this, the most interesting part of the site was the communications tools available:  forums; virtual labs, with workshops for creating items; chat rooms, for like-minded creators; news and articles on handmade products, or their distribution.  This allowed the website to not only be an online market, but also a great source of information and connectivity for this specialized group of producers.  This is a great comparative advantage.

My impressions?  Would I shop there?

I was really impressed with the organization and connectivity of the site.  I would definitely shop here.  I’m actually going to take a look at their jewelry, or maybe even see if I’d like to go into business for myself.

Which elements of ???

I was kinda skeptical about how well he chooses facts, though, because if he’s trying to cover 50+ years, how is one-to-two facts for each category going to cover it?  Is it just what HE knows?  Does he search around?

Briefly react to the Revolution OS documentary.
Considering how little I knew of just the idea of open-source software, I had absolutely no idea about the masterminds behind the project.  The faces and personalities representing such a bold move in the software industry made me take pause:  these were real people, with real aspirations for community-building (in a sense), working together to create a forum for grassroots technology innovation.  It amazes me when I think about how much better of an operating system Linux is and then think about those that created it; it didn’t come from a bunch of neckties spending their daily agendas poring over code:  it came from the musings and inspired ideas of fans.  I can only compare it to a sort of art project that lets everyone play.

What did you learn [about Open Source] that you were not aware of?
I wasn’t aware of anything regarding this movement.  The fact that one man’s idea grew big enough to amass millions of followers, the creation of a company, and sales of the most expensive stock at one period of time… this still boggles my mind.  The way the creative influences reflected on their input for Linux seemed often times laced with surprise, almost a sense of incredulity that what they had to offer grew into something so large, and involved the unity of so many people.  Speaking of the unity behind the movement in particular, I had no idea how much friction there was between Microsoft and those working for Linux.  The protests and organization, especially the one day that was to set aside to send part of the Microsoft manual back to the company for a refund (I’m sorry, I can’t remember exactly what it was – my memory’s failing) really impressed me:  I had no idea just how widespread this idea was.

To what extent can OS be termed a Social Movement?
I would absolutely agree to this, especially in light of my observations (and surprise) about the unity, the large amount of people united, and their demonstrations as well as successes.  When I first considered this question, though, I thought along larger lines:  I began thinking about whether or not this movement within software creation had any potential to bleed over into other social processes in general.  What else could be modeled in this way, the bazaar?  Could we begin to feasibly try this over other media, or in other forums?  For example, if I may return to one of my first comments, perhaps group art projects (like, say, photo collages) could be created in this way, through forums designed specifically for group creation and revision.  However, even if the tools used weren’t complex or irreversible, I can already see problems with people changing other people’s idea of “their art”… and, to be honest, I wondered why this idea of “my code” was never present.  Some questions left unanswered for me are, “Did no one become possessive of their work?  If someone changed another person’s algorithm, and put in something completely different, is there any sense of disappointment?”  I wondered about this aspect of the process, and I suppose I will continue to do so.  I guess if the whole idea behind the process is to change others’ work – and have your work changed – this would be no surprise.  If anything of the sort could be achieved with community art centers, I think that this movement might possibly make it past the computers and into face-to-face interaction.If not art, though, maybe the outcome of community built through the open source-ware could be the objective for community-building through other venues, by simply using the bazaar model.  However, this process of simply building on some idea without a formal foundation might prove to be difficult in any other venue other than the internet.  When information travels as fast as it does, people from all over the world can become a part of a project like Linux, instantly and simultaneously changing aspects of the program.  I can see how this format could quickly evolve into something of substance with so much input on a 24 hour basis.  However, I don’t think that there’s much else that could come of the bazaar model movement, outside of the speedy nature of virtual reality.

Describe the shared values, norms, beliefs of the OS community. Would you consider yourself an ally of this community?
I found that the aspects of common collectivity and sharing of information were at the forefront of the movement.  I found it interesting that one of the people interviewed was very upset at the idea of the community as communist.  I’d have to agree with his anger, because if anything, this community represents a group of has-been hackers (or, hackers with a new hobby) that are working towards something constructive:  almost a group of people retrogressing from ideas of anarchic, isolated activity.  I think that I would consider myself an ally of this community, for the reasons stated here and above.

Do you use any OS software? (Firefox? OpenOffice?) Discuss your experience with software, be it Open Source or not, in terms of usability, price, access, etc. How would OS software make your experience different?
I used a Red Hat distribution of Linux during my early Computer Science days, and I have also used Firefox before, through friends, mostly.  Therefore, I have no idea how much the technology cost (service provider charges, etc).  As far as Red Hat goes, I didn’t really get a chance to explore the OS as a whole; the computers ran on that OS, and I only used one code editing program the entire time.  Also, I can only count on one hand the times I’ve used Firefox.  I’m not sure how the experience of using a computer would change, if I made a transition to open source.  I guess, I’d expect it to be more user-friendly, as it’s had much more input.  I’d also expect it to easily accessible, and easy to trouble shoot, if not by myself, than through the forum and connections that created it in the first place.  I might go from feeling isolated to feeling more connected if I utilized all that open source-ware has to offer. 

What’s next: If you have ever tried web applications like Google Docs, comment on what this experience is like. In this case, not only is the use of the software free, but the storage of the data is also provided by someone else. How does this help or hurt the OS movement? the commercial software business?

I believe that something like Google Docs would probably help the OS movement, in allowing for an expansion on the values of collectivity and sharing.  However, I believe it would largely hurt the commercial software business, for obvious reasons:  if you can create something that’s more efficient without a company behind it, all those companies’ investments could become useless.  But, then again, when I reflect on what I’ve learned about effects theory in Communication, I can see a way that the two could work together:  like a bazaar model based in an already-created cathedral.  I could see a direct link between these OS movements, and the projected ideas of audience activity.  With the advent of the internet, the audience member has gone from a mere “passive” or “active” audience member, to a possibly “creative” audience member.  Fan-based video game ideas now have the tendency to be used by commercial software companies.  The idea of the common man adding to industry merely by including his interests is something new, and innovative.  I can therefore possibly see a way that the two ideas – commercial and grassroots – could find a middle ground, and possibly a new breed of success. 

I would like to research and frame my paper with a Sociological/Communications-oriented approach.  From the media point of view, I could compare different theories to come to some sort of conclusion.  I would probably do an Effects theory approach vs. a Uses and Gratifications approach.  Effects theory is a Psychologically-based theory that analyzes how a person reacts to and interacts with media (in most papers thus far, it’s TV) rather than how a person uses media.  Uses and Gratifications theory places the people within the study as active, rather than passive, users.  It’s focus is on what sort of choices are people making, and why.  There is even another theoretical body of research looking at the people with a creator sort of lens, given the widespread technology that allows both in-house creation of videos and such, as well as the ability to work together with a large array of people interested in the same specific categories. 

All of these theories have flaws; and all of them have strong assertions to add to the discussions surrounding internet use.  I’d like to highlight these, find some sort of middle ground or compare/contrast framework, and then proceed to compare what has been found for the U.S. under these theories, then compare/contrast with information about different countries.

However, I know already that even though this topic would be nice, I don’t know that I could find enough research to actually make this paper happen.  I’ll be finding out soon, though…