Author: Sam Shi

Here is the link to my index.html page: http://imanas.shanghai.nyu.edu/~sls741/portfolio, and here is a direct link to the about.html page http://imanas.shanghai.nyu.edu/~sls741/portfolio/about.html (which can also be accessed through the index.html page).

As someone who is very familiar with CSS, I struggled to create something without styling it. However, sometimes it is useful to think about the structure in more depth before styling it, so I appreciated that this exercise forced me into practicing a different approach.

In Long Live the Web, Berners-Lee discusses the development of the Web, how humans interact with it, and what kind of rights we have (and should have) related to it.  Berners-Lee argues that the Web is “more critical to free speech than any other medium” (pg. 82), which I agree with. The Web is incredibly important to free speech because of its widespread – and at times accessible – nature. In terms of accessibility, I believe that designers and developers should do more to think about how they can make their sites even more accessible. (Here is a handy Medium blogpost by Pablo Stanley including some accessibility design tips.)

I found it interesting that Berners-Lee argues for decentralization, which makes a lot of sense (and which is why blockchain technology is so intriguing). However, he also argues for a single, universal information space, which again makes sense, but in conjunction with decentralization, sounds counterintuitive. How might we manage the single, universal information space effectively? Who manages it? How do we manage them?

There are obvious challenges in maintaining this one-stop shop. We have to worry about monopolies, privacy invasion, data leaks, etc. However, I believe that users of the internet should hold themselves responsible for educating themselves in terms of how companies might take advantage of users’ ignorance in order to make money because — let’s face it — businesses are always going to look for ways to monetize.  For example, businesses will take advantage of a user’s browsing history in order to launch targeted advertising. During my research at Intent, I interviewed users about their perception of online advertising and found some interesting results.  Some users understood how cookies work, and did not mind targeted advertising, and sometimes even found it useful. Other users clearly did not understand how the internet works and found retargeting creepy, intrusive, and reminded them of “big brother”.

Berners-Lee also discusses the need for government legislation to protect net neutrality, yet how the Web “thrive[s] on lack of regulation”, but that “some basic values have to be legally preserved” (pg. 84).   I agree with this, but I think it is hard to determine where one draws the line.  I am very intrigued by how policy and law making will attempt to catch up with the lightning-speed development of the Web. Another case study which proves that regulation lags behind is brought up by Burrington in her article “The Strange Geopolitics of the International Cloud“, where she discusses the Microsoft legal battle:

“At the heart of the case is whether the U.S. government has jurisdiction to request data located in a data center in Ireland if that data belongs to an American Microsoft user. The government argues that where Microsoft stores the data is immaterial—they’re an American company and since Microsoft can access data stored anywhere while physically in the U.S., it doesn’t matter where that data’s stored. Microsoft challenged the warrant on the grounds that a search doesn’t happen at the point of accessing the data (in this case, in the U.S.) but where the data is stored. As of September 2015, the challenge to the warrant was still in dispute.”

This case proves that the system is not equipped to handle the battles of the Web. Another recent example of this is the implementation of GDPR (The EU General Data Protection Regulation), which determines how companies may collect data, what they can do with it, among other requirements (companies now have to be more upfront about how they use user data and give users easy access to opting out and deleting their user profiles). This affected not only EU based companies, but also US based companies that function in or are embedded on sites that are hosted in the EU (I am all too familiar with this because we had an entire team dedicated to achieving GDPR compliance at my company and everyone had to read up on it).  When the time comes, it will be interesting to see how the US government tackles an initiative similar to GDPR…

I am impressed by Forster’s imagination of future technology, as he lived during a time when machine learning and AI, let alone the internet, had not been born.  As I was reading “The Machine Stops”, I could not help but think about the various TV shows that address similar dystopian concerns but through different means, such as The 100 or Altered Carbon.  When it comes to dystopian futures, authors and creatives across the board seem to enjoy the exploration of the following themes:

• human dependence on machinery,
• lack of autonomy and independence,
• the displacement of humans and their homes (underground vs. in space),
• lack of physical contact, emotional dissonance and even incapability,
• lack of empathy, imagination, originality, and
• the significance of a higher power / being / source of guidance to human harmony and function

All of which were present in Forster’s piece.  I was particularly struck by this dialogue:

“You are beginning to worship the Machine,” he said coldly. “You think it irreligious of me to have found out a way of my own. It was just what the Committee thought, when they threatened me with Homelessness.” At this she grew angry. “I worship nothing!” she cried. “I am most advanced. I don’t think you irreligious, for there is no such thing as religion left. All the fear and the superstition that existed once have been destroyed by the Machine. (Pg. 11)

Forster questions the meaning of religion and shows a different way in which it can manifest itself. What will humans turn to when “there is no such thing as religion left”? Will they find another form of religion?  Where or who will they seek guidance and meaning from?   Later on in the text, Forster reminds the reader that [hu]man is responsible for the machine:

‘The Machine is the friend of ideas and the enemy of superstition: the Machine is omnipotent, eternal; blessed is the Machine.’ And before long this allocution was printed on the first page of the Book, and in subsequent editions the ritual swelled into a complicated system of praise and prayer. The word ‘religion’ was sedulously avoided, and in theory the Machine was still the creation and the implement of man. (Pg. 19)

I believe that Forster was commenting on this idea that when humans “play God” by creating something that is perhaps beyond them (“The Machine”), then they must not forget to consider the potential consequences.  The dystopian nature of the story almost suggests that humans should perhaps avoid facilitating the progression of technology to its fullest potential because it will indeed get out of hand.   Unsurprisingly, when the machine stops, chaos ensues and the fate of the characters is sealed.  At the very end, when Kuno says that “Humanity has learned its lesson”, we experience a slight moment of hope only to be followed by the conclusion that humans do not but taint:

For a moment they saw the nations of the dead, and, before they joined them, scraps of the untainted sky.

As we develop ever more sophisticated technology, we need not forget the importance of not only understanding the consequences of the invention or innovation we put forward, but also proposing a plan for how we might deal with that new reality. Regardless of how prepared we might be, I am convinced that we have an unavoidable blindspot. How might we mitigate the implications of that blindspot? Now, that is the question.