Centre for Internet and Society

The Bots That Got Some Votes Home

Nilofar Ansher — 2015-04-24T11:56:10Z

Nilofar Ansher gives us some startling updates on the "Digital Natives Video Contest" voting results declared in May 2012, in this blog post.

It was a hint of suspicion raised by one of our colleagues at the Centre for Internet & Society that spurred our Web Analytics team to check into the voting activity of the contest that was all about the ‘Everyday Digital Native’. And while we acknowledged and celebrated the ‘digital’ in the native (users of technology), we forgot the human part that the digital has to engage with. Following weeks of deliberations, we now have conclusive evidence that points to irregularities in voting numbers of the Top 10 contestants. We are now staring at the elephant in the room: those innocuous little automated scripts we sweetly nicknamed, ‘bots’.

Internet bots, also known as web robots or simply bots, are software applications that run automated tasks over the Internet. Typically, bots perform tasks that are both simple and structurally repetitive, at a much higher rate than would be possible for a human alone. The largest use of bots is in web spidering, in which an automated script fetches, analyzes and files information from web servers at many times the speed of a human. Each server can have a file called robots.txt, containing rules for the spidering of that server that the bot is supposed to obey. In addition to their uses outlined above, bots may also be implemented where a response speed faster than that of humans is required (e.g., gaming bots and auction-site robots) or less commonly in situations where the emulation of human activity is required, for example chat bots (Source: Wikipedia).

What irregularities?

You would see how a script or bot would have played a role in ‘automating’ the votes for a video. The Top 10 videos received a combined voting number of 20,000+. The discrepancy occurs at the juncture where the votes polled on the front end (the webpage where the contestant video was visible to the public) did not match with the number of hits the page received on the backend (this is the analytics part). For instance, the top polled video has some few thousand votes more than the number of people who actually visited our CIS website in the same duration. This prompted a review of the logs and the possible “hand” of a nonhuman agent acting on its human creator’s command to drive up the votes.

How was this done? The Technicalities

The following graph shows the extremely high level of voting requests just before the closing date (March 31, 2012). This would not be extraordinary except for the fact that two or three entries had an exceptionally higher vote count relative to their page views as per the analytics statistics.

Analysis of the voting against the http requests for the voting link against page views

Entry	Actual Votes Recorded (1)	Direct http requests to votes (2)	http requests for normal page view access (3)	Recommended adjusted vote count (4)
Digital Dance	268	448	198	198
Big Stories, Small Town	3	10	112	3
Connecting Souls, Bridging Dreams	1113	2018	1685	1113
Deployed	191	479	195	191
From The Wild Into The Digital World	10317	11880	810	810
I Am A Ghetto Digital Native	321	365	844	321
Life in the City Slums	13	18	94	13
Digital Natives	111	328	102	102
With No Distinction	369	557	1232	369
Digital Coverage in a Digital World	9622	13650	181	181

These are the public votes displayed on the contestant’s page through the thumbs up icon
These are http requests to the voting link against each video when the user clicked on the thumbs up icon.
These are http requests which are collectively related to the video page (page view). A normal human user would browse through a page first, which downloads some other urls, such as the HTML for the page, JavaScript, images, and so on. A normal vote request would be included collectively. A direct http request to the voting link on the other hand does not do this, and only makes a specific request to vote without downloading the other parts that make up the page.
A normal human vote count should be the same or less than the number of page views. Only three videos highlighted show abnormal behaviour and it is recommended these be adjusted to the page view counts.

Are you saying contestants cheated?

While the use of programming scripts to accrue votes is no new tactic and we should, in fact, have a more robust mechanism to monitor such activity during a contest, we cannot prove the culpability of the human agents. The contestants might be innocent actors with overzealous friends or colleagues who ran the voting scripts. As of now, since there is no way to ascertain their part in this irregularity, it’s best we give them the benefit of the doubt. What comes through loud and clear is that once you do away with the scripted votes, four contestants still manage to have enough votes to maintain their positions in the final five. In the fifth position, we now have a contestant from the top ten finalists, who has secured the requisite votes (after vote adjustment) to propel him into the final five.

Recommendation

‘Digital Dance’ (Cijo Abraham), ‘From the Wild into the Digital World’ (John Musila) and ‘Digital Coverage in a Digital World’ (T.J. Burks) had additional vote url counts than page views. It is recommended that the total votes for these videos be adjusted to the page view counts, and not the actual vote counts as displayed on their individual web pages (thumbs up icon) during the voting period.

The rankings of the adjusted voting would now read as:

Connecting Souls, Bridging Dreams – Marie Jude Bendiola (1113)
From The Wild Into The Digital World - John Musila (810)
With No Distinction - T.J. K. M. (369)
I Am A Ghetto Digital Native – MJ (321)
Digital Dance – Cijo Abraham (198)

Transparency at CIS

‘The Digital Natives with a Cause?’ research inquiry is shaped around concerns of transparency, equity and community accountability. In our research methods as well as in outputs of the different activities, we have always maintained a complete transparency of decision making processes as well as in depending upon the incredible people we work with to help us learn, grow and reflect openly on the concerns that we have been engaged with. We strive to follow this method and in publishing these statistics, we want to ensure that there is complete transparency about the votes that were accrued and how the final winners were selected. We also take this opportunity as a learning experience to re-think the question of the non-human actors in our networks and further about the nature of participation and reputation online. We hope that the publishing of these results will help answer any inquiries on how the process unfolded.

View Logs and Source Code

All logs from the web server for this period (24.7MB) Identical IPs are from caching server.
R script to evaluate data for table

What next?

Since we spotted the error in time, we haven’t disbursed the prize money of EUR 500 to each of the Top 5 contestants. They will now receive the prize along with a chance to participate in the Digital Native workshop-cum-Webinar, slated to be held in July 2012. The top 10 videos will be showcased in this event.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/digital-natives/bots-got-some-votes-home

Hyper-connected, Hyper-lonely?

Nilofar Ansher — 2015-04-24T11:57:46Z

The Digital Natives newsletter, part of the 'Digital Natives with a Cause?' project, invites contributions to its April-May 2012 double issue.

The April issue puts the spotlight on an emerging trope in society and media: the more connected we are to our gadgets, peer network and social media, the lonelier we feel. The debate, which traces its opening volley to Sherry Turkle's book 'Alone Together', will look at the recurrent media commentary that points to pop-surveys, anecdotes from psychologists, and conscientious academics who talk about increasing isolation among heavy gadget users. Since our gadgets are more often than not net enabled, it doesn't take a giant leap to infer that people who spend a lot of time online count themselves as part of the Lonely Hearts Club. Is loneliness a peculiarly modern phenomenon?
Editor: Shobha Vadrevu

In the May issue, we look at a technology that was considered sci-fi a decade ago, but is now the next best thing since our Smartphones: Augmented Reality. How do scientists and geeks go about augmenting our reality? How inspirational have movies (remember Minority Report) been in engaging imagination with what is commonplace and common sense? Does Google Glass excite you or scare you senseless? Would you still make distinctions between the virtual world and the real one?
Editor: Nilofar Ansher

We invite short pieces, lengthy reflections, haikus and verses, cartoons, graphics, videos, and other forms of creative expressions for both the issues. Deadline: June 21, 2012. For more information, email: nilofar.ansh@gmail.com

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/digital-natives/hyper-connected-hyper-lonely

Digitally Analogue

nishant — 2015-04-24T12:00:09Z

Why there is nothing strictly analogue anymore, examines Nishant Shah in this column that he wrote for the Indian Express.

It is a given, that in the fight between the digital and the analogue, you have a certain perspective or an opinion. If you are a bibliophile and crave for the smell of second-hand books and the feel of freshly uncut pages, you probably object to e-readers and tablets which give you a book-like experience that is not quite the same. If you enjoy photography, you still value old film rolls, techniques of complex editing, and the sepia-coloured flatness that the film has to offer. If you are a cinegoer, you cherish a secret fondness for those days when the camera attempted to capture a realism which was stark and more believable than reality. You might miss receiving and writing letters, might get annoyed by the lightning fast expectations of communication, and are horror struck at the idea of buying clothes online, foregoing the pleasures of window shopping.

For each argument that is made in favour of the analogue, there will be an equally strong and strident voice that elucidates the joys and possibilities that the digital has to offer. The techno-savant will point out that the easy availability of digital technologies has democratised the realms of cultural production, granting more access and diversity to expressions from different cultures. It should be mentioned that the huge possibilities of manipulating, reproducing and transferring digital data, without any loss to the original has resulted in new forms of intricate and subversive cultural production. The speed of access and communication has mobilised resources and people in unprecedented ways, to make changes in their environments, empowering the citizen as an agent of change rather than a beneficiary of change.

In all these debates, there will be valid and contradictory arguments that will coexist, each extolling the virtues of their analogue or digital positions. While there is no correct position to take in this debate, there is something else that I want to draw our attention to. In both these debates, which seem to be about technologies, there is a presumed focus only on consumption of technology products. Or, in other words, in this over-emphasis about whether the final product should be consumed using digital or other technologies, there is a complete and total neglect of technologies of production that shape these cultural objects. This betrays two things for us to ponder over.

The first is about our relationship with the technologies that we use. As technologies, especially digital technologies become ubiquitous, easily affordable and available to us on mobile interfaces, and emphasises ease of access, there also seems to be an alienation of the user from conditions and modes of production. We seem to position ourselves only as consumers of tech products — often reducing our interaction with these technologies as spectators, or audiences or users. This is ironical because, it seems to perpetuate the schism between the digital and the analogue, while actually hiding the fact that most of our so-called analogue products have undergone dramatic change in their modes of production, which are facilitated and shaped almost entirely by digital technologies. You might enjoy the tactical experience of picking up a print book, but it might be good to realise that the entire book was put together by using digital interfaces. And while the book might seem to be a non-digital object, even the way it reaches the last mile — through e-commerce websites like Flipkart, or even your local stores, where it gets stored, sorted, and indexed — is also through a digital environment.

The second thing that this faux debate exposes to us is the futuristic dream of convergence. Convergence as a concept has been bandied around for about a decade now, where all our existing modes of living, facilitated by different technologies, are to be translated into the digital, thus seamlessly available through a single device which can perform everything. Convergence is the Holy Grail that marks our aspirations of the future. And debates of the analogue versus the technological sustain that illusion that it hasn’t really been achieved yet. However, as you look around you, you quickly realise that the analogue networks that we fantasise about very rarely exist. The analogue-digital divide is often reduced to the physical-virtual dichotomy and this is a false one. Analogue referred to certain kinds of technological practices where the human agent, by using the technological network could perform certain functions. So the older telephone networks, for instance, were electronic but analogue. However, our telecommunication went digital way before the phone became smart.

While those of us who were not born digital natives — we still remember what an audio cassette looks like and the smell of screen printing — will negotiate with the form of our access to cultural objects, it is also time to realise that being non-digital is no longer an option. And that what we think of as analogue, is often only a form, because the mode of production, design and distribution has gone digital when we were not looking. So it is good that you are reading this in print, as a part of a newspaper, but this column (like all other items in this publication) was conceived, written, delivered and printed entirely using digital interfaces. These are objects which now need to be thought of as digitally analogue.

Read the original published by the Indian Express on May 27, 2012

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/digital-natives/digitally-analogue

We Are All Cyborgs

nishant — 2015-04-24T12:00:54Z

The cyborg reminds us that who we are as human beings is very closely linked with the technologies we use.

Nishant Shah's article was published in the Indian Express on April 29, 2012

If you look at any illustrated history of human civilisation, you will quickly realise that it is also a history of technology. From the discovery of fire by Homo sapiens to the contemporary homo digitalis, there is no escaping that technologies of different kinds have not only changed the way we live but also helped us realise what it means to be human. Often, we treat these technologies as external to us, thinking of them as tools that we deploy to perform a particular task. However, as our technologies become more transparent, intimate and customised, we realise that we are developing relationships with the technological devices that surround us. So, if your laptop crashes, you feel crippled. There are people who proclaim that they feel amputated without their cellphone. It is quite reasonable to feel lost without the information compass of the internet.

This relationship between human beings and technologies has been very concisely defined in the idea of a cyborg. A cyborg is a human-technology synthesis which enhances our capacities to live as human beings. While it might seem like a slightly new idea, once you realise that we constantly live with technologies and often internalise them in our bodies, it is not difficult to wrap our head around it. Think of people with pacemakers or prosthetic limbs or different implants in their bodies, who experience technologies as an integral part of their everyday life. Similarly, think of the wide range of technology apparatus that you depend on to live a “regular” human life. We have also seen iconic cyborg representations in popular movies — from the absolutely unforgettable Arnold Schwarzenegger in Terminator 2 to our very own dimpled Shah Rukh Khan as Ra.One — there has been a persistent imagining of the human being as we know it, evolving to become some sort of a super man, enhanced by advancements in digital technologies of virtual reality.

There has been a growing anxiety, almost a moral panic, about how technologies are alienating us, replacing face-time with inter-face time so that we are all growing “alone together”. There is also, across generations and users, a growing separation of those who work with technologies and those who don’t. There is much concern about the human becoming corrupt because of the ubiquitous presence of the pervasive and invasive technologies around us. In the face of these anxieties, the cyborg stands as a culturally significant and timely reminder that we, as human beings, are very closely linked with the technologies that we use. And that we need to stop thinking of technologies as merely gadgets and tools that surround us. The different objects that remind us of the presence of technology are not the same thing as technology itself. Technology is a way of thinking about things, a way of relating to the world around us. The most intrinsic forms of technologies are the ones that we don’t even recognise as a part of our innate mental make up.

Do this simple experiment. Right now, while you are reading this, do not look at any clock or time-measuring device and guess what time it is. Chances are that you will be, give or take a few minutes, more or less accurate. Even if you are temporally challenged, you will at least know what part of the day it is, morning, afternoon, evening or night. The point is that we are absolutely and completely creatures of time. We cannot think of ourselves outside of it and even when we might be dramatically wrong about it, there is no escaping the fact that we are always thinking of ourselves and the world around us through time.

We experience our lives and our relationships in cyclical notions of the clock’s face, thinking of our actions as borrowed from the future, lived in the present, and relegated to the archives of the past. It then, must come as a bit of a shock (it certainly did to me, the first time I was made to realise it) that time is not natural. Time is a human way of measuring a passage of actions. Time is a technology which has now become such a potent metaphor of life that we have forgotten to make the separation of the human and the technological.

And thus, whether you might be a tech-savvy digital native or a byte-fearing luddite, there is no denying the idea that when it comes to technologies of time, you are already a natural born cyborg. This ability of technologies to become transparent and an inalienable part of who we are forms cyborgs. The process through which they become transparent is not easily accessible, but it does begin by an internalisation of the technology’s processes in our everyday vocabulary. So the next time you think of yourself as a system that needs to be upgraded, or unable to pay attention because you don’t have enough bandwidth, remember that you are engaging in a flirtatious relationship with the digital. And slowly, but surely, we are all turning into cyborgs, as the new technologies rearrange patterns of our life and living.

digitalnative@expressindia.com

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/digital-natives/we-are-cyborgs

Immigrants not Natives

Sally Wyatt — 2012-04-30T10:27:59Z

Sally Wyatt reviews the four-book collective, Digital AlterNatives with a Cause? edited by Nishant Shah & Fieke Jansen.

Review of Digital AlterNatives with a Cause? edited by Nishant Shah & Fieke Jansen, Bangalore: Centre for Internet and Society/The Hague: Hivos Knowledge Programme, 2011:

Digital AlterNatives with a Cause? (2011) is the product of a series of workshops held in 2010-11 in Taiwan, South Africa and Chile. The aim was to bring together a different cohort of ‘digital natives’ than that which had hitherto been assumed in the popular and academic literature, namely white, highly educated, (mostly) male elites largely to be found on and around US university campuses. The workshops brought together 80 people who identified themselves as ‘digital natives’ but with very different backgrounds, and who came from Asia, Africa and Latin America. The four booklets which have been produced on the themes of ‘To Be’, ‘To Think’, ‘To Act’ and ‘To Connect’ provide many fascinating and thought-provoking insights into the possibilities for reflection, action and interaction available to this group.

In my review, I focus on the editorial comments provided by Nishant Shah and Fieke Jansen in the Preface, the Introduction, and the sidebar text running alongside most of Book One, To Be, in which they provide the context for the workshops and the books, and in which they reflect on the concept of ‘digital native’. Shah and Jansen recognise many of the limits of the concept of ‘digital native’, and reflect upon those limits and possible alternatives. They and the contributors keep the term, while at the same time challenging it, refining it and reclaiming it. It is to this ongoing process of reflection and definition that I would like to contribute, and I do so by thinking about my own position as a user and an analyst of digital technologies and as a Canadian-born child of immigrants.

I was born in 1959 so there is no chance of me being mistaken for a ‘digital native’ (often defined as someone born after 1980). Yet I was programming when I was a student in the late 1970s, and I have lived in a house with a computer in it since 1984, though I didn’t acquire home internet access until 2002, relatively late for a person living in north-western Europe with my income and occupation. One feature of this life, not at all untypical for someone of my age and background, is that I experienced digital technology before it was black-boxed, when to operate a home computer required a certain level of engineering skill, and when the sleekness of today’s devices was still a dream. Maybe I am what the editors refer to (ironically and with affection they claim) as a ‘digital dinosaur’ (p.15). I would never claim to have been part of the cohort who created the internet, though maybe I am part of the group of social scientists who began analysing the social aspects of digital technologies, in both their production and their use, sooner rather than later.[1]

I’m also of a generation deeply affected by second-wave feminism. One of the most important books for us was The Second Sex by Simone de Beauvoir, in which she wrote, ‘One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman’ (1949, p.267). This sentence, reproduced on countless posters, coffee mugs and t-shirts, neatly encapsulates the idea that gender is socially constructed, that there is nothing essential about the category of ‘woman’, nor of any other category. I would like to suggest that it also applies to digital natives – they are not born, they are made. Just because processes of socialisation are subtle and powerful, and one no longer has to poke the mother board with a paper clip to make the computer work, it does not mean that digital natives arrive fully formed as such in the world, nor that the identity will remain stable over time for them individually or as a group.

I read these volumes while in Canada in early 2012. I was born and grew up in Canada, though I have lived in Europe for all of my adult life. Canada and other settler societies use ‘native’ differently from Europeans. It was a term often used by colonisers to describe Indigenous communities such as the First Nations people in Canada, Aboriginal people in Australia, or the Māori in New Zealand. ‘Natives’ were not respected by the colonisers, and these groups continue to suffer disadvantage and discrimination. Moreover, the term ‘native’ is not used by Indigenous communities to describe themselves.

And because ‘native’ has different connotations, so does ‘immigrant’. I have lived for the past decade in the Netherlands, where to be an ‘immigrant’ is not comfortable, as attitudes and policies towards immigrants have become harsher, and the official definition of ‘native’ more exclusive. It is different in Canada, where the state of being an immigrant is almost the norm. Most people (except the First Nations people) are immigrants themselves, or have immigrants in their not too distant family histories. Canadians are comfortable with hybrid identities – there are not only French Canadians, but also Chinese Canadians, Greek Canadians and Chilean Canadians. I attended an international sporting event while visiting, and many of the spectators brought two flags with them to wave, depending on who was competing; or they had superimposed the maple leaf (the symbol of Canada that appears in the middle of the national flag) onto the flag of another country. There are many advantages to being an immigrant, apart from a wider choice of sporting heroes. One is that we know that identity is performance. Immigrants are constantly ‘becoming’ - legally, bureaucratically, linguistically and culturally.

Another advantage of being an immigrant comes from understanding the possibilities for re-invention. Many immigrants come for the promise of a better life for themselves and their children. It can be difficult and painful, but also exhilarating to start a new life, without the baggage of the past, whether one’s own youthful indiscretions or the burdens of expectation of the ‘old country’. I wonder whether ‘digital natives’ will ever experience the excitement of a new start. What will happen when they reach middle age, and the digital traces they have been creating since childhood cannot be erased and continue to follow them wherever they go? How will they cope when a younger generation arrives with a newer technology offering other possibilities for social transformation, because we can be certain that there will be newer technologies and that they will be accompanied by promises of social change?

It is too easy to assume that ‘native’ is a superior identity position to ‘immigrant’, or that natives always have advantages compared to immigrants because of their greater familiarity with the norms and codes of a way of life, digital or otherwise. In this volume, the project of reclaiming and expanding the reach of ‘digital native’ suggests that the editors and contributors see it as the preferred identity. Both ‘native’ and ‘immigrant’ are constructed categories, but ‘immigrant’ (from my particular historically located subject position) often feels like a more dynamic and reflexive identity position.

I will conclude by further performing my middle-aged curmudgeonly identity (and it is somewhat frightening how quickly one can slip into this as one passes 50). On many occasions in recent years, I have heard digital natives say – without shame – that they do not read anything that is not available online. Sometimes this is for understandable reasons, such as the cost and scarcity of printed versions, especially in countries where the workshops were held. But sometimes they seem genuinely unaware that many books and sources are not available digitally. One problem with only reading material that is born digital or has been digitised (sometimes badly) is that one becomes desensitised to grammatical niceties. Nishant Shah and Fieke Jansen are the editors of these four volumes, and an executive editor is listed in the colophon. I am reluctant to criticise people who might not be native speakers of English, but there is at least one language mistake in almost every paragraph. The paper books of Digital (Alter)Natives with a Cause? are beautifully designed and produced. The production values of this project were high. It is unfortunate that more effort was not expended in language editing. Copy editors are in danger of suffering the same fate as the bison of the Great Plains, but this time not at the hands of settlers but at the hands and keyboards of digital natives.

[1].See Wyatt (2008) where I discuss at greater length the relationship between information society debates and feminist analyses of technology, and include elements of my personal relationship to those debates.

References

de Beauvoir, Simone (1949/1989). The Second Sex, trans. H. M. Parshley. New York: Vintage Books.
Wyatt, Sally (2008) ‘Feminism, technology and the information society: Learning from the past, imagining the future’ Information, Communication & Society, 11,1: 111-30.

Sally Wyatt works with the eHumanities Group, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts & Sciences/Maastricht University.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/digital-natives/media-coverage/immigrants-not-natives

Framing the Digital AlterNatives

Nilofar Ansher — 2015-05-08T12:28:03Z

They effect social change through social media, place their communities on the global map, and share spiritual connections with the digital world - meet the everyday digital native.

The Everyday Digital Native video contest has got its pulse on what makes youths from diverse socio-cultural backgrounds connect with one another in the global community – it’s an affinity for digital technologies and Web 2.0-mediated platforms coupled with a drive to spearhead social change. The contest invited people from around the world to make a video that would answer the question, ‘Who is the Everyday Digital Native’? The final videos received more than ~~20,000~~ 3,000 votes from the public and our top five winners emerged from across three continents!

The Digital AlterNatives Featurette (PDF, 2847 KB) is a peek into the minds of digital natives as citizen activists. The 10 featured interviews of the Digital Natives video contest finalists don't fit the stereotype of the Globalized Digital Native: Young Geeks apathetic to 'Saving the Planet'. Rather, these are affirmative citizens, young, middle aged and senior, who consider digital technology as second nature for use in personal, professional or socio-political capacities.

The 'Digital Natives with a Cause?' is a collaborative research-inquiry between The Centre for Internet & Society, India and HIVOS Knowledge Programme, the Netherlands into the field of youth, change and technology in the context of the Global South. The three-year research project has resulted in the four-book collective, 'Digital AlterNatives with a Cause?' published in 2011. Read more about the project here

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/digital-natives/framing-the-digital-alternatives

Digital Natives and the Myth of the Revolution: Questioning the Radical Potential of Citizen Action

praskrishna — 2012-04-03T08:36:19Z

Nishant Shah made a presentation on 'Questioning the radical potential for citizen action' at the Annenberg School of Communication at the University of South California on March 8, 2012.

The event was organised by the Annenberg Research Network in International Communication (ARNIC) and the Civic Paths research group.

This talk is a thought-in-progress inquiry into the radical claims and potentials of citizen action which has emerged in the last few years in several parts of the world. It seeks to show how citizen action is not necessarily a radical form of politics and that we need to make a distinction between Resistances and Revolutions. It locates Resistance as an endemic condition of governmentality within a State-Citizen-Market relationship and shows how it often strengthens the status-quo rather than radically undermining it. Looking at one particular instance of a campaign against corruption in India, to build a framework that can be deployed to understand the dissonance between the claims of the future and the practices of the present that gets produced in such instances of citizen action.

Nishant Shah is the co-founder and Director-Research at the Bangalore based research organisation Centre for Internet and Society. His interest is in questions of governance, identity, planning and body at the intersections of digital technologies, law and everyday cultural practice. He recently co-edited a 4 volume book titled 'Digital AlterNatives with a Cause?' that explores the relationships between youth-technology-change in emerging ICT contexts of the Global South.

Venue: University of South California
Date: March 8, 2012
Time: 4.00 p.m to 5.30 p.m.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/digital-natives-and-the-myth-of-revolution

5 Challenges for the Future of Learning: Digital Natives and How We Shall Teach Them

praskrishna — 2012-04-30T13:04:26Z

At the Digital Media and Learning Conference on beyond education technologies, Nishant Shah gave a ignite talk on 5 Challenges for the Future of Learning: Digital Natives and How We Shall Teach Them on March 1, 2012. There was an author's table where he presented and shared the Digital AlterNatives books and info-kits.

Thursday, March 1, 2012 – 4:30-5:45 (Cyril Magnin Ballroom)

Kea Anderson from SRI International
How do you know it's working?: The U.S. Dept. of Education's new Evidence Framework

Doug Belshaw, Purpos/ed
Why we need a debate about the purpose(s) of education

Tessa Joseph-Nicholas, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
The Zombies and the Revolution: Making Science Fiction Matter in the Digital Culture Classroom

Peter Kittle, Cal State Univ., Chico
Good Memes, Bad Teaching

Crystle Martin, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Interest-Based Crap Detecting

David Cooper Moore, Temple University
What Did Rebecca Black's "Friday" Teach Us About Media Literacy?

Chad Sansing, Central Virginia Writing Project
I used to be a middle school teacher like you until I took an arrow in the knee

Rafi Santo, Indiana University
Why Kids Need to Know How to Hack: Technological Citizenship and the New Civic Education

Nishant Shah, Centre for Internet and Society
5 Challenges for the future of learning: Digital Natives and how we shall teach them

Saturday, March 3, 2012 – 3:30-4:30 (Cyril Magnin Ballroom)

Heather Braum, Northeast Kansas Library System
Learning from Birth to the Grave @ Your Library

Mel Chua, Purdue University, and Sebastian Dziallas, Olin College
Teaching Open Source: Productively Lost For Great Justice

Ben Chun, Galileo Academy of Science & Technology
Programming for Every Subject

Jane Crayton, UNM, CU Boulder, STEM-A
iSTEMart

Mizuko Ito, University of California, Irvine
Occupy Learning

Henry Jenkins, USC
The Samba School Revisited: Play, Performance, and Participation in Education

Chris Lawrence, Hive Learning Network, NYC
Throw a learning party!

Heather Mallak, Girls, Math & Science Partnership, Click! Spy School
Opening things with your teeth

Jesse Pickard, MindSnacks
How to Make Your Educational Game Not Suck

Philipp Schmidt, Peer 2 Peer University
How to make an online course in 5 minutes

Jeff Sturges, Mt Elliott Makerspace
Makerspaces

Hsing Wei, Eyebeam and New Visions
DTC Lab = teachers + technologists + designers = digital prototypes in 3 months

Venue: Wyndham Parc 55 Hotel, San Francisco, CA 94102

Click on the original here

Video

The video is also featured in YouTube

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/ignite-talks

D:Coding Digital Natives

praskrishna — 2015-05-08T12:30:14Z

Nishant Shah was invited for a public talk at the University of California, Los Angeles. He presented the work done on Digital Natives and spoke about questions of participation and resistance. The talk has been featured in the YouTube channel.

Nishant spoke about the ways by which technology revolution and change has been characterised through the question of voice (how technology has enabled for alternative voices to emerge as ways by which they can be heard), question of amplification (what 10 years ago might have been local phenomena are becoming global spectacles) and the question of power (what really happens when voice and amplification comes to an end).

Nishant said that in the last three years of revolutions we have also now witnessed this extraordinary thing where lot of promises were made of different kinds of revolution but which never materialised in terms of what they intended to. Citizen action happens but it doesn’t lead into anything concrete. One of the examples from India was the Anna Hazare’s campaign or India’s fight against corruption. There was this immense amount of campaign on the corruption in Indian bureaucracy and political society... the only instance of mass mobilisation that we saw in India in recent times apart from the cricket series...and how the campaign in seven short months has totally disappeared from public discourse.

For more, watch the video now:

Date: March 9, 2012
Time: 12 to 1 p.m.
Venue: Library Conference Center Presentation Room, University of California

Follow the video on YouTube

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/digital-natives/d-coding-digital-natives

We Have the Answer for You. So, what's the Question?

praskrishna — 2015-05-08T12:30:51Z

The Everyday Digital Native Video Contest invited everyone to send in videos that answered the question: who's the everyday digital native? Participants from all parts of the globe now have the answers.

Click here to view the videos and vote for your favorite! Voting ends March 31, 2012.

Video

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/digital-natives/answer-for-you-what-is-the-question

Vote for the Everyday Digital Native Video Contest!

praskrishna — 2015-05-08T12:32:00Z

The Centre for Internet & Society and Hivos are super excited to present the final videos in the Everyday Digital Native Video Contest. We invite readers to vote for the TOP 5 Videos. The finalists will each win EUR500! Voting closes March 31, 2012

Who’s the Everyday Digital Native? This global video contest has the answer

They effect social change through social media, place their communities on the global map, and share a spiritual connection with the digital world - Meet the Everyday Digital Native

The Everyday Digital Native video contest has got its pulse on what makes youths from diverse socio-cultural backgrounds connect with one another in the global community – it’s an affinity for digital technologies and Web 2.0-mediated platforms coupled with a drive to spearhead social change. The contest invited people from around the world to make a video that would answer the question, ‘Who is the Everyday Digital Native?’. Following a jury-based selection process, the final videos are now online and open for public voting.

Run by the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) with the support of Dutch NGO HIVOS, the contest will see the top five videos with the most votes declared winners on April 1, 2012. The 12 finalists in the video, who come from different parts of the globe, are each vying for the top prize of USD 500 and a chance to have their shorts screened in a film screening and panel discussion hosted by CIS.

Referring to the theme of the contest, Dr Nishant Shah, Director of Research and Co-founder of the Centre, says that the contest aims at highlighting the alternative users of digital technologies. These are people who are often not accounted for either in mainstream discourses of changemakers or in academic biopics on digital natives. “The 12 video proposals show that the everyday digital native does not wake up in the morning and think, ‘hmmm today I will change the world’. And yet, in their everyday lives, when they see the possibility of producing a change in their immediate environments, they turn to the digital to find networks that can start a change”, says Shah.

Apart from the top five public selections, the jury members will be instrumental in picking their two favorites among the finalists. Talking about the range of ideas that participants sent in jury member Leon Tan, a media-art historian, cultural theorist and psychoanalyst based in Gothenburg, Sweden, says, “The contest is an exciting project as it has the potential to portray the lives of digital natives from different corners of the world. The generosity of the contestants in creating video proposals is commendable as is the range of ideas suggested. The ideas address both the opportunities and risks of what we might call digital life.”

Adds Shashwati Talukdar, a filmmaker and jury member from India, “It was really interesting to see how different all the proposals were. Some of them were taking the notion of digital native as a personal one and some were very clearly political and sought an intervention in the real world. Dutch digital media artist and jury member Jeroen van Loon refers to a proposal from the USA where the participant wanted to explore the possibility of unplugging from his digital life. “It’s very interesting how digital natives question their own world. The proposals are good examples of how technology and culture constantly change each other. We can learn a lot from the global digital natives.”

Profiles of the finalists and their videos can be viewed here.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/digital-natives/vote-for-digital-natives

Pinning the Badge

nishant — 2015-05-08T12:34:23Z

In a world of competition, badging provides a holistic way of grading and learning, where individual talents are realised and the knowledge of the group is used.

The article by Nishant Shah was published in the Indian Express on March 18, 2012.

I write this column fresh out of being a judge at the Digital Media and Learning contest on “Badging for Life-long Learning” in San Francisco. While the contest focused largely on the American education system and its future, the idea of badging that each person brings a set of skills to a study or workplace is useful to think about, in connection with India. We have now spent some time, in India, hearing about how education in the country has been ruined. There is a constant narrative of the university in shambles, where we seem to lack competent teachers, engaged students, and the resources to build efficient infrastructure for learning. This argument also positions employment as the only aim of education, reducing our humanist and social sciences legacies to skill-based information transmission.

Digital technologies emerge as a cure for the problems that contemporary education seems to be facing. The availability of resources at affordable costs for anybody online, has been one of the biggest promises of the internet, and it hopes to build a better learning environment and better learners. The condition of being connected to a much larger network of educators and learners, also offers us the possibilities of producing better and innovative knowledge structures. There is also an inherent ambition that the introduction of new digital competencies and skills will encourage both students and teachers to integrate their learning and pedagogy with their lived reality, producing responsible people and citizens. However, in all these expectations around the role of the digital technology in transforming learning, the idea of grading and evaluation remains unquestioned.

Even in the most radical restructuring of education systems, grades remain an absolute form of quantifying and measuring skills that the student is supposed to demonstrate. Grading might take up different forms — numbers, letters, percentile, etc — or it might take up different methods — continuous grading, take-home exams — but it eventually becomes the only badge that the student takes into the “real world”.

The idea of a badge as an alternative to this particular kind of quantification oriented learning that sees the grade as a final evaluation and in some ways, a termination of the learning process, opens up huge possibilities for how we understand learning. The badge is not imagined as yet another kind of grading, but instead it is recognition of certain skills and competences that we bring to and build in classrooms with our peers. A badge allows the students to recognise their own investment in the learning process, enabling them to realise their particular skills on the way to learning. In any learning environment, students play many roles. Some are good as connectors, some serve as conduits of information, some are good in specific areas and need help with others, some are mentors, some are translators of knowledge, some help in creating new forms of knowledge. Unfortunately, most of our grading patterns refuse to acknowledge and credit these skills which are crucial for surviving the academic world. The ability of the students to badge themselves, and others in their peer groups, acknowledging their contributions to their collective learning, might be the motivation and encouragement that we are looking for.

A peer-2-peer system of badging, which enables learners to be critically aware not only of their own interaction with knowledge, but also recognises the ways in which larger communities of knowledge — including the peers and teachers — opens up an extraordinary way of thinking about education. It disrupts the competitive modes of cut-throat modes of education systems we are building and allows us to re-think the function of education and the role of learners in educational environments. The digital systems of social networking and reputation management, already perform some of these tasks, which is why, a student who might not do well in class might be a YouTube sensation, finding thousands of followers worldwide. Or a student who might not show research aptitude in class might be editing complex Wikipedia entries on subjects that high-level researchers are engaging with. All these digital systems acknowledge the roles that people play in learning and knowledge production, and in that reward of recognition, provide incentives for learners to re-examine their role within knowledge systems.

Such a system of badging, that exceeds the static classroom, allows for students to become stakeholders in their own education, building connected communities of learning. It hints at what the future of education is going to look like. More importantly, it offers a new way of thinking about technology and its role in redesigning education, which is not merely about introducing technologies into classrooms and continuing with the traditional modes of learning through new technology skills. Instead, we have a model for what learning means, how we interact with conditions of knowledge consumption and production, and how, we can form global communities of learning which might find an anchor in the classrooms but also transcend the brick-and-mortar institutions of learning as we understand them.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/digital-natives/pathways/pinning-the-badge

Digital Natives and the Myth of the Revolution: Questioning the Radical Potential of Citizen Action

praskrishna — 2012-04-03T07:15:23Z

At UC Santa Cruz, on Monday, March 5, 2012, Nishant Shah gave a lecture on "Digital Natives and the Myth of the Revolution: Questioning the Radical Potential of Citizen Action". The lecture focused more on the India Against Corruption case-study rather than the theoretical framework to understanding revolutions.

This talk is a thought-in-progress inquiry into the radical claims and potentials of citizen action which has emerged in the last few years in several parts of the world. It seeks to show how citizen action is not necessarily a radical form of politics and that we need to make a distinction between Resistances and Revolutions. It locates Resistance as an endemic condition of governmentality within a State-Citizen-Market relationship and shows how it often strengthens the status-quo rather than radically undermining it. Looking at one particular instance of a campaign against corruption in India, Nishant is seeking to build a framework that can be deployed to understand the dissonance between the claims of the future and the practices of the present that gets produced in such instances of citizen action.

Follow the original on the UC Santa Cruz website
Also see this

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/questioning-the-radical-potential-of-citizen-action

An Experiment in Social Engineering: The Cultural Context of an Avatar

praskrishna — 2012-03-06T06:03:19Z

Pramod K. Nayar reviews Nilofar Shamim Ansher’s essay ‘Engineering a Cyber Twin’ (Digital Alternatives with a Cause? Book One: To Be).

‘Engineering a Cyber Twin’ is an attempt to inventory the ontological features of an avatar. Beginning with the assumption that representation of the self – which implies, at once, recognition of one’s self but also the publicly available narrative of the self – is controlled and controllable, Ansher moves on to representation online. What are the cues that enable viewers of avatars to recognize Ansher’s avatar? What are the parameters of evaluating avatar behaviour, as opposed to, say offline behaviour? Ansher here intervenes with a significant question: why do we always have to ‘read’ the avatar as divided from or compared with the self? Is it an ‘either/or’ equation between self and online avatar?

Examining her cybertwin on MyCybertwin.com, Ansher describes how she designed her avatar. The process included filling out a detailed questionnaire from which the avatar takes its shape, attitudes, values and determines its responses. Essentially, as Ansher discovers, the ‘cyber twin runs on scripts running in my head [sic]’. The personality type to which the twin belongs to must be chosen from a set of six types – which, as Ansher correctly points out, leaves little room for fluidity beyond what the programmer has designed. This also implies that Ansher’s self and the cyber twin function within severe constraints of personality and responses to the personality of the other. When Ansher communicates with the cyber twin the twin picks up keywords from Ansher’s script and conveys them back as its (her?) ‘response’, all suggesting a packaged response. This ensures that there are not too many permutations and combinations or ‘layers’ (Ansher’s term) to the cyber twin’s personality.

Ansher wonders what it would take for the twin to discover motivation, or human ‘sentiments’ such as love or care. Does the avatar really constitute a separate entity, or is it a severely limited extension of what Ansher has chosen from the questionnaire. Ansher has deeper metaphysical questions that connect archives (of information, including the questionnaire) with larger issues of an ethical nature. For example, Ansher notes that she can’t teach her twin ‘good’ and bad’ behaviour from just a questionnaire. Ansher concludes that the twin has not ‘earned the right’ to represent her as her online version.

This is a pithy essay that explores the exhilarations, excitements and tensions of online lives (such avatar lives quietly avoid the domain of messy body functions and fluids). Ansher is spot on in her evaluation of the cyber twin as a limited ‘identity’ where the code – the DNA, or the questionnaire – is itself based on a very short list of normative values and personality ‘types’. She is also correct to argue that the self in real life is not a set of stock responses even if these responses are what have been socialized into us. The self evolves, alters, shifts and these are not always programmable or predictable. Ansher rightly does not go so far as to explore sentience in computers and programming (the stuff of sci-fi), but is concerned with the dynamics of interaction between a sentient creature (her real self) and the avatar.

The ‘engineering’ in Ansher’s title must take on an ironic tone: the avatar is an experiment in social engineering as well where the norms of self-making and meaning-making are cultural and engineering an avatar with stock responses (to which then Ansher responds in the chat) with predilections, preferences and prejudices constitutes a kind of cultural work. When for instance Ansher writes: ‘she [the avatar] doesn’t add layers to her identity so much as reinforce the various traits that go into defining it’ she has isolated the key issue here: the cultural work that produces avatars and online iconography with specific traits are trapped within and limited by the contexts in which real selves grow. Both partake of each other: the cultural work produces the Ansher-self and this Ansher-self produces her avatar. The difference of course is that the Ansher-self is not fixed, is complicated and defiantly unpredictable.

This is an important essay that sidesteps the risks of both hagiography (of digital worlds) and the panic Luddite reactions (not responses, but reactions) to the ‘other’ world. I would have liked a bit more – to be fair, this might be entirely due to the space constraints in the volume – on the eversion of the digital world that we now see: where the digital, the cyber- or the ‘other’ world is not just out there but around us, in us, since we occupy, almost simultaneously, the offline and online today. So, to answer the question raised in the first paragraph, one does not see the cybertwin in terms of an ‘either/or’ with the self. It is simultaneously the radically different other and the extension of the self. The self itself is a series of posturings, role-playings and performances. The online avatar is also one more of these. The presentation of the self in everyday life, to adapt the title of Goffman’s pioneering work, now includes status messages, scraps, posts, tweets and avatars. The narrative of the self is now inclusive of the sometimes fictional narratives put online by the self. Profile and impression management is also about how one dresses online.

It would also be interesting to examine the various clusters of avatars in such services as MyCybertwin.com or Second Life, to develop a taxonomy of avatars. If, as suggested above, it is cultural work that carries over into designing avatars then such a taxonomy might say something about the societies and structures from which such avatars emerge.

Ansher’s essay draws attention to the complicated ontology of the avatar but also reflects, with considerable intensity, on the dynamic relation of online and offline selves. Thus she eschews a simplistic binary of offline/online, preferring to focus on the domain of interaction between the two ‘personae’ of the same self.

Pramod K. Nayar

Pramod K. Nayar teaches at the Department of English, University of Hyderabad, India. His recent publications include Writing Wrongs: The Cultural Construction of Human Rights in India (Routledge 2012), States of Sentiment: Exploring the Cultures of Emotion (Orient BlackSwan 2011), An Introduction to New Media and Cybercultures (Wiley-Blackwell 2010), Postcolonialism: A Guide for the Perplexed (Continuum 2010), Packaging Life: Cultures of the Everyday (Sage 2009), Seeing Stars: Spectacle, Society and Celebrity Culture (Sage 2009) among others. His forthcoming books include Digital Cool: Life in the Age of New Media (Orient BlackSwan) and Colonial Voices: The Discourses of Empire (Wiley-Blackwell).

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/digital-natives/media-coverage/an-experiment-in-social-engineering

How to Put Up a Facebook Resistance

Oliver Leistert — 2012-02-21T08:47:15Z

Review of Marc Stumpel’s essay, "Mapping the Politics of Web 2.0: Facebook Resistance", in Digital Alternatives with a Cause Book 2: To Think, pp.24-31 by Oliver Leistert.

Facebook is right now in a peculiar situation: the planned IPO bears a lot of risks and puts pressure on the Western market leader of Social Networking Sites. The current discussion about Facebook's timeline is only the tip of the iceberg, a symptom of a larger conflict that lurks behind it: how much direct marketing are Facebook users willing to take? How many drastic top-down changes of the user's Facebook experience are possible unless they understand that their presence on this site and what they do there is in tension with the company's goals that provides this digital environment?

Stumpel addresses Facebook as a communication instance that is subordinated by power lines. He refers to Manuel Castell's notion of power in the network society. This characterization then is expanded to the concept of protocological control as outlined by Alexander Galloway and Eugene Thacker. While Castell's power concept still very much resonates within conventional power theories of the political sciences, which proclaim that someone holds power while someone else doesn't, Galloway and Thacker open this notion towards the micro-elements within power relations of a networked society. Considering software and protocol as agents of power that proscribe the way how communication flows are possible, they open the black box of technology and understand it, like many other Science and Technology Studies Scholars, as enmeshed into societal relations, as products of societal relations and as production sites of societal relations. Code is law, code is an executable materiality, and code is flawed. The point of design is one possible point of resistance: “the possibilities afforded by Facebook to its users are infinite only as long as they subscribe to the normative operating logic of its design” and thus Stumpel's project, Fbresistance.com, plays with new designs to provoke new use.

Since many debates about Facebook either concentrate on how to use it the right way (i.e. more privacy aware) or ways to leave Facebook completely, Stumpel's proposal is original as it discusses how to empower users within Facebook, which at first glance looks counterintuitive and not so promising. And of course, the effects are limited because the remaining part of a systemic logic reduces the means of resistance to the degree that the key components of Facebook use need to remain operational. This is not a proposal for the n-th new, decentralized and non-commercial geek-affine network. In a sense, Stumpel reconsiders within the realm of an undemocratic regime the kind of bottom-up approaches that both, put pressure on Facebook and make it at least look more like an instance of software that the user has produced. As he writes “control is exercised through predefined options, preferences and possible actions which are imposed onto the user” (28) therefore a line of resistance, and thus empowerment, is to eliminate such predefined options and invent new ones beyond Facebook's regime.

These means are limited technically as the point of interrogation is on the client side. Most effectively, Facebook Resistance as Stumpel envisions it, is a tool [1] to change the User Interface beyond the default lines defined by either browser setting or the user's Facebook options page. The client-sided site of action has a surprising effect that goes clearly beyond what the company wants: because JavaScript is a powerful instance in the machinic process that affects not only how one sees the screen, but can change functionality and processes.

But there is a downside here: as much as Facebook interacts with single users and single users are replicating their subjectivity on Facebook in an opportunistic fashion, to use Greasemonkey [2] as tool of resistance keeps the effects of change limited to the individual user's page and screen. Friends that check a Facebook page that has been changed with Greasemonkey tools will not see these changes. They remain excluded from this resistance. This is because a client-side resistance designed with Greasemonkey cannot be shared and cannot become a common experience. Here, I think, the proposal to challenge Facebook within Facebook's realm reaches its limits and it becomes clear that the protocological regime is stable as long as its servers are not affected. The “exploit” that Galloway and Thacker seek as the contemporary form of resistance within digital environments need to be placed within the network and needs to have a bi-directional communication capacity to reach out. Stumpel argues that applying client-sided Javascript already is a way to exploit the protocological regime [3].

At the core of the rhetorics of Web 2.0 prosumerism is the blurring of production and consumption and the proclamation of the user as a productive entity. Stumpel's argument lies somewhat in between two worlds: rightly claiming that code is the key to digital autonomy and client side code cannot deliver this autonomy, like an alternative Social Networking Site that offers open protocols so that any other code base can connect. Scripting away one's Facebook page is a good start to understand the materiality of one's online presence.

A way out of this systemic dilemma is to publish screenshots of how one sees the page changed with self made scripts. This method has already proven to be a great aid in circumventing censorship [4], which is just another regime of what-you-see-is-what-we-want-you-to-see (WYSIWWWYTS). This as well shows the limits of power of code: image files can transport human centric layers that machines are (still) not capable to decode. Thus, by and large images remain a non-object in the code regime. This is a cheap and useful exploit.

As a lot of people don't feel the agency to leave Facebook altogether because they have invested too much of their social life into the machine, already one can consider this as Facebook's real power: the social lock-in. Thus all considerations to challenge Facebook from within its own domain and regime are ways to irritate Facebook's basic layer: their economy which is based on selling ads and data through standardized forms and sites. If a critical number of Facebook sites would be DIY styled, many clients of Facebook and the huge armada of third-parties behind it would fast be worried about their assumption that with Facebook, communal communications have been successfully commodified in a stable way that allows investments of billions of dollars.

Oliver Leistert
Oliver Leistert is a media researcher focusing on mobile, online, and protest media. Currently a research fellow at the Center for Media and Communication Studies at the Central European University, Budapest, he recently co-edited, together with Theo Röhle, the first critical volume about Facebook in German: Generation Facebook. Über das Leben im Social Net. He runs a little blog: http://nomedia.noblogs.org

[1].http://fbresistance.com/

[2].https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/greasemonkey

[3].For a larger list of scripts that are affecting one's view on Facebook, see https://userscripts.org/tags/facebook

[4].The art work of Christoph Wachter and Matthias Jud called Picidae takes screenshots of a site from one node of the internet and sends the view to a user somewhere else: http://net.picidae.net/

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/digital-natives/media-coverage/facebook-resistance