|
DavidKorvinSecondPaper 13 - 31 Mar 2013 - Main.DavidKorvin
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< | MAKING THE SECURE SWITCH: Steps Needed to Convince Google Talk Users to Switch to FreedomBox's Secure Messaging Platform [REWRITE] | >
> | MAKING THE SECURE SWITCH: Steps Recommended to Convince Google Talk Users to Switch to FreedomBox's Secure Messaging Platform [REWRITE] | | | -- By DavidKorvin - 31 Mar 2013 | | | How Google Talk Came to Dominate Instant Messaging Among My Peers | |
<
< | I remember when I began college in 2006, everyone was using AIM; two years later, everyone I knew had switched to Google Talk and AIM was a complete afterthought. Looking back on it, I believe there was a mad rush from AIM to Google Talk for three main reasons. First, Google Talk’s messaging protocol, XMPP, was more sophisticated and had more applications than AIM’s Open System for CommunicAtion in Realtime (OSCAR) protocol. (AOL tried to implement XMPP support for AIM I 2008, but the service lasted less than three months.) Second, Google Talk was integrated in Gmail, while I did not really know many people that used AOL Mail as their main e-mail address. Lastly, using Google Talk became the “cool” thing to do. | >
> | I remember when I began college in 2006, everyone was using AIM; two years later, everyone I knew had switched to Google Talk and AIM was a complete afterthought. Looking back on it, I believe there was a mad rush from AIM to Google Talk for three main reasons. First, Google Talk’s messaging protocol, XMPP, was more sophisticated and had more applications than AIM’s Open System for CommunicAtion in Realtime (OSCAR) protocol. (AOL tried to implement XMPP support for AIM in 2008, but the service lasted less than three months.) Second, Google Talk was integrated in Gmail, while I did not really know many people that used AOL Mail as their main e-mail address. Lastly, using Google Talk became the “cool” thing to do. | | |
Suggestions for FreedomBox Movement | |
<
< | Looking at the three factors Google Talk used to overtake AIM’s instant messaging market share dominance helps crystallize measures FreedomBox should take in expanding the user base of its messaging platform. The easiest part of the three prongs discusses above for FreedomBox to meet is the first one because Freedom Box’s messaging platform, like Google Talk, uses XMPP; additionally, later this year FreedomBox’s platform will have a secure, effective system of text, voice, and video chat compatible with Google Talk that will already be architecturally built-in to any FreedomBox computer. Thus, because Freedom Box already has the necessary infrastructure in place with respect to its messaging platform, it has already completed this task. | >
> | Looking at the three factors Google Talk used to overtake AIM’s instant messaging market share dominance helps crystallize measures FreedomBox should take in expanding the user base of its messaging platform. The easiest part of the three prongs discusses above for FreedomBox to meet is the first one because FreedomBox’s messaging platform, like Google Talk, uses XMPP; additionally, later this year FreedomBox’s platform will have a secure, effective system of text, voice, and video chat compatible with Google Talk that will already be architecturally built-in to any FreedomBox computer. Thus, because FreedomBox already has the necessary technological infrastructure in place with respect to its messaging platform, it has already completed this first task. | | | | |
<
< | The other two elements are where FreedomBox currently faces larger challenges. When Google Talk came out, it was easy for many people I know to switch from AIM to Google Talk because they were already receiving their e-mail through Gmail. Thus, people liked Google Talk because essentially got two-for-one shopping when logging into Gmail: you could check your e-mail and instant message from the same website. I believe that for Freedom Box’s messaging platform to become widely used, its users must be able to easily perform other online tasks at the same time. I know that FreedomBox already has dozens of free and open-source software (FOSS) applications for its XMPP chat, but I would recommend to its innovators that they do everything possible to integrate their messaging protocol as seemly as possible into its e-mail platform. The more FreedomBox is able to mimic the Google Talk-Gmail relationship, the more successful it will become in expanding its reach. | >
> | The other two elements are where FreedomBox currently faces larger challenges. When Google Talk came out, it was easy for many people I know to switch from AIM to Google Talk because they were already receiving their e-mail through Gmail. Thus, people liked Google Talk because they essentially got two-for-one shopping when logging into Gmail: you could check your e-mail and instant message from the same website. I believe that for FreedomBox’s messaging platform to become widely used, its users must be able to easily perform other online tasks at the same time. I know that FreedomBox already has dozens of free and open-source software (FOSS) applications for its XMPP chat, but I would recommend to its innovators that they do everything possible to integrate their messaging protocol as seemlessly as possible into its e-mail platform. The more FreedomBox is able to mimic the Google Talk-Gmail relationship, the more successful it will become in expanding its reach. | | | Lastly, people switched from AIM to Google Talk because it was the “cool” thing to do. Of the three elements discussed above, this is by far the most difficult to quantify, but its impact was very real at the time. When Gmail first started, you could not just go on a website to sign up for the product; you had to be invited by someone else. This initial exclusivity made you feel cool when someone sent you an invitation to sign up. | | |
Conclusion | |
>
> | FreedomBox currently has an XMPP messaging platform that is as sophisticated as the platform of Google Talk, but unlike Google Talk, it is a secure means to instant message with friends. As FreedomBox has completed the technological legwork required to be a desirable alternative to Google Talk, FreedomBox must now turn its attention to other reasons for Google Talk’s dominance in order to stop it from doing any more damage. I believe the suggestions that I have made above—in time—will help to convince my peers to leave Google Talk.
At the moment, everyone I know currently uses Google Talk, but AIM’s implosion shows that this does not always have to be the case. FreedomBox already has the XMPP messaging platform in place, all it has to do now is convince users that the switch is worth making. |
|
|
DavidKorvinSecondPaper 12 - 31 Mar 2013 - Main.DavidKorvin
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
MAKING THE SECURE SWITCH: Steps Needed to Convince Google Talk Users to Switch to FreedomBox's Secure Messaging Platform [REWRITE] | |
<
< | -- By DavidKorvin - 1 Apr 2013 | >
> | -- By DavidKorvin - 31 Mar 2013 | | |
Introduction | |
<
< | FreedomBox, which has the goal “building software for smart devices whose engineered purpose is to work together to facilitate free communication among people, safely and securely, beyond the ambition of the strongest power to penetrate,” has a complete, secure Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) messaging platform in its 1.0 version. Google Talk, which is an instant messaging service that almost all of my friends use, is also built on this sophisticated messaging protocol. While FreedomBox’s messaging platform is secure, Google Talk is a centralized version where privacy intrusions occur. | >
> | FreedomBox, which has the goal of “building software for smart devices whose engineered purpose is to work together to facilitate free communication among people, safely and securely, beyond the ambition of the strongest power to penetrate,” has a complete, secure Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) messaging platform in its 1.0 version. Google Talk, which is an instant messaging service that almost all of my friends use, is also built on this sophisticated messaging protocol. While FreedomBox’s messaging platform is secure, Google Talk is a centralized version where privacy intrusions occur. | | | However, though FreedomBox’s messaging platform will have many application for its XMPP chat—including Pidgin, which is a multiprotocol chat client that can connect instant messaging friends all at once with conversational security—FreedomBox still faces challenges in eliminating Google Talk’s dominance of online instant messaging. | | | I remember when I began college in 2006, everyone was using AIM; two years later, everyone I knew had switched to Google Talk and AIM was a complete afterthought. Looking back on it, I believe there was a mad rush from AIM to Google Talk for three main reasons. First, Google Talk’s messaging protocol, XMPP, was more sophisticated and had more applications than AIM’s Open System for CommunicAtion in Realtime (OSCAR) protocol. (AOL tried to implement XMPP support for AIM I 2008, but the service lasted less than three months.) Second, Google Talk was integrated in Gmail, while I did not really know many people that used AOL Mail as their main e-mail address. Lastly, using Google Talk became the “cool” thing to do. | |
>
> | | | | Suggestions for FreedomBox Movement | |
>
> | Looking at the three factors Google Talk used to overtake AIM’s instant messaging market share dominance helps crystallize measures FreedomBox should take in expanding the user base of its messaging platform. The easiest part of the three prongs discusses above for FreedomBox to meet is the first one because Freedom Box’s messaging platform, like Google Talk, uses XMPP; additionally, later this year FreedomBox’s platform will have a secure, effective system of text, voice, and video chat compatible with Google Talk that will already be architecturally built-in to any FreedomBox computer. Thus, because Freedom Box already has the necessary infrastructure in place with respect to its messaging platform, it has already completed this task.
The other two elements are where FreedomBox currently faces larger challenges. When Google Talk came out, it was easy for many people I know to switch from AIM to Google Talk because they were already receiving their e-mail through Gmail. Thus, people liked Google Talk because essentially got two-for-one shopping when logging into Gmail: you could check your e-mail and instant message from the same website. I believe that for Freedom Box’s messaging platform to become widely used, its users must be able to easily perform other online tasks at the same time. I know that FreedomBox already has dozens of free and open-source software (FOSS) applications for its XMPP chat, but I would recommend to its innovators that they do everything possible to integrate their messaging protocol as seemly as possible into its e-mail platform. The more FreedomBox is able to mimic the Google Talk-Gmail relationship, the more successful it will become in expanding its reach.
Lastly, people switched from AIM to Google Talk because it was the “cool” thing to do. Of the three elements discussed above, this is by far the most difficult to quantify, but its impact was very real at the time. When Gmail first started, you could not just go on a website to sign up for the product; you had to be invited by someone else. This initial exclusivity made you feel cool when someone sent you an invitation to sign up.
On the other hand, one of FreedomBox’s main principles is that it is available to anyone that wishes to be part of its movements, which means that a “cool” campaign founded on exclusivity makes absolutely no sense. Thus, FreedomBox must take another angle in convincing everyday Google Talk users to stop using Google Talk: show that maintaining and protecting online privacy is the “cool” thing to do. On this note, I recommend a two-fold strategy for FreedomBox to embrace: (1) keep showing the harms that occur when online privacy is violated, and (2) keep highlighting examples where secure messaging platforms have helped to directly lead to important social movements. To get users to switch from Google Talk to something more secure, I believe FreedomBox’s best strategy is to not only show how harmful Google Talk can be, but also demonstrate that instant messaging can be a cause for good if it focuses on the right ideals. | | | Conclusion |
|
|
DavidKorvinSecondPaper 11 - 31 Mar 2013 - Main.DavidKorvin
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< | ELIMINATING GOOGLE FROM MY LIFE: A More Challenging Endeavor than Eliminating Facebook Was [FIRST DRAFT] | >
> | MAKING THE SECURE SWITCH: Steps Needed to Convince Google Talk Users to Switch to FreedomBox's Secure Messaging Platform [REWRITE] | | | | |
<
< | -- By DavidKorvin - 7 Jan 2012 | >
> | -- By DavidKorvin - 1 Apr 2013 | | |
Introduction | |
<
< | Throughout the semester, we discussed in detail the multiple freedom problems and restrictions that Facebook and Google imposes on its users. As mentioned in my first essay, I have found it rather easy to eliminate Facebook from my life completely, but to this point, I have been unable to do the same with Google. In particular, “Gmail” is the product that I still feel compelled to use on a daily basis, and it is not because of its e-mail function, but rather because of the “Gchat” function that I access by using my Gmail account. | >
> | FreedomBox, which has the goal “building software for smart devices whose engineered purpose is to work together to facilitate free communication among people, safely and securely, beyond the ambition of the strongest power to penetrate,” has a complete, secure Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) messaging platform in its 1.0 version. Google Talk, which is an instant messaging service that almost all of my friends use, is also built on this sophisticated messaging protocol. While FreedomBox’s messaging platform is secure, Google Talk is a centralized version where privacy intrusions occur. | | | | |
<
< | In this essay, I will explore why I have found it much more difficult to quit Gchat than it was for me to stop using Facebook. Additionally, I will discuss some things open source programmers should aim for in designing an alternative to Gchat. | >
> | However, though FreedomBox’s messaging platform will have many application for its XMPP chat—including Pidgin, which is a multiprotocol chat client that can connect instant messaging friends all at once with conversational security—FreedomBox still faces challenges in eliminating Google Talk’s dominance of online instant messaging. | | | | |
<
< | Reasons Why Gchat has become a Central Part of My Social Life | >
> | Nonetheless, the demise of AOL Instant Messenger (AIM), which saw its 52% instant messaging market share in 2006 fall to less than 1% in 2011 highlights how FreedomBox and its supporters can cause a similar downfall for Google Talk in the near future. | | | | |
<
< | I think there are two main reasons why Gchat has become a far more integral part of my online social life than Facebook ever was. The first factor being that I only have my closest friends as Gchat contacts (around 50), while I had many acquaintances and “friends-of-friends” on Facebook (around 700). As a result, my expectations while going on Gchat have always been higher because each time I log on I plan for a higher percentage of my online interactions to be with people that I truly care about; I cannot say that
I ever felt the same way when I used to log on to Facebook. Therefore, because my Gchat experience is only limited to my closest friends, I find it to be a much more personal and fulfilling experience than I ever found Facebook to be. | | | | |
<
< | The other reason why Gchat has become such a large part of my online social presence is that my interaction with other users on this platform is immediate. As soon as I log on to Gchat, I am able to instantly see which of my friends are available and able to converse with them. Thus, as currently constituted, I feel compelled to use Gchat on a daily basis because it is the most convenient and efficient way to interact with my friends. (I even find Gchatting more convenient than texting friends because with Gchat you know the other person is available and reading your message, but when you text someone you are always somewhat unsure of when / if your message has been read.) | >
> | How Google Talk Came to Dominate Instant Messaging Among My Peers | | | | |
<
< | However, though I enjoy using Gchat, I have become increasingly uncomfortable using it because I only access it through a Gmail account. I think the challenge for open source programmers moving forward will be to create an online chatting platform that is as convenient and easy to use as Gchat currently is. | >
> | I remember when I began college in 2006, everyone was using AIM; two years later, everyone I knew had switched to Google Talk and AIM was a complete afterthought. Looking back on it, I believe there was a mad rush from AIM to Google Talk for three main reasons. First, Google Talk’s messaging protocol, XMPP, was more sophisticated and had more applications than AIM’s Open System for CommunicAtion in Realtime (OSCAR) protocol. (AOL tried to implement XMPP support for AIM I 2008, but the service lasted less than three months.) Second, Google Talk was integrated in Gmail, while I did not really know many people that used AOL Mail as their main e-mail address. Lastly, using Google Talk became the “cool” thing to do. | | | | |
<
< | Potential Changes to Limit Gchat’s Dominance for Users in My Age Range
I think that for people in my age range to stop being as socially dependent on Gchat a two-step process needs to unfold: (1) people need to stop using Gmail [because almost everyone that uses Gchat accesses it through Gmail]; and (2) open source programmers need to create an online chatting platform that is appealing to a wide array of users.
I feel that many people, including many of my peers, feel compelled to use Gmail for the reasons that it allows for a lot of free memory and everyone else uses it. However, Gmail has disastrous privacy concerns for its users, and I think that many of my friends would not use it if Gchat did not exist as a supplement to Gmail. Thus, I think that any open source alternative to Gmail will need to incorporate a platform that is equivalent to that of Google’s Gchat function.
As a result, open source programmers need to focus on an online chat platform that allows users to immediately see who is available to chat once the user has logged on. I, like many of my peers, prefer to Gchat over texting or e-mailing because of the immediacy that the platform provides. Additionally, another advantage of gChat is that it is incredibly easy to use; all you need to do is click on your contact’s name to start a conversation with him or her.
Though I do not know much about computer programming, I have no reason to believe that building an open source equivalent of Gchat is difficult to do; however, I do think that it will be hard to convince people to switch from Gchat to the open source alternative because it is easy to use. Therefore, to be truly competitive, this open source chatting platform will need to offer a feature that Gchat cannot offer: PRIVACY. Though technologically-informed people know the privacy perils of Google and its products, I believe that the overwhelming percentage of Google users do not think Google’s privacy problems impacts them on an individual basis. As a result, any open source chat platform faces an uphill battle in convincing many Google users to stop using Google products, even when the open source platform is superior. | >
> | Suggestions for FreedomBox Movement | | | Conclusion | |
<
< | Because I find Gchat to be a much more essential part of my online social life than Facebook was, I have found difficulty trying to replace it. However, I know it is not in my best interests to keep using it because of the massive restrictions on users that Google forces upon its users. For me to replace Gchat with an open source equivalent, it would need to meet the requirements I have described above. Though Gchat dominates online chatting among my peers, this does not have to continue to be the case.
The good news is, been
there, done that. The less good news is that you got the technical
story sort of backwards.
The functional quality of gchat (not an official Google service
name: it's the text messaging component of the text and voice
messaging service called Google Talk) that you like, the "I see who
is on when I arrive" element, has been part of "instant messaging"
or "chat" programs since the beginning.
For our purposes, the beginning was free software. The service
called IRC, or Internet Relay Chat, predates the Web, is almost as
old as News, and just somewhat younger than the concept of email.
IRC is a complexly-federated service, with tens of thousands of
servers, dozens of relay networks, and an extremely large number of
different free software programs that provide access to its
protocols. It's more secure than the "instant messaging" systems
that copied from it, and has more features. Services like the chat
part of Google Talk, AOL Instant Messager, Skype Chat, and so on are
just degenerate, centralized versions of IRC.
But Google Talk is built on top of a much more sophisticated
messaging protocol, XMPP, which is free, and primarily implemented
in free software. XMPP is a "presence" protocol (there's the part
you like), which can transmit text, voice, video, or any other form
of bits in a many-to-many geometry, efficiently. The future of
Internet telephony isn't Skype, it's the Jingle standard, which is
an XMPP representation, to which Google is converging Google Talk.
FreedomBox contains a complete, secure XMPP messaging platform in
its 1.0 version. This is the easiest part of the task for us to
complete. Because we already have dozens of FOSS applications for
XMPP chat, including our multi-protocol chat client, Pidgin, which
can connect you to your "Gchat" friends and your AIM friends and
your IRC chatrooms and any other XMPP servers anywhere on the planet
you care to connect through, with conversation security, all at
once. So all we have to do is make them more secure on a network
that can be trusted to have only your actual, real friends on it no
matter who is trying to listen in between. So later this year you
will have a real, secure, effective system of text, voice and video
chat compatible with "Gchat" architecturally "built-in" to any
FreedomBox computer.
That's the good news. The bad news is that you didn't know any of
this, though a few hours with the Wikipedia would have done wonders
in carrying you from "Gchat" all the way to FreedomBox. I think the
next revision has to take a little more account of the factual
context.
|
|
|
DavidKorvinSecondPaper 10 - 05 Mar 2013 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
| | | Conclusion
Because I find Gchat to be a much more essential part of my online social life than Facebook was, I have found difficulty trying to replace it. However, I know it is not in my best interests to keep using it because of the massive restrictions on users that Google forces upon its users. For me to replace Gchat with an open source equivalent, it would need to meet the requirements I have described above. Though Gchat dominates online chatting among my peers, this does not have to continue to be the case.
\ No newline at end of file | |
>
> |
The good news is, been
there, done that. The less good news is that you got the technical
story sort of backwards.
The functional quality of gchat (not an official Google service
name: it's the text messaging component of the text and voice
messaging service called Google Talk) that you like, the "I see who
is on when I arrive" element, has been part of "instant messaging"
or "chat" programs since the beginning.
For our purposes, the beginning was free software. The service
called IRC, or Internet Relay Chat, predates the Web, is almost as
old as News, and just somewhat younger than the concept of email.
IRC is a complexly-federated service, with tens of thousands of
servers, dozens of relay networks, and an extremely large number of
different free software programs that provide access to its
protocols. It's more secure than the "instant messaging" systems
that copied from it, and has more features. Services like the chat
part of Google Talk, AOL Instant Messager, Skype Chat, and so on are
just degenerate, centralized versions of IRC.
But Google Talk is built on top of a much more sophisticated
messaging protocol, XMPP, which is free, and primarily implemented
in free software. XMPP is a "presence" protocol (there's the part
you like), which can transmit text, voice, video, or any other form
of bits in a many-to-many geometry, efficiently. The future of
Internet telephony isn't Skype, it's the Jingle standard, which is
an XMPP representation, to which Google is converging Google Talk.
FreedomBox contains a complete, secure XMPP messaging platform in
its 1.0 version. This is the easiest part of the task for us to
complete. Because we already have dozens of FOSS applications for
XMPP chat, including our multi-protocol chat client, Pidgin, which
can connect you to your "Gchat" friends and your AIM friends and
your IRC chatrooms and any other XMPP servers anywhere on the planet
you care to connect through, with conversation security, all at
once. So all we have to do is make them more secure on a network
that can be trusted to have only your actual, real friends on it no
matter who is trying to listen in between. So later this year you
will have a real, secure, effective system of text, voice and video
chat compatible with "Gchat" architecturally "built-in" to any
FreedomBox computer.
That's the good news. The bad news is that you didn't know any of
this, though a few hours with the Wikipedia would have done wonders
in carrying you from "Gchat" all the way to FreedomBox. I think the
next revision has to take a little more account of the factual
context.
|
|
|
DavidKorvinSecondPaper 9 - 19 Jan 2013 - Main.DavidKorvin
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
| | | Conclusion | |
<
< | [Need to add] | | | \ No newline at end of file | |
>
> | Because I find Gchat to be a much more essential part of my online social life than Facebook was, I have found difficulty trying to replace it. However, I know it is not in my best interests to keep using it because of the massive restrictions on users that Google forces upon its users. For me to replace Gchat with an open source equivalent, it would need to meet the requirements I have described above. Though Gchat dominates online chatting among my peers, this does not have to continue to be the case. | | | \ No newline at end of file |
|
|
DavidKorvinSecondPaper 8 - 19 Jan 2013 - Main.DavidKorvin
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
| | | Potential Changes to Limit Gchat’s Dominance for Users in My Age Range | |
<
< | I think that for people to stop being as socially dependent on Gchat a two-step process needs to unfold: (1) people need to stop using Gmail [because almost everyone that uses Gchat accesses it through Gmail]; and (2) open source programmers need to create an online chatting platform that is appealing to a wide array of users. | >
> | I think that for people in my age range to stop being as socially dependent on Gchat a two-step process needs to unfold: (1) people need to stop using Gmail [because almost everyone that uses Gchat accesses it through Gmail]; and (2) open source programmers need to create an online chatting platform that is appealing to a wide array of users. | | | | |
<
< | I feel that many people, including many of my peers, feel compelled to use Gmail because it allows for a lot of free memory and everyone else uses it. However, Gmail has disastrous privacy concerns for its users, and I think that many of my friends would not use it if Gchat did not exist as a supplement to Gmail. Thus, I think that any open source alternative to Gmail will need to incorporate a platform that is equivalent to that of Google’s Gchat function. | >
> | I feel that many people, including many of my peers, feel compelled to use Gmail for the reasons that it allows for a lot of free memory and everyone else uses it. However, Gmail has disastrous privacy concerns for its users, and I think that many of my friends would not use it if Gchat did not exist as a supplement to Gmail. Thus, I think that any open source alternative to Gmail will need to incorporate a platform that is equivalent to that of Google’s Gchat function. | | | | |
<
< | Thus, open source programmers need to focus on an online chat platform that allows you to immediately see who is available to chat once the user has logged on. I, like many of my peers, prefer to Gchat over texting or e-mailing because of the immediacy that the platform provides. Additionally, another advantage of Gchat is that it is incredibly easy to use; all you need to do is click on your contact’s name to start a conversation with him or her. | >
> | As a result, open source programmers need to focus on an online chat platform that allows users to immediately see who is available to chat once the user has logged on. I, like many of my peers, prefer to Gchat over texting or e-mailing because of the immediacy that the platform provides. Additionally, another advantage of gChat is that it is incredibly easy to use; all you need to do is click on your contact’s name to start a conversation with him or her. | | | Though I do not know much about computer programming, I have no reason to believe that building an open source equivalent of Gchat is difficult to do; however, I do think that it will be hard to convince people to switch from Gchat to the open source alternative because it is easy to use. Therefore, to be truly competitive, this open source chatting platform will need to offer a feature that Gchat cannot offer: PRIVACY. Though technologically-informed people know the privacy perils of Google and its products, I believe that the overwhelming percentage of Google users do not think Google’s privacy problems impacts them on an individual basis. As a result, any open source chat platform faces an uphill battle in convincing many Google users to stop using Google products, even when the open source platform is superior. |
|
|
DavidKorvinSecondPaper 7 - 17 Jan 2013 - Main.DavidKorvin
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
| | | Introduction | |
<
< | Throughout the semester, we discussed in detail the freedom problems that Facebook and Google imposes on its users. As mentioned in my first essay, I have found it rather easy to eliminate Facebook from my life completely, but I have been unable to do the same with Google. In particular, “Gmail” is the product that I still feel compelled to use on a daily basis, and it is not because of its e-mail function, but rather because of the “Gchat” function that is accessed by using a Gmail account. | >
> | Throughout the semester, we discussed in detail the multiple freedom problems and restrictions that Facebook and Google imposes on its users. As mentioned in my first essay, I have found it rather easy to eliminate Facebook from my life completely, but to this point, I have been unable to do the same with Google. In particular, “Gmail” is the product that I still feel compelled to use on a daily basis, and it is not because of its e-mail function, but rather because of the “Gchat” function that I access by using my Gmail account. | | | | |
<
< | In this essay, I will explore why I have found it much more difficult to quit Gchat than it was for me to stop using Facebook. Additionally, I will discuss some things open source programmers should for in designing an alternative to Gchat. | >
> | In this essay, I will explore why I have found it much more difficult to quit Gchat than it was for me to stop using Facebook. Additionally, I will discuss some things open source programmers should aim for in designing an alternative to Gchat. | | | Reasons Why Gchat has become a Central Part of My Social Life | |
<
< | I think there are two reasons why gChat has become a far more integral part of my online social life than Facebook ever was. The first factor being that I only have my closest friends as Gchat contacts (around 50), while I had many acquaintances and “friends-of-friends” on Facebook (around 700). As a result, my expectations while going on Gchat have always been higher because each time I log on I plan for a higher percentage of my online interactions to be with people that I truly care about; I cannot say that I ever felt the same way when I used to log on to Facebook. Therefore, because my Gchat experience is only limited to my closest friends, I find it to be a much more personal and fulfilling experience than I ever found Facebook to be. | >
> | I think there are two main reasons why Gchat has become a far more integral part of my online social life than Facebook ever was. The first factor being that I only have my closest friends as Gchat contacts (around 50), while I had many acquaintances and “friends-of-friends” on Facebook (around 700). As a result, my expectations while going on Gchat have always been higher because each time I log on I plan for a higher percentage of my online interactions to be with people that I truly care about; I cannot say that
I ever felt the same way when I used to log on to Facebook. Therefore, because my Gchat experience is only limited to my closest friends, I find it to be a much more personal and fulfilling experience than I ever found Facebook to be. | | | | |
<
< | The other reason why Gchat has become such a large part of my online social presence is that interaction with other users on this platform is immediate. As soon as I log on to Gchat, I am able to instantly see which of my friends are available and able to converse with them. Thus, as currently constituted, I feel compelled to use Gchat on a daily basis because it is the most convenient and efficient way to interact with my friends. (I even find Gchatting more convenient than texting friends because with Gchat you know the other person is available and reading your message, but when you text someone you are always somewhat unsure of when / if it has been read. | >
> | The other reason why Gchat has become such a large part of my online social presence is that my interaction with other users on this platform is immediate. As soon as I log on to Gchat, I am able to instantly see which of my friends are available and able to converse with them. Thus, as currently constituted, I feel compelled to use Gchat on a daily basis because it is the most convenient and efficient way to interact with my friends. (I even find Gchatting more convenient than texting friends because with Gchat you know the other person is available and reading your message, but when you text someone you are always somewhat unsure of when / if your message has been read.) | | | However, though I enjoy using Gchat, I have become increasingly uncomfortable using it because I only access it through a Gmail account. I think the challenge for open source programmers moving forward will be to create an online chatting platform that is as convenient and easy to use as Gchat currently is. |
|
|
DavidKorvinSecondPaper 6 - 11 Jan 2013 - Main.DavidKorvin
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
| | | Potential Changes to Limit Gchat’s Dominance for Users in My Age Range | |
>
> | I think that for people to stop being as socially dependent on Gchat a two-step process needs to unfold: (1) people need to stop using Gmail [because almost everyone that uses Gchat accesses it through Gmail]; and (2) open source programmers need to create an online chatting platform that is appealing to a wide array of users. | | | | |
>
> | I feel that many people, including many of my peers, feel compelled to use Gmail because it allows for a lot of free memory and everyone else uses it. However, Gmail has disastrous privacy concerns for its users, and I think that many of my friends would not use it if Gchat did not exist as a supplement to Gmail. Thus, I think that any open source alternative to Gmail will need to incorporate a platform that is equivalent to that of Google’s Gchat function. | | | | |
>
> | Thus, open source programmers need to focus on an online chat platform that allows you to immediately see who is available to chat once the user has logged on. I, like many of my peers, prefer to Gchat over texting or e-mailing because of the immediacy that the platform provides. Additionally, another advantage of Gchat is that it is incredibly easy to use; all you need to do is click on your contact’s name to start a conversation with him or her.
Though I do not know much about computer programming, I have no reason to believe that building an open source equivalent of Gchat is difficult to do; however, I do think that it will be hard to convince people to switch from Gchat to the open source alternative because it is easy to use. Therefore, to be truly competitive, this open source chatting platform will need to offer a feature that Gchat cannot offer: PRIVACY. Though technologically-informed people know the privacy perils of Google and its products, I believe that the overwhelming percentage of Google users do not think Google’s privacy problems impacts them on an individual basis. As a result, any open source chat platform faces an uphill battle in convincing many Google users to stop using Google products, even when the open source platform is superior. | | | Conclusion | |
<
< | ABC | | | \ No newline at end of file | |
>
> | [Need to add] |
|
|
DavidKorvinSecondPaper 5 - 11 Jan 2013 - Main.DavidKorvin
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
| | | However, though I enjoy using Gchat, I have become increasingly uncomfortable using it because I only access it through a Gmail account. I think the challenge for open source programmers moving forward will be to create an online chatting platform that is as convenient and easy to use as Gchat currently is. | |
<
< | Potential Changes | >
> | Potential Changes to Limit Gchat’s Dominance for Users in My Age Range | | | | |
<
< | XYZ | | |
Conclusion |
|
|
DavidKorvinSecondPaper 4 - 10 Jan 2013 - Main.DavidKorvin
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
| | | I think there are two reasons why gChat has become a far more integral part of my online social life than Facebook ever was. The first factor being that I only have my closest friends as Gchat contacts (around 50), while I had many acquaintances and “friends-of-friends” on Facebook (around 700). As a result, my expectations while going on Gchat have always been higher because each time I log on I plan for a higher percentage of my online interactions to be with people that I truly care about; I cannot say that I ever felt the same way when I used to log on to Facebook. Therefore, because my Gchat experience is only limited to my closest friends, I find it to be a much more personal and fulfilling experience than I ever found Facebook to be. | |
>
> | The other reason why Gchat has become such a large part of my online social presence is that interaction with other users on this platform is immediate. As soon as I log on to Gchat, I am able to instantly see which of my friends are available and able to converse with them. Thus, as currently constituted, I feel compelled to use Gchat on a daily basis because it is the most convenient and efficient way to interact with my friends. (I even find Gchatting more convenient than texting friends because with Gchat you know the other person is available and reading your message, but when you text someone you are always somewhat unsure of when / if it has been read. | | | | |
>
> | However, though I enjoy using Gchat, I have become increasingly uncomfortable using it because I only access it through a Gmail account. I think the challenge for open source programmers moving forward will be to create an online chatting platform that is as convenient and easy to use as Gchat currently is. | | | | |
<
< | BODY 2 | >
> | Potential Changes | | | XYZ |
|
|
DavidKorvinSecondPaper 3 - 10 Jan 2013 - Main.DavidKorvin
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
| | | In this essay, I will explore why I have found it much more difficult to quit Gchat than it was for me to stop using Facebook. Additionally, I will discuss some things open source programmers should for in designing an alternative to Gchat. | |
<
< | BODY 1 | >
> | Reasons Why Gchat has become a Central Part of My Social Life
I think there are two reasons why gChat has become a far more integral part of my online social life than Facebook ever was. The first factor being that I only have my closest friends as Gchat contacts (around 50), while I had many acquaintances and “friends-of-friends” on Facebook (around 700). As a result, my expectations while going on Gchat have always been higher because each time I log on I plan for a higher percentage of my online interactions to be with people that I truly care about; I cannot say that I ever felt the same way when I used to log on to Facebook. Therefore, because my Gchat experience is only limited to my closest friends, I find it to be a much more personal and fulfilling experience than I ever found Facebook to be. | | | | |
<
< | ABC | | | BODY 2 |
|
|
DavidKorvinSecondPaper 2 - 09 Jan 2013 - Main.DavidKorvin
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< | | | | | |
<
< | It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted.
Paper Title
-- By DavidKorvin - 22 Dec 2012
Section I
Subsection A
Subsub 1
Subsection B | | | | |
>
> | ELIMINATING GOOGLE FROM MY LIFE: A More Challenging Endeavor than Eliminating Facebook Was [FIRST DRAFT] | | | | |
<
< | Subsub 1 | >
> | -- By DavidKorvin - 7 Jan 2012 | | | | |
<
< | Subsub 2 | >
> | Introduction | | | | |
>
> | Throughout the semester, we discussed in detail the freedom problems that Facebook and Google imposes on its users. As mentioned in my first essay, I have found it rather easy to eliminate Facebook from my life completely, but I have been unable to do the same with Google. In particular, “Gmail” is the product that I still feel compelled to use on a daily basis, and it is not because of its e-mail function, but rather because of the “Gchat” function that is accessed by using a Gmail account. | | | | |
>
> | In this essay, I will explore why I have found it much more difficult to quit Gchat than it was for me to stop using Facebook. Additionally, I will discuss some things open source programmers should for in designing an alternative to Gchat. | | | | |
<
< | Section II | >
> | BODY 1 | | | | |
<
< | Subsection A | >
> | ABC | | | | |
<
< | Subsection B | >
> | BODY 2 | | | | |
>
> | XYZ | | | | |
<
< |
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines: | | | | |
<
< | | >
> | Conclusion | | | | |
<
< | Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list. | | | \ No newline at end of file | |
>
> | ABC |
|
|
DavidKorvinSecondPaper 1 - 22 Dec 2012 - Main.DavidKorvin
|
|
>
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted.
Paper Title
-- By DavidKorvin - 22 Dec 2012
Section I
Subsection A
Subsub 1
Subsection B
Subsub 1
Subsub 2
Section II
Subsection A
Subsection B
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines:
Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list. |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|