Online Identity and Letting Go

Online identity.  The connotations associated with this idea can range from just a simple online handle that one uses to participate in online forums and social communities while providing themselves a sense of security to people getting so attached to their online avatars that they are emotionally scared when something bad happens to said avatar.

I still remember my first time experiencing something like that.  I had tried playing the massive multi player online role playing game (MMORPG) City of Heroes, because the whole idea intrigued me.  I watched my former bass player running around in the world, and when suddenly most of the characters stopped moving (with word bubbles containing the text "Adult Swim" above their heads), I knew I had to try it.  However, I never really felt any connection to the characters I played; they were just sets of polygons moving through a world of polygons.  Perhaps that's why I stopped playing.

Then I tried World of Warcraft (WoW).  In the beginning, it had the same effect as City of Heroes; I never played for very long, though I came back to the game now and again.  It was not until I met some people on my ship, in my work center, that played the game.  I finally picked a character to commit to, and played through the content to reach max level.  It was at this point, I feel, that I began to feel some kind of kinship with my level 80 Draenei Shaman, Kudri.  There is an achievement system in the game, and one of the tougher ones at the time was "World Explorer".  Since the shaman's abilities during that time involved things like the ability to remove poison, walk on water, and breath under water, it felt like a natural explorer class.  Thus I began the time intensive task of uncovering every corner of every zone in the virtual world of WoW.  Kudri stopped being just a set of polygons and began to feel like he was a piece of me, and the name itself stopped being a random collection of letters out of WoW's name generator; I was Kudri.  Even so, I never felt like I had been wronged if something happened to him.  I was still aware that I was playing a game, and that my character never really died.

That connection, along with the ones I had made with other players, is what kept me subscribing.  Then, one day, I decided to try another MMORPG, because I like seeing new games.  As soon as I named by new character in that game "Kudri", the connection I had with my shaman in WoW broke; and it has been that way ever since.  "Kudri", or "Khudri", has since become a name I use because my online friends recognize it, and I am too lazy to come up with something new.

I have heard about much deeper levels of peoples' connection to their online avatars, and I have seen varying levels of role-play in game.  Seeing that just makes me sad for those people.  I remember reading about Stewart in the article Who Am We? and the depression that eventually settled in once he realized that he would never accomplish what his avatar could.  When I hear stories of people that met online, and that eventually meet in real life to form lasting relationships, I am happy for them, and I think it is great that we live in a time where that is possible.  However, when I read about someone like Stewart, even during the good times, I just feel sorry for him.

Cable-ocolypse: Time-Warner/Comcast Merger

A discussion in class got me thinking once again about Comcast's proposal to acquire Time-Warner for $45 billion.  This proposed deal is a perfect example of a company getting too big, and putting themselves in a position to regulate what services users have access to, as well as how they would have access to said services.

There is plenty of concern on the internet about this deal, as seen by the numerous online petitions encouraging people to come together in order to stop the deal; given the amount of links that can be seen with quick Google search of "comcast sucks", I would have thought the deal would have been shut down already.  It is entirely possible that the government will stop the deal from happening, despite Comcast's confidence that the deal will succeed; the Federal Trade Commission did shut down the proposal by AT&T to acquire T-Mobile in December of 2011.  In doing so, one could argue that the government does recognize the danger to consumers of the potential market dominance Comcast would have if the merger was allowed to succeed; there is already pressure from within the Senate for this deal to be stopped.  Comcast has already caused some outrage online by limiting bandwidth to Netflix for their streaming service, ending in a deal with Netflix paying an undisclosed sum of money in order to connect to Comcast's network.

This got me thinking about consumers' choices, or lack thereof, of broadband internet service providers (ISPs) in the US.  There are the big 3:  Comcast, Time-Warner, and Cox.  Additionally nestled in various parts of the country are smaller ISPs, WOW! being the main one I see advertised in Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio.  This lack of competition does not give much room for better prices on bandwidth, as compared to other developed countries, how have relatively faster speeds at lower prices.

Right now, consumers in the US enjoy the freedom of the internet without too many stipulations, even though it is more expensive here than elsewhere.  However, if this merger is allowed to happen, I worry about what that could mean for my choices as a consumer.  Maybe there is nothing to worry about; maybe Comcast will be able to provide better service, overall, without raising prices or imposing new pay-walls for services; but I do not see that happening.  They have no reason to operate better at lower prices if there is no pressure from consumers, and no competition.  I am personally looking for other service providers in my area, and I encourage everyone who enjoys being able to access any internet service from any device, without restrictions, to do the same.  Forums are nice, but nothing speaks louder than voting with your dollar.

Google: Only as powerful as users allow it.

Google:  There a lot of talk about how much power they have, whether or not they are being too invasive, and that they are possibly making us dumber.  I personally use Google in many aspects of my daily life:  Gmail, Google Search, the Play Store, Drive, Youtube, and most recently, Blogger.  I use Google's two-step verification, so they have my phone number, and because I use their services regularly on my phone, they have my location as well.  However, Google did not force that information out of me, and they did not "gate" my access to the internet by demanding I use their products.  Our relationship came about because of my choosing.

Google has all the data that they have, as well as their involvement in most people's lives, because users allowed it, and they are not the only ones.  It all comes down to being a smart consumer:  By in to something because you want to, not because everyone else is doing it.  Also, know what you are getting into before you sign up.  If you feel that Google demands too much of your information for use of their services, there are alternatives.

There is also the simple matter of convenience.  We all love the instant connection to information that Google affords us, as well as being able to have access to so many services with just one log in.  That kind of convenience comes at a price, and you as the consumer have to determine if that price is worth paying.  As a consumer, you have other options, and the open source environment of Google affords that as well.

As far as the idea that Google is making people dumber, I would argue the opposite.  You can know almost anything you want with just a few keystrokes, and the will to do some searching.  I would posit that it is the people that do not know how to use Google Search properly that are ill informed.  Again, how the user receives information is in the hands of, you guessed it, the user.

What's App!?

Hi.  I'm Bill Moers, a Computer Science major with a minor in Interactive Media Studies.  While I only use social media sparingly, I pay great attention to the technology around it as I enjoy following all gadget related technology news.  While the news in this post is not on the bleeding edge, I do think it is worth talking about.  That news is:  Facebook's acquisition of the mobile text messaging app, WhatsApp.

I have personally never made use of the app.  I downloaded it to check it out, and I just did not see the point at the time.  With WhatsApp, you can only message people in your contacts list that are also using the app; and since I was the only person I knew who had it installed, I quickly dismissed it.  I have since learned, however, that WhatsApp became a huge success overseas, where text message plans and tracking are still a thing.  Here in the states, the major carriers have done away with piece meal plans, so that now a contract plan includes unlimited minutes (no more nights-and-weekends minutes, rollover minutes, etc.) and unlimited text and video messaging.  The only thing you are limited on, and have the option to change the amount you allotted, is data.

Just like the way iMessage (iOS) allowed people in the US to have unlimited messaging by sending messages over data instead of using up one's allotment of text messages, WhatsApp allows overseas users to save on the text messaging portion of their wireless plans by using data.

Now, Facebook has made the move to purchase WhatsApp, and said move has been approved by the Federal Trade Commission.  I am not entirely surprised by this; as controversial as this purchase has been, I do not feel it holds the same implications that the purchase of T-Mobile by At&t would have had if the FTC had allowed the deal to happen.  Since Facebook appears to be losing the audience that has made it so popular, it makes complete sense that they would acquire services and products that would allow them to change and potentially succeed into the future.

I am more curious about the proposal by Masayoshi Son, owner of Sprint, to be allowed to acquire T-Mobile.  I'll have more to say about that later.

Blog about bloggers blogging

I read the interview with Bruce Schneider.  I did not relate much to him; he does not own a television, and has no desire to learn to use new operating systems, which  found odd for someone with such an interest in technological security.  However, I liked some of the things he had to say about blogging.  The notion of blogging being about quoting and linking makes me feel like I have a better idea of how to blog.  I also found his advice to be helpful:  "Just do it.  Don't worry about being boring.  Don't worry about being interesting.  Just do it."

Reading this interview made me consider maintaining my own blog.  I've written one blog post in my life; it was about my disappointment with a game, and how the female main character was handled.  If you're curious, it can be found here.  Bruce simply blogs about what interests him, and I would like to do the same.  I would love to blog about being a better informed consumer, including some "how-to" articles to help my readers get there.