Ralph Broke the Internet; You Should, Too

I took my youngest son to see the movie Ralph Breaks the Internet yesterday and it was enjoyable entertainment with an Internet theme. Not as good as Wreck-It Ralph, the original that surprised with its knowing insider’s look at video game culture, but still, the new movie is plenty of fun with lots of inside cultural jokes.

I was struck by one particular poignant scene, where Ralph is trying to save his friend, Venelope, by making stupid/dumb/viral videos for a YouTube clone in order to generate “likes” that become “money” he can use to replace something broken on Venelope’s racing game  (the movie conveniently skirts the issue of how this connection is made — through targeted advertising of viewers). Ralph wanders into a corporate back room, where a global video comment feed is scrolling.

As he reads the feeds, Ralph slowly realizes just how terrible and how awful and how mean these people are being to each other through veiled usernames. The vitriol and the anger and the meanness of the comments deflates our hero, who thought the Internet was for the good of its users. The algorithm character in charge of the video system comes in, sees what Ralph is seeing, and sort of shakes her head, and then suggests to Ralph that he just “never read the comments.” She turns her head to the problem, just like YouTube and others have consistently done.

In the movie, Ralph “breaks” the Internet by letting loose a virus that seeks out vulnerabilities as a way to protect a friendship, and the results are haywire craziness. I won’t give the story away.

But listen, our real Internet is broken, too, and maybe we need to get a little Ralph on it. Not with malware and viruses, which are part of the problem, but with a new vision for what the Internet might be.

This topic of where we are and where we might need to go has been on my mind a lot lately, with inquiry through E-learning 3.0 and Equity Unbound courses, both of which have examined the weaknesses of our current Internet and Web systems through the lens of identity, data, algorithms, and more.

Here’s a sort of ‘wish list’ of how we might fix this broken system:

  • Stronger filters for hate speech and trolls and bots and more
  • More accountability for corporations setting up shop on the Web and its various connected places
  • A reporting system that actually works, and not just via algorithms and keywords, either
  • More tools in the hands of users to create on the Internet, like building smaller networks within the larger ones (the notion behind the Distributed Web)
  • Stronger privacy controls and fewer Facebooks
  • Less advertising through creepy data collection
  • Better access for all (including rural users often left out)

It may be that the way we “break” the Internet is by leaving it completely and starting over somewhere else. Or maybe we realize it’s a big ship, this Internet, but perhaps, working together, we can still turn it around. There’s a lot of good out there. We can build off that.

Peace (on the screen),
Kevin

PS — So, I noticed a ton of named Internet companies mentioned in this movie and what I could not help wonder as I was watching the movie was this: Did all of these companies pay for product placement? I did some cursory searching this morning but found nothing much about this topic (this article mentions the movie but doesn’t answer my question). Given the push into paid placements of products in movies and television, it’s a valid question, right? To wonder if eBay, Google, Pinterest, Instagram, Snapchat, and others paid to gain access to our eyeballs in the theater? I am particularly alarmed for the young viewers that this movie is aiming at. And if these companies did not pay for access, why didn’t the movie makers change the names to spoof and poke fun at the giants?

So add another bullet to my list:

  • No paid Internet products in movies aimed at kids/future users

One-Click Publishing with the Beaker Browser (on the Distributed Web)

Ease of BeakerI like that along with learning about the potential of the peer-to-peer Distributed Web concept in our EL30 course, with Stephen Downes, he is also providing us with ways to engage with the DWeb concept. One of his suggestions is to use the Beaker Browser, which is a peer-to-peer browser using a technical underpinning called ‘dat‘  and which allows you to quickly and quite easily make and publish a website within minutes.

Dat works on a distributed network unlike cloud services, such as Dropbox or Google Drive. This means Dat transfers files peer to peer, skipping centralized servers. Dat’s network makes file transfers faster, encrypted, and auditable. You can even use Dat on local networks for offline file sharing or local backups. Dat reduces bandwidth costs on popular files, as downloads are distributed across all available computers, rather than centralized on a single host. — from Dat Documentation

The developers of Beaker Browser provide a powerful overview of the mission their own project:

The Web enabled communication, collaboration, and creativity at a scale once unimaginable, but it’s devolved into a landscape of isolated platforms that discourage customization and interoperability. The Web’s value flows from the people who use it, yet our online experiences are dictated by corporations whose incentives rarely align with our own.

We believe the Web can (and must) be a people-first platform, where everybody is invited to create, personalize, and share.

That’s why we’re using peer-to-peer technology to improve how we create, share, and connect on the Web. — from Beaker About Page

I dove in, downloading and installing Beaker, to see for myself how this “one-click publishing” worked …

Using Peer2Peer Beaker Browser

You can view the simple site I made on Beaker, which is mostly html-based with a few tweaks. However, because Beaker runs off the peer-to-peer computing power, my browser will have to be up and running, and accessible from the Beaker dat network for you to view the site I made (that’s the peer-to-peer computing element).

This is one drawback of peer-to-peer, as far as I can tell.

Another issue is that the ‘dat’ protocol doesn’t run in any other browser, other than Beaker. Which makes sense, since the peers are sharing the networking power. So the link down below to my site is one you would have to first copy and paste into a Beaker Browser, which is free and easy to download and use. The Beaker Browser also functions like a regular browser, but is a Distributed Web platform. What this means, if I understand it, is that there is no central server — the networking power and protocols are shared across users of Beaker itself.

This need for Beaker to view sites is a second drawback.

Also, my blog platform here clearly does not like the ‘dat’ file at all and likely sees it as insecure. Every time I try to force it be a link off this page, Edublogs tries to wipe it clean or remove any linking whatsoever. It’s just not ready for Beaker.

View my site: dat://82729c0bd3dd16984f7499e69b12e02f2bb45922c41fbff8609a84899d063fdb/

Playing nice across platforms and hosting services is a third drawback.

Here’s what my Beaker published site looks like right now:

My First Beaker Experiment

The folks at Beaker have a simple tutorial with screenshots on how to do this, and then Stephen also does a nice job of explaining what Beaker is and how it works, and how you can get started.

Even with the three drawbacks of Beaker that I noticed — Beaker has to be up and running for anyone else to use and access its shared computing power, Beaker is the only browser to recognize and launch dat files, and platforms don’t recognize dat links as secure — I like where Beaker is going within the Distributed Web, and I am glad to have learned about it by using it in EL30. The people working on Beaker call it experimental, and it is quite likely that what I see as drawbacks now might actually be key advances in browser functionality down the road.

Peace (tru dat),
Kevin

Equity, Access and the Distributed Web

(Image credit: Openclipart.org and Mozilla Foundation)

 

I watched with great interest the latest video from Stephen Downes, who is facilitating the online E-Learning 3.0, or EL30, as he walked us through the concept of the shift from a Centralized Web (central server, many users) to the Decentralized Web (many servers, many users) to the prospects of the Distributed Web (no servers, many users).

 

A piece by Dietrick Ayala, of Mozilla, entitled Introducing the Dweb, makes this distinction, focusing on the potential shift in power over information and networks:

In centralized systems, one entity has control over the participation of all other entities. In decentralized systems, power over participation is divided between more than one entity. In distributed systems, no one entity has control over the participation of any other entity.

I’m still getting my head around it.

Distributed WebBut as I ponder this move to a more peer-to-peer-powered networking design — where our own computing power become the backbone of networking, through shared resources like CPU and memory and more — I started to think about what this might mean for the issues of access and equity.

In other words, right now, there are still many places in the world — some more deeply in need than others — where basic access to the Internet and to mobile and computing devices is difficult, meaning the people — the students, is how I think of it, as a teacher — are in danger of being left behind with learning possibilities, job opportunities and networking options. I say this, though, knowing that people need to have a choice to engage in networking, and I don’t mean to assume everyone should always be doing this. But having no options when you need options … that’s an access and equity issue that has been with us for some time.

Not far from where I live, here in a relatively affluent part of the east coast of the United States, there are communities who have long been fighting the state government and the conglomerate cable/Internet providers for digital access, made tricky for sure by the rural and isolated places they live but not insurmountable. The battle, years long now, has centered on the loss of potential for residents in these small towns, and their children’s futures. Meanwhile, where I live, just 3o minutes away from those rural towns, I have high-speed access (as long as I pay for it).

Does a shift to a Distributed Web help these situations?

In the first diagram, of the current centralized system, if you don’t have the means to connect to the central server, then the network is worthless. Same thing with the second — the decentralized system — although it is possible your ability to connect is increased because more people are running more servers (in a federated sort of way) so it is possible your options for access are greater.

I think the Distributed Web, as Stephen and others call it,  may offer greater possibilities for more people in need of access. Is the Dweb more equitable in this regard, on a global scale? Maybe, I think, and here is why, based on how I am beginning to understand how the Dweb works (with the caveat that this is relatively new to me).

If the future iteration of the Internet, as we know it, is built primarily on secure peer-to-peer computing power in a fully distributed mesh — where our resources are shared and our collective networking grows stronger and more secure with more users in the system (and this is where the technical aspects are beyond me right now, so I am writing this in faith that either blockchain systems or something else will be the underpinning of security) — then more people will have access to more networking, and more opportunities.

This doesn’t solve the problem of machines and devices or interface systems into hands of those users, but the Dweb seems to be concerned less with the high-powered, huge-memory computers, since we will all be sharing resources together. I might have an inexpensive device and it won’t matter, because others elsewhere will have the computing resources that I can tap into.

Of course, this is all speculative. I can envision ways this goes off the rails — around issues of privacy, of data breaches, of insecure connections, of monetizing the computing power. But I am optimistic, as I listen to Stephen and read about others, that there is a path towards something better.

How we get there — and how we make sure everyone comes along, regardless of culture or race or socioeconomics — is still a question, and I am appreciative that EL3o is pushing my thinking forward, while still remembering the mistakes of the past.

In exploring different resources, I came across this document from the p2pforever site — which seeks to collaboratively document examples and resources around Dweb architecture. It is a sort of manifesto of sorts, or some guiding principles, and this thinking seems to resonate with my thinking on equity and access issues.

They suggest that these elements in the design of future iterations of the Web:

  1. We should improve and preserve the Web.
    The Web is a genuine social accomplishment and we should look after it. Don’t let lesser platforms win out.
  2. Devops is oppressive!
    Many people can’t publish websites or apps because they can’t run servers. Publishing should be accessible to all.
  3. “View source” is critical to an open Web.
    The more code that users can read, the more code they can review and learn from.
  4. “Modify source” is the p2p Web’s great power.
    A Web that can be made and remade by its people can better serve their needs and produce a more diverse & exciting world. The Web should be a truly “live” society.
  5. Minimize change, maximize impact.
    The p2p Web should still be the Web. Make it better, don’t remake it.
  6. Don’t forget resilience.
    A web based on protocols, not platforms, is a safe web. Don’t put data in silos but have various platforms use the same protocols to interact.

What do you think?

Peace (in peers, thinking together),
Kevin

 

 

Considering Keys to Identity and Authentication

Forgotten Keys(Warning: this is a bit of a ramble)

In EL30 (E-Learning 3.0), Stephen Downes has us now thinking beyond notions of identity, and into the future of digital authentication.

Stephen, our navigator, explores the notion of private and public ‘keys’ as a way to keep our identities and our data private, and firmly in user control. As I understand it, the encrypted private key is what we would use to access and share our information and the public key is the doorway that others can enter if they have a matching or designated encrypted private key themselves. Anyone else, without that key, would not be able to move into the encrypted data.

The keys — private and public — create a barrier, or a wall, of protection, and only those who we trust and know would have access, even if it were leaked or hacked or whatever. In this case, he is talking about how to protect our identities, and perhaps, how our Identity Graphs might reflect this kind of protective barrier.

I’m wondering, how does the use of encryption keys form our online identity? I also wonder, given the nature of open connectedness that informs so many of the educational and learning circles I am part of, how does this shift to extreme privacy both enhance and hinder those interactions? Will people who might otherwise be important to my own learning be left out of the loop, if the door is locked too tight? I have this analogy in my mind — which is not quite apt — of how comments on blogs are sometimes set with spam filters so high that one gives up on even bothering to take time to leave a comment, ending a conversation before it even begins. Would encrypted keys do the same, but even more so? I don’t know enough about this topic to say with any authority but I wonder about it.

In one case, Stephen describes a key that is literally a small drive that you plug into computers you want to use, and your login and data trail is on the device. This device you take with you (on your keychain, perhaps), so that you no longer rely on browsers as your login point (and therefore, risk leaving data trails for others to find and use).

As I mentioned, I don’t know much about this encryption process, although I have read a little bit about it before and wondered how technology solves a problem technology has made (privacy issues), but does one technology fix of another technology problem then somehow open the door to yet another unforeseen technology problem? What problem might encryption keys pose? Maybe I am just being cynical. I sure don’t have an answer to this problem of identity hijacking by hackers and marketers and technology giants and more.

Take a listen to Stephen and see what you think. The comic above was my attempt at humor — of noting that whatever the technology, someone is sure to lose it.

Peace (ID it),
Kevin

Messing Around with Identity Graphs

Identity Graph: Writing Days

For the E-Lit 3.0 course, Stephen Downes has us pondering identity and graphs, with a focus on Identity Graphs. These are used by marketers to fine-tune who we are, using our data trails, in order to push their products our way.

Stephen envisions a different way in the Web3 world, where data will be used in deeper, richer, and unknown ways. He is turning “quantified self” into “qualified self.”  A new EL30 post he is working on (he has shared his draft with the world) expands on this notion in interesting ways, particularly in the world of anonymity and biometrics and more.

The task for this particular activity was to create an Identity Graph but without identifying who we are, or naming us on the graph. This suggested cloak of identity invisibility led me to think of a Scatter Graph, and then I figured, what does writing look like in this kind of visual? That’s what the graph above is aiming for.

The comic below? It’s my initial response to thinking of Identity Graphs and marketing departments.

Don’t Graph Me

I remain concerned about how Identity Graphs are used and are developing with different technology (would an Augmented Reality Identity Graph be cool or creepy, or both?) , and how our ability to hide from commercial interests in digital spaces seems more and more difficult to maintain.

Stephen interviewed Maha Bali for this week’s theme.

If you want to engage with me in the margins of their conversation, come on over to Vialogues where I have set this up for discussions as a way to watch together.

Stephen and Maha in Vialogues

Peace (where data hides),
Kevin

Wrapping My Head Around Graphs and Networks and Stories

On GraphsI am reading and re-reading Stephen Downes’ piece on graphs for the EL30 (E-Learning 3.0) course, pondering the ways he thinks about the representation of social networks, stories and more. I am not even sure I follow it all. I’m fine with that, for it has me thinking in differen directions.

On GraphsWhat I am wondering about is how to re-envision graphs as something more than story, more than just a visualization of information, more than a way to read the world. Stephen asserts that the power of the graph is in its connector points, that the overall structure of a graph system — the way a graphing structure can underline a more powerful network — is more reliable than the narrative. Whether this is story or not, I don’t know. As a writer, I default to thinking of this in relationship to story. Stephen may not be doing that at all. He may be thinking more technical, more about network design and community interactions.

He explains:

The terms ‘graph’ and ‘network’, for example, essentially refer to the same thing, but with a difference in emphasis. I tend to use the word ‘graph’ when thinking of the formal properties of a network, and ‘network’ when thinking of the physical properties of a graph. – Stephen Downes

During the week, he asked us all to do a graph of some sort. I made this one, about when I spend my time thinking about the concepts of EL30. It is completely unreliable.

el30 graph

All this connects to what Stephen points to as Web3, the idea of where the Web structures might head to, as part of a more decentralized organization of social connections. Pondering the potential of where we are going, as opposed to becoming bogged down on what hasn’t worked for us in the past is beneficial.

As an aside, I gathered a graph shared by another EL30 participant — Matthias — and tried to remix it a bit, showing how I was reading his nodes, landing on the connector point of Conversations.

 

Peace (here, there, everywhere),
Kevin

 

 

The Unseen Cloud and the Nature of Learning

The Cloud Changes Our Learning

Stephen Downes, of E-Learning 3.0,  consolidates his thinking on “the Cloud” with the lines above, which intrigue me as a writer, teacher, learner. I don’t have a clear sense of what it means for me yet so I am in the “mulling something profound” stage. (And I am already behind in this course, as Stephen keeps moving us forward at a rapid pace.)

This, too, from the same post:

It’s easy to think of the cloud simply resources as “someone else’s computer” where you run your applications online. But the technology that makes it possible to use the cloud has created a whole new class of resources, a class where resources are more than just text or multimedia, but resources that are in fact fully functioning computers. – Stephen Downes

Read Stephen’s piece, entitled “Cloud” and see what you think.

It’s a bit abstract for me at times, with technical language and concepts that I sort of understand but sort of don’t understand. Yet Stephen’s reflections are still worth perusing how technology innovation like what we call the Cloud is changing the ways we learn and maybe the ways we teach. I have this feeling that this course is just seeding my brain for some future thinking. (Rain from the cloud brings flowers in the Spring?)

Stephen suggests that we need to move beyond just seeing the Cloud Storage Idea as just some unseen box of stuff where we park our digital parts for later access, and that we — as educators and as learners, formally and informally — view the Cloud more as part of a larger systematic underpinning of conceptual learning frameworks whose potential has yet to be tapped.

And maybe in doing so, in viewing the Cloud in this different angle of moving parts and learning acquisition potential, we can begin changing the very nature of what it means to learn, and how we go about doing it.

Huh.

Cloud Control

Then, the other day, Greg made a comment about ‘containers’ in the frame of writing — of how we use “sections” in essays as containers for ideas, or how some story narratives (and I am have misread his intent but it got me thinking in this other direction, which is what learning is all about, right?) use the idea of “three” as a container (three little bears, three little pigs, the kids in Harry Potter, etc.) for narrative. This brings up a tension between archetypes that pen us in at times and freedom to explore beyond the boundaries (which is what Stephen is suggesting).

Huh.

Peace (grounded and clouded),
Kevin

A Comic Reaction to the Data Visualization

DS106 Non-Analysis Comic

Greg kindly shared out a data visualization of some #DS106 connections.

Although I didn’t quite know what it all meant — even though the focus of the E-Lit 3.0 course that I am watching from afar is all about data tools and data analysis, so much of it is beyond me right now — Greg’s visualization looked pretty cool.

After looking at it for some time, I thought, this is a game board. Then I thought, this needs to be a comic.

So I made a comic, for Greg. The game might yet come …

Peace (in the frame),
Kevin

Listening to George and Stephen: Machines, Humans and Learning

Just hanging out with George Siemens and Stephen Downes with a cup of coffee. I started yesterday morning and am continuing to view it this morning. It’s fun to listen in to these two. This video discussion is part of E-Learning 3.0. These two have a long history of nurturing open, connected platforms for learning.

Some Scattered Collected Words and Observations:

  • “What’s the future like?” — Stephen
  • George: We are at a funny point in the field, with technology explosion, innovation and moocs. There was a wave of ideas that emerged and then …  “The last five years, we’ve been in the wilderness ..” — George, and the potential “structural different” possibilities of learning is still in flux. He refers to AI and other ideas.
  • “The human end is critical” (George) as the wave of AI and data comes into play. “What should our school systems do to prepare people for” that future? Me: this is always the question, always on the minds of educators.
  • Stephen’s pointed question: What is the thing that is uniquely human?
  • George: Connecting the idea of machine learning to human learning. Is there such a connection? “What’s left (for human) is the definition of purpose …” — Stephen.
  • “Maybe we’re (humans) destined to be that voice in the computer’s head … that’s an important role …” — George
  • “Why are we teaching in a way that is counter-intuitive and not personally satisfying to students?” — George
  • Trustworthiness of the system is important — George, but he notes that the problem (fake news, platform manipulation, politicizing technology, etc.) has long been there, but the US presidential election brought it to the public surface
  • Fragmenting a narrative via digital to cloud the meaning of an event is a new corporate/political approach to control news cycles — George, talking about Occupy Wall Street, President Trump, Turkey, etc.

Listening to these two grapple with the impact of AI and Machine Learning in a human world, and in schools that are still driven by older models of learning, is interesting.

Like them, many of us are struggling to retain what it means to retain a humanizing approach in a data digital world, which feels more and more as if it is overwhelming us. This same topic of “being human in a digital world” also came up during a day-long meeting yesterday I was part of about technology and education, and I loved how theat important topic spilled over from me, watching this video, and us, in the room.

As a teacher, thinking about the role that education will play for my students in navigating such a world is a constant overarching theme. My students won’t be in that world for another ten years or so. Can you even imagine that world? How do you educate someone now for what you can’t yet envision?

Peace (learning),
Kevin

PS — it occurs to me now that I should have popped this into Vialogues for collaborative viewing and commenting. Next time, perhaps …

I Am Reading This


dogs welcome flickr photo by djg0333 shared under a Creative Commons (BY-SA) license

The first line of the invite to Stephen Downe’s newest adventure — E-Learning 3.0 — says:

If you’re reading this, then this course is for you.”

I guess I’m in!

Short Intro: I teach emerging adolescents. I am a writer. Those two passions often intersect. As such, I am always looking for places where educators and writers can connect about learning through digital spaces and immersive experiences. I learned about Stephen’s course through friends’ sharing out on Mastodon, so in some ways, following the trails from those posts and toots (what you post on Mastodon) to the course overview by Stephen (with its first lines of welcome) is a rather natural pathway. This blog post is my first foray into the exploration, and gives me something to feed the RSS Dragon.

Course Site: https://el30.mooc.ca 

Peace (dogs allowed),
Kevin