It used to be the case that people would have to get featured on the local news to get famous or do something spectacular to get attention past the local church bulletins. Now, the Internet allows for every funny video of your kid being on heavy medication after having some mouth work done be a international hit. But that is all large scale.

What really makes someone “popular” on the internet? Is it 1,000 views? 50,000 views? 500,000 views? Or is it even views at all? To be honest, I am unsure what it is. Just because something becomes popular on Reddit or is talked about on CNN does not mean it has actually stuck. To be popular on the Internet, a thing has to reach a wide range of people and simply views and discussion is not necessarily enough. To be a hit on the internet, something has to be interesting but the most important part is being simple.

Today people have increasingly short attention spans. These shorter attention spans means for something to be memorable, people who are making content have to worry about making their point succinct and quick enough that people get that hit of awesome while still having plenty of information to not be lost or be disinterested in the potential internet sensation.

The other hinderance to augmented reality is the market. Sure, one could easily argue the is a market for augmented reality servies; the growing number of smart phone users alone would provide an ample consumer base for the technology. People can usually get over having a crappy interface if they like what the software does. The problem with the market, though, is the fact that many companies behind the hardware and software are too busy trying to sue each other over software and hardware patents (more so software patents). The constant legal battles create a miserable market for someone trying to break into the market, let alone for someone who is already in the market trying to innovate. The level of innovation in the field of augmented reality is horrendously low; Whurley talked about asking leading researchers in the field of augmented reality  about the problems it faces and over the past decade, the answers to those same fundamental questions have been left unfulfilled and unchanged. The market is stifled and needs some kind of injection to get off the third floor (it seems less appropriate to say getting off the ground in this case since there is plenty of AR floating about now). With companies more worried about infringing on other patents, there is less incentive to make something new because everyone is patent-trolling everyone else and original ideas are quashed by filing a piece of paper first rather than making something functional and innovative to the field. Why on Earth is swiping something across the screen to unlock a device patentable? Wait, that is another story.

TL;DR Augmented reality has been slow to come to fruition due to technological constraints and a bunch of assholes in suits fighting over who gets which pennies.

ENDOFLINE;

2. How would AR enhance education? Would it be benifical if I point my phone at notes and they bring up more information? Or would this simply retard note taking and de-incentivize good note taking skills?

3. How would AR affect those in developing countries that are seing this first without having grown into the internet culture?

Risk, I think, is what most people overlook when it comes to the virtual world. People think that since the virtual world is on the internet then it must have less risk; people act like the internet removes risk from the equation when it is quite the opposite. One could argue that the internet involves more risk. More information available faster can mean a more volatile market and community.

Sure things like death are less of an issue (and in some cases a non-issue) in virtual worlds, but that does not preclude those worlds from being less risky than the real one. People expect less risk in virtual environments but that is when there is less fun and a lack of options. Replicating the risk of real life gives users the chance to fully explore the human condition and try things that one would not normally be able to.

A good example of this would be a player being a pirate in EVE Online. Normally, people can’t just go around and be a pirate all day as their desk job but virtual environments give people the chance to experience and think about more than life actively can present them. The risk is what makes it worth it because people feel more fulfilled when they complete something risky compared to completing something they know they won’t have a problem doing. Fiero can be a powerful thing.

2. What kinds of effects to complete sandbox games, like EVE Online, have on the cognitive processes and learning skills of players?

3. How much do economic concerns change how players interact with games. Are players who pay monthly fees to pay act better or do they feel “privileged?” Does a kind of pay wall to play affect the general players in the world and therefore skew how they are presented?

This ambiguity creates an interesting disconnect. If I know that someone else is running the account though the account is supposed to be displaying the interesting person’s thoughts and comments, then I am more likely to be skeptical of what is going to be displayed on the account. Social media is generally less censored than other forms of media. Most of it is publish then filter (which in many cases involves deleting) rather than edit then publish. Aids are going to be careful with what they say on the Twitter feed and are less likely to engage the people responding to the comments because their comments could be construed as as Twitter holder’s words. This stifles meaningful conversation and further strengthens cherry-picking comments and responses which does nothing for conversation or furthering society except through dogma.

But also what about ghost accounts? It is well known that many celebrities have an alternate account that they use that is not their normal, forward-facing Twitter feed. What does this do to their credibility? Especially if you know they have an alternate account, does that affect what you think and read by them? I think so because you look at the mediated feed and wonder what he or she is actually thinking. I am not advocating for a society always says what they are thinking and or always censors itself, but social media presence really makes people either appear more clean and thoughtful in their comments or simply more human and allow us to peer into their minds.

2. Why do we tend to take social news more seriously than syndicated corporate news? Is it the fact social media is more likely to value other opinions and/or allows for a greater discussion without having only one position displayed?

3. Why is there a lack of both sides of the conversation in traditional media? if there is to be a balanced discussion or presentation of events, don’t multiple sides need to be presented?

But why should we care? I have no issue giving my information to Amazon so that they can offer me a selection of books that I would be interested in (and would help Amazon’s bottom line). The real issue here is the minority voice. Once these companies start siding with the government to help surveil the populace, then we take issue. But many people only take issue if it directly affects them in some way. Heck, many people get spooked for a little while but then go right back to what they did before on those websites. Sure they want to protect their privacy but unless there is some direct effect that they see changing how they use the site, then most people will just shrug it off; the benefits outweigh the risks for them. Getting my books a few days earlier is worth me telling Amazon that I enjoy reading zombie novels. But it is not worth Google knowing that I am looking up communist theories since then McCarthy might come get me.

The apathy of the majority helps fuel this information economy which could eventually further depress minorities. Pretty soon Amazon might start telling the NSA who is buying those copies of The Communist Manifesto and those people might start being put on a list. Since we don’t have control of what companies do with our information after we give it to them, we all might be on some list saying we are demon worshipers since we have all bought Harry Potter books. Not until people actually begin to care about their privacy again will how we are private online change. There has to be some kind of monumental shift for people to wake up and realize that those free samples of Kellogg’s cereal you signed up for online are leading to your name showing up on those DirectTV ads.

Ultimately it is up to the user to choose how much privacy online he or she has, but how much do people care? I would say people care about their privacy a fair amount but when you make difficult privacy settings or say the lack of privacy is to safeguard the country, then people are more willing to just give up their privacy. People don’t take issue until it directly starts to hamper their daily routine.

2. Knowing that skill does in fact matter when trying to change privacy settings on Facebook, shouldn’t they make it easier such that skill is essentially taken out of the equation? What methods can be used to make it easier for users?

3. What should we take away from the Facebook example of eroding privacy? Who is the priority in the case of a social network, the users or who you are selling their information to?

And here lies the catch-22: faster internet breeds more users which breeds slower average speeds which breeds more push for faster internet speeds. The internet feeds into itself. The content that lies within it keeps people going back for more, and wanting more, and contributing more. More, more, more. Today we are only as good as how fast we can get our information. To get that information, we are locked into a certain internet speed. Being locked into that speed for long breeds contempt in users since they see other users adding more content and making the internet experience richer. But if I can’t load the page on cephalopods or watch bad movies on Netflix at a reasonable pace, then I am less happy and want faster internet.

This faster internet and richer content that we as producers, designers, and generators provide feeds back into the great system that is the internet and puts more demand on the system. What we run into the problem is that faster internet speeds also equate with bloated files, sites, and thoughts. We have the idea of cramming every bit with as much information as possible. Sometimes to do that we execute it well and avoid clutter and disorganization. Sadly, though, most of the time we just run into slapping more information on a page and say it is done. We forgot those with slower internet speeds still exist. Countries like those that are “developing” have the problem of slower speeds, which can lead to a high barrier for entry for those people entering the 21st century.

The tyranny of the fast internet connection is that now we are ruled by it and expect it to be there for us. The revenge is that the internet simply feeds into itself and creates a monster that we are unsure of how to tame other than throwing the glass of wine in our hands onto the raging grease fire. How do we avoid bottlenecks and the race for having more content? Simple: quit encouraging those sorts of behavior. Create websites that are just as streamlined. Have graphics that are optimized and not filled with extraneous information (i.e. crop down to what you need and size the image accordingly). Remember that there are still plenty of people who have internet connections so slow dial-up looks like a T1 connection. We shouldn’t be needlessly throwing away principles because we now have more room to fit in the new divan from Ikea. Our bandwidth doesn’t need to be clogged by just a handful of sites. We, as consumers and users of the internet, need to think about what we want to see in sites. Sure Youtube videos are cool but they are not always necessary on a blog. Bandwidth being choked by more people is a good thing because that means more people are potentially learning something or keeping up with an old friend or staying current on the news. Bandwidth being choked by designers is never a good thing because not only does it make everyone look bad but also shows our lack of restraint. We become more worried about filling up the space when we don’t even know how big the space is, yet we still do because we can. Maximizing one features almost always minimizes another that could have been good.