Juicy campus is a relatively new website that gives students ability to anonymously start posts about whatever they desire. Unfortunately this website has brought about many controversial, mean spirited threads posted all of the website. In terms of our class, the article reveals how a website that connects to so many different networks of people, thus serving as a social networking website, is more deleterious, than beneficial.
The main idea here is how websites are so powerful because of their widespread reach and ever growing networks, that few realize how harmful they can be. The websites motivation and reason for introducing the service was in good standing, yet the outcome, at least for many students, was not nearly as beneficial as intended.
Who wouldn’t want to have a website to discuss freely what you want. You could use it to learn more about that campus from other students, learn about classes and professors, and enhance your knowledge on the social scene at school. With this, there exist posts displaying the “meanness of a middle school playground.”
The article simply displayed the controversy that has been recently surrounding Juicycampus.com and a number of universities nationwide. In these cases many schools are calling for a ban of the website, but as they have said, “… we’re surprised that any college administration would be against the free exchange of ideas.”
The context of the article at hand can be correlated to some ideas of triadic closure and ties between people, as well as structural balance within a network.
First off, the website allows any person with Internet access to learn about certain people and discuss any issue about anyone. Therefore, it is common for people to learn about someone else and learn of a common friend they may have. This information alone is able to prompt a relationship or acquaintance with that person, allowing for triadic closure. This website does not allow people to message each other, so it does not display triadic closure in that regards, but it can increase the likelihood of numerous triadic closure circumstances by allowing other people to read about other people with common friends.
The website also allows networks of people to be grouped into categories labeled by what they search and comment on. There are many different listings, whether it is about sports, school, classes, etc. These groupings are bridged together by people who view multiple listings. All in all, the website creates many distinct networks through their service. What is interesting is that although networks and ties usually try to symbolize a good relationship, or good aspects of society, yet in this circumstance, many networks indicate people who post nasty things about others, and the people who read these violently refuted claims. Therefore, the network association is not in support of something good. The site also allows for both balanced and unbalanced networks to exist. Visitors of people who post items can all be friends and have a balanced network, yet there can also be a network that exists where three people who don’t like each other interact and post about them. There can be a scenario also where one person who has two friends who don’t like each other interacts and posts on a blog. Therefore, this website allows for these aspects of networks by allowing people of any orientations with one another to communicate and voice their opinions, which as this article explains, many people are trying to decide is right or not.
http://www.slate.com/id/2146867/
The article above is from August 2006 and discusses the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah. The subheading, “Can game theory solve the Israel-Lebanon war?” sounds hopeful, but the article downplays game theory’s ability to analyze political situations. It discusses prisoner’s dilemma, which it describes as an oversimplified model that is “too seductive.” One reason is that Prisoner’s Dilemma is a two-player game, and political and social arrangements involve third parties.
One interesting topic that this article discusses is Prisoner’s Dilemma as an iterated game. It mentions that game theorists have known that players may use cooperative strategies if the game is repeated. Many people believe that cooperative strategies work because of “tit for tat,” where a prisoner who confesses is punished in the next round. The article calls “tit for tat” a “poster child” that does not accurately describe real situations. It also does not describe the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah because there are multiple players and asymmetry between the players.
I do agree with the article that “tit for tat” oversimplifies real situations, but I do think that “tit for tat” explains why cooperative strategies can occur in repeated games of prisoner’s dilemma. In a repeated game of prisoner’s dilemma, if either player decides to confess, the other will respond by confessing. This ensures that neither player confesses so that over long periods of time, both players’ payoffs are maximized. In a conflict between two groups or countries, it is probably hard to apply “tit for tat” because cooperative strategies do not always satisfy both countries. However, “tit for tat” does show how an offensive strategy like confessing or launching an attack might cause the other player to adopt the same strategy. The result is chaos because neither side trusts the other to cooperate.