In the Söderberg’s article, he talked about something about hackers, and I’d like to use my word to explain hackers and hacktivists. In my opinion, hacktivist is the proper subset of hacker, that is to say, if a person is a hacktivist, he/she must also a hacker; while if one is a hacker, he/she may belong to another type of hacker rather than hacktivist. To be specific, in my perspective, hackers are people who have such technology that with which they can intrude into others’ computers or other websites without permission.
We always identify hackers are bad guys, while except for hackers who intrude for profits (black hat), there are some hackers (white hat) intrude for protecting or for helping other people to find bugs of their websites and thus update them. For example, when the matter between China and Japan of the territorial dispute over the Diaoyu Island heated up in 2012, some Chinese hackers intruded into Japanese government’s website and revised its front page to show “Diaoyu Island belongs to China” in both Chinese, English and Japanese, Chinese people call these hackers “red hat”. However, hacktivist is hacker who intrudes into websites for not profits or protection, but for political or social activity purpose, and the hacking activities did by them are hacktivisms. For instance, hacktivists hacking Chinese government’s websites because they want to show their dissatisfaction of government’s activities and they want government to make change, these acts is totally like other hacker acts such as intruding into a game website to upgrade equipment.
In the John’s article, he mentioned the concept “tragedy of the commons”, which was proposed by Hardin’s article in 1968. In this article, Hardin told a story about because farmers only considered about their own interests and thus let more cows to the pasture, the common finally became overused. In my perspective, this concept refers to that when people can acquire resource from a public place (common), everyone who can acquire resource will get more than a certain portion which can keep a balance between personal profit and the sustainable development of the common. Because everyone obtains more than they should have, the common will be overexploited. For instance, in the past few decades, forest in the Greater Hinggan (China’s largest natural forest area) was overcut because of lots of local companies just concerned about their development while ignored the destruction of environment, which finally somewhat cause the frequent sandstorm in Beijing in my childhood.
Although “tragedy of the commons” is still a strong problem in our society, I agree with what Ostrom’s opinion that this tragedy could be regulated and even restricted. Like the overcut happened in China I referred above, in 2015, Chinese government stopped cutting forests in the Greater Hinggan to protect the natural environment. Actually, Chinese started decreasing cut few years ago, and with this effort, at least sandstorm happens not so regularly, in fact it was hardly ever happens in Beijing in recent years. Thus I believe that once people pay more attention to “tragedy of the commons”, tragedy may not happen in the commons.