I presented a week ago on the topic of Internet organizing, related to Clay Shirky's article. As I said in the presentation, Powerline Blog was an instrumental force in exposing fraudulent documents related to President Bush's National Guard service. The whole investigation took place about two months before the 2004 election. If you're interested in reading more about Powerline's role in the historic momoent of web organization, go to (www.powerlineblog.com). The important point about the incident is that it didn't involve two or three highly educated bloggers investigating media malpractice. Instead, everyday readers from across the country contributed their expertise in a variety of areas (military protocol etc.) in order to expose the documents for what they really were.
I was a little surprised that more people weren't familiar with the "Tweet Up" considering the wild popularity of Twitter today. I think it's great that Tweet Ups are organized for all different kinds of purposes: from political activism to casual social engagement. I was surprised to find out how organized "Tweets" were from my own hometown. I encourage you to look up "Tweet Ups" in your own area to see how people are organizing, and for what cause. If you're interested in learning more about Tweet Ups, and the Dos and Donts of organizing, read Stuart Foster's article on Mashable.
Lastly, as you know from the presentation, rival groups of students are organizing Facebook groups addressing the recent controversy surrounding Father O'Connell's decision to be this years commencement speaker. If you're interested in getting involved, voicing your opinion and joining the cause, go here.
And of course, for organizing events, you can always use the services of Eventbrite.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Saturday, March 27, 2010
"Don't Be Evil"
When reading about Yahoo!’s history in Europe and China, I have to admit that my first reaction was surprise. I had no idea Yahoo! had such jurisdictional conflicts with foreign nations. Of course, the topic is much more familiar today as a result of Google’s dealings with China. Recently, the search giant decided to no longer comply with China’s strict censorship policies. In effect, Google was put in the exact same position as Yahoo! Chinese users are directed to Google’s Hong Kong site which exists with looser restrictions as a result of the city’s semi-autonomy. Before people cheer Google’s “noble” stand against tyranny in the face of lost profits, I think it’s important to consider what Google was doing. I remembered an article several years ago which featured images of Google’s “Image Search,” one censored by the Chinese government, the other a regular, unrestricted search. When entering the term “Tiananmen Square,” the site of the slaughter of hundreds of protesters by the tyrannical state several decades ago, one will find two completely different results. From the American portal, you will find images of tanks rolling into the square and protesters assembled with a giant, makeshift model of the Statue of Liberty. 
From an American perspective, this moment was a glorious one, people risking their lives for their own freedom. This moment, unfortunately, is not remembered on the Chinese portal. The images are noticeably absent from Google’s Chinese “Image Search.” So, again, before we laud Google’s noble stand for liberty and freedom – it’s a little late. I’m going to have to agree with Steve Jobs on this one. Google’s “don’t be evil” mantra is “bullsh*t.”
At least Yahoo! didn’t hold itself up as a “non-evil” entity (like Google) when it turned that poor Chinese man into Party authorities for daring to breathe the word “liberty.” I do think it’s ridiculous that Yahoo! is held accountable to French law for simply providing the platform by which Nazi paraphernalia can be sold. Why not hold the seller accountable for sending illegal goods to a foreign nation? I think Yahoo!’s argument is valid: It simply cannot comply with the strict laws and regulations of all 150+ nation states in which it operates. Expecting a company like Yahoo! or Google to comply in that manner is a denial of the fundamental nature of the Internet. The Internet exists outside of transnational borders and no hissy-fit by the obscure dictator of Djbouti is going to change that. Knowing where an IP address originates from is not sufficient in “policing” the online activity of the billions of Internet users. However, companies like Google and Yahoo! have grown up in the United States and have benefitted from the economic liberty provided by this country. We, in effect, made it possible for Google and Yahoo! to exist and thrive. So when we see moments where the (now) global corporations are faced with jurisdictional dilemmas, it is important that we as consumers take a closer look. These companies thrive and produce wealth for their investors as a result of our nation's stability and freedom. It is shocking then to hear that a company which has benefited first hand from these conditions would go ahead and facilitate their demise in another part of the globe. I don't think it's unreasonable for us to start asking these “American” companies a question: Whose side are you on?
From an American perspective, this moment was a glorious one, people risking their lives for their own freedom. This moment, unfortunately, is not remembered on the Chinese portal. The images are noticeably absent from Google’s Chinese “Image Search.” So, again, before we laud Google’s noble stand for liberty and freedom – it’s a little late. I’m going to have to agree with Steve Jobs on this one. Google’s “don’t be evil” mantra is “bullsh*t.” At least Yahoo! didn’t hold itself up as a “non-evil” entity (like Google) when it turned that poor Chinese man into Party authorities for daring to breathe the word “liberty.” I do think it’s ridiculous that Yahoo! is held accountable to French law for simply providing the platform by which Nazi paraphernalia can be sold. Why not hold the seller accountable for sending illegal goods to a foreign nation? I think Yahoo!’s argument is valid: It simply cannot comply with the strict laws and regulations of all 150+ nation states in which it operates. Expecting a company like Yahoo! or Google to comply in that manner is a denial of the fundamental nature of the Internet. The Internet exists outside of transnational borders and no hissy-fit by the obscure dictator of Djbouti is going to change that. Knowing where an IP address originates from is not sufficient in “policing” the online activity of the billions of Internet users. However, companies like Google and Yahoo! have grown up in the United States and have benefitted from the economic liberty provided by this country. We, in effect, made it possible for Google and Yahoo! to exist and thrive. So when we see moments where the (now) global corporations are faced with jurisdictional dilemmas, it is important that we as consumers take a closer look. These companies thrive and produce wealth for their investors as a result of our nation's stability and freedom. It is shocking then to hear that a company which has benefited first hand from these conditions would go ahead and facilitate their demise in another part of the globe. I don't think it's unreasonable for us to start asking these “American” companies a question: Whose side are you on?
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Grouping
Clay Shirky’s article reveals the ability of the Internet to empower everyday users like Evan. Several people brought up the point that Shirky’s story may also reveal a ‘digital divide’ between Evan and the poor teenage girl from Queens. Sasha did not have the technical knowledge to mount a defense of her actions on the Internet. She was at the mercy of a man with expert knowledge and experience in the numerous resources provided by the Internet, like Digg. Evan’s technical advantage made it possible for him to consolidate the power of the media, the public and eventually law enforcement to his side. But I’m not so sure I agree that the treatment of Sasha was unfair or unwarranted. It is true that probably thousands of phones are lost in New York City every year. It also probably wasn’t much of a burden for Evan’s fiancée to obtain a new phone (and get the important content off of her old phone). That doesn’t change the fact that Sasha had taken something that wasn’t hers. “Finders keepers” may have standing on the playground, but not in the real world. The Internet provided new channels for a wronged individual to have a situation righted. It doesn’t really matter that Sasha was in a less beneficial situation than the victim. How far do we take the sympathy reasoning? Do we let the carjacker have his BMW just because he would probably never be able to buy one of his own? A $300 SideKick is not a BMW, but it was the property of someone else, and we shouldn’t feel bad that is was taken back from a pitiable thief.
On a lighter note, the ability of the Internet to organize users doesn’t always have to take the avenue of law enforcement. There are plenty of examples of people organizing over the Internet to effect change that they believe in. It is now second nature for any political figure, ballot measure or cause represented on the Internet to proudly include organizing features like Facebook, Twitter and Flickr on their main-pages. I think that these tools can represent active, organized members of a movement, but there are reasons to be skeptical. The organizers are motivated to inflate their “rolls” and make it look as though they have the support of the majority. Organizers will also frequently include “man on the street” quotes of supposedly random people supporting their initiative. From previous work experience, I can tell you that many of these “random” interviews are in fact staged interviews with employees of the organization. So “Michael S. from Washington, DC” may in fact be a much more involved supporter than a random citizen. It is easy to “join” or “support” causes and candidates through Facebook and other sites. I think it remains an open question as to how effectively these masses can be mobilized considering the relatively loose ties and feeble support they maintain with the organizers.
A good example of more mobilized group is on The Huffington Post’s College Page which allows students from across the country to post pictures of themselves holding posters with the amount of debt they have incurred during college. Students can share their stories with each other and the large audience of the Huffington Post. 
With enough support, perhaps the movement could reach critical mass where its voice is heard in the larger media landscape and eventually Congress in order to enact legislative changes for debt-ridden students. That remains to be seen.
On a lighter note, the ability of the Internet to organize users doesn’t always have to take the avenue of law enforcement. There are plenty of examples of people organizing over the Internet to effect change that they believe in. It is now second nature for any political figure, ballot measure or cause represented on the Internet to proudly include organizing features like Facebook, Twitter and Flickr on their main-pages. I think that these tools can represent active, organized members of a movement, but there are reasons to be skeptical. The organizers are motivated to inflate their “rolls” and make it look as though they have the support of the majority. Organizers will also frequently include “man on the street” quotes of supposedly random people supporting their initiative. From previous work experience, I can tell you that many of these “random” interviews are in fact staged interviews with employees of the organization. So “Michael S. from Washington, DC” may in fact be a much more involved supporter than a random citizen. It is easy to “join” or “support” causes and candidates through Facebook and other sites. I think it remains an open question as to how effectively these masses can be mobilized considering the relatively loose ties and feeble support they maintain with the organizers.
A good example of more mobilized group is on The Huffington Post’s College Page which allows students from across the country to post pictures of themselves holding posters with the amount of debt they have incurred during college. Students can share their stories with each other and the large audience of the Huffington Post. 
With enough support, perhaps the movement could reach critical mass where its voice is heard in the larger media landscape and eventually Congress in order to enact legislative changes for debt-ridden students. That remains to be seen.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
