Tag Archives: internet

It goes both ways

Posted on by

Dave Winer: Scripting News: 7/10/2005

Now when they fuck us, we have a way of giving them a black mark. A little more metadata, and it’ll start showing up on their bottom line.

I guess you can tell what I think from the title of my post.

When everyone has a blog – only the most linked to – the most popular will have this effect.

Just observe the left and right political blog ecospheres, both are at war – using links – and the reality Google presents is the battleground and prize.

Clay Shirky’s “Power Laws, Weblogs, and Inequality” is a must read. Folks seem to want to put it out of their minds and deny it exists I think.

via allied: quotes of the day

“Journalists are not entitled to promise complete confidentiality – no one in America is”

Posted on by

So says Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald investigating the Valerie Plame identity leak affair.

For my friends who have no idea what this is about. A quick review.

1. Joseph C.Wilson was a U.S. ambassador assigned to investigate Iraq-Niger WMD production claims. He reported he found none. When President Bush, later in his State of the Union address claimed there were, Wilson went public.

2. Shortly after, his wife Valerie Plame, an undercover CIA operative, had her identity leaked to CNN personality Robert Novak – who revealed it in a newspaper column. It is believed that the revealing of her identity was in retaliation for his going public.

3. Revealing the identity of a covert CIA operative is illegal. An investigation has begun into who leaked her identity to Novak and to other journalists across the country, notably Judy Miller at the New York Times and Time Magazine’s Matthew Cooper.

4. Time Magazine’s Matthew Cooper has helped reveal his source as George Bush’s primary politcal advisor Karl Rove. Judy Miller, refusing to reveal her source, and has since been sent to jail. Article at the Guardian.

Jay Rosen thinks it’s Time for Robert Novak to Feel Some Chill

I, for one, have had it with Robert Novak. And if all the journalists who are talking today about “chilling effects” and individual conscience mean what they say, they will, as a matter of conscience and pride, start giving Novak himself the big chill.

That means if you’re a Washington columnist maybe you don’t go on CNN with him– until he explains. If you’re a newspaper editor you consider suspending his column until he explains. If you’re Jonathan Klein, president of CNN/US, you take him off the air until he decides to go on the air and explain. If you’re John Barron, editor of the Chicago Sun-Times, you suspend your columnist (with pay, I should think); and if Barron won’t do it then publisher John Cruickshank should.

If Novak says he can’t talk until the case is over, then he shouldn’t be allowed to publish or opine on the air until the case is over. He should know the rage some of his colleagues feel. Claiming to be “baffled” by Novak’s behavior may have been plausible for a while. With reporter Judith Miller now sitting in jail, and possibly facing criminal charges later, “baffled” is sounding lame.

After the decision yesterday someone asked Bill Keller, top editor of the New York Times, if this was really a whistle-blowing case. Keller answered: “you go to court with the case you’ve got.” I understood what he meant, but that answer was incomplete.

For in certain ways the case that sent Judy Miller to jail is about a classic whistler blower: diplomat Joseph C. Wilson. Those “two senior administration officials” in Novak’s column had a message for him: stick your neck out and we’ll stick it to your wife. (They did: her career as an operative is over.) Might that have some chilling effect?

For more on the consequences of Mathew Cooper revealing his sources read this commentary. via dangerousmeta.

Reading “Free Culture”

Posted on by

I have finally gotten around to reading Lawrence Lessig’s Free Culture and was struck, considering the events in London of the past few days, by the following:

When two planes crashed into the World Trade Center, another into the Pentagon, and a fourth into a Pennsylvania field, all media around the world shifted to this news. Every moment of just about every day for that week, and for weeks after, television in particular, and media generally, retold the story of the events we had just witnessed. The telling was a retelling, because we had seen the events that were described. The genius of this awful act of terrorism was that the delayed second attack was perfectly timed to assure that the whole world would be watching.

These retellings had an increasingly familiar feel. There was music scored for the intermissions, and fancy graphics that flashed across the screen. There was a formula to interviews. There was “balance”, and seriousness. This was news choreographed in the way we have increasingly come to expect it, “news as entertainment”, even if the entertainment is tragedy.

But in addition to this produced news about the “tragedy of September 11,” those of us tied to the Internet came to see a very different production as well. The Internet was filled with accounts of the same events. Yet these Internet accounts had a very different flavor. Some people constructed photo pages that captured images from around the world and presented them as slide shows with text. Some offered open letters. There were sound recordings. There was anger and frustration. There were attempts to provide context. There was, in short, an extraordinary worldwide barn raising, in the sense Mike Godwin uses the term in his book Cyber Rights, around a news event that had captured the attention of the world. There was ABC and CBS, but there was also the Internet.

I don’t mean simply to praise the Internet – though I do think the people who supported this form of speech should be praised. I mean instead to point to a significance in this form of speech. For like a Kodak, the Internet enables people to capture images. And like in a movie by a student on the “Just Think!” bus, the visual images could be mixed with sound or text.

But unlike any technology for simply capturing images, the Internet allows these creations to be shared with an extraordinary number of people, practically instantaneously. This is something new in our tradition – not just that culture can be captured mechanically, and obviously not just that events are commented upon critically, but that this mix of captured images, sound, and commentary can be widely spread practically instantaneously.

The book is over a year old. Events, both tragic and joyous, drive us to share our experience – to share our reality – it’s what people do. The net is providing new tools to do so.

Viral Marketing and the New Online Experience

Posted on by

I’m in one of the last sessions for the day, being run by Ken Martin and Ivan Todorov of BLITZ – “Viral Marketing and the New Online Experience”, and of course the focus is Flash (it’s a Flash conference – duh). The surprising thing to me, is how much the language used mirrors that used by citizen media and blogging proponents – indeed even myself. Markting should be participatory. 2-Way. A Conversation. Those are concepts that form the basis of efforts like Philly Future.

And Albert – if you’re reading – I just had the perfect slice of pizza. Only Vincent’s, in my neighborhood, comes close. Damn, damn, damn.

“reforming into thousands of cultural tribes”

Posted on by

Chris Anderson, in his latest post, “Massively parallel culture” says:

…Rather than the scary fragmentation of our society into a nation of disconnected people doing their own thing, I think we’re reforming into thousands of cultural tribes, connected less by geographic proximity and workplace chatter than by shared interests. Whether we think of it this way or not, each of us belongs to many different tribes simultaneously, often overlapping (geek culture and Lego), often not (tennis and punk-funk).

What’s interesting is that the same Long Tail forces and technologies that are leading to an explosion of variety and abundant choice in the content we consume are also helping to connect us to other consumers, whether through Amazon and Netflix reviews, blogs, p2p networks or playlist sharing.

Here goes how I see it: Web 1.0 technologies helped us to define our own personal niches by letting us filter: find and consume entertainment, goods, services information exactly to our liking. This empowered us to focus our attention and consumption to our own idiosyncratic tastes. Web 2.0 technologies enable us to communicate and connect with others who share these preferences, concerns, and joys – but only if we are so motivated.

Google becomes a media company

Posted on by

Google’s new video service, that allows you to upload, share, and sell your own works, sounds like a powerful tool, not only for professional video producers, but for hobbiests, bloggers, and more. Google gets to become a media company with the content produced by users of its service.

As always, there is a discussion at Metafilter worth checking out.

I think folks should be contrasting and comparing this to OurMedia.org another video distribution service, but one with vastly different terms of service and copyright requirements.

“the Internet is counterproductive to peace”

Posted on by

Hey it’s not me, it’s John Perry Barlow saying that in a recent interview. He precedes this by saying, “There are a million virtual streetcorners with a million lonely pamphleteers on them, all of them decrying the war and not actually coming together in any organized fashion to oppose it. It strikes me that existing political institutions — whether it’s the administration or Congress or large corporations — only respond to other institutions. I don’t care how many individuals you have marching in the streets, they’re not going to pay attention until there’s a leader for those individuals who can come forward and say I represent the organization of those individuals and we’re going to amass the necessary money and votes to kick you the hell out of office. Then they pay attention. But not until. And so right at the moment it would strike me that the Internet is counterproductive to peace.”

Wow! Great quote!

John Perry Barlow, if you are not familiar with him, is co-founder of the Internet-legendary Electronic Frontier Foundation and a former songwriter for the Grateful Dead.

The interviewer says he’s shocked that Barlow would say this. He should read David Shenk’s 1998 classic, “Data Smog”. Time to read Bowling Alone. I’ve been putting it off for a little too long.

Update: Some Slashdotters take it personal while at MetaFilter they argue themselves into a circle.

Will there be a mass movement to utilize tools like MoveOn.org or will the prevailing me-too trend continue where individuals refuse to come together and decide to create their own competing efforts? Everyone shouting the same things – but seperate from each other. Barlow says there needs to be a leader to represent an institution. What I think he fails to see is that we’ve been taught not to trust leaders, even from amoungst us. Leaders fail and leaders fall. So do institutions. So we go our own way and trust in only ourselves. You can’t attribute that to the Internet. It’s the way our generation thinks. Decentralized. Individualized. The Internet is an expression of that. A multitude of choice and the freedom to us it.

The demographic trends do not favor one-size-fits-all news products,” said Peter Francese, founder of American Demographics magazine, which tracks population changes. “There isn’t one community to serve. It’s gone. … It’s now a matter of serving niches rather than trying to be all things to all people,” he said.

That’s from an article about 18-34 year olds rejecting traditional media and switching to the Internet for their news. The same trend has taken place in TV and Music. More choices. Smaller audiences. Less and less shared experience and information. It’s all out there – but it’s up to you to find it or the martketers to find you and lead you to it.