Monthly Archives: November 2008

twitter is the new blogging, blogging is the new journalism

blogging delivered by att

blogging delivered by att

Mark Jones, global community editor at Reuters, has a fabulous post on whether blogs have to be opinionated or not, suggesting that most top blogs are actually more about providing information than giving an opinion.

Way back when, when blogs first appeared on the scene, I remember the excitement about blogging being a personalized filter for the web. Literally, a weblog would log what a person was browsing on the web, linking to interesting sites with maybe a line or two of commentary and description. Weblogs were highly personal – the initial promise was that if you found a person similar to you in taste, you could follow this person’s weblog and you would likely be offered links to websites you might find interesting but otherwise would not come across yourself. As Mark Jones argues, the top weblogs still follow this spirit of sharing the best of the web.

As weblogs evolved, and more people joined the fray, the blog as a medium turned more towards a style resembling “writing an e-mail to the world” (as overheard from David Sasaki). Where people share their stories with the world, however mundane or exciting. You might call this the point where blogs where no longer solely about information (if they were ever) but increasingly about narrative, story and opinion.

But to think about blogs as information or opinion misses part of the picture. Blogs are also about conversation and communication. At one point, comments as a function of weblogs became indispensable to the idea of a blog, that is to say, a blog has to have comments, and those who don’t are the exceptions. Blogs evolved into a medium where conversation and communication became important narrative forms, not just information and opinion. They became a two-way mode of communication, not just one-way. Unfortunately, spam comments largely drowned out most conversation a blog was fostering (my ratio of spam to real comment is maybe 99 to 1, I’d have to check my Akismet stats). Conversation also started to flow to more private and less public venues – where it is more clear who you are talking with (not just talking with ‘the world’), venues such as Facebook and Twitter.

Paul Boutin from Wired argues that this means blogging is dead. But blogging is changing – it is true that some of the earlier things you would do with blogs are increasingly moving to other venues – “bookmarks + comments” is now delicious, while “immediate comments” is now twitter and where “sharing with friends” is moving to facebook. So what are blogs these days? Robert Scoble succinctly states in the Wired article that he keeps his blog mostly for long-form writing. Long-form writing? That’s fascinating. We have come full circle. Blogging used to be about links, comments and immediacy – that is twitter now. Journalism was/is about long-form in-depth writing. What Scoble suggests is that blogging is increasingly moving into this space. Where twitter is now the new blogging, blogging is now on its way to become the new journalism.

EDIT: the spam to “ham” (real comment) ratio is not 99 to 1, but more like 999 to 1. Crazy.

is the RIAA killing chickens to scare monkeys?

Since when has the RIAA turned to tactics the Chinese government often employs in their fight against internet censorship? Since for some time, Charles Nesson might argue in the most recent case he is taking on.

Professor Charles Nesson is defending Boston University graduate student Joel Tenenbaum against the RIAA. The RIAA is suing Tenenbaum for illegally downloading a few songs many years ago. This is how it usually goes: People get a scary letter from the RIAA saying they have been downloading songs illegally and are going to sue them in an expensive lawsuit; people often settle for a few thousand bucks to get the RIAA and their formidable litigation team off their back. This is a tactic that they have been effectively using against many people. What is the point of this? According to Nesson:

“The plaintiffs and the RIAA are seeking to punish [Joel Tenenbaum] beyond any rational measure of the damage he allegedly caused. They do this, not for the purpose of recovering compensation for actual damage caused by Joel’s individual action, nor for the primary purpose of deterring him from further copyright infringement, but for the ulterior purpose of creating an urban legend so frightening to children using computers, and so frightening to parents and teachers of students using computers, that they will somehow reverse the tide of the digital future.”

The part where Professor Nesson is arguing that these actions are neither to recover compensation nor to deter the person from future copyright infringement, but rather that their purpose is to send a signal to frighten everybody else: we will find you if you dare to download even a few songs illegally.

In writing a paper on Chinese internet control and censorship a few years ago, I often came across a Chinese proverb that would describe tactics like this. “Killing the chicken to scare the monkeys” (殺雞警猴) is a Chinese saying that illustrates how setting an example can be a very effective way of scaring people and deterring behavior you find undesirable. It was a particular powerful way of illustrating how a few well-placed and properly timed, not to mention highly publicized arrests, of dissidents would let the Chinese online population know that they were being watched and that those who would use the internet for “undesirable” purposes would have a less than desirable fate. Analogous, what Nesson is saying is that what is happening right now to Joel Tenenbaum is the RIAA way of resorting to the age-old “killing the chicken, to scare the monkeys” tactic.

We can debate about whether downloading songs from peer to peer networks should be illegal or not, especially when millions of kids do this, whether the music model is just broken, or whether this is really the only way to protect future innovation and creation of music. Let’s accept that it is illegal for now. Professor Nesson is not arguing that downloading songs should not be illegal – his argument really is that this should not be criminal. If downloading a song would be like speeding, this is how the current system would compare:

  • a $750 fine for every mile over the speed limit, escalating to $150,000 per mile if the speeder knew he was speeding;
  • the fines are not publicized and few drivers know they exist;
  • enforcement not by the government but by a private police force that keeps the fines for itself

Professor Nesson furthermore argues that a system like this

  • has no political accountability
  • can pursue any defendant it chooses at its own whim
  • can accept or reject payoffs in exchange for not prosecuting the tickets, and pockets for itself all payoffs and fines. Imagine that a significant percentage of these fines were never contested, regardless of whether they had merit, because the individuals being fined have limited financial resources and little idea of whether they can prevail in front of an objective judicial body.

I wonder how the relatively young legal system in China would compare to the system as perfected by the RIAA?

If you want to read more, the case has been getting some amazing amount of press so far.

post-national solidarity

What is post-national solidarity? According to Seyla-Benhabib, it is

“about creating the enlarged mentality, by teaching us to see from the standpoint of others, even when we do not agree with them. We extend the boundaries of our sympathy by understanding the conditions of others who may be radically different than us. At its best journalism does this; it extends your vision of the world by making you see the world through the eyes of the others. it informs you, as well as stretching your empathy across time and space. The best kind of journalism has this capacity of uniting the dignity of the generalized other with the empathy for the concrete other.”

From a great interview between Karin Wahl-Jorgensen and Seyla Benhabib in the latest issue of Journalism Studies (9.6, 2008, pp 962-970) “On the Public Sphere, Deliberation, Journalism and Dignity”.

challenges of the polyglot internet

Ethan Zuckerman has a wonderfully provocative post on how he sees translation as the biggest challenge facing the future of the internet. If the internet is truly to deliver the promise of connecting people worldwide, one of the main barriers, if not the biggest one right now, is that we as people don’t really have the equivalent of TCP/IP for interfacing with each other. For the less geek-oriented, that means we really don’t have a way of having a conversation with each other, with all of us who are connected online (technically, but not linguistically), unless huge innovations in translation will bring about a polyglot internet. English so far is doing the job (poorly) as the lingua franca of the internet.

Ethan warns us that machine translation will never be up to the task completely by itself. It will take a combination of tools and communities to achieve better conversation through translation. Current examples I was thinking of include the Lingua project by Global Voices. Lingua seeks to translate the blog posts by Global Voices from English to many other languages, including but not limited to German, Spanish, Malagasy, Farsi, Bangla, Hindi, Chinese, and some others, creating an infrastructure that allows people who can only read Farsi to know what is happening in the Chinese blogosphere and vice versa. Another project that came to mind is Yeeyan. Yeeyan is a community consisting of people who translate content from around the web into Chinese – people can submit posts they want translated, express which posts you want to see translated, give ratings and comments. Are these models we can extrapolate? 

One way forward to think about this is whether we can learn from the most succesful peer production (as coined by Benkler) and apply them to translation. Yeeyan and Lingua are two budding flowers that can hopefully grow into a collection of well-maintained gardens. A few questions arise: Who will maintain the quality of translations, especially once work scales up? It is easy to maintain quality when there are only a few articles to be translated, but how will we oversee translations once they hit thousands or even millions in number? Can we also peer produce the kind of editing that is needed to maintain quality? Or peer produce the kind of filtering that is needed to be able to filter out the quality?

And can we rely on pure peer production based on volunteerism to scale this up? Do we need to monetize translation in order to scale up to a polyglot internet? With monetize, I don’t mean having a system in place that can pay professional translators who work for profit, although that certainly wouldn’t hurt. Instead, I mean being able to compensate volunteers for their time. Viviana Zelizer talks about the crowding-in and crowding-out effect – sometimes once you start paying money, people actually get offended and start leaving the community. Imagine going to a friend who invited you over for dinner and offering him/her to pay for the meal after you finished eating. Also, by paying some but not others, you might have people leaving, although sometimes it is okay to pay some if they do the kind of work nobody wants to do but which is necessary to keep the community and project going. Some people volunteer to translate because they love translating, others do it because they see it as contributing to a greater good. People have different reasons to translate; we will need to understand what motivates people to contribute, and learn how we can encourage these people, with and without money. 

Finally, even once we have translation in place, there still remains a lot of work to be done to overcome cultural distance. Context, recognition and responsiveness are only a few things we would also need beyond (linguistical) access. My Masters degree is, of course, in China Studies – essentially a bridge discipline that seeks to teach and educate students how to serve as the connector between China and the rest of the world. Greater funding for language and area studies, particularly in the United States, is another key component that would go a long way towards the realization of a polyglot internet.

alternative civic engagement blog

A blog, called Alternative Civic Engagement, by my dear colleague Weiyu Zhang, who is now assistant professor at the National University of Singapore. I particularly enjoyed her (docu-fictional) conversation with three law professors (Benkler, Lessig, Sunstein) on issues of media polarization and fragmentation.

why is there no Voice of America for Americans?

Professor Monroe Price has a fascinating piece on how public diplomacy in the Obama era might look like. He draws on the notions of hospitality as a key value in rethinking the role of public diplomacy in an era that is global and networked. 

Arguing that public diplomacy is in some serious need of innovation, he reimagines public diplomacy as not just speaking, but also listening. Seen through a more reciprocal, interactive lens, things like the Smith-Mundt Act, which forbids transmission of U.S. sponsored international broadcasting within the United States no longer makes any sense and the intransparency of internet filtering practices need to be reconsidered. The traditional model of public diplomacy, based on the international broadcasting paradigm, of states to states, seems archaic in the light of new technologies. I argued something similar earlier in an essay on how efforts to topple internet censorship in China are essentially adapted tactics from the Cold War era, where the Great Firewall essentially is Iron Curtain 2.0. What is needed is a transformation, not just an adaptation of the model in the light of new technologies.

There is also a political-economic argument in the moral sense to transforming public diplomacy. As Professor Price succcinctly states, “knowledge of the world is a public good”. Mancur Olson has helped us understand the dilemma most public goods face: everybody would benefit from better news about the world; crucial questions as “why do they hate us?” would actually have an answer. But who is going to pay for it? Most public goods, like roads, parks, museums, are paid for by the state. However, in the United States, the idea of a state-funded news organization informing the citizenry is heresy. It is ironic, of course, that the idea of United States sponsored news organizations informing the citizenries of other countries elsewhere in the world has a rich history – from Voice of America, to Radio Free Europe, etc.

Why is there a Voice of America for the rest of the world, but no Voice of America for Americans? How would a Voice of the World for Americans look like?

first cyberscholars meeting of 2008

Two weeks ago was the first cyberscholars meeting of 2008. The cyberscholars is a group that was originally founded by Urs Gasser and is now a monthly meeting composed of the fellows and affiliates at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University, the Yale Information Society Project and the good people from MIT’s Comparative Media Studies program.

We had some amazing people speak. Benjamin Mako Hill from MIT was the first speaker and talked about the educational value of errors in unexpected places. He has a blog where he documents all these, Revealing Errors. His argument is that when errors occur out of context, they make you realize that software, hardware and computers are not ‘natural’ but are constructed; things can go wrong, errors are man made, just like the actual device is man made. He thinks that errors are useful in showing people they can empower themselves by learning to take control of these devices, of technology. Later on, I had a talk with kxu about whether people /should/ be empowered: what if they don’t want to? We were drawing the comparison to how some people prefer a full manual photo camera where you can adjust all the settings to a full automatic camera that just snaps pictures for you. Is it fair to draw a similar analogy to free software?

The second speaker was Ben Peters, who had a fascinating talk looking into the question why the internet failed in the Soviet Union. His short answer: decentralization. Peters juxtaposes decentralization versus centralization, but more importantly, he also distinguishes decentralized networks from distributed networks. He goes on to show how the mentality of a decentralized structured network was prevalent in many fields and spheres, including how roads, but also the government was set up. His argument is persuasive, but I was also left thinking about the premise of his question. Two questions come to mind: if the Soviet Union had more familiarity with distributed networks, would the internet then have succeeded? Did the internet in the United States succeed because of an existing mentality and institutional culture that was comfortable with the idea of a distributed network? I’m not sure what the answers are; partially because I don’t know any network that comes close to the distributed ideal besides the internet, partially because I’m not sure whether prior familiarity and comfort with distributed networks explains why the internet in the United States took off. In any case, it was an interesting and provocative talk. (Peters also attributes the prior important work done on this topic by MIT historian Slava Gerovitch, who has the brilliantly titled paper “InterNyet“).

I also presented; hope to blog about it in a next post. You can watch the video in the meantime.

The videos of our presentation can be downloaded and viewed on the Berkman Interactive site. It has the videos of Benjamin Mako Hill’s presentation, Ben Peters’s talk and my own presentation on Global Voices and hospitality.