In 2006 I attended Beyond Broadcast. The conference was subtitled “reinventing public media in participatory culture.”  I was struck by the energy of those involved from the public radio and television stations whom I’d not met prior. Most fascinatingly, the technologists among them were taking their passion for serving the public interest, that they had always had, and sharing ideas around open source platforms and helping each other well beyond the confines of their organizations.  The listserv set up subsequently demonstrated (though only partially successful) that those technologists who had previously been only able to toil away to support the listeners or viewers of programs in their area could actually help define standards and build tools that would help their counterparts in other stations.  That said, the challenges for traditional media were only just beginning to come into focus as the conference preceded much of the drop off in advertising revenue that has been driving cutbacks in newsroom staff ever since.

Last year a conference at Columbia ‘The Changing Dynamics of Public Controversies” brought into focus the challenge of oversight in an era where traditional public interest journalism is no longer funded as it was. Prof. Paul Starr provided his analysis of the challenge sharing his most recent article in TNR. Yochai Benkler provided a response that suggested a way out but attendees likely left with more questions than with which they arrived.

The conference at Yale in November, Journalism and the New Media Ecology, looks like it is focused squarely on the question of the moment given it’s subtitle — Who will pay the Messengers? I am not sure if it will deliver but as a preview the recent talk by  Clay Shirky at the Shorenstein Center certainly lays out some of the questions and Shirky’s estimation of how the future could play out, which even he is not that optimistic about.

As those who know me are well aware I am very engaged in thinking about the role of communications technology in society on all scales. My mind has turned most recently though to the events in Moldova, Iran, and now Urumqi all of which have reminded me of two conversations I had several years ago. One concerned the technology those involved in the Velvet revolution in Prague relied upon the other a similar conversation about the election that voted out the Uruguayan junta in the 1984.

I had the good fortune in 1992 to be working in Prague and ended up in a meeting where I was representing the Future of Europe Trust in a meeting with a quiet young guy about a training program for aspiring politicians that were were the rage at the time. The person whose name I forget was held in high esteem and I struggled to understand why as he seemed incredibly introverted and not really a mover and a shaker. It turned out the respect for him came from his role as a key link dispatching students in 1989 from Prague to cities around the then Czechoslovak Socialist Republic to act as carrier pigeons relaying the latest news and sustaining the momentum for change around the country.

The second discussion I’m reminded of concerned the way in which people (according to the account I heard) encouraged each other to vote the Uruguayan junta out of power. Apparently on the day of the election many (perhaps only a few – I don’t claim to be a historian of these events) of those opposed to the junta agreed to turn on their car windscreen wipers come rain or shine as a signal, much like a someone wagging their finger “no”. By all accounts there was no rain that day but still people used their windscreen wipers and to the surprise of some  (at least the activists I met) the junta were voted out.

I won’t claim that these low-tech modes of communication were decisive, and in the case of the Velvet Revolution, a case I know a little about, there was certainly a ripeness and readiness for change, but it is interesting to note that in both cases it would have been impossible for either regime to stop such communication even if they had wanted. (In the CSSR you couldn’t stop every student from going home to their family. And what sort of regime makes it illegal to turn on windscreen wipers?)

The same is not the case for today’s high tech communications. In a world where these modern tools rely on state run network operators engineered with choke points through which all mail can be surveilled seem to me to be much more susceptible to control.  The very tools that significantly lower the barrier to starting a demonstration make it easier for it to be discovered and constrain the movement when they are switched off.  That’s not to say that a world where TOR servers, PGP encryption are deployed and peer to peer mesh networks won’t get round a lot of these constraints, but right now I have doubts that protesters of today will be nearly as successful as the introvert from Prague or those radical windscreen wiper users in Uruguay of the past.

This leaves us with a conundrum – a world where movements arise more frequently, with governments whose drive to survive will likely result in more oppression unless they can learn how to engage these (as Mark Pesce described in his recent talk at the Personal Democracy Forum) “adhocracies.”  Others might call them movements or network. I prefer the term communities.  In short, if people can collaborate on YouTube as Mike Wesch at PDF articulated so well those involved in government and governance are facing a much changed information space. A space that suggests a need to transform the way governments deal with information.

Fortunately for me, the new administration is taking bold steps around opening up streams of data for domestic audiences to analyze, and engaging foreign audiences, sometimes even requesting questions via SMS.  Let’s hope other countries make the same analysis and start engaging their citizens in similar ways.

Yesterday’s announcement that New York City’s 311 and 911 services are going to be picture capable has been picked up by Boing Boing and was the announcement also made it in to page B4 of the city version of the NYT. Now, I’m a strong believer that the visual image might be useful in illuminating stories that would have been lost previously yet I was struck more by the lack of fanfare over such a change. A sort of “oh that’s a good idea,” why wasn’t that done already?

Taking a step back from this is interesting. When do you first remember hearing about video-telephony? For me I think it was on Blue Peter, the UK, the children’s television show that runs in the UK.  Yet here we are today in a world where voice telephony is becoming a free service, movement of images between phones and the internet completely normal and mobile video telephony likely something that children born today won’t remember being without.

Come on. Get excited . We’re living in a world with technology that even Buck Rogers didn’t have!

I’ve just been scanning the content of the latest Pew internet and Life report. Can’t say I’ve read the details but the following chart and bullets caught my eye

• 49% said a major reason they got political news online is that they could get information on the Web that is not available elsewhere as a major reason.
• 41%said a major reason they got political news online is that they don’t get all the news and information they want from traditional news sources such as the daily newspaper or network TV news.
• 34% said a major reason they got political news online is that they can get perspectives from outside their community on candidates and issues
• 28% said a major reason the got political news online was to get local perspectives on the races.

Fascinating as it shows the internet as permitting media needs that were under served prior to its existence. (Without the internet would it ever have been economic to serve such small communities?) Moreover it shows people heading to the internet to widecast (I’ve just made that term up!) rather than the idea that fear  that the internet will eliminate serendipity and that news will be produced by narrowcasters who present news for just your own pyschographic profile.

Below is a video of four guys who have a talent for music. They are somewhat of an inspiration to me. Watching the Edge play guitar is a lesson in seeing someone doing what he loves. If there’s any sort of resolution I’m making for 2007 it is to be like these guys. A rockstar, I’ll never be, but I hope to continue my quest of doing more of what I enjoy and as the year moves forward sharing it with the readers of this blog. Happy New Year to all.

I’m not sure why something I saw related to Second Life provoked me to write the first post on this blog in more than 8 months but this post on the Official Linden Blog regarding abuse management did.

According to my notes, Linden Lab received a grand total of 43 Abuse Reports during my first week of work in 2003. Jumping forward to the end of 2006, the number is closer to 2,000 per day.

It made me think a little about what this would mean in terms of RL
(real life)… I suppose it would indicate that a private security firm
providing the whole justice system (police + justice) would be at the very least too expensive.  Though there post on the subject got a lot more interesting as the writer articulated the proposed solution ….it continued…..

The main thrust of this project is to move our process away from the
current one report/one resolution model and towards a system that with
will quickly and accurately identity and manage those individuals and
behavior that make Second Life feel unwelcoming or unsafe. The revised
system will focus also on moving problems towards more useful paths for
resolution – specifically by enabling and encouraging the development
of inter-Resident mediation and dispute resolution options for those
issues Linden Lab isn’t equipped to resolve. A further emphasis will be
placed on self-resolution — by improivng existing tools like mute and
parcel-based access restrictions.

Now this seems problematic when seen in RL terms. Is the solution really restricting freedom of speech by muting? Why can’t they delegate some of the authority to volunteers who act as sheriffs or judges?  I find this all fairly thought provoking I’ve always thought of SL being a place that aims to be a utopia where residents have valuable facilities beyond those in RL (e.g. teleporting!) but when you think in terms of their articulated approach to security you start wondering if it isn’t ultimately going to be a sort of dystopia.

I thought I’d mention other places I’ve been blogging…  SIPA’s Morningside Post  The post I’m most proud of is this one on Ambassdor Bolton unplugged   and I’ve contributed to The Third Siders Forum with a meta -post on blogrolls.

Other than that I’ve been finishing up at SIPA. When I finish next Tuesday I suspect this blog will get a lot more lively.  Watch this space.