Quote
"I can’t think of anything that demonstrates the sovereign nature of the self better than a blog.” - Doc Searls
About the Author
Stowe Boyd is a well-known media subversive,
and an internationally recognized authority on real-time, collaborative
and social technologies. His new blog is Message.
|
Category Archives
January 03, 2006
Posted by Stowe Boyd
Rebecca reports on some very, very horrible news. Apparently, MSN Spaces -- not the Chinese government mind you -- is censoring Chinese language MSN-hosted blogs worldwide. Even those hosted in the US with US authors. They have made users' Spaces 'not available', such as those written by Zhao Jing, aka Michael Anti, one of the most outspoken Chinese bloggers. But Rebecca goes on to describe how she set up a MSN hosted blog, and was able to have that blog censored and then made 'not available' simply by using various inflammatory terms like "Falun Gong" and "Tiananmen massacre." Apparently, a competitor of MSN Spaces called Bokee has been clamoring to have Michael Anti taken down, because he formerly blogged there, and his leaving has led to loss of significant readership.
[RConversation: Microsoft takes down Chinese blogger]
Now, It is VERY important to note that the inaccessible blog was moved or removed at the server level and that the blog remains inaccessible from the United States as well as from China. This means that the action was taken NOT by Chinese authorities responsible for filtering and censoring the internet for Chinese viewers, but by MSN staff at the level of the MSN servers.
I did similar tests with five other Chinese blog-hosting services. They all work differently when it comes to censoring user content, but they all engage in some form of filtering or censorship of user content. Interestingly, I found that Bokee had no mechanism preventing me from posting anything in the titles or text bodies of the posts. But eventually, blogs with politically sensitive words in them (like “Falun Gong,” “Tiananmen massacre” and “Tibet independence”) were taken down in what appeared to be a human screening process, perhaps assisted by some kind of keyword search or alert system. Other blog hosting services use a combination of automated systems and human procedures similar to MSN’s, although MSN was definitely #1 when it came to full takedown response time. At least one of the services allows you to post anything, but replaces politically sensitive words with “****” when they appear. I have decided not to go into a detailed naming of names and specifics about who censors more strictly and who censors more loosely than whom, since that will only result in some people getting in trouble – or as the Bokee editorial against MSN shows, some blog-hosting companies trying to curry favor with the authorities may try to sic the goons on those who take a lighter-handed approach to, er, user content management…
It's a terrible thing to imagine: Microsoft agreeing to censor Chinese language blogs, globally, in exchange for some unknown quid pro quo with the Chinese government. This must not be allowed. If there was ever a reason to boycott Microsoft (I mean, aside from the products themselves), this is it.
Robert Scoble is royally pissed, and is using his considerable juice to find out what is going on. But this might be the time when Robert's public persona might get crushed by the backroom deal worth billions for Microsoft. Robert says he knows the consequences of stating that Microsoft has become "the agent of a government", but when he lists the consequences he omits getting dooced.
Robert is not likely to call for a boycott of Microsoft, but I am the perfect one to do it. Boycott Microsoft!
Comments (17)
+ TrackBacks (3) | Category: Politics
November 04, 2005
Posted by Stowe Boyd
Micah Sifry has put together an appropriately in-depth blow-by-blow after action report on the Andrew Rasiej campaign for New York City Public Advocate. I think it is a impassioned cry for a return to civic involvement, and that latent in the perhaps overly long analysis lie the lineaments of a new sort of social action, and a wake-up call for the Democratic party. Specifically, the campaign flagged for a bunch of reasons:
[from Rasiej Campaign Post-Mortem
We fell short because:
1) We started very late, which meant a cascading chain of difficulties including low name recognition, weak ties to potential endorsers, intense pressure to raise vital funds, and difficulties in quickly finding experienced staff and building the necessary organizational infrastructure;
2) We didn’t anticipate how hard it would be to gain traction in a low-intensity election cycle, with an indifferent electorate that, along with the media, was paying little attention overall to municipal politics and practically no attention to the office of Public Advocate (even though it is first in line to succeed the Mayor), and essentially felt things in the city were moving in a positive direction (to the benefit of all incumbents);
3) We misjudged how much people would care about our initial pledge to not take more than $100 per donors, and we overestimated how much the Internet could compensate for our weaknesses, in terms of spreading our message and assisting with fundraising;
4) We didn’t realize how much self-proclaimed progressives and reformers in New York City would take an essentially conservative (i.e. indifferent) approach to an office that could be an innovative force for change in the city; and
5) Low name recognition plus low voter attention meant that network effects (such as a message spreading virally, or friends of the campaign being able to convince their friends to donate money) were almost impossible to produce.
I am a strong advocate for open source politics, but I also believe that for it to work, people need to be attracted to issues that are critical to them personally: very personally. People have to really care about the traffic, the corruption, the war in Iraq, whatever the issues are, if they are to get involved with campaigns that run around the established, top-down, mainstream politics as usual.
In the lull between Katrina and the compin flu pandemic, local preparedness is a hot issue. Local response is really the only rational model for handling disasters, anyway, but it seems that we are just becoming aware of that. I anticipate a groundswell of local involvement around this issue, that will lead to more than stockpiling water and bandages. I expect that municipal wifi -- for example -- will ultimately become widespread because of the growing awareness of our need for ubiquitous communication infrastructure -- accessible to all, not just governmental, fire and rescue services -- in the face of devastation. As a side effect, we will also further extend a democratizing medium that can counter the power associated with money in the political process. It's a shame that it requires disaster at our door to shake off the torpor and indifference of power politics, and usher in a new era.
While Rasiej did not get elected, his campaign is just a bellwether of what is to come. And the lessons -- as Micah has enumerated -- that we need to learn.
Comments (9)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Politics
October 31, 2005
Posted by Stowe Boyd
Ok, I am breaking with tradition by discussing politics here, but I can't help it. Chris Nolan (who is participating at the upcomming Symposium on Social Architecture) asks, and answers, an important question:
[from Spot-On: Chris Nolan]
Who's going to be the next vice president of the United States?
My money's on Condi Rice.
Wow. That's one way to turn heads away -- at least momentarily -- from the stink emanating from the White House these days.
Comments (11)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Politics
September 14, 2005
Posted by Stowe Boyd
Andrew Rasiej's much-blogged campaign for NYC Public Advocate ended yesterday with a loss, but Andrew was quick to claim a victory for ideas:
[from Advocates for Rasiej » Blog Archive » A Victory for Ideas]
I don't consider this to be anything other than a victory speech... We changed the whole notion of what the Public Advocate's office could be... It doesn't matter what the percentages are, we created a real debate about what the Public Advocate's office could be and we raised a lot of important ideas... In case you didn't hear, today the New York Parks Department announced that they will be giving free Wi-Fi in most of the city's parks today.
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Politics
September 13, 2005
Posted by Stowe Boyd
I was one of gazillions who posted yesterday about Andrew Rasiej's bid for NYC Public Advocate, and apparently Rasiej has been getting more searches at Technorati than Katrina or the Skype deal with eBay. Either this is proof of the mobbing effect of all those posts -- and the specific recommendation from Rasiej's handlers that people should "Check out what other bloggers are saying by going to http://www.technorati.com and type “Rasiej” into the search box." Although some hecklers are suggesting that this is a dark conspiracy at Technorati -- that they are rigging things so that the Rasiej posts are "most popular" as some sort of support for his campaign. Or maybe people are just worn down on the Katrina coverage, and are genuinely interested in a politician who seems, well, profoundly different from the norm.
Comments (1)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Politics
September 12, 2005
Posted by Stowe Boyd
A few weeks ago, I wrote a piece (Thomas Freidman on The Power Of Networks And Blogging) digging into the issues surrounding the New York campaign of Andrew Rasiej, who is running for Public Advocate. This position is usually not front page news, but in the world of today, it certainly should be.
In that piece, I suggested that the move to public access wifi -- a key plank of Rasiej's platform -- represents the start of Politics 2.0:
The bottom-up, emergent model of social connectedness that we are making, here in the small, in the blogosphere, is like the genie getting out of the bottle. And once everyone is connected, then the blogosphere includes everyone; and then online social networks and realworld networks will increasingly be one and the same.
In the same way that pushing for free municipal wifi is an end run around entrenched interests -- the telcom and cable giants that want to charge us $60 per month for ever for so-so access to the Internet -- politicians like Rasiej see that creating a fully connected polity is an end run around the 20th Century political apparatus that now governs us. Rather than struggling to reform and revise the gridlocked system that we have -- lobbyists, political chicanery, ossified politicos, and a system more reminiscent of WWI trench warfare than a government responsive to the needs of the people -- let's hope that a batch of idealists seize the Internet as a way to leapfrog us into a new, and more connected form of political involvement.
It's not just a better form of communication -- fireside chats writ large -- but rather a step into emergent democracy, Politics 2.0, where the governance of our cities, states, and the country, will finally be directly in our hands, and not ceded to a caste of self-interested professionals to manage on our supposed behalf.
Rasiej is the start of something big. Micah Sifry pinged me, reminding me that the election is upon us; here's his recent email:
Dear friend:
Tomorrow, people around the country who care about bringing a more
net-centric, bottom-up and transparent politics to life are turning
their attention to the New York City Democratic Primary, where
technology entrepreneur and education activist Andrew Rasiej is
competing to become the city’s Public Advocate.
It’s not too late to add your voice to the conversation. Check out what
other bloggers are saying by going to http://www.technorati.com and
type “Rasiej” into the search box.
(If we all do this between the hour of 11am and noon, eastern, who
knows, maybe we’ll get Andrew into the Technorati “top ten”!)
And if you know three people who live in New York City who are
registered Democrats, give them a call and ask them to vote for Andrew.
Then ask them to each call three more people to do the same thing.
Rinse, and repeat. The turnout on Tuesday is, unfortunately, expected
to be so low that you really could sway the election.
And whatever happens, we know we’re making a difference by pushing new
ideas forward, and encouraging other candidates like Andrew to run in
the future.
All best,
Micah Sifry
eCampaign Director
Advocates for Rasiej
http://www.rasiej.com
So -- a call out to all of you in New York, or who, like me, think we need to step onto a new base of civic involvement, and that the blogosphere is perhaps the only shining example for the way it might be in the future, for all of us. Please pass this along, and let your New Yorker friends and family know what could be the outcome of this otherwise pedestrian election for Public Advocate.
[Update: Here's a post from Doc Searles onj Rasiej's call for the formation of a National Tech Corps; also, a great post at Escapable Logic on the importance of municipal wifi (Wifi, The Metaphor)]
Comments (9)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Politics
August 09, 2005
Posted by Stowe Boyd
Thomas Freidman, in an 3 August column that I somehow missed (vacation), sharpens his ax for a while on the lamentable state of US cell service, and then plugs a forward-minded politico, Andrew Rasiej who "is running in New York City's Democratic primary for public advocate on a platform calling for wireless (Wi-Fi) and cellphone Internet access from every home, business and school in the city."
I'm down with that, and I hope that we can keep the telcom lobbyists from making it s federal crime to create no-cost wi-fi on a metropolitan or regional basis. Presuming that the electorate will embrace something that is both good for you and free, I am certain that Friedman is right, and a new generation of politicians will ride the wireless connectivity mandate to their respective city halls, state houses, and perhaps (gasp) the White House. This could really be a realignment of politics, leaving behind the current fissure between right and left, and replacing it with a dichotomy between progressives and luddites, as Friedman alluded to in the title of his column: Calling All Luddites.
Accelerating the democratization of Internet access through free municipal wifi is a radical act: it destabilizes the power now handed out to telephone and cable companies by the previous generation of politicians.
Friedman doesn't give it his full attention, but looming like the tip of an enormous, rolling iceberg is his nearly offhand characterization of Politics 2.0:
The technological model coming next - which Howard Dean accidentally uncovered but never fully developed - will revolve around the power of networks and blogging. The public official or candidate will no longer just be the one who talks to the many or tries to listen to the many. Rather, he or she will be a hub of connectivity for the many to work with the many - creating networks of public advocates to identify and solve problems and get behind politicians who get it.
"One elected official by himself can't solve the problems of eight million people," Mr. Rasiej argued, "but eight million people networked together can solve one city's problems. They can spot and offer solutions better and faster than any bureaucrat. ... The party that stakes out this new frontier will be the majority party in the 21st century. And the Democrats better understand something - their base right now is the most disconnected from the network."
The bottom-up, emergent model of social connectedness that we are making, here in the small, in the blogosphere, is like the genie getting out of the bottle. And once everyone is connected, then the blogosphere includes everyone; and then online social networks and realworld networks will increasingly be one and the same.
In the same way that pushing for free municipal wifi is an end run around entrenched interests -- the telcom and cable giants that want to charge us $60 per month for ever for so-so access to the Internet -- politicians like Rasiej see that creating a fully connected polity is an end run around the 20th Century political apparatus that now governs us. Rather than struggling to reform and revise the gridlocked system that we have -- lobbyists, political chicanery, ossified politicos, and a system more reminiscent of WWI trench warfare than a government responsive to the needs of the people -- let's hope that a batch of idealists seize the Internet as a way to leapfrog us into a new, and more connected form of political involvement.
It's not just a better form of communication -- fireside chats writ large -- but rather a step into emergent democracy, Politics 2.0, where the governance of our cities, states, and the country, will finally be directly in our hands, and not ceded to a caste of self-interested professionals to manage on our supposed behalf.
[pointers from Jeff Jarvis, Doc Searls, Dominic Basulto, and Glenn Reynolds]
Comments (4)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Politics
October 08, 2004
Posted by Stowe Boyd
Xeni Jardin asks over at Boing Boing: CNN's "Presidential Showdown Game": Is it just me, or does this CNN banner ad seem incredibly bizarre, and CNN's online game to "Pick the winner of the popular vote in each state" to be in profoundly bad taste? The winner gets a gigantic HDTV. It feels weird. I mean, since when are these things "Presidential Showdowns?" My people call 'em "Elections."
Surowiecki's The Wisdom of Crowds points out that large groups of people do really well at predicting the outcome of things like elections, sporting events, or how much the fat lady weighs. Actually much better than pundits or analysts do.
So while the feel of this whole endeaver may feel smarmy (to say the least) the reality is that we should look at the results very, very closely. If they really get tens of thousands of people guessing "how many jelly beans are in the jar?" the aggregated average is likely to be really, really close to reality.
Comments (1)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Politics
February 04, 2004
Posted by Stowe Boyd
Lessig points out that a grassroots campaign that decides to retreat into centralization will fail: "Fire someone who built the most extraordinary grass-roots organization in history, and hire a Washington lobbyist in his stead. Now we’re making progress."
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Politics
January 16, 2004
Posted by Stowe Boyd
Great piece by Jeff Jarvis (thanks to David Weinberger's pointer) that pokes fun at the amazingly dumb discussion about the role of blogging in so-called "Real-Time Democracy": "Well, this chitchat assumes, wrongly, that (a) the Internet is for fringe opinions and (b) Internet users are Dean supporters. The logical extension of that is that Dean is fringe, but I'll leave that straightline aside. This is still stupidly generalizing.
IT'S JUST A TOOL, BOYS. Tools have no ideology or loyalty. Whether pamphleteering or phone canvassing or direct mail or the Internet or weblogs, they're just tools that are used wisely or not. Dean learned quickly and used them wisely. That says a lot about Dean -- and his people -- and little about the tools, you tools.
: Frustrating just reading that.
I'll tell you what the world needs: Another show: Meet the Blogs." Yes, it's just a tool, Jeff, but "we make our tools, and then they shape us," as Kenneth Bouldin once said.
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Politics
December 30, 2003
Posted by Stowe Boyd
Good piece at Wired by Gary Wolf making the parallel between the Dean emergent democracy network and Isenberg's "Stupid Networks" concept.
Make the network stupid.
The Dean campaign is a network rather than an army, and that is one of its strengths. But it's a stupid network, and that's also a strength. Stupid is meant in the technical sense, defined by David Isenberg in his classic telephony paper, "The Rise of the Stupid Network." Isenberg advanced the principle that under conditions of uncertainty, a network should not be optimized for any set of uses presumed to be definitive. Instead, the network should be as simple as possible, with advanced functionality and intelligence moved out to its edges. For the Dean campaign, this means that hundreds of independent groups are organizing with very little direction from headquarters. [pointer from David Weinberger.]
Dean's network may not be globally optimized toward getting him into office: there are likely to be hundreds or thousands of locally optimized purposes that partitions of the network dream up.
Comments (3)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Politics
|
|
