the short version (again).

Social media means anyone can publish.

Twitter, etc, mean people can publish as a reaction, with minimal effort, minimal forethought, at will, and connect to other people.

One aspect of this is that everything is now 'on the record', so we have two choices:

1) Freak out about anything that is remotely insulting, insensitive, or inaccurate; or

2) Accept that 'publishing' as an act has changed, and stop pretending a facebook status is remotely the same the New York Times, because both involve published text.

If we choose option one, which many people seem to think is the only option, people stop using social media to communicate, and start treating it as a form of resume.  This kinda ruins things.

If we choose option two, we have to do what we've done with file-sharing.  Ignore the law and established order, hoping that eventually it will become common enough that change will be forced upon society.  This is based on the idea that law should reflect the standards of society, not the other way around.

Note that I don't think accountability should be reduced.  I just think we all need to accept that publishing is not what it once was.  We've created a massive system of laws, rule, social behaviours and authorities attached to the act of publishing, all based on it being something only a chosen, dedicated few can do.

Reading was like that once, too.  I think we can all agree moving on from that was a good call.

the age of accountability.

Many moons ago, I wrote a post about something I called the Paparazzi Panopticon. I'm fairly sure I forgot to attribute the original idea to Bentham, focusing entirely on Foucault, but the core idea, a democratized version of the all-seeing eye, has never stopped being interesting to me.

I've been having several conversations in this vein lately, focused on accountability. People are accountable for each word of every email they send, anything they post online, comments and images published through social media sites, anything that happens on video, audio, or print. And nothing ever goes away, because we aren't dealing with one outlet that can be 'reasoned with' or 'bullied', we're dealing with reality.

The reality is, the internet has made us all accountable for anything we do, either as a means of recording our actions, or as a means of publishing them.

And this is a Very. Good. Thing.

If the method of surveillance is in the hands of the government, I'd be terrified, and suggest that you adopt a similar course of action. This is because I rarely feel as though the government has similar values to mine. And improper action only gains awareness online when it becomes a cause pushed by a passionate community. Short version: in our democratized panopticon, cops shooting a restrained youth will be made public. My use of orphan works to illuminate a point in a presentation? If no one is impacted negatively, there isn't an uprising.

Accountability isn't a bad thing. Ideally, it just means that we all do as few things we aren't proud of as possible. The counter argument is that people will be punished for anything they do that doesn't toe a company or government line.

My counter argument for that? It won't be too long before companies and governments demanding total control and limitation of employee's private expression becomes the latest infraction to spark a collaborative response. The internet made Tropicana change its logo in a few weeks. I think we can get people to care about corporate attacks of the freedom of expression that private citizens have.

Will people get fired for telling off clients, even indirectly, over social media? Yes. And they should. Because the most important lesson yet to be learned by most of us is that THIS IS REAL LIFE TOO. It's not a hiding place where you can act in ways that would shame you in real life. It's not a playground anymore, not entirely. It's another facet of real life. The separation many of us hide behind is flimsy at best.

This is real life. Real life means accountability, which means better actions, and better people. We just can't let ourselves get caught in the trap of spending out time policing the minor issues, rather than uniting to deal with the major ones.

the potential for social media in canadian democracy.

A recent conversation with my father let me know that until recently, and MP from my area considered listening to Talk Radio call-in shows a good way of monitoring what issues were important to his constituents.  Not only does this only represent a small segment of our population, but letters likely represent an even smaller one.  Conversations with our elected officials should not be intermittent, or one directional.

I'm still wrestling with how best to create a watchable discussion, based on riding, and divided by issues, that could assist with measuring public interest and ideals for Canadian MPs.  My first instinct is to sort out which tools would best fit the idea, and therein lies the problem: I both want something that is easy to use and doesn't require a large time commitment, and I would prefer an engaged group that hashes out ideas in depth.  Not easy to figure out which service would best fit.

I don't particularly think Facebook fits, although everyone is already on it.  Facebook isn't, in my experience, good for focus or commitment.  People will join a group, or make a comment, and then forget about it while maintaining an affiliation.  Being part of a group on Facebook doesn't mean the group becomes part of your Facebook experience.

I'm considering Ning, mostly because creating a riding specific micro-network with sub-groups and discussion boards relating to key issues / legislation appeals to me.  But I'd love feedback on the service.

If there is a simple, free way to create dialogue (on a by riding basis), and then provide MPs with regular digests (created by wiki?) on what constituents find important, and what they want raised as an issue in the house, I think that would help Canadian politics, or at the very least help Canadians consider their own role in politics. 

I'm willing to try if you are.

this is a placeholder.

I'm still figuring out the details, but a conversation with my father (in which I told him this would be impossible) has inspired me to think about how to build a better feedback loop for Canada's parliamentary democracy, using free web based tools.

I'm interested enough at the moment that I might spend a long, long time figuring this out.  And then, shock of shocks, I might actually do something with it.

thoughts on prop 8 and equality.

The question everyone has been asking, the questions I've been asking, after the passing of Proposition 8 in California, and the further attack on the concept of equality, has been the obvious one: How is it that in the same day, a nation made such a clear step towards moving beyond racial bias, and intentionally decided to re-institute bias on the basis of sexual orientation.  How did one of the most liberal areas in America decide that they were okay with a black man running the nation, but terrified by loving gay couples getting married.

The core issue is that inclusive messaging across aligned groups leads to a united front with mroe influence, where exclusive messaging leads to self-directed, but less influential, groups.  To expand:

There are a lot of 'reasons' society is uncomfortable with gay rights issues; the relatively short amount of time people have been openly homosexual, the willingness to pretend this issue has anything to do with religion, etc etc etc.

The short truth is that arguing against gay marriage is like arguing against inter-racial marriage.  It taps into bullshit generational ideas about what is for who, equality, who counts as a person, and who gets to make decisions about the lives of others.

It wasn't thought of as this, due to a failing in most fights for equality.  I owe everything I have to the civil rights movement, but it was clearly cast as a matter of black people getting equal treatment under the law.  This was inevitably an equality issue, but it was presented as, and approached as, the rights of one group versus the majority.

The women's rights movement is the same thing.  A clear issue of equality, but approached as the rights of women, and a struggle specifically against male oppression.

None of this is wrong.  But it's not as right as it could be.  Very soon, most western nations will have more 'minorities' than straight, christian whites.  May countries already do.  If we insist on arguing each fight for equality step by step, everyone has to suffer through the same long struggle.

If the message was 'everyone deserves equal rights and treatment', rather than 'MY group deserves equal rights and treatment', we'd have a stronger united front, serve long term universal interests, and hopefully make the world a better place.

We're just going to keep letting each other down until it stops being about equality for blacks, equality for gays, equality for latinos, etc, and just starts being about equality for all of us, without exception.

Letter to my Member of Parliament

June 13, 2008



The Honourable Bryon Wilfert


House of Commons


Dear Sir,

I'm writing as a constituent to let you know that I am strongly opposed to the amendments proposed to Canadian copyright legislation on June 12, 2008. While I understand many Canadians, voters or otherwise, don't understand the technical implications of these changes, I find them a direct infringement of my liberties as a Canadian citizen.

By criminalizing workarounds for Digital Rights Management technology, this Bill allows any company to essentially determine the bounds of copyright law - destroying fair dealing options such as time or location shifting of content, with no legal recourse for users.

Most importantly, to enforce this legislation, the entire concept of a right to privacy would have to go out the window; any actual enforcement would require monitoring and inspecting the usage history of every Canadian with an internet connection, and likely allowing companies to do so.

My privacy, as a Canadian citizen, does not outrank essential concerns such as the safety and security of my fellow Canadians. However, I must insist that my right to privacy comes before the rights of entertainment industry conglomerates that seem to have dictated the content of Minister Prentice's Bill.

I ask that you stand against this legislation.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Crowley


redefining a personal experience (OYP)

I've been spending a lot of my spare time considering how to update a conference that has meant a lot to me over the years, basically an attempt to make politics, and faith (specifically Christian faith) more relevant to 14-21 year olds in Ontario. As a raging atheist, the Christian part is a hard sell for me, excepting the core values (golden rule, etc) that I think most people can agree are good ideas, at least when removed from the confines of a faith system. So I've been focusing on how to make politics interesting enough for youth to want to join a model parliament with religious components.

We have a socially aware and active youth base, but they aren't interested in politics in isolation. The point that keeps popping up in my head is that youth care about issues - you can see them proving it in Nathan Phillips Square every couple of months - and a political outreach program for youth, even a model one, has to be issue based to tap into that. The current model we use is based on getting cabinet ministers to write legislation on various issues they care about, debate it, amend it, and surround that time with structured social activities, fundraising, and spiritual reflection. (note: I think this is great, and that is backed up with me spending 9 years involved in an organisation partially based on a religious tradition I actually have disdain for).

I think the solution is to take the entire experience issue based. If the core issue for a session is, say, Darfur, as an example, then have everything focus on that. Draft legislation relating to banning trade with nations who condone genocide, or reinforcing Canada's lagging UN Peacekeeping commitment. Have the charity (we usually have one local, and one international) be directly related. Have workshops that educate kids on the issues before debating legislation. Screen a documentary or two. Make the religious component, bible verse, etc, complement the theme, and deal with the core moral violations that make it something that needs to be challenged. Create a framework for people to get involved when they get home. Make that issue live beyond the weekend - go as far as to organise meetups, a letter writing campaign, anything to create actual results from the effort.

The problem isn't that kids don't care about politics, it's that they've gotten used to actually doing things, rather than talking about them.

This is likely going to be one in a series, as I figure this out. I realise it's not overly accessible, but I hope it will become clearer as I come closer to a final product.

democratic panopticon

[This is a work in progress, and it will be either heavily edited (when I am less sleepy), or re-written and re-posted (possibly with better defined arguments). Let's just consider this one workshopping online.]

This post is heavily thematically linked with a previous one, titled Paparazzi Panopticism.

Thing one: Warren Ellis' Crooked Little Vein includes a character who discusses the idea of cellular phones with cameras as a weapon. Any they are, because it allows anyone to create content, news content, information content, disruptive content. If you want the speech, buy the book. Seriously. It's brilliant.

Thing two: My father, who has, over the years, gone from the kind of guy who buys a 286 and convinces his wife that it's good for the kids (which it shockingly was), to the kind of guy who dislikes that blogging gives anyone a platform to say anything, made a compelling comment over dinner. That a world where people have cell phone cameras is a world where corruption is harder to get away with.

These things got me thinking. The effect of everyone being about to record anything isn't the us vs them issue that so many people think it is. The Panoptic reality this creates isn't binary, there is a more complex dynamic than authority vs people. What we're left with instead is a democratised panopticon, where interpretation and evidence can come from all sides, and from all agendas.

The intriguing part of this, for me, is the subversion of the original theory. Panoptic realities are about people policing themselves in fear of an authority who may or may not be watching at any given time. But the current situation isn't just about authority. Now there is reasonable need to fear that any action that would offend a reasonably sized community will be shown, and you will be penalized socially for it, by that group, and groups affiliated.

To put it simply, this isn't just about being caught standing against the whims of authority, now. It's about the possibility of being caught, at any time, for any act deemed against society, or even peace in society. This is more involved than fighting authority, for one simple reason - a democratised panopticon is inescapable.

In terms of fighting authority, it's marvelous that someone can't be tasered needlessly without it being caught on film. Authorities should be held responsible for their actions, because they have power. The same can be said for celebrities, which justifies, to an extent, the concept of the paparazzi panopticon. But a democratic panopticon seems to bring with it a need to better define the limitations of acceptable behaviour, of what acts, statements or opinions are anti-social in a strong enough sense to require response.

Or will the standard reply be something to the tune of 'live like no one's watching'?

democratized democracy.

One of the oldest myths / dreams about the internet is that it would, eventually, somehow, lead to a better world. The best chance for this is the democratizing effect that it has for media. The idea that everyone can have a voice was, and is, definitely revolutionary, and blogging has been the obvious example that we can point to for this democratization in practice. Another one popped up recently, and I think it’s worth dissecting on a theoretical level.

Disclosure: I like Barack Obama. I want him to win, for many reasons. I’m also not an American, so (although everyone has a stake in a US election) I’d like to claim something resembling distance from the issue of who wins what.

At the same time, I have to talk about my.barackobama.com, and why the idea of it excites me.

First off, to explain. Although I can’t actually sign in to the site, due to my lack of an American zip code, it seems to be a fairly straightforward social network, allowing a user to make friends, blog, create groups, plan events, message, and fundraise. This isn’t anything unusual for social networks, but it is for election campaigns.

The traditional election campaign has always operated on something similar to the traditional broadcast model of communication. Those representing the candidate express an approved message, follow orders, and generally the candidate tells you what they are about, and why you should vote for them. This is pretty much the standard of campaigning in democracies the world over. Beyond that, there are fundraisers, public events, commercials praising the candidate, and at least a few commercials attacking the opposition, from at least one member of the race. While this model is obviously still in effect, and still based on grassroots support, it isn’t exactly a conversation, and it is most likely very closely controlled by those leading up the campaign.

Gathering everyone to a social network based on the candidate, however, creates a few new and interesting wrinkles. Obama supporters who sign up get to blog whatever they please, on a site sponsored by the candidate himself. They can do their own organising. They can fundraise how they please. And they can do it independent of direct oversight by the candidate himself, or his staff. The people get a voice, and they get it for the entire run up to the next election, as opposed to once every four years.

Sounds an awful lot like democracy, doesn’t it?

There are obviously possible problems, however. As much as I hate to mention it, editorial control over user accounts, and the ability to remove postings, is essential. Essential, if only because a black presidential candidate is almost certain going to be the target of racism, ignorance, and idiotic pranks. The question is how tight editorial control will be. Will MyBarackObama.com remove posts that comment negatively on the actions or stances of the candidate? I’d hope not, if only because it would completely negate the ‘This Campaign is About You’ message posted on the front page of his website proper.

Equally important to relinquishing control over discussion of the candidate in a sponsored mass media forum is the simple fact that this move speaks volumes about the Obama campaign and its understanding of the youth of the modern world. The execution, from what I can see, looks almost textbook web2.0. This isn’t a complaint, but it at least shows that someone has been paying attention to how these things work. Someone is actively targeting the youth vote, and doing it in terms that don’t reek of desperation. By creating a separate social network, people are given a tool to use, as opposed to a sad appropriation of a tool they already enjoy. Facebook isn’t for elections. MySpace isn’t for elections. MyBarackObama.com is for elections, for this specific election, but also for users to enjoy and control.

Something like this is fascinating to me. If campaigning, even in part, becomes a matter of mostly unedited discourse between supporters, and between supporters and the candidate, arguably the most important non-voting part of the U.S. democratic process for the public, actually involves the input of the people. More than that, it actually invites mass involvement, rather than just a tick in the appropriate box, on the appropriate day.

Mostly, this kind of move supports the claims senator Obama has made about his beliefs and goals in relation to politics. It shows action on a desire to include and represent public viewpoints, even in a media organ designed specifically to support one candidate. Democracy is a glorious, honourable ideal. It’s nice to see that reflected in more than the final element of an election.

EDIT:

I've actually logged in and checked out the site. Other things to note are the ability to select issues of importance to you while creating a profile (ranging from civil rights to energy policy), and a personalised fundraising message that can be sent to friends, and other members of the site.