Priceless in so many ways…

I’m sure you might have already heard about the rather amusing Wikileaks video embedded below, but just in case…

If we can put aside the specifics of Wikileaks and Julian Assange for the moment, probably the most important thing to have come out of the events is that there’s an increased awareness, debate and discussion around whistleblowing, transparency and information sharing, and certainly Wikileaks has played a large part in that due to the media partnerships it made for leaked documents, and the media coverage of what has happened since. The combination of the importance of the leaked content, and the fact that it was disseminated with the maintstream media made for something which grew beyond most anonymous blog posts or forum messages, for example.

I was originally going to write that even if it had just made a handful of the governments and companies which engage in behaviour damaging society pause to reconsider, then it had done something valuable – at which point a paradox hit me.

When we talk about the efforts of big business against file-sharing and piracy, a large part of the argument is that you can’t stop people from sharing content when it keeps evolving to be quicker and easier. All that happens is that you drive the most hardcore further underground, nibbling at the very edges where those who can’t be bothered with the potential risks or the added hassles might be affected.

So flipping this around, the increase in document leaks could also simply hinder those who weren’t particularly evil or adept at hiding it, whilst those who are far more invested in their actions and determined will find better ways of hiding what they are doing – from whisteblowers, established aid charities and organisations, and any investigators from foreign governments etc.

Of course, then you can move into the actions of Anonymous and Lulzsec, and debate whether more direct attacks via hacking can be justified if they’re done with the intention of highlighting important issues.

Information to action:

The interesting thing for me is what comes after the information is released. Do we see it on the whisteblowing website, or reported in the media, and then get back to everyday tasks, or does it have some effect on the way we act. And if the effect is big enough, are we actually able to turn it into positive action?

It’s interesting that in comparing whistleblowing and piracy, there’s one key similarity. The power of both governments and big business are most definitely interested in curbing both actions by ‘private citizens’. Both can lead to economic or civil problems for both seats of power to have to deal with, and both are greatly enabled by the digital age.

The question isn’t how we can do these things, or even whether they, in themselves, are currently morally and legally acceptible, but really about how they can be used in the longer term to create change that actually enables a better way of life for the maximum amount of people, and what that might look like. And the key to that stage of social, legal and political evolution will be if the likes of Wikileaks leads us to moreĀ  routes for effective action, rather than focusing on the specifics of Julian Assange and the documents released so far…

 

My thoughts on Facebook’s commenting system

There’s been a lot of debate around Facebook’s new commenting system, particularly due to the fact it is currently being tested on Techcrunch.

Matthew Ingram does a good job of summarising at GigaOm, although the heart of the debate seems to be in the comments section of Robert Scoble’s post (I pop up a couple of times in the comments!). There are various reasons for allowing a choice of commenting profile, whether or not that includes the facility for anonymity in an easy or more complicated manner – such as creating a fake Facebook account. But I think I can summarise one major flaw in the test and reactions so far.

When UK pubs had a reputation for violence, they’d introduce a dress code requiring shoes. That’d work for a couple of weeks. And then you’d find yourself in fights with the same people, but in slightly smarter clothes.

On a more analytic level, there are a variety of reasons for not using a commenting system which currently rests on the shoulder of one company.

  • You may want to keep Facebook personal, and use Twitter/LinkedIn/your blog or site as your professional reference.
  • You may not your Facebook profile to be a mess of comments you’ve left around the web.
  • You may wish to be anonymous to voice your authentic opinion whilst minimising the repercussions either personally or career wise.
  • Facebook is blocked by a number of organisations, preventing commenting from people in the workplace.
  • Whilst I may choose a relatively public online persona, my friends and family haven’t chosen to participate in my online life in the same way. And whilst Facebook has privacy controls, I don’t fancy checking 500-odd people have the right settings in place before I post on Techcrunch. Or want any of them involved if I choose to disagree with something on there and annoy someone.
  • Blog comments have long been one way of creating community between bloggers, whether or not those comments are seo-friendly ‘do follow’ links or ‘no follow’. If someone posts a great comment on my site, I’d like them to get the small reward of a direct link to their site, if anyone wants to find out more. Not reward Facebook for doing nothing. And judging by the SEOMOz toolbar’s ‘NoFollow’ indicator, the Facebook comments are followed links back to Facebook everytime.
  • There are viable alternatives already out there – for instance Disqus, as used on this blog. Pick whichever ID you’re comfortable with, and use it!
  • The comment culture is built by the culture of the site – rather than using technical solutions, perhaps it’s more sensible for the TC team to look at why they generate so many antagonistic or crap anonymous comments. Besides their size and audience, perhaps the fact that they may sometimes stray into tabloid linkbait might contribute? Look at the difference between similar sites in terms of technology e.g. Digg vs Reddit vs Hacker News, for example. All three allow link sharing, but the quality of discussion is better on Reddit and Hacker News in my opinion, because there’s more of a community on both.
  • Facebook Comments has code in it which would have allowed Google and Twitter logins, but was removed for some reason – and as a company with an immense userbase, they’ve got no vested interest in allowing a wider range of logins.
  • Following a VRM principle would suggest that the content and data created is mine, and I should be allowed to choose how, when, and why I share it.
  • And finally, there may be times when I might have a legitimate reason to not share a blog comment, for example, on Facebook. Perhaps I’m enquiring about a present or a recipe as a surprise for my partner (Remember Facebook Beacon?). Perhaps I want to describe a personal experience which may relate to my family. Maybe I’m commenting on a site which I don’t want to necessarily be associated with or advertise because I want to disagree with what they’ve written.

I’m all for quality conversation, but as you’d imagine, I don’t think I’ll be installing Facebook Comments anytime soon… Am I making the right decision?

The magical power of great writing and insight

Sometimes the effect that great writing and content can have is almost magical, whether it’s due to what is on the page or screen, or due to the timing of it. For instance, having written about some of the different inputs that are helping me create better work, I fired up Tweetdeck today, and the first thing I saw was @Documentally tweeting a link to his own take on a same subject.

The power of great content has also been hitting me from various angles this weekend, thanks to the often-documented genius of two great writers – Arthur C Clarke and Cory Doctorow. As I went through a pile of old books for sorting, filing or selling, I fell into re-reading Childhood’s End, which was originally written by Clarke in 1952, although my version has a re-written foreword and first chapter from 1990. Considering the book was partly inspired by the site of barrage balloons over London during World World 2, imagine the power of seeing the following, particularly at the same time as reading the latest UK issue of Wired, which features this article by Steven Levy on artificial intelligence, and leads with the application of AI to sorting in warehouses.

“The average working week was now about twenty hours – but those twenty hours were no sinecure. There was little work left of a routine, mechanical nature. Men’s minds were too valuable to waste on tasks that a few thousand transistors, some photo electric cells, and a cubic metre of printed circuits could perfor. There were factories that ran for weeks without being visited by a single human being. Men were needed for trouble-shooting, for making decisions, for planning new enterprises. The robots did the rest”

As Steven Levy notes, AI was being looked at in the 1950′s, and the eventual direction of the current successful AI is different to the original plans of replicating the human brain. But even so, that almost 60-year-old paragraph from Clarke can’t fail to resonate. And as someone with a young child and a corresponding diet of animated films, this also really stood out.

“The hundred years since the time of Disney had still left much undone in this most flexible of mediums. On the purely realistic side, results could be produced indistinguishable from actual photography – much to the contempt of those who were developing the cartoon along abstract lines.”

Again, not necessarily something that was inconceivable in the 50s, but something that is hitting us now with the likes of Avatar, or the massive leaps in videogame cinematics over the last 10-20 years.
On the platform, reading

Present day technology and predictions:

But what of the present day? Someone once wrote that the way to predict what technology would arrive was to read popular science-fiction, because that hugely influences the interests and passions of the geeks who go on to make it a reality…

Well, I’ve recently given my father two Cory Doctorow books (Available as free downloads from Cory’s site, or via the likes of Amazon in dead tree format), and I’ve also bought one for my partner, and as she rarely reads any geeky things I put in front of her, I bribed her with some chocolate to give it a try…

reading

Remember, at this point, that my family all believe I have what my good friend @pjeedai refers to as a ‘Chandler Job‘. They understand I work on a computer, and at some point, I’m able to pay some bills and buy food for another month.

Having read Little Brother, I now have a partner who not only enjoyed the book, but is slightly more interested in what it is I do, and what I’m passionate about. And I can now mention cryptography without her eyes glazing over completely.

But the biggest and best surprise of all has been buying my dad copies of ‘Makers‘ and ‘For The Win‘. Having spent years trying to bridge the gap between his talents at practical stuff – in addition to working as an electrician, he’s also a dab hand with cars, and a talented artist – and my supposed skills at writing and ephemeral digital stuff such as social media and gaming, one of my big joys was hearing him talk about 3D Printing after reading Makers, and seeing some of the ways in which it’s immensely inspiring, disruptive and important. Hence why my plan to purchase a Makerbot is increasingly important.

I thought ‘For The Win’ would be riskier – it’s a more alien subject, as it deals with unionisation of gamers in virtual worlds – but as someone who has experienced unions and working practices in the real world for his whole life, I figured he might find it interesting. But the biggest personal thing for me is that I’ve been talking about gaming, virtual worlds and virtual economies to people for years, and my dad never really got what the hell I was talking about. Until I spoke to him on the phone last night, and he said that now he understood all the gaming stuff I’d been telling him about – and started asking me a few questions about it.

With great writing comes great effects:

Without diving into the world of literary semiotics, there’s a whole world of meaning and significance which come the person ‘consuming’ content, rather than those creating it, regardless of their original artistic intent. And that’s something which can reach and affect people after decades, or hundreds of years, in deeply personal and moving ways, or in ways that can inspire movements. It’s also something which you can occasionally lose sight of, particularly in an age of search engines, content farms, and corporate content.

Never forget that by investing time and effort in crafting something to the best of your ability, that you may get back far, far more than you put into it!

Some reactions to Digital Britain…

I haven’t been able to fully digest the Digital Britain report to be able to dissect it and add anything to the commentary already online, so I thought I’d share the thoughts of those people who I value enough to have in my RSS feed every day:

Digital Britain Scorecard: So how did Lord Carter do? – Paid Content.

What does #digitalbritain mean for journalism – Adam Westbrook.

Digital Britain calls for pirate-free universal broadband – Ars Technica.

Digital Britain: 2015 – First thoughts on radio – Adam Bowie.

(Disclosure – Adam Bowie is a colleague of mine at Absolute Radio, although the views expressed on either of our blogs are our own, and do not necessarily represent the views of our employer. )

I’d also recommend the always erudite and interesting Bill Thompson, – Digital Britain engaging with the internet – but his blog appears to be down at the moment. Luckily he’s also available on the BBC site.