My response to privacy issues was practically recited word-for-word by EFF in their article, "On Locational Privacy, and How to Avoid Losing it Forever." My stance has always been, "I'm not doing anything wrong so why worry about it". Reading those words as a "common response" definitely caught my attention. So if I'm not doing anything wrong, why should I worry about digital privacy?
As I type these words I realize I do think about it. I am cautious about what I do and say online. I'm careful about the online company I keep as well as things I search for. I have learned that once online, it stays online. It is now common practice for hiring professionals to conduct personal online inquiries in which they form "personal" judgements. Whatever happened to "What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas?" Recently, I came to the realization that my email signature may even be offensive to some. So, I removed my liberal stamp, along with my "thought-provoking" peace statement. Now, I'm nothing more than a pist off Democrat trapped in a red state with no one to talk to about it but my mom! Such is life.
What I found refreshing about this week's reading was the blog by Aspen (what a great name) Baker. She did not reveal her secret, but I would love to know what it takes to keep an online community private. Whatever she has done, I think she hit the nail on the head. We should be able to trust our online communications to the people we choose to share them with.
To that, one will most definitely argue, "What about terrorists?" I am certainly one of those. This is where I am conflicted. I am also conflicted on the many other online activities that prove as evidence in criminal wrong-doing. Where do we draw the line? Can we draw a line? I am very much on the fence on this issue. EFF made very logical assessments. Do I want someone to know my every move? The answer to that is probably "no", but like I said, safety issues aside, I'm not doing anything wrong so why should I care? My only response to these issues is, "If you don't want to be found out, don't do it digitally."
Similar case in point, the TSA security measures have recently been a hot topic of debate. If you don't want to be groped, don't fly. I would walk through an airport naked if it meant I would get to my destination safely. Yes, it's a sad day when we have to come to these measures, but it is now a fact of life, and I'm pretty sure most folks would prefer preventative measures before another 911. Privilege and freedom come with a price. I say, if you're not doing anything wrong, quit bitching about small sacrifices and think about the one's who have given the ultimate sacrifice protecting your personal freedoms.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Redemption of the fourth estate, or just another venture in capitalism?
While Ted Koppel's op-ed article in Sunday's Washington Post wasn't on the list, I found it rounded out this week's reading quite nicely. In his article, Koppel remembers a time when television news was objective and honest, when journalists reported the true state of affairs, and when the fourth estate, as intended, kept an unbiased, watchful eye over government activities. Of course that was also before networks figured out news could generate revenue. I guess they decided churning a profit was more important than churning the truth. I'm not going to lump all of today's journalists into one group as Koppel did, but his opinions are well-founded for a good number of them.
The issue at hand, however, is not what happened 20, 30, or even 40 years ago. The issue at hand is how we, as a participatory culture, combat what journalism has become. The current state of dominant news media consists of charismatic personalities with open wallets. While the righties head for the bank, the lefties head for MSNBC. I love Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, but I also know which side they're pulling for, and I shouldn't.
Ted Koppel also states in his article, "The transition of news from a public service to a profitable commodity is irreversible." If that is true, we are seriously doomed, and on many, many levels. However, Boler gives me hope. The fact that we are aware gives me hope, and the fact that she and others have put theories into place gives me hope. The question now is how to put these theories into action. Collectively how can we establish a near equivalent to the objective honesty that once existed? How can we as a participatory culture realize and report the truth?
Boler suggests it must come from a grassroots movement where, "All are interested in challenging and intervening in dominant media structures, and in cutting across modes of distribution with aims of resisting the messages and form of dominant media".
So my question again, how do we do this? Boler provides a list of possibilities, but how do we enlist the trust of the masses? More importantly, how do we enlist the trust of each other? It takes support and it takes money. We have already established that honest news doesn't generate revenue. How long before we see ourselves in the mirror of our opposition?
Perhaps my once youthful optimism has been tainted by the practices of everyday life. My hopes of "changing the world" have been reduced to hopes of making changes in my own life. But even as I succumb to the realities of my culture, I have not given in to its ignorance.
On some level I do still have hope that the American people will wake up to the fact that the only objective of dominant news media is partisan perception, in some cases outright dishonesty. The youth of our nation are already clued in to this fact. Thankfully they are the future of this great country. At the same time, it saddens me that parody and satire are the preferred media portals for these same individuals. In retrospect, I guess the whole situation is funny in a sad sort of way.
If the internet is the answer to redeeming the fourth estate, I say hoorah for the good guys. But as Boler suggests, the term itself may be apt for a new definition. Perhaps one that includes the watchful eye of the people. If the government knows we as a people are watching them and reporting the real facts, perhaps then we can get back to the fabric that makes America a great nation.
The issue at hand, however, is not what happened 20, 30, or even 40 years ago. The issue at hand is how we, as a participatory culture, combat what journalism has become. The current state of dominant news media consists of charismatic personalities with open wallets. While the righties head for the bank, the lefties head for MSNBC. I love Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, but I also know which side they're pulling for, and I shouldn't.
Ted Koppel also states in his article, "The transition of news from a public service to a profitable commodity is irreversible." If that is true, we are seriously doomed, and on many, many levels. However, Boler gives me hope. The fact that we are aware gives me hope, and the fact that she and others have put theories into place gives me hope. The question now is how to put these theories into action. Collectively how can we establish a near equivalent to the objective honesty that once existed? How can we as a participatory culture realize and report the truth?
Boler suggests it must come from a grassroots movement where, "All are interested in challenging and intervening in dominant media structures, and in cutting across modes of distribution with aims of resisting the messages and form of dominant media".
So my question again, how do we do this? Boler provides a list of possibilities, but how do we enlist the trust of the masses? More importantly, how do we enlist the trust of each other? It takes support and it takes money. We have already established that honest news doesn't generate revenue. How long before we see ourselves in the mirror of our opposition?
Perhaps my once youthful optimism has been tainted by the practices of everyday life. My hopes of "changing the world" have been reduced to hopes of making changes in my own life. But even as I succumb to the realities of my culture, I have not given in to its ignorance.
On some level I do still have hope that the American people will wake up to the fact that the only objective of dominant news media is partisan perception, in some cases outright dishonesty. The youth of our nation are already clued in to this fact. Thankfully they are the future of this great country. At the same time, it saddens me that parody and satire are the preferred media portals for these same individuals. In retrospect, I guess the whole situation is funny in a sad sort of way.
If the internet is the answer to redeeming the fourth estate, I say hoorah for the good guys. But as Boler suggests, the term itself may be apt for a new definition. Perhaps one that includes the watchful eye of the people. If the government knows we as a people are watching them and reporting the real facts, perhaps then we can get back to the fabric that makes America a great nation.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace..."
...I borrowed that line from an email a friend sent me, who borrowed it from Jimi Hendrix. Now I'm using it online, to share with you. I admit, a little tame compared to Girl Talk, but hopefully you get the point.
The reason I chose this quote as my blog title was to demonstrate my interpretation(s) of the dynamics that seem to be going on regarding the whole issue of copyright, participatory culture, convergence, and collective intelligence. I can sum up the entire scenario like this: The left is pushing against the right, and in the name of power, control, and money the right is pushing back...unless of course concession means more power, control, and/or money. But even then, the concession is only for their gain. I use the terms "left" and "right" (somewhat) loosely here. (I would have to do more research before I can talk more absolutely.)
The point is, one side is pushing against the other for political reasons. The side that wishes to open up the lines of communication, share ideas for a greater good, and participate in the world around them are being stifled by the side that wishes to maintain control. Jenkins uses the CNN/YouTube debate as an example. The simple fact that Mitt Romney refused to debate with a snowman, even though the snowman had a legitimate question, illustrates the higher ground on which these power players wish to be regarded. These "elite" types are much more comfortable controlling the conversation. They don't like the idea of participatory culture because incoming questions might make them uncomfortable or worse, make them look incompetent.
Unfortunate, for these power people, the internet is here to stay and it's only going to push the right further to the right and eventually off the playing field altogether. Well, maybe not altogether, but I do think the masses will be heard sooner than most may think. The world can only gain from sharing ideas and knowledge. Culture can only make itself relevant through innovation and creativity. Progress can only progress if it is allowed. A very small number of people hold the power, the control, and the money in this country. These are the same people who stand in protest against a culture of participation. They want to keep their power. They want to keep their control, and they most definitely want to keep their money.
It may seem I'm speaking only about politics proper. What I mean to convey is that politics are at play in every area that concerns power, control, and money. The owners of copyrights want to maintain the control of those copyrights to make as much money as possible. In this sense they hold the power. Participatory culture and collective intelligence would certainly dethrone patent holders if laws regarding certain types of patents were reversed, and convergence would keep a lot of corporate giants on their toes trying to keep up with the status quo. True, some companies have been successful in listening to their "fandom", but it was all in the name of making more money. Their attitude is, "If it'll make us more money we'll listen, if not we don't care what you have to say."
This tug-o-war won't end anytime soon. Meanwhile, the internet with all its channels of global communication will continue to grow. File sharing legally, and illegally, will continue to spread, and I don't think Girl Talk will go out without a fight. People have been borrowing, stealing, and manipulating ideas from the past since the beginning of time. Artists do it just as musicians do it just as politicians do it. The only difference now, the involved parties can share their creations online, and there inlys the problem.
Bottom line, the internet has and will continue to reshape culture and society. Those who keep up will succeed. Those who can't will fade away. Companies already see the necessity of listening to their customers. Politicians will acknowledge this truism soon enough. The remaining entity of Hollywood could be a different story. I think they will fight tooth and nail to the very end only to be slowly put out of business by the "amateur" film makers who collectively will prevail. At that point we will begin to see true democracy in action...at least for a little while.
The reason I chose this quote as my blog title was to demonstrate my interpretation(s) of the dynamics that seem to be going on regarding the whole issue of copyright, participatory culture, convergence, and collective intelligence. I can sum up the entire scenario like this: The left is pushing against the right, and in the name of power, control, and money the right is pushing back...unless of course concession means more power, control, and/or money. But even then, the concession is only for their gain. I use the terms "left" and "right" (somewhat) loosely here. (I would have to do more research before I can talk more absolutely.)
The point is, one side is pushing against the other for political reasons. The side that wishes to open up the lines of communication, share ideas for a greater good, and participate in the world around them are being stifled by the side that wishes to maintain control. Jenkins uses the CNN/YouTube debate as an example. The simple fact that Mitt Romney refused to debate with a snowman, even though the snowman had a legitimate question, illustrates the higher ground on which these power players wish to be regarded. These "elite" types are much more comfortable controlling the conversation. They don't like the idea of participatory culture because incoming questions might make them uncomfortable or worse, make them look incompetent.
Unfortunate, for these power people, the internet is here to stay and it's only going to push the right further to the right and eventually off the playing field altogether. Well, maybe not altogether, but I do think the masses will be heard sooner than most may think. The world can only gain from sharing ideas and knowledge. Culture can only make itself relevant through innovation and creativity. Progress can only progress if it is allowed. A very small number of people hold the power, the control, and the money in this country. These are the same people who stand in protest against a culture of participation. They want to keep their power. They want to keep their control, and they most definitely want to keep their money.
It may seem I'm speaking only about politics proper. What I mean to convey is that politics are at play in every area that concerns power, control, and money. The owners of copyrights want to maintain the control of those copyrights to make as much money as possible. In this sense they hold the power. Participatory culture and collective intelligence would certainly dethrone patent holders if laws regarding certain types of patents were reversed, and convergence would keep a lot of corporate giants on their toes trying to keep up with the status quo. True, some companies have been successful in listening to their "fandom", but it was all in the name of making more money. Their attitude is, "If it'll make us more money we'll listen, if not we don't care what you have to say."
This tug-o-war won't end anytime soon. Meanwhile, the internet with all its channels of global communication will continue to grow. File sharing legally, and illegally, will continue to spread, and I don't think Girl Talk will go out without a fight. People have been borrowing, stealing, and manipulating ideas from the past since the beginning of time. Artists do it just as musicians do it just as politicians do it. The only difference now, the involved parties can share their creations online, and there inlys the problem.
Bottom line, the internet has and will continue to reshape culture and society. Those who keep up will succeed. Those who can't will fade away. Companies already see the necessity of listening to their customers. Politicians will acknowledge this truism soon enough. The remaining entity of Hollywood could be a different story. I think they will fight tooth and nail to the very end only to be slowly put out of business by the "amateur" film makers who collectively will prevail. At that point we will begin to see true democracy in action...at least for a little while.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)