Culture

When I read and reviewed Who Controls the Internet?: Illusions of a Borderless World, the filtering and/or censorship of content by nations became more apparent - particularly China. in the post 'Internet filtering is growing by the minute around the World': conversation with Robert Faris of ONI Initiative, a discussion with Robert Faris, Research Fellow of Open Net Initiative (ONI), seems to indicate that the growth of filtration/censorship continues:

...Rob shared some interesting and intriguing outcomes of this research as well as some research ideas to pursue in future. He thinks that the outcomes of ONI research is showing that the filtering is growing by the minute around the World. There are more and more country that are filtering the Internet and the scope of what they filter is growing all the time. Trying to guess what the causes could be, he identified few that are seem to be common all across the research work. Example: to protect our children from harmful content, national security interest, social norms and trying to prevent highly offensive materials from being out there, preventing copyright infringement etc. But interestingly as the research shows, once you put up the infrastructure for filtering the Internet and not only the technical infrastructure but also the administrative, political and social infrastructure- it is very easy to add other things to the list... { Read more }

While I was out and about yesterday I saw yesterday's Trinidad Express - an article called 'Murder Rap' caught my eye since it mentioned YouTube... but, as I have come to expect of journalism in Trinidad and Tobago, it did not actually have a link to the video.

Heaven forbid there be a web reference.

This morning I decided to go look for it and... couldn't find it. It isn't that I didn't look hard. Maybe all the UWI videos were a little distracting - but I didn't find the video. I found the following video by searching for 'Murder Rap Trinidad':

And that video, or course, doesn't link to the original video...

What is interesting is that the video was found in the first place. As far as I know and can tell, the video doesn't exist: no one has provided a link to see the video itself. I'm not saying that I don't believe the media - but come on: quoting sources in modern times includes something called web links. Get into the new millenium.

What is also interesting is the outcry on this. There are a million and one songs being played in automobiles that say much the same thing - why is this one so special? Maybe it's the culture that is being exported through Web 2.0 that is being analyzed? { Read more }

Thomas Friedman wrote that the World is Flat, but the Internet has proven to be less than flat on more than one occasion. Nations allow their interpretations of the Internet to their populations, the First Amendment of the United States isn't enacted the same way in most parts of the world (and in extreme cases simply does not exist), and generally speaking, the hyper-libertarianism that came with the Internet does not seem substantiated. In essence, the Emperor not only has no clothing - the Emperor is seen differently around the world, depending on the accident of one's geopolitical residence. In China, the government filters anything that it finds harmful through the very technology that allegedly was to make censorship something routed around: the very routers themselves.

The brave new world of the Internet is only an evolution of pre-Internet society, not a quantum leap as was initially expected. That there are different links for different nations and languages, that IP addresses are tracked to ascertain locale of the user and to assure appropriate content gets there - these are not things that the average internet user thinks about on a daily basis. But it was not always so.

Who Controls the Internet?: Illusions of a Borderless World explores the history of the Internet and the effects it has had on society - as well as the impact that society has had on the Internet. From the days when Jon Postel challenging the United States Government for root control of the Internet all the way up to present day China, the way that nations filter information is explored and explained, with specific examples ranging from Napster's file sharing and the Kazaa evolution and eventual demise to Yahoo's issues with France in the context of users selling Nazi paraphernalia. China's Internet, which is vastly different from that which people from other countries have seen, demonstrates that a government can successfully filter and inject it's own agenda into what Chinese Internet users have available. Even the WTO ruling on Antigua's claims for loss of income due to US Law are explored - as well as many other issues that the Internet has tolerated. { Read more }

There is a global Candle4Tibet event being held globally on Thursday, 7 August 2008. 516,085 people have joined as of right now, and over the next 10 days that number should increase.

It's a peaceful protest for people who are not permitted their culture, their language and who are tortured and even killed for doing so. This isn't about China.

This is about Tibet.

From the official site:

August 7th 2008 is the day before the opening ceremony of The Olympic Games in Beijing. On this day we aim to create the world's greatest LIGHT PROTEST, when at least 100 million people from all over the world will light a candle and say YES to freedom in Tibet!

All you are asked to do is to light a simple candle
on August 7th at 9 pm in your own time zone.

Light the Candle at your home, workplace or in a public place. Put the candle in your Window, or on your desk, or anywhere else where other people will see it and hopefully do the same.

Our light protest will be seen by billions on TV screens all over the world on the day the Beijing Olympics open. We are not against the Olymipcs or anything else for that matter, we stand for Freedom. Period.

On the following day we will issue letters to every head of state in the world to tell him exactly how many people from his country wish Tibet to be free. We will also demand that each one of them will act for the freedom of Tibet.

We will also issue letters to the general secretary of UN, the government in Beijing and to other global organizations with data on global participation.

Here in Trinidad and Tobago, there is a local event in support of the Candle4Tibet light protest which I will be attending. Babita Dubay is organizing it, and while final permission has not been given by the powers-that-be in Couva, the event will tentatively be held on the field in front of the Couva South MP office, opposite the Couva medical center. I have no doubt that the politicians will try to make this their event, but it is not about politicians: It is about freedom to express one's self, and the fact that the world should not stand by and allow the freedom of others to be trod upon simply to assure better economics and international relations. The UN Declaration of Human Rights does not tolerate this... but we do by the same people we elect. It is time to remove the illusion that others are responsible - we are responsible. { Read more }

When Andy Oram posted 'The Behavior Gap: Three Persistent Problems for Internet Technologies', he touched on a few things that I haven't been able to get out of my head through my fingers for some time, and I'm glad that he did write it since it gave me a little more focus on what is a very complicated issue¹. It seems to me that, while approximately 80% of the world has to get online in any meaningful way, we 20% (as of 2008) have hit a glass ceiling.

We 20% have learned that technology can help us. Some of us have even figured out that technology can hinder us, though this requires surviving the geekteens - a technology maturity level that can strike at any point in someone's life. More technology doesn't necessarily mean better, as most mature geeks know and as Steve Talbott wrote of in 'Devices of the Soul'.

We have limitations, and we can take a few different approaches. We have the pessimist way (overly critical), the optimist way (buy my Web 2.0 Shag Rug) and the realist way. I fall into the latter category.

Andy's article points at three major problems:

• We don't know how to handle many-to-many connections.
• We don't know what will happen next in time.
• It's hard to split tasks between systems.

Many Too Many & It's hard to split tasks between systems

Andy writes:

...But the YouTube phenomenon and Web 2.0 assume a many-to-many model. We just don't have efficient techniques for to handling that model, particularly for streaming media. It requires ad-hoc channels that can be erected quickly between people who don't have a pre-existing relationship. Packet switching has taken us amazingly far toward solutions, but current user activity is showing up its limitations.

It's worth noting that many-to-many models are hard for other computer technologies to handle, too. Relational databases offer one-to-many and one-to-one relationships, but have to cobble them together to fake a many-to-many relationship.

The many-to-many model doesn't scale in social terms either. It can be applied metaphorically to real life, where we're used to one-to-many relationships (with centralized government and business institutions) as well as one-to-one relationships. We build up many-to-many relationships in our schools, churches, and neighborhoods, but we don't really treat them as such because we rarely try to manage all the complex interrelationships in these institutions...

I completely agree, and will try to add some value here: Our tools reflect ourselves and technology is no different. In many-to-many relationships, our tools reflect our constraints in being human: We humans do not handle many-to-many very well. We have a tendency to create a focal point or bridge and allow things to filter through that way because we only have so many brain cells to work on a problem at any given time. While some may have more or less ability to handle problems at any given time, we have to cater for the majority. The majority would be something statisticians and economists would happily call the center of the curve. The average, mundane human being who simply wants to make the best use of technology in their own context, be it staying in touch with friends or using the Internet as a looking glass for everything that they want to know. { Read more }

Between meetings, I ended up passing Gulf City in La Romain, Trinidad this morning - at 10:24 a.m. I decided to pull in for a late breakfast and early lunch.

I ordered 2 bacon and egg sandwiches on white - and when it came time to dressing them, I was given the options of things to put on them. I asked for lettuce, tomato, onion and green pepper.

'No green pepper'.
'What do you mean no green pepper? I'll pay extra to get them if I have to.'
'We can't put green peppers on this sandwich. It's the rules.'
'Well, that's a silly rule.'

At this point, an elderly gentleman on my right decided to instruct me in the rules and regulations of Subway, but I had no time for him and indicated as much to him with my hand (no, nothing rude) and continued the conversation a bit, noting that the gentleman ahead as well as the lady ahead of him were paying attention and showing some consensus on the Green Pepper Dilemma.

'You know, it really is a silly rule. I'll fill out one of those comment cards about the Green Pepper thing. As simple as it is, I just really want green peppers this morning and I find it depressing that I can't have them...'

And the lady behind the counter, having more customer service ability than the rules she is forced to work by, put a few slices of green pepper on my sandwiches. 'I wouldn't want you depressed this morning'. Bless her heart for being smarter than the rules.

That, you see, is customer service. And in the comment card, I put a 6 for customer service (on a scale of 1-5) and wrote that not allowing green peppers on breakfast sandwiches is downright silly.

Silly rule. Great customer service. Maybe some of that customer service will leak over to the rules at Subway. At least in South Trinidad, I can get real pork products - unlike Chaguanas areas, where pork is forbidden.

In my morning reading, I came across the term peerocy which appears to be new. Given the context in Viacom Versus Google: Coming of Age of the "Viderate" Generation, I immediately thought 'Fair Use':

And just what did Judge Stanton opine? While he declined Viacom's request for YouTube's proprietary code, he ordered Google to provide Viacom with userIDs and IP addresses (for unregistered users) as well as three terabytes of video, so that the latter might ascertain if copyrighted videos enjoy the brunt of YouTube's traffic. The Judge's perspective, particularly his viewing any privacy concerns as merely "speculative," has already been met with hostility. Here's the ruling in its entirety.

While the Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF) has spoken to the legal consequences of the opinion (agreeing with Google that the decision violates the Bork-driven Video Privacy Act of 1988), Rasiej adopts a broader view. Responding to whether or not there's a zero-sum relationship between piracy and privacy, Rasiej won't take the bait. "One person's piracy," he counters, "is another's 'peerocy'" (referring to any peer-to-peer sharing where value is believed to be inherent in the sharing).

As Rasiej sees it, "as the technological revolution continues to advance, we're witnessing a massive clash of norms and behaviors that have yet to be established. The value of information, then, is open to debate and may be worth more in an open network, than in a protected one. People are discovering new ways of creating value by sharing as opposed to holding information back." Noting pragmatically that owners do what they can to preserve their business model Rasiej argues for innovation not only of new models, paradigms, and opportunities, but also recognition of competitive necessities.

The newly coined 'peerocy', it seems, recognizes an inherent value in Fair Use - though it does so as a play on 'piracy', a commonly accepted slang for copyright infringement. Despite the root, the fact that someone has recognized the inherent value in sharing in coining such a word demonstrates that at least one person has a clue when it comes to these things. { Read more }

One thing that has bothered me for years in Trinidad and Tobago is the inability of people to remove their own garbage from the tables at fast food outlets. It simply amazes me on one hand, as the garbage cans [rubbish bins] are located strategically in most places where, on the way out, you can simply toss the garbage into a hungry receptacle.

Is it really that hard?

The message it sends is kind of interesting. Let's say you walk into a fast food outlet, get your food and wish to sit down. At the busiest times, this means that the tables in Trinidad and Tobago are either occupied or are full of someone else's rubbish. No one likes to sit at a dirty table, even the people who leave their garbage behind, but there it is. Where this attitude comes from, the root, is not clear. But walk into any fast food restaurant in Trinidad and Tobago, and there it is.

In reading the tables of rubbish, here's what I came up with: Trinbagonians simply don't care about how they leave something behind. They don't feel any responsibility for what they leave behind, they do not feel accountable for their actions and will happily leave it for someone else to deal with. Yet, when abroad, they do not maintain this culture. Odd.

The state of the country seems to bear me out.