Category: The Web and Technology

Categories
The Web and Technology

Joe Campbell’s Google Profile

I am not the only person to be excited by the new Google Profiles feature. (Here’s me, Joe Campbell.) 

Right now, I’m the top ranked “Joe Campbell” in the profile results – probably because of Google’s awesome ranking procedure – described by Robert X. Cringley:

 Google will rank the results just like it does any other search, by sprinkling magic G-dust over the Web and murmuring a super secret incantation.

Whatever the explanation of how Google’s ranking system work – I like the results it delivers – and it seems to like me (and this blog, 2parse.com.)

Still working on getting this blog, which is to say the blog of Joe Campbell – or any of my other pages (jwcampbe.com for example) into the top page results for Joe Campbell who is me.

Categories
Foreign Policy Politics The Opinionsphere The Web and Technology

Tweeting Revolution

In lieu of a substantial column on my part – I’m in one of those places where I’m stuck in the middle of three or possibly four longer pieces – here’s a quick collection of related thoughts:

David Brooks in the New York Times:

To me, the most interesting factor is the way instant communications lead to unconscious conformity. You’d think that with thousands of ideas flowing at light speed around the world, you’d get a diversity of viewpoints and expectations that would balance one another out. Instead, global communications seem to have led people in the financial subculture to adopt homogenous viewpoints. They made the same one-way bets at the same time.

Brooks is talking about instant communications in finance, but he’s onto something that has been evident to close observers of the internet social networking since it’s inception. The instantaneousness of the communication – the sharing – leads to conformity. It seems that instant reactions to events are more uniform that our individual reflective understandings. At the same time, the speed of the communication creates a kind of self-reinforcing wave as each individual reaction begins to affect the event itself – especially as related to markets or other systems that are open to individual input. Online instant communication then creates a kind of “conformity by sharing.” One excellent example of this is the flash mob. Flash mobs have an additional conforming pressure – the desire to be part of the in-crowd. They also seem to have a particular agenda – to shock the public with organized spontaneity. (Here’s two of my favorite flash mob events – in Grand Central, New York and Antwerp, Belgium.)

This conformity by sharing via the internet has already had more significant effects than the flash mobs. For example, the Obama campaign derived a large amount of energy from online organizing and networking – though this online component was balanced with a more traditional campaign. The Orange Revolution in Ukraine was said to be organized in large part by text messaging via a primitive social network. It’s interesting to see how this is playing out in the Twitter revolution in Moldova.  

Somewhat related to the Twitter revolution, Joshua Keating makes a wise observation regarding protests in a short piece entitled “Do protests ever work?” in Foreign Policy:

Rather than organizing around a specific political goal, ending the war, these marches tend to devolve into general lefty free-for-alls encompassing everything from Palestine to free trade the environment to capital punishment. 

I would add that, at least in democratic societies, protests that demand accountability or consistency from “the system” tend to be more effective than one that seek to overturn it.

Keating was referring to the G-20 protests in London.

Categories
The Opinionsphere The Web and Technology

My Mixed Feelings About Facebook

Vanessa Grigoriadis in New York captures many of my mixed feelings about Facebook. One of the most fascinating yet disturbing aspects of Facebook is the giant web of relationships that is being constructed through it – a web of relationships which is not strictly our own, yet seems particularly personal. Facebook of course wishes to mine this data for profit (or perhaps for the CIA). But more interesting and disturbing is the social graph (almost all-knowing) that is being created of humanity in general – with you placed right in the middle:

This is part of who I am now—somebody who knows that her nursery-school tormentor wasn’t a bully without a heart. It will get logged into my profile, and that profile will become part of the “social graph,” which is a map of every known human relationship in the universe. Filling it in is Facebook’s big vision, a typically modest one for Silicon Valley. It’s too complex for a computer scientist to build. Just as our free calls to GOOG-411 helped Google build its voice-recognition technology, we are creating the graph for Facebook, and I’m not sure that we can take ourselves out once we’ve put ourselves on there. We have changed the nature of the graph by our very presence, which facilitates connections between our disparate groups of friends, who now know each other. “If you leave Facebook, you can remove data objects, like photographs, but it’s a complete impossibility that you can control all of your data,” says Fred Stutzman, a teaching fellow studying social networks at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “Facebook can’t promise it, and no one can promise it. You can’t remove yourself from the site because the site has, essentially, been shaped by you.”

Grigoriadis captures nicely the paranoia that seems evident in this wariness of Facebook’s possible ulterior motives:

Kubrick dreamed of villains like this: nerds in fleece, controlling the information, calling their cult a family. It was an image, a kind of inchoate anxiety about the future, rather than anything you could put your finger on.

Inchoate anxiety – there’s been a lot of that going around recently. 

On the one hand, I love Facebook for the connections to people from my past – and for the ease with which I can connect to people for my future. I love the control it gives me – and the way it reminds me when it’s someone’s birthday or lets me know that a friend I have lost contact with married his college sweetheart. But next to this love is a vague, unsettled feeling – an unease. What are they planning on doing with this extremely valuable information?

Categories
Barack Obama Criticism The Opinionsphere The Web and Technology

Obama on the Blogs

This just peeved me – from Obama’s interview with the New York Times over the weekend:

Even so, [Obama] said he did not find blogs to be reliable, citing the economy as one example.

“Part of the reason we don’t spend a lot of time looking at blogs,” he said, “is because if you haven’t looked at it very carefully, then you may be under the impression that somehow there’s a clean answer one way or another — well, you just nationalize all the banks, or you just leave them alone and they’ll be fine.”

Now that’s just a stupid thing to say – not only because he’s gratuitiously insulting many people who worked hard for him during his campaign – including me – but it makes him look like an idiot technologically. The problems isn’t “blogs” – and in fact, the substance of his criticism probably applies best to cable talk shows.

Categories
Domestic issues Economics Politics The Web and Technology

Free markets exist not in spite of the government, but because of government.

[digg-reddit-me]One thing many Republicans today do not seem to understand is that the free market is not a natural phenomon. The free market exists not in spite of the government, but because of government.

Reading this white paper by a broadband front group (pdf) which purports to described the “ideology behind net neutrality” which it dubs neutralism and connects it to a lack of respect for private property and an undermining of capitalism, the above sentiment was driven home. As they described the “private property” rights that net neutrality would undermine or take away, it seemed clear to me that they had a fundamental misunderstanding of capitalism – and upon reflection, this fundamental misunderstanding of capitalism seems to have animated a great deal of the perversion of the free market that Republicans ((I use this term although it is a rough one. Some Democrats seem to agree with the Republican points discussed – but they have mainly been associated with the Republican party.)) have promoted for the past thirty years.

The impression one gets from the quasi-libertarian Republican rhetoric of the past two decades is that “government is the problem – not the solution” – and that the free market is the solution. The government and the market are understood to be fundamentally at odds – and so, Republicans have supported a government retreat from any interference in markets. They are in favor of a relaxation of regulations in various areas including from financial industry to the environmental impact of industry; they favor a government that provides as few services as possible – from wanting Social Security privatized to opposing government interference in the health care industry; they want government to allow more mergers and avoid breaking up large companies; they want to reduce taxation; they do not want government to interfere to help labor unions; they oppose rules limiting media ownership; they oppose any laws or regulations enforcing net neutrality.

In short, the Republicans oppose virtually any government “interference” in the free market – and where they cannot plausibly roll back government programs and regulations, they seek to undermine them and to reduce them.

This point of view is often described and justified as a defense of capitalism and free markets – but it truly is an assault on our system of capitalism and free markets in favor of corporate interests. One of the chief roles of the government is the creation of a free market – and many, though not all, of the regulations, programs, and services of the government are designed with this in mind. Sometimes these government interventions do more harm than good – wage and price controls during the New Deal, for example. But the Republican assault on government has not been confined to attacking these harmful programs, but to attacking the role of the government itself.

Many Republicans these days are calling Democratic efforts “socialism,” “Communism,” and “Marxism” – but in reality the Democratic Party has mainly been trying to defend the American economic system which has been under assault since the second of the twin revolutions of late 20th century America. (First was the sexual/cultural revolution of the 1960s that overturned the social and cultural mores; then came the counterrevolution which masked the financial revolution of the 1980s which overturned political and economic values.) They use these broad brushes to attack the very concept that the government has a proper role in a free market – rather than to merely disagree about the effectiveness of certain measures.

The lie to this rhetoric is demonstrated by those limited instances in which Republicans have encouraged government involvement in the marketplace – to extend copyright far beyond its initial scope; to offer tax cuts to favored corporations; to have an extremely large military development budget, etcetera. Each of this policies follows what George Will described as “the supreme law of the land…the principle of concentrated benefits and dispersed costs.” In other words, each of these benefits big corporations rather than helping to maintain a free market.

A society creates a government to establish a process for making and enforcing group decisions. One group decision is to maintain a free market. A free market is not what happens when a government doesn’t interfere – if it was, then the lawless nation of Somalia would have the freest market on earth. Instead, a free market is a nurtured thing, created and shaped by government and society. The creation of a free marketplace in America meant investing in infrastructure and roads to allow for easy transport of goods and people; it meant the regulation of large corporations to ensure they did not become monopolies; it meant creating an independent judiciary to ensure that business disputes could be legitimately settled; it meant a relatively open and transparent government; it meant regulations concerning consumer safety and protection and environmental impact; it meant regulations regarding the stability of the economic system; it meant providing for the basic needs of citizens, especially the elderly, the disabled, and the young; it meant preventing the concentration of too much power; it meant protecting certain rights for minorities and individuals; and more. 

Today, it means protecting net neutrality. Net neutrality is one of the foundational principles of the internet – and as such must be a principle protected by the government. Imagine how our economy would have changed if there were fees required to travel along any roads – fees which could be waived if you were traveling to certain stores. It would reinforce the dominance of large corporations and serve to continue to concentrate power. Imagine if I would have to pay a fee to travel to my local hardware store, but could go for free if I went to Home Depot. Broadband industry advocates insist that not only should consumers pay broadband companies for access to the “roads”, but that websites should also have to pay broadband companies to get their potential viewers there. They propose to undermine and limit the decentralized market that is the internet to favor big companies. 

It is government’s proper role to protect this market – to enforce the rules that have made it such an effective and innovative force. 

The internet has spurred so much innovation because it is a free marketplace. Large corporate interests seek to control and limit this innovation – to ensure their power and profits are not threatened. The Republican party now seems to be going along with these interests. But they should not be allowed to do so under the pretense of protecting “private property” and “free markets.” In reality, their efforts to stop net neutrality are yet another assault on the freedom of the marketplace, another attempt to undermine the American economic system.

Categories
Barack Obama Criticism Domestic issues Politics The Opinionsphere The Web and Technology

Don’t Be Idiots: Stop Talking About the Fairness Doctrine

[digg-reddit-me]

I didn’t think the Democrats were stupid enough to start talking about reimposing the Fairness Doctrine. But I was wrong.

For those not up-to-date with the Fairness Doctrine controversy, it goes back to the late 1960s when the FCC began to push radio and television stations to air material about controversial matters including some consideration for both sides of the issue. ((The Fairness Doctrine was actually created earlier, but it was not incorporated into FCC guidelines until the late 1960s.)) The justification for this government interference was that with a very limited amount of media channels available, and with the airwaves owned by the public and merely licensed to the media companies profiting from them, this was a reasonable request and a necessary one in order to encourage an informed citizenry. By the late 1960s, the powerful corporate forces in the right-wing movement had begun to bankroll a conservative movement at this point – giving enormous amounts of money to create advocacy groups, think tanks, magazines, and other means of pushing conservative messages. One of their goals was to eliminate the Fairness Doctrine – and in 1987 they succeeded. At right about this time with no more obligation to be fair or present both sides of controversial issues, right-wing talk radio took off. Simon Rosenberg publicized this sequence of events – and Steve Rendall at Commons Dreams gives an overview of the liberal take on this history which is worth a read. Since then, conservative talk radio has mobilized the conservative movement – and perpetuated quite a few lies and distrortions. 

In this context, you can see why some Democrats want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine.  After all, if Steve Marlsburg, nemises of this blog, can use the public airwaves to talk for two hours about how Barack Obama is evil and no good people can support him and go on and on supporting this with one lie after another distortion, wouldn’t everyone benefit from a bit of the other side getting a word in edgewise? And if a handful of media titans control almost all of the media, the concentration of power in their hands ensures that opinions they agree with are aired – and oftentimes, that opinions they disagree strongly with are not aired. 

In this context, Bill Clinton mused about reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on a liberal radio show; Democratic Senator Stanbow wants hearings on something like a Fairness Standard; Senator Tom Harken was quoted on another liberal talk radio show saying, “We gotta get the Fairness Doctrine back in law again;” and a number of other Senators and Congressman have similarly suggested something be done to restore “fairness” to the radio. ((It’s worth noting that all of these more recent comments were made by politicians on liberal talk radio – and only after being prompted by their hosts.)) Barack Obama though made it clear during his campaign that he did not support this – and reiterated his opposition again after he took office.

And with good reason: reimposing the Fairness Doctrine might sound like a decent idea given the above history. But there are some major reasons not to:

  1. It won’t accomplish much. Cable and broadcast television shows already give alternative views on controversial issues. They might present one side much better than the other (think Hannity and Colmes) but they give the other side a platform as well. Listeners to conservative talk radio today choose to listen to right-wing nutjobs who don’t try to balance their opinion with facts over more serious sources of news. They have other options if they want them.
  2. It would endanger the important goal of net neutrality. Conservatives are already calling net neutrality a “Fairness Doctrine for the internet.” This is a ridiculous claim – but it will gain some credence if those who support net neutrality also support the Fairness Doctrine. The right continues to push this meme [pdf] and has been having some success in polarizing the support for net neutrality, picking off those right-wingers who are most gullible. As I wrote earlier about this campaign to link these two very different policy ideas: 

    3. [T]his propaganda campaign [to link net neutrality and the Fairness Doctrine] does not seem directed to the public at large, but at conservative activists. The Fairness Doctrine is not something that gets the blood of the average American boiling. But it does evoke a Pavlovian response among conservative activists and right-wing radio listeners. And although these groups are not large enough to force their way, they are large enough to derail the political conversation and make it harder to enact this obvious policy.

  3. It would also endanger other goals such as breaking up media monopolies. In terms of other issues, Rush Limbaugh in his recent Wall Street Journal op-ed began to lump in rules about “local content” and “diversity of ownership” as the Fairness Doctrine by other means. Rush Limbaugh here is clearly carrying water for Clear Channel Communications who recently gave him a $400 million contract and who would be threatened by rules regarding local content and diversity of ownership as they already own such a large portion of America’s radio stations. Byron York followed Limbaugh’s lead repeating the same talking points in a recent column.
  4. It will provoke a backlash. Right now, aside from the musings of a few prominent liberals and impassioned editorials from liberal talk radio hosts themselves, there is no serious effort to push this idea forward. Liberal ideas are out there – on newspaper editorial pages, on political opinion shows, and most of all on the web. The people most excited by the revival of the Fairness Doctrine are the conservative talk radio hosts and the right-wing movement they lead. I follow this matter closely – reading most articles published on it – and almost every article I read is from some conservative publication or blog hyping the threat to free speech and all that is good and holy that is the Fairness Doctrine. Which is why the Heritage Foundation has this piece of trash written by Rory Cooper insisting that the White House is “rushing” to the Fairness Doctrine – despite the aforementioned opposition by the White House. (A propaganda outlet such as Heritage has not patience for such “subtlties” as facts.) Which is why Senator Inhofe is promoting the view that the Fairness Doctrine as yet another assault on the Christians. Which is why Bryon York recently penned a column linking the Fairness Doctrine to breaking up media monopolies as assaults on “media freedom.” Which is why the World News Daily has distorted Senator Sherrod Brown’s comments to claim he supports the Fairness Doctrine. Which is why Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the talking heads can’t shut up about it. This is a fight the right wants – and for good reason. It plays into the liberal stereotypes conservatives promote – especially the idea of a nanny-state attempt to control free speech. It makes the right look important; it makes the Democrats look petty; if the right loses, they will be able to claim the mantle of victimhood that conservatives seem to relish as much as any other group. 
Categories
Criticism The Web and Technology

The only thing worse than spam is self-righteous spam.

[digg-reddit-me]I received a notification on my Facebook account today that one of my friends created a “multimedia message.”

As with so many Facebook applications, it required you to allow the program access to your profile information. Annoying, but it’s the way they all work. I just make sure to keep any important information private.

I click through and get this message – the yellow line added to the original for emphasis:

Spam sending me the message that: “Facebook has so many spammers.”  

The only thing worse than spam is self-righteous spam.

Spam at its best is a kind of poetry:

Stop worrying about your pleasuring ability!
We have so speedy delivery that even today you can make girl feel your passionate fire.

0rder V a l 1 u m #3546
Dear Tommy,
All the m e d s you search for

hail! The day of Love
Have women telling their friends about you!

I wish to find my destiny!
This letter is not a spam one.
Yesterday I myself was amazed too,
when saw your letter in my e-mail box.
The letter was about love and sensations among people.
The motto of the letter was like this «search for love and you’ll become happy».
I liked this letter very much.
Definitely, I will send you some of my photographs.
It will help you to understand who I am and where I live.
My photos will reveal all parts of my life – my happiness, my pensiveness and sometimes melancholy.
Remember of me.
Your new friend,
Anastasiya.

We specialize in top quality
ReplicaWatches.
Swiss engineering,
precision crafted time pieces are perfect gifts.
These products are not cheap imitations,
they are GenuineRep1icas!

Bad poetry perhaps. But funny and obvious. Of course this application decides to be all smug and it sends out notifications to a random 10 people on your Friends list:

The developer page for the program lists a “Carla Watson” as the developer:

Somebody should punch this woman in the back of the head for me if she developed this smug Facebook spam program.

Categories
Barack Obama The Web and Technology

A Question About “E-Mail to the Chief”

Peter Baker reporting in The New York Times:

To minimize the risk, the government technology gurus have made it impossible to forward e-mail messages from the president or to send him attachments, people informed about the precautions say.

I can see how to set up a system to prevent the sending of attachments. But how do you make an email impossible to forward? Wouldn’t that require protocols existing within all email clients allowing this? I’m not an expert on this – so please educate me if this isn’t the technical issue I think it is.

Categories
India The Web and Technology

Technology Aided Terrorists

The group appears to have used complex GPS systems to navigate their way to Mumbai by sea. They communicated by satellite phone, used mobile phones with several different SIM cards, and may have monitored events as the siege unfolded via handheld Blackberry web browsers…

The legal petition also follows unconfirmed reports that Faheem Ahmed Ansari, a suspected militant who was arrested in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh in February, said he was shown maps of Indian locations on Google Earth by members of Lashkar-e-Taiber, the Pakistan-based terrorist faction that Indian officials are convinced was behind the Mumbai attacks. [my emphases]

So – to prevent another similar attack, the plan is to get rid of one brand of map that one of the terrorists may have been shown according to unconfirmed rumors – at least that’s the plan of the petition in Indian court.

Somehow, the various handheld communications devices and the GPS positioning seem to be more significant.

Categories
Barack Obama The Opinionsphere The Web and Technology

In Defense of Indiscretion

Or, In Defense of Fondling Cardboard Cut-Outs

[digg-reddit-me]Dahlia Lithwick, writing in Slate about the character of John Roberts as he was being vetted for the Supreme Court in 2006:

I knew guys like [John Roberts] in college and at law school; we all knew guys like him. These were the guys who were certain, by age 19, that they couldn’t smoke pot, or date trampy girls, or throw up off the top of the school clock tower because it would impair their confirmation chances. They would have done all these things, but for the possibility of being carved out of the history books for it.

An acquaintance of mine from college has been in the news recently. No – I’m not talking about this profile in Newsweek (which was reddit-famous), this one from The New York Times, or this piece in Time magazine. I’m talking about the headline on The Drudge Report linking to this piece in the Washington Post. I ignored that piece when it first came up, hoping the story would die. It’s certainly not news in any meaningful sense. But it does turn out to be “news” in the sense that matters most these days: It provides a hook for people to fake righteous outrage over.

Jon Favreau, a speechwriter for Barack Obama now slated to move to the White House as chief speechwriter for Obama, had a picture taken of him at a party. I include the picture to keep matters in perspective – for without it, an observer would probably imagine something quite shocking.

(The Wikipedia entry’s description of the photo, Favreau “performing a suggestive gesture to a cardboard cut-out of Hillary Clinton.” With that description, I would have pictured something else entirely!)

The offending picture was posted on Facebook by a friend of Favreau’s for some two hours before it was taken down. Now it’s in the Washington Post and the New York Times and analysts on CNN are making profound noises about it. According to The New Agenda, a supposedly feminist group, Favreau should be fired. Campbell Brown of CNN, the individual whose brilliant first name inevitably leads her to disappoint viewers expecting profundity (“Free Sarah Palin!”) decided her counterintuitive response would be to attack Senator Clinton’s lack of outrage over the degradation of womankind that this photo represents:

Really, Sen. Clinton? Boy, have you changed your tune. You really think this photo is OK?

Put another woman in that photo, just an average woman who supported you during the campaign. Have it be her image being degraded by a colleague of hers. Would you be OK with that?

Yes – Campbell Brown is outraged over Hillary Clinton’s shrugging-off of an unfortunate photo while the economy is melting down and two wars are raging. Clearly, Hillary’s priorities are out of order – not Brown’s. Walter Cronkite must be ashamed to call himself a newsman these days.

There is a sensibility that infects mainstream coverage of any material that is tawdry and cheap – a kind of Hayes Code for today’s newsroom that makes every sexual scandal or embarrassing photograph into a morality tale. Without that cover, it’s hard to justify the right to show scandalous photographs repeatedly and talk in graphic details about the sex lives of politicians. (Remember the New York Post‘s scolding headline about the Miley Cyrus photograph, the scandalous photograph that they then enlarged on their front page to scold her about?) The goal of these morality tales is to pull readers or viewers in with titillating details while simultaneously and self-righteously denouncing the behavior.

What’s worse though than the faux-outrage and real outrage over such petty scandals is the type of public servant it encourages. We can’t all live as Dahlia Lithwick imagines John Roberts has. To view a scandal with good humor is one thing – to view it with the knowledge that we are all human, are all imperfect, all make mistakes – with the knowledge that if a perfect inquisitor came to judge us by our own standards, each of us would be found wanting. None of us are pure – and often those most obsessed with purity turn out to have their own demons. (See Haggard, Ted.) Our current political and media environment penalizes anyone who has lived and left any evidence to show for it. And we wonder how we’ve gotten in so much trouble.

At the same time, the self-appointed inquisitors have often been found wanting themselves. From preachers to journalists to politicians to news anchors to judges to each one of us – all of us, having lived, have done things we regret. Whether our regrets are dragged into the light of day and made into a media spectacle is largely a matter of happenstance. If you live in the public eye, then having the media pore over the worst moments of your life is a risk you take.

But we don’t really want to limit our politicians and public servants to those who have never done anything to have offended anyone in their lives.

Thankfully, Barack Obama has not taken this approach. If he wanted to avoid scandal and hypocritical tsk-tsk-ing, he would not have named Hillary Clinton Secretary of State with her long history. Lawrence Summers, as necessary as his brilliance may be to saving our economy, would have been eliminated because of controversial remarks he made some years ago. Eric Holder, despite his almost spotless record, would have been eliminated for that one spot – his minor role in the Marc Rich pardon. Joe Biden’s runaway mouth has led him to offend many constituencies.

Barack Obama campaigned saying he would change Washington and politics as usual. It seems his first order of business is to ignore the hypocrites of the media (and media-parasites like The New Agenda). With Hillary Clinton downplaying the incident and Obama having a history of ignoring this type of media scandal, I hope and trust that Jon Favreau’s job is safe.

But that’s not the point. It should never have been called into question over an incident like this. If the media wants to report on some lewd scandal, they can at least do their audience the favor of avoiding the hypocritical moral posturing and just revel in the tawdriness of it. It would at least be honest.

***

By the way, The New Agenda managed to insinuate that my college inculcated “less-than-respectful attitudes toward women”:

Ironically, other famous alumni of Jon Favreau’s alma mater, the College of the Holy Cross, are Clarence Thomas and Chris Matthews, also noted for their less-than-respectful attitudes toward women.

Apparently, the writer of this piece for The New Agenda never quite understood the meaning of the word “ironically.” That’s what a second-rate education will get you – a lack of knowledge of basic English vocabulary and a deficient sense of humor.

To complain about The New Agenda’s misuse of the word, “ironically,” you can email:

Or preferably, email each address to make sure someone gets it.

(It’s harder to get in touch with Campbell Brown – but you can comment to CNN here.)

Continue reading “In Defense of Indiscretion”