Exploring Assumptions

I have been vocal as of late. My acts of repetition have been recognized in a recent episode of the command line podcast. Cmdln has been gracious enough to engage with my line of thought regarding the questioning of our both singular and shared fundamental assumptions. This is greatly appreciated, and well received.

In the spirit of his most recent episode I would like to examine points of agreement and contention within the shared framework of ones fundamental assumptions.

First off, as is with the larger online conversation, I have completely different assumptions regarding the "value" of work and the ways that this might be expressed. I originally planned to do one large post on my views on the value of work, I feel that as of now I will at least share the assumptions that I have on the evolving nature of technology.

To be fair, I too consider myself an outside the box thinker and in my younger days I had a few small accolades for my work with programing and other tech tools. Of course I have always been expansive in my thought, and frankly I think about too much at any one time, as as a result over the years I drifted from this path into other exciting arena's, but that's another story.

I appreciate thought that is well constructed, even if my thought is not always that clear, indeed it seems a much as I try to address things clearly and succinctly I find that my intent does not always register with the intended audience. And in fact I have come to see this as not so much a failing on my part but rather a function of the fact that many people from varied backgrounds on the internet are all discussing a topic of shared importance. However, what facets of that topic that people find important always generates both frustrated and snarky comments.

In one area where Cmdln and I have found much agreement, is the way we both like to address these issues with rational arguments and open minds. However, as I have pointed out on certain occasions this model of cooperation that we use is not by any means the only use of the tools of the internet.

And indeed the very utility of the internet is the source of friction between our assumptions. Perhaps by nature of my background I tend to be skeptical of most claims by most people. I try to avoid being outright dismissive, but I know that bad actors do exist in any system, and I think something must be done systemically to account for this in terms of technological bad actors.

I think Thomas's reasoning is not flawed when he mentions that sharing does increase cultural output. However, where we differ is that I factor "intensity" or "gain" into my view. I see the internet as too much of a good thing, just as too many sweets are bad for you so too must sharing be moderated. Indeed, I see the modern remix cult and the denial of originality (in whatever social form it may take, not pursuant to the radical and complete denial in In Praise of Copy) as the undoing of our entire cultural edifice.

I am looking beyond the simple corporate monopoly arguments and imagining how these same ideas on non-originality[sic] actually help the corporations more then they hurt them. Indeed with the breakdown of tradition we have seen frightfully little new development inside of our existing cultural lexicon. And in fact the established authors are a little worried about what this might mean.

As I discussed with Thomas the very insistence towards over-sharing or reduced copyright both markets these culturally intangible products, as claimed as a plus by many internet advocates, and simultaneously reduces the chances of new talent being fully recognized. Sure talent helps, but you must have a reputation outside of the web in order to receive any order of magnitude increase.

To be fair some winners do emerge (RE: deviantART), but a look at both those "winners" economic situation and the added loss of monetary recognition by the actions of true bad actors (pirates), paints a stark picture for any up and coming artistic talent. Even established (if less "corporate") bands are not immune to this effect.

So in the end, to take my own pill of assumption, I think that the internet is diabetic. There is too much sugar in the system. We can only take so much before we receive diminishing, and possibly toxic returns. And to that end, I fear we might be bringing up a new culture that sees no value in paying the artist (instant gratification vs long term health), both big and small for their labors. Music, and other culture, will become tribal once again, and the process that has led us to the original copyright system is worked all over again, history doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme.

To look at it another way, we have no problem paying a craftsman for his labors. Their works are tangible are tangible, and we can see the cuts, the welds, and the care that is taken. Yet with the advent of new technology, no longer do we need to appreciate the care and delicacy of craftsmanship by our wordsmiths and painters. In fact, I would go so far as to ask anyone who doesn't believe in some form of copyright to go and spend time at a local art gallery. Remix culture has no fundamental understanding of the care that an artist takes with each passing brush. Indeed, any painting's value seems magnified when we engage in its tangible form.

I greatly appreciated Thomas's engagement with this facet of my own understanding, and I look forward to his continued engagement along this line of thought.

Comments on the PBS Newshour SOPA debate

I like many people, I watched the PBS Newshour last night, and I did so with as open an ear as possible. To that end I feel that the debate was a good thing overall, and unlike most online commentators I am not going to declare victory for either side. It was a spirited debate amongst two lobby's who both had legitimate concerns regarding upcoming legislation.

However, I'm not sure if one of those parties, Mr. Huh, was speaking for everyone in the tech lobby when he answered some of the questions posed to him. And in a way his failure to answer some questions is the cause of my concern. The Tech lobby is right to bring its issues about SOPA forward, however when asked point blank on his view of the nation's laws and constitutional protections Huh answered with a classic, and deeply-troubling, politician's dodge.

RAY SUAREZ: When you say curb First Amendment rights, is there a First Amendment right to traffic in intellectual property that you didn't create?
BEN HUH: There isn't a one that steals -- quote, unquote -- "copyrighted material," but there is certainly a very clear case to be made for fair use, which I think that the MPAA and the RIAA has abused their powers on.
And we think that bills like this will only make that worse, where people cannot use material in a fair use kind of way because they're too afraid of being -- following the copyright infringement.

Frankly I'm concerned when anybody dodges a direct question. Why dodge such a simple questions like this? The lack of answer to this basic question speaks to the concerns of the other interested party, and speaks to my own concerns with some of the people who seem to exist in the exclusively in the online ether. What type of philosophy does the tech community have on the first amendment that doesn't allow the answer No to this question? Is this just a polite way of expressing the communty's desire to resist any and all efforts to curb blatent infrigment. Fair use is another debate!

This wasn't Huh's only non-answer, he didn't fully address a question asked him directly by the other interested party, but that wasn't the largest dodge. That came towards the end of the debate when Ray Suarez once again asked point blank,

RAY SUAREZ: And, Ben Huh, quickly, before we go, can changes be made that get you at a legal regime that you can live with, that you and other people like you can live with?

BEN HUH: Unfortunately, the bills currently cannot have any -- the provisions in the bill need to go away. And we need to start over. We need to start over with a transparent process.

And instead of using lobbyists to try to do this over the holidays, we need the transparent process to start over and include the community. There's a fundamental difference between people who want to see the Internet and say let's lobotomize and censor parts of it because we need to control it, and those like us who see the Internet as a method of growing the economy and innovating in front of the world.

And we have to actually reconcile those two positions. And we believe that it is much better to protect this crown jewel of civilization, which is the ability for us to communicate and express our ideas freely, than try to lobotomize it.

First of the fact huh doesn't recognize his own position as one of lobby is troubling. Rather then seeing himself as just an interested party (via his operation of websites) we see something all-together more extraordinary. Huh sees himself, as do so many others in the twitterati as the only moral and righteous party. Huh, and the rest of "the community," in short are swift to de-humanize their opposition, as morally bankrupt. Huh leverages this righteous anger throughout the debate. As a dispassionate third party I found this offsetting.

Huh, seemed to view this debate as mostly on fair use, and his legitment complaints address that concern; however, his failure to answer more fundamental questions is what is troubling. Huh dodged this real question that nags me about both the "hacker" community, and the larger community of wholesale that is the internet. "...can changes be made that get you at a legal regime that you can live with..." How are we to view this silence? Open rejection of any and all legality is a serious concern. Yet it has already happened, in some camps (RE: #OWS) but that too is another issue.

It seems that those at the bleeding edge of technology have not fully reflected on their underlying philosophy. This is surprising given the age of the internet. Surly in this amount of time they should have answered the fundamental question as to how they relate, or how they should relate, to that which they consume?

Should all the movies and TV shows made be pro bono? Should we just give these people unlimited consumption free of charge? Never mind the fact that innovations have been made that do offer some compensation for the work involved.

The biggest question after a debate, with technological heralds like Huh, is what should we make of their insistence (or forced ignorance in this case) that people who produce intangible products should receive no compensation for their work? It seems to be a questions that both Huh and his community have no interest in answering, and that by far was the largest disappointment of last nights debate.

---

A World Without Wikipedia: For SOPA, Websites Threaten a Midnight Blackout:

Tyranny of The Experts: Reflections on Value, Expertise, and the Value of Expertise

Of late I've been using the Internet as a way to attempt to connect my voice to those in various fields of expertise. We are told that all technological change should be a good thing and that should benefit our society. Yet something nags me about this rose tinted view. Those of you who click the link will find an old essay from The Evil Genius himself. Perhaps this is the missing clue.

There is no shortage of eviscerations of Microsoft, Google or really any corporation in this day and age. Next to these ultimate angry narrative commentaries, is a staggering realization that the very technology that "amplifies" acts of "hacktivism" is the same technology that "amplifies" the power of the moneyed decision makers.

Thus we see that  far from "democratizing" discourse what we see is a contnued trend towards the tyranny of the expert. Snark is but one tool that "experts" of one field use to draw battle lines. Far be it for a simple citizen to proffer his own use and engagement with technology. No, rather, in the scheme of the Internet the citizen may only join an existing battle line. Speaking out in favor of one view is a risky proposition depending on who's domain one might find themselves in.

Now I find it important to point out here that I am only referring to those who are "experts" in a non-verifiable discipline. And with this I will digress a bit and explain what exactly I mean. A welder is an expert at welding, otherwise he would not be called a "welder." The welder's expertise is independently verifiable, one can inspect the weld made and can measure this verses a truly objective standard. In this way an expert at making things can be held to an objective standard.

Now when I refer to a, "Tyranny of the Expert," I am focusing my attention towards those experts who might describe their job as, "being payed to stay informed." These are not true experts. Not in my mind at least.

My reasoning is fairly simple, and I have a thought experiment.

Imagine, you have some condition, or so you think, you have very mild but persistent symptoms that don't mean much by themselves. You talk these symptoms over with your doctor and he says its just the flu. You are given a prescription and sent on your way. However your symptoms continue and after more consultations you come to the realization that your doctor just doesn't care too much about what you say, maybe he thinks you are being a hypochondriac or whatever. Yet polite society prevents you from addressing this succinctly.

In frustration you try another doctor, this new doctor listens to your concerns and to your surprise opens up a dialogue. He starts asking you about your diet and other habits. The more you discuss these things and the more you implement the shared conclusions the two of you reached in consultation the better your health. Your symptoms gradually disappear.

Now what is going on here? Both Doctor's are experts, but in what sense? Are they like the welder or are they like the pundit who is, "paid to stay informed?" Doctors share in both realms, they are supposedly experts on the changes various chemicals have on our bodies and they are experts in the way that knowledge surrounding these acts are synthesized.

The welder is only held to an objective standard and a pundit is only held to the "sythesization" standard. The doctor is responsible for both.

Too often on the internet we are given the pill, as per our first example, even as we are told that we are allowed and encouraged to, "engage" in a dialogue as per the latter example. Experts never like it when a common citizen can articulate why they dislike taking one pill or another. It doesn't matter to them, they're the expert.

So contrary to the claims of Mr. Gates and others, the internet far from making the world "simpler" actually adds another layer of informal communication that is highly dependent on the habits and the temperament of the "expert" on the other end of the line.

So what does this mean for our generalizations of value? Despite the modern "anti-leader" movements, something cannot be summoned from nothing. Leadership is required and sometimes leadership is nothing but expertise. The internet rather then fundamentally changing things it has merely upped everyone's intensity.

Everyone's value, via self publication, has been ratcheted up. Yet saying this makes things "simpler" is the most erroneous conclusion of the last decade. In fact the very technology that the modern supposed grass roots anti-leader movements hold as their greatist asset, is in fact the very midwife for their situation to begin with.

The internet, rather then democratizing things, has perpetuated and amplified the synthesized-knowledge "experts" voice, while the common man is reduced to faceless anonymity as, "the angry commenter," or the "troll."

The Underbelly of Commoditized Community

I went today to one of the  local restaurants in my area. I haven't actually been to this particular lunch spot in a while now and I have been intrigued to see what has been going on.

Lets just say the economy hasn't been nice to any one. We've gotten by, but how long can we keep this up? This of course is a truism, who hasn't suffered? Yet that's another debate outside the scope of this blog. No what I am most interested thing are some of the things that the kindly proprietor has to say about the current state of social media and how it relates to her current woes.

For background, this restaurant has been around for just a few short years, it is located on a busy intersection on the main thoroughfare downtown. It was born of the very recession it now fights. The meals are good and varied and there is a small crowd of regulars who do enjoy going to the restaurant. However, these people only come on certain days and at certain times. The owner is trying her best to adjust to this small segment, and also trying desperately to expand her customer base.

Here's is the part of our story where the web guru jumps to the rescue! All the owner needs to do is start using social media and then her market should naturally expand! Well, not exactly. Such social media tricks work in larger cities, but not in this somewhat sleepy spacious mill-town of about 50,000.

Here, with this restaurant, that jump was unsuccessful. In theory anyway, social media should be the savior of this establishment. However, rather then networking people in to the restaurant's, "community" social media, and modern media in general have created a far bigger problem for the local business owner. No one follows the same media.

The proprietor does use Facebook, but not all customers have Facebook, or opt to add the restaurant on Facebook. And this is just part of the issue, many upstart small businesses are priced out of the other markets. The local TV channels, newspapers and such are all too expensive. Yet this leaves aside the bigger problem that people no longer all read the same papers, or watch the same channels.

No this problem is monumental to the traditional community restaurant. Especially to these sorts of "Main Street" establishments. With Netflix, Hulu, Google, Facebook and others these new media's create a sort of walled garden around the traditional media. Bricked out with a "marketing tax" the small local businesses are outside the gates left to the vandals. So, far far from rescuing the small upstart businesses, social media might have turned into its worst enemy. Facebook is great, but it isn't effective at getting the name or brand out to any and all potential customers.

To be fair here I think the idea of "marketing tax" or "innovation tax" are terribly non-descriptive and politically charged phrases. One doesn't use either term lightly, and at the same time they both are stand ins for the lack of knowledge either side might share with the other on the subject. Indeed its as if this same "marketing" problem, might in fact be much much broader in scope, but I will save that for a later post.


So despite all the hype, and leverage of social media that "everyone" or the "internet" talks about: including the various "innovation taxes", and copyrights the real innovators here are losing out, and things are only getting worse. The only clear thing is that the rise of the new institution of social media, has made life in many small towns and small centers of infrastructure and production doubly difficult. Priced out of the local media, social media offers no viable alternative to a town filled with many people of different generations.