Journal: Social Web Cannot Be Censored or Gated

11 Society, Autonomous Internet, Collective Intelligence, IO Sense-Making

Why the Social Web is the Guardian of Net Neutrality

Jon Goldman Jon Goldman

Mashable

EXTRACT:

The rise of the social web has tipped the balance of information sharing power from corporations to users. Many of the remaining ties consumers once felt toward their favorite search engine or broadband provider have been loosened, making user recommendations the most critical factor in e-commerce decisions. The same thing has happened with content. What our friends watch, play or listen to is increasingly the deciding factor in what media we choose to consume.

This has two important effects on the net neutrality debate. First, social media has rewired people to expect an open and unrestricted Internet. It’s clear to most web users that a controlled Internet (whether by corporations or government) is not in the best interest of the user (or in the long run, the marketplace of ideas). Second, consumer choice is at a high level. Most users are not restricted by a single point of access, both to the web as a whole and for discovery of the information it contains.

Tip of the Hat to  Pierre Levy at LinkedIn.

Phi Beta Iota: Read the full article to also understand Google and Verizon power plays to own the commons.  This is an important article that misses a major supporting fact: at Burning Man an OpenBTS wireless environment was created, using open software and hardware to leverage open spectrum.  Google is the Standard Oil of the past, and Verizon, if it does not learn fairly soon that it is the content that can be monetized, not the connection, is going to be the Maginot Line of the past.  By the by, John Perry Barlow said all this at OSS '92.  See also Howard Rheingold's remarks.   The US Intelligence Community has blown a quarter century out of ignorant obstinancy.

See Also:

OSS '92 Proceedings (Free Online)

Hacking Humanity

Journal: Free Speech for People Challenges Supreme Court

09 Justice, 11 Society, Collective Intelligence

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT:

Drew Courtney or Miranda Blue, 202-467-4999 / media@pfaw.org
<mailto:media@pfaw.org>

Jeff Clements, General Counsel, Free Speech for People, 617-281-5350
<mailto:617-281-5350%20jclements@clementsllc.com>  /
jclements@clementsllc.com

October 4, 2010

Bipartisan Group of Former Attorneys General and Law Professors Call on Congress to Examine Constitutional Amendment To Reverse Citizens United

As the Supreme Court returns today for its new term, a bipartisan group of law professors and prominent attorneys, including seven former state attorneys general, issued a letter criticizing the Court¹s ruling in January in Citizens United v. FEC <http://www.freespeechforpeople.org/sites/default/files/finalfsfppfaw.pdf> , which equated corporate spending in elections with free speech rights, and calling on Congress to consider a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision.

Free Speech for People and People For the American Way announced the release of the letter, which was signed by more than fifty leading law professors and attorneys, including former Massachusetts Attorneys General Frank
Bellotti and Scott Harshbarger; former Mississippi Attorney General Michael Moore; former Arizona Attorney General Grant Woods; leading constitutional scholars; and numerous former federal and state prosecutors from across the
country.

The diverse group of attorneys, scholars, and public servants call the Citizens United decision ³a serious danger to effective self-government of, for and by the American people.² The signatories urge Congress to consider a
constitutional amendment to address that danger, noting that ³most of the seventeen amendments adopted since the original Bill of Rights have corrected what the American people understood were obstacles to the equal rights of all people to participate in self-government on equal terms.²

Continue reading “Journal: Free Speech for People Challenges Supreme Court”

Journal: Social Networks Do What Google Cannot Do

Collective Intelligence, Commercial Intelligence

How social networks can answer a question faster than Google

Direct to conclusion:

Things to ponder:

  1. The combination of people-based and computer-based networks (Twitter, Lotus Connections) brought forth the story in three hours. Social networks answer questions at business speed. It verified what Google couldn't.
  2. It pays to “cultivate your margins” and pay attention to interesting people outside of your normal channels. Gifts come from unexpected places. Who would expect a Midwestern body shop owner would find this nugget? If she didn't, would any of us ever have known it was a 3M product down there? You won't get as many good stories if you communicate with just the same people you see every day.
  3. It was four degrees of internal separation, including me, to answer the question “is that our product?” It was answered in three hours from people on the other side of the world. Each person knew just the next person in line. If you add the Twitter feeds to me, that was two more people for a total of six. @laughingsquid found the Newsweek article, @jacquebona, who I follow, ‘RTed' it.
  4. Google grabs what's published, not what's talked about. The social network rocks because it promotes what's naturally interesting to people. The Google robot emulates people, but not as well, or as quickly.
  5. The little projector is STILL down there, used every day in non-spec conditions. It's 90F and very humid down there. There's a “takes a licking” story here.

Go back and read the full story leading up to the conclusion….

Tip of the Hat to Stan Garfield at LinkedIn.

Journal: Software Should be Free…

Collective Intelligence

Seth Godin Bio

The business of software

Inspired by a talk I gave yesterday at the BOS conference. This is long, feel free to skip!

My first real job was leading a team that created five massive computer games for the Commodore 64. The games were so big they needed four floppy disks each, and the project was so complex (and the hardware systems so sketchy) that on more than one occasion, smoke started coming out of the drives.

Success was a product that didn't crash, start a fire or lead to a nervous breakdown.

Writing software used to be hard, sort of like erecting a building used to be hundreds of years ago. When you set out to build an audacious building, there were real doubts about whether you might succeed. It was considered a marvel if your building was a little taller and didn't fall down. Now, of course, the hard part of real estate development has nothing to do with whether or not your building is going to collapse.

The same thing is true of software. It’s a given that a professionally run project will create something that runs. Good (not great) software is a matter of will, mostly.

The question used to be: Does it run? That was enough, because software that worked was scarce.

Now, the amount of high utility freeware and useful free websites is soaring. Clearly, just writing a piece of software no longer makes it a business.

So if it’s not about avoiding fatal bugs, what’s the business of software?

Read the rest of Seth Godin's post…

Phi Beta Iota: This is a very important post, read the whole thing.  Earth Intelligence Network has been saying for four years that cell phones should be free to the poor, and so also call centers that educate the poor one cell call at a time.  This post by Seth Goden helps explain the economics of that: the wealth is in the aggregate, in the new wealth creation, and in the outreach from the five billion poor.  Software, like air, should be free–it powers life.

Journal: Where Ideas Come From–the Hive Mind

Collective Intelligence

Jon Lebkowsky

Where ideas come from

Wired News hosts a conversation between Kevin Kelly and Steven Johnson, who’ve written similar books… Steven – Where Good Ideas Come From: The Natural History of Innovation; and Kevin – What Technology Wants.

Steven “finds that great creative milieus, whether MIT or Los Alamos, New York City or the World Wide Web, are like coral reefs—teeming, diverse colonies of creators who interact with and influence one another.”

Kevin “believes “technology can be seen as a sort of autonomous life-form, with intrinsic goals toward which it gropes over the course of its long development. Those goals, he says, are much like the tendencies of biological life, which over time diversifies, specializes, and (eventually) becomes more sentient…”

WIRED Story Online

I’m glad Kevin and Steven are making the “hive mind” point, a rationale for softening rigid proprietary systems and encouraging collaboration and interaction… sez Steven: “innovation doesn’t come just from giving people incentives; it comes from creating environments where their ideas can connect.” Great ideas emerge from scenes, the solitary inventors are just catalysts for the execution (no mean feat, though).

See Also:

Worth a Look: Book Reviews on Civilization-Building

Worth a Look: Book Reviews on Collective Intelligence

Worth a Look: Book Reviews on Common Wealth

Worth a Look: Book Reviews on Conscious, Evolutionary, Integral Activism & Goodness

Journal: Neither Twitter nor Facebook Lead Revolution

Collective Intelligence, Cultural Intelligence
Chuck Spinney Sounds Off
The attached critique of network centric change has facebook/twitter evangelicals in uproar, but it is very insightful, and, I would add, consistent with every treatise on guerrilla warfare and revolution I have read.
Chuck

ANNALS OF INNOVATION

SMALL CHANGE

Why the revolution will not be tweeted.

by Malcolm Gladwell, New Yorker

OCTOBER 4, 2010

Social media can’t provide what social change has always required.

EXTRACT:

The evangelists of social media don’t understand this distinction; they seem to believe that a Facebook friend is the same as a real friend and that signing up for a donor registry in Silicon Valley today is activism in the same sense as sitting at a segregated lunch counter in Greensboro in 1960. “Social networks are particularly effective at increasing motivation,” Aaker and Smith write. But that’s not true. Social networks are effective at increasing participation—by lessening the level of motivation that participation requires.  . . . . . . . In other words, Facebook activism succeeds not by motivating people to make a real sacrifice but by motivating them to do the things that people do when they are not motivated enough to make a real sacrifice. We are a long way from the lunch counters of Greensboro.

Full Article Online

Phi Beta Iota: What is revolutionary about Twitter and Facebook is the ability to move information.  Nothing more.  It is the content, the nature, the biting, arousing, energizing nature of the content that moves people to burn tires in the streets or do other non-violent mass demonstrations.  We are not there yet because nobody–not Ralph Nader, not Ron Paul, not Cynthia McKinney, not Jackie Salit, and certainly not Mike Bloomberg, who could be President–is actually trying to create public intelligence in the public interest.  Our Virtual Cabinet series at Huffington Post is a start, but until funding or cognitive surplus can be found for the World Brain and Global Game, Twitter and Facebook will remain in grade school and not graduate to real life.  IOHO.

Reference: Whole Earth Review (WER) on Information

11 Society, Articles & Chapters, Collective Intelligence, Cultural Intelligence, Media
WER on Information (Special 1992 Collection)

Howard Rheingold, then editor of the Whole Earth Review (WER) gave us access to all past issues of WER, and permission to select and print this special collection of authors and idea relevant to the Revolution in Intelligence Affairs (RIA). All of it remains relevant because both government and industry have chosen to remain on an industrial-era path that over-stresses centralized control, corporate copyright, and technology instead of thinking.

Here is a tiny sampling from that collection, all 75 items free online.

Stewart Brand, Uncommon Courtesy: A School of Compassionate Skills (Summer 1982)

Donella H. Meadows, Whole Earth Models & Systems (Summer 1982)

Marvin Minsky, Society of Mind (Summer 1986)

Kathleen Newroe, Distance Learning: Tuning in to the World's Lessons on Satellite TV (Winter 1988)

Howard Rheingold, Ethnobotany: The Search for Vanishing Knowledge (Fall 1989)

Stewart Brand, Outlaws, Musicians, Lovers, and Spies: The Future of Control (Summer 1990)

John Perry Barlow, Crime and Puzzlement: The Advance of the Law on the Electronic Frontier (Fall 1990)

Gore Vidal, Founding Father Knows Best (Spring 1991)

Duane Elgin, Conscious Democracy Through Electronic Town Meetings (Summer 1991)

Art Kleiner, The Co-Evolution of Governance (Spring 1992)

Robert David Steele, E3i: Ethics, Ecology, Evolution, and Intelligence (Fall 1992)

noble gold