Add your voice: Keep the Internet open and free.

The context for this post is provided by Michael Lynton, CEO of Sony Pictures, who recently stated:

I'm a guy who sees nothing good having come from the Internet. Period."

Now, in light of that bizarre, politically motivated statement, what's going on at the FCC? FreePress advises:

At this very minute, the Federal Communications Commission is crafting America's first national broadband plan. Whether the plan will give more control over our Internet to the likes of Sony Pictures, Comcast, AT&T, Time Warner Cable and Verizon depends on what we do right now.

These companies' well-heeled lobbyists are flooding the FCC's public docket with comments in support of policies that let them:

  • Tilt the Web’s level playing field to favor the Web sites of corporate partners;
  • Deploy content-sniffing devices that would randomly open and sift through our private Web communications;
  • Impose usage penalties on people who use the Web for more than simple e-mail and Web surfing;
  • Block innovative Web services that compete against their phone, cable and entertainment products; and
  • Disconnect users for any reason or without justification
What can you do to keep things on track at the FCC? Write a comment to the FCC. It will only take a minute. Let your voice counter-balance the monied corporate interests that are trying to grab hold of the Internet for the sole purpose of squeezing out profits, just as they grabbed hold of all other electronic media during prior decades. Note that we now have a president who is committed to keeping the Internet open and free:

Continue ReadingAdd your voice: Keep the Internet open and free.

Our culture of distraction

I remember the good old days, when I received a dozen or so emails every day at the office, thereby obviating the need to send and receive paper letters on those matters. Then something unproductive happened. As I started getting more and more emails, I found that they were becoming more fragmented, like stretched-out conversations, and more lost in a sea of emails that tried to sell me something or tried to make sure that I was constantly updated as to nothing very important. Keeping up with email, then, has become both an incredible tool and a huge time drain. I think of that every day as I read and create 100 emails, many of which require detailed responses. Email, which was once a way to avoid sending and receiving paper letters, is now taking up several hours of every day. Why don't I turn it off and get a lot more done? Because, every day, I end up decided that I don't want to throw out the baby with the bath-water. I love-hate the way email barely often enough distracts my attention to something that barely often enough requires my attention. Sam Anderson explores our new attention-divided culture in a New York Magazine article titled, "In Defense of Distraction":

This is troubling news, obviously, for a culture of BlackBerrys and news crawls and Firefox tabs—tools that, critics argue, force us all into a kind of elective ADHD. The tech theorist Linda Stone famously coined the phrase “continuous partial attention” to describe our newly frazzled state of mind. American office workers don’t stick with any single task for more than a few minutes at a time; if left uninterrupted, they will most likely interrupt themselves. Since every interruption costs around 25 minutes of productivity, we spend nearly a third of our day recovering from them. We keep an average of eight windows open on our computer screens at one time and skip between them every twenty seconds.

Continue ReadingOur culture of distraction

Creation on FaceBook

I recently volunteered to serve the data mining company, FaceBook. That is, I have joined this social networking site, fed them my stats, and regularly post information that FaceBook incorporates into its marketing database. Anything you write or post, they claim as their personal property so they can resell it.And there is the reputed link between FaceBook and the CIA. But I figure that since the FBI launched Carnivore in the 1990's, we're all scrod, anyway. But the real point of this post is to show you this funny version of Biblical Creation, as it might have manifested in FaceBook. They even have Sarah Palin, you betcha! And it isn't actually on FaceBook. No worries. Excerpt:

  • God: Don't worry, Cobra, you get to stay here. Just hang out in the garden.
  • Cobra: Ok. You mean on the beer trees?
  • God: Er, sorry, for budgetary reasons, we had to replace the beer trees with apple trees. But it's ok, apples are good for you. Just go play on those, ok?

Continue ReadingCreation on FaceBook

Amazon.com Now Censors As Policy

Amazon.com has just initiated a new marketing policy. They are stripping away the sales ranking of any book with so-called Adult Content. Here's their little explanation: "In consideration of our entire customer base, we exclude "adult" material from appearing in some searches and best seller lists. Since these lists are generated using sales ranks, adult materials must also be excluded from that feature. Hence, if you have further questions, kindly write back to us. Best regards, Ashlyn D Member Services Amazon.com Advantage What this mean in effect, however, is that books primarily with gay and lesbian content are being singled out for exclusion from database searches. It is being applied in a bigoted and surprisingly hamfisted manner to conform to someone's standard of what constitutes Offensive Material. Adult Content generally means anything with more than coyly suggested sex in it. However, as a sample of the books not having their sales ranking stripped away, consider these: --Playboy: The Complete Centerfolds by Chronicle Books (pictures of over 600 naked women) --Rosemary Rogers' Sweet Savage Love" (explicit heterosexual romance); --Kathleen Woodiwiss' The Wolf and the Dove (explicit heterosexual romance); --Bertrice Smal's Skye o'Malley which are all explicit heterosexual romances --and Alan Moore's Lost Girls (which is a very explicit sexual graphic novel) These book sell very well, generally, so it's obvious that there's a dollar connection to this new policy. Midlist---the vast majority of books---will be targeted.

Continue ReadingAmazon.com Now Censors As Policy

Linking to Wikileaks could cost you $11,000

Well, it will if the Australian government gets its way on its internet censorship bill. That's right. The ACMA seems to have placed Wikileaks on its potential web blacklist and seems set on throwing fines of up to $11,000 at anyone who links to it. I'd happily go all out on this one, but a fellow Antipodean has already got this one in his sights:

I'm posting this on my American blog because the Australian government, through the Australian Communications and Media Authority is fining people on Australian sites who give the links below the fold $11,000/day. Pretty well everything I feared about censorship by the internet filter and heavy handed government action is coming true. First of all, it transpires that only one bureaucrat at ACMA is required to block and ban a site, with no further oversight or redress. Second, it turns out that yes, ordinary and popular pornography sites are being blocked, so that if the filter becomes mandatory, these legal sites will effectively become censored for no apparent reason (other than political whim or special privileges). Thirdly, the whistleblower site Wikileaks is blocked by the ACMA blacklist.
John follows with the excerpt from a Crikey article:
Like New Labour in the UK, the ALP has now abandoned that [civil liberties movement], for a number of reasons. Once it committed itself to neoliberal economics ("social capitalism") Labo(u)r became freaked about the social dissolution and rupture, the desocialisation created by turning the polis into a giant market of winners and losers. The tough answer to this is genuine social democracy, in which people have a social being not entirely defined by whether they're a "winner" or a "loser". The easy answer is to let the market rip, allow it to change the culture, and then seek to control and reshape people's behaviour, selling it to them as "protecting the many against the few".

Continue ReadingLinking to Wikileaks could cost you $11,000