Digital thoughts

A few days ago, a group of journalists has published the following Manifesto. You may want to read it all; it's about your freedoms in the 21st century.

---

Internet Manifesto: How journalism works today. Seventeen declarations.

1. The Internet is different.

It produces different public spheres, different terms of trade and different cultural skills. The media must adapt their work methods to today’s technological reality instead of ignoring or challenging it. It is their duty to develop the best possible form of journalism based on the available technology. This includes new journalistic products and methods.

2. The Internet is a pocket-sized media empire.

The web rearranges existing media structures by transcending their former boundaries and oligopolies. The publication and dissemination of media contents are no longer tied to heavy investments. Journalism’s self-conception is—fortunately—being cured of its gatekeeping function. All that remains is the journalistic quality through which journalism distinguishes itself from mere publication.

3. The Internet is our society is the Internet.

Web-based platforms like social networks, Wikipedia or YouTube have become a part of everyday life for the majority of people in the western world. They are as accessible as the telephone or television. If media companies want to continue to exist, they must understand the lifeworld of today’s users and embrace their forms of communication. This includes basic forms of social communication: listening and responding, also known as dialog.

4. The freedom of the Internet is inviolable.

The Internet’s open architecture constitutes the basic IT law of a society which communicates digitally and, consequently, of journalism. It may not be modified for the sake of protecting the special commercial or political interests often hidden behind the pretense of public interest. Regardless of how it is done, blocking access to the Internet endangers the free flow of information and corrupts our fundamental right to a self-determined level of information.

5. The Internet is the victory of information.

Due to inadequate technology, media companies, research centers, public institutions and other organizations compiled and classified the world’s information up to now. Today every citizen can set up her own personal news filter while search engines tap into wealths of information of a magnitude never before known. Individuals can now inform themselves better than ever.

6. The Internet changes improves journalism.

Through the Internet, journalism can fulfill its social-educational role in a new way. This includes presenting information as an ever-changing, continual process; the forfeiture of print media’s inalterability is a benefit. Those who want to survive in this new world of information need a new idealism, new journalistic ideas and a sense of pleasure in exploiting this new potential.

7. The net requires networking.

Links are connections. We know each other through links. Those who do not use them exclude themselves from social discourse. This also holds for the websites of traditional media companies.

8. Links reward, citations adorn.

Search engines and aggregators facilitate quality journalism: they boost the findability of outstanding content over a long-term basis and are thus an integral part of the new, networked public sphere. References through links and citations—especially including those made without any consent of or even remuneration of the originator—make the very culture of networked social discourse possible in the first place. They are by all means worthy of protection.

9. The Internet is the new venue for political discourse.

Democracy thrives on participation and freedom of information. Transferring the political discussion from traditional media to the Internet and expanding on this discussion by involving the active participation of the public is one of journalism’s new tasks.

10. Today’s freedom of the press means freedom of opinion.

Article 5 of the German Constitution does not comprise protective rights for professions or technically traditional business models. The Internet overrides the technological boundaries between the amateur and professional. This is why the privilege of freedom of the press must hold for anyone who can contribute to the fulfillment of journalistic duties. Qualitatively speaking, no differentiation should be made between paid and unpaid journalism, but rather, between good and poor journalism.

11. More is more – there is no such thing as too much information.

Once upon a time, institutions such as the church prioritized power over personal awareness and warned of an unsifted flood of information when the letterpress was invented. On the other hand were the pamphleteers, encyclopaedists and journalists who proved that more information leads to more freedom, both for the individual as well as society as a whole. To this day, nothing has changed in this respect.

12. Tradition is not a business model.

Money can be made on the Internet with journalistic content. There are many examples of this today already. Yet because the Internet is fiercely competitive, business models have to be adapted to the structure of the net. No one should try to abscond from this essential adaptation through policy-making geared to preserving the status quo. Journalism needs open competition for the best refinancing solutions on the net, along with the courage to invest in the multifaceted implementation of these solutions.

13. Copyright becomes a civic duty on the Internet.

Copyright is a cornerstone of information organization on the Internet. Originators’ rights to decide on the type and scope of dissemination of their contents are also valid on the net. At the same time, copyright may not be abused as a lever to safeguard obsolete supply mechanisms and shut out new distribution models or license schemes. Ownership entails obligations.

14. The Internet has many currencies.

Journalistic online services financed through adverts offer content in exchange for a pull effect. A reader’s, viewer’s or listener’s time is valuable. In the industry of journalism, this correlation has always been one of the fundamental tenets of financing. Other forms of refinancing which are journalistically justifiable need to be forged and tested.

15. What’s on the net stays on the net.

The Internet is lifting journalism to a new qualitative level. Online, text, sound and images no longer have to be transient. They remain retrievable, thus building an archive of contemporary history. Journalism must take the development of information, its interpretation and errors into account, i.e., it must admit its mistakes and correct them in a transparent manner.

16. Quality remains the most important quality.

The Internet debunks homogenous bulk goods. Only those who are outstanding, credible and exceptional will gain a steady following in the long run. Users’ demands have increased. Journalism must fulfill them and abide by its own frequently formulated principles.

17. All for all.

The web constitutes an infrastructure for social exchange superior to that of 20th century mass media: When in doubt, the “generation Wikipedia” is capable of appraising the credibility of a source, tracking news back to its original source, researching it, checking it and assessing it—alone or as part of a group effort. Journalists who snub this and are unwilling to respect these skills are not taken seriously by these Internet users. Rightly so. The Internet makes it possible to communicate directly with those once known as recipients—readers, listeners and viewers—and to take advantage of their knowledge. Not the journalists who know it all are in demand, but those who communicate and investigate.

Internet, 07.09.2009

• Markus Beckedahl
• Mercedes Bunz
• Julius Endert
• Johnny Haeusler
• Thomas Knüwer
• Sascha Lobo
• Robin Meyer-Lucht
• Wolfgang Michal
• Stefan Niggemeier
• Kathrin Passig
• Janko Röttgers
• Peter Schink
• Mario Sixtus
• Peter Stawowy
• Fiete Stegers

Translated from the German original by Jenna L. Brinning

(Via P2P Blog. A Romanian version is available.)

---

Though it mentions journalism a lot, I think it's safe to say the above Manifesto embodies the ideals of any digital native. The world runs mostly on information nowadays, and information has this tendency to spread fast and wide, not restricted by physical limitations. This has made it obvious that social institutions we were taking for granted don't work very well; indeed, better ways to run the show are arising naturally out of the freedom the Internet has granted us. The incumbents - the corrupt, despotic, greedy politicians and CEOs who rule the modern world - are being made obsolete as we speak, and they are fighting back. Hopefully, what they are doing is just thrashing in the tar pit, but because they are so big and powerful, they can still do a lot of harm.

See, what the Internet Manifesto doesn't say is that in order to use the Internet freely, you first need to use your computer freely, without fear of surveillance or censorship. For over six months, I used this blog to warn against attempts to limit that freedom. But it's easy to miss the forest among all the trees. Luckily, there is another Manifesto that was also published a few days ago. It's titled To Liberate Computer Users and, though it is rather technical (and not very coherent), you might want to read it as well. By the way, The Austin, Texas initiative it mentions is the Helios Project.

As for what you can do about it, let me repeat some advice I gave back in May:

1. Learn the basics of programming. Think of it this way: you're using the computer all the time, yet you don't know how to talk to it. Note the emphasis: a GUI restricts you to the equivalent of pointing and grunting. You owe it to yourself to do better than that. And don't feel intimidated, the aura of mystique that seems to surround programming nowadays is purely an illusion.
2. Learn the languages of the Web. Similarly, you surf the Web day in and day out, but can you make a simple Web page if the need arises? Because if you don't, you'll always be dependent on third parties for your continued sharing in the world-wide conversation.
3. Use a free, open source operating system. Isn't it enough that you barely have control over your hardware? Do you really need someone named Steve to tell you how you're supposed to use your own machine, what software to run and when to upgrade? Do I even need to ask you that?

That, and spread the word. It's what the Internet does best, after all.

The Internet Manifesto and Freedomware by Felix Pleșoianu is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at www.p2p-blog.com.

Every time I worry about the lack of news in an issue of Digital Week, the next one turns out to have too many. This is one of those "next" issues. We've got the usual copyright wars, with news from the control freak half of humanity (you know, those who run around screaming "mine! mine! mine!" *) ranging from the ridiculous, through the annoying and up to the truly chilling, while on the other side of the barricade more and more voices raise in favor of openness and sharing. Last but not least, a few highlights from the world of science and technology.

Let's start in Canada, where the BSA's local branch pulls numbers out of their collective ass in order to justify their "anti-piracy" measures. Between this and Microsoft's attitude (more on this below), continued reliance on proprietary software is an increasingly bad idea.

A little to the south, an American wireless Internet provider has chosen an "interesting" way to combat piracy: they are blocking any URL with 'torrent' in it. Last time I checked, that was a perfectly legitimate word. Do I detect signs of paranoia... again? And across the pond, a bunch of anti-piracy lawyers don't seem to think copyright laws apply to them. Way to convince people your cause is the right one. Even worse at convincing people is Sony Pictures CEO's insisting that "nothing good has come from the Internet" (blech, I feel dirty just for quoting him), even after being called on it. And he was, more than once.

Finally, because I mentioned Microsoft earlier, by what right do they decide how much a netbook should cost? And would you have me believe that a relatively poor country, during a recession, can't find a better deal than a 100-million euro licensing agreement with Microsoft? And if that doesn't affect you (because you're not in the market for netbooks and/or not a Romanian), how about a Windows update shooting holes in your Firefox installation?

In other news, Police Blame Video Games For 2-Year-Old Stabbing 5-Month-Old (because, you know, a two-year old is mentally capable of playing a video game AND knowing what to do with a knife). And then we have this website that only works from 5 to 9. What's next, the Web server's union?

Next for some rather chilling news. Remember when Swedish ISPs have started deleting logs so they won't have to turn over the data? The EU might force them to keep it. Which just happens to conflict with Swedish law. My question is, do laws still mean anything when they conflict with each other AND reality?

But data retention laws are one thing. Searching a house without a warrant is something else entirely. Especially when those involved aren't even policemen. And even that is no biggie compared to the news that manga porn can put a man in prison. And no, it's not happening in some backwater fundamentalist country. In the heart of Western civilisation, drawings are nowadays considered as valuable as people!

After all this, it sounds like a huge victory of common sense when you learn that Chinese justice is more fair than that. And what about Spain, where tribunals are ruling again and again that downloading movies for one's personal use is legal no matter how many they are. Should I also mention that Iranians are active open source developers?

In any event, there's been a lot of talk against excessive control lately. In Britain, a study reveals yet another group of people burned by DRM. In Sweden, a famous writer supports the Pirate Party. And the Huffington Post runs a piece on how copyright restricts innovation. Last but not least, we have Teaching Copyright, an initiative by the EFF to educate people about the reality of copyright law. Hint: it's not as restrictive as some would have you believe.

And because I mentioned innovation, there are two fascinating writeups, here and here, pointing out just how important it is. The bad news is, some companies actively fight innovation. The good news is, both the open source community and certain other companies are fighting right back.

To end on a cheerful note, in the weird-science-funky-tech department we'll look at how Synchronized Brain Waves Focus Our Attention, what you can do with lots and lots of air traffic data and the crazy things you can build if you know how. There is still hope for humanity... and you can be part of the reason for it.

*) If you don't recognize the reference, try getting your hands on the movie Man Friday. It's surprisingly relevant as of late...

Digital Week #27: The freedom to innovate by Felix Pleşoianu is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.

Welcome to a rather special edition of Digital Week. I'm normally apolitical - indeed, anti-political - and I like it that way. But sometimes politics intrude into my life in too brutal a manner, and I can only suffer in silence for so long.

Last week's big news, in case you missed it (yeah right) is the long-awaited verdict in the Pirate Bay trial. To everyone's dismay - unfortunately nobody can claim surprise - the 4 admins have been sentenced to one year in prison and $905000 in damages each. This is incredibly harsh, seeing how the worst charges were dropped outright and the rest of them have been poorly supported by evidence. But while the Big Media brag about their victory, this time the backlash may just be more than they can swallow. First of all, as pointed out by Wired Magazine, the Pirate Bay crew are now martyrs. Second, the verdict was leaked a few hours early, with the accusing side knowing about it a little too soon, which is not only ironic but, more importantly, fuels the suspicion that said verdict was politically motivated. But just look at all the public reactions:

• street parties in Moscow before the verdict and demonstrations in Sweden afterwards,
• Pirate Party membership surges following Pirate Bay verdict and
• a Pirate Bay server becomes museum artefact.

Oh, there has been an immediate chilling effect, but remember that chilling effects go both ways. And the distance between what is legal and what most people think is right is only increasing.

To top it all, the verdict is not even final, and may yet be reversed through an appeal. So who won, again?

And now for the really tough topic: Republic of Moldova's political crysis. Yes, I'm over two weeks late, and the whole story has been more-or-less covered by reputable online publications, such as The New York Times, The BBC and The Guardian. And despite headlines such as Moldova Protesters Take to the Streets ... and Tweets the connection to digital culture appears tenuous.

BUT. Freedom is freedom, and if Richard Stallman himself showed interest after it occurred a young Moldovan to write him, who am I to shut up? Especially since I live uncomfortably close to the last openly Communist country in Europe, and many of my friends are from the Republic of Moldova. And while those who have Romanian citizenship can at least stay on this side of the border, those who have to go home face this sort of treatment (and yes, I know this report is one-sided; go ahead and try to get the other side's version). And while President Băsescu at least promised some sort of help for people on the other side of the river Prut, the European Union has been SILENT.

As I write this, the Moldovan protesters are to remain under arrest, despite promises of an amnesty, while the people who've beat them will be rewarded (cf. Jurnal de Chișinău, via Hotnews.ro). No comment.

To get back on topic, in the good-technology-bad-technology department, we learn that in the American capital of paranoia College Police Think Using Linux Is Suspicious Behavior (Where have I read that before? Oh yes, at Computer Stupidities. See case number 12 on that page.) As a counterpoint, it turns out e-stalking can help catch thieves. I never thought that kind of technology can be a good thing, but there you have it. And while DRM burns legitimate media buyers for the n^th time, it turns out the iPhone is making casual (read: cheap) games fashionable. And yes, the iPhone is another piece of technology I can't stand, but when it does good, it is good. So have a nice digital week after all.

P.S. While I narrowly missed the pro-Moldovan support meetings in Bucharest (covering them here would have been damn cool), it turns out the Flickr crew highlighted the protests in Chișinău as they were taking place. Talk about quick reactions, and caring about the world.

Digital Week #21: Political edition by Felix Pleşoianu is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.

I almost missed today's deadline (don't ask...), but I didn't, so let's get down to business, shall we?

In the April's-fools-day department, we have news that are obvious hoaxes, news we wish were hoaxes and news that are serious, and only sound like hoaxes because, you know, it's the last thing reasonable people would have on their minds in the middle of an economic crysis.

Similarly funny is the non-news department: Big Music discovers hot water, scientists discover that diversity is good in the software world and managers discover that people are more productive when NOT treated like machines. Incidentally, the last one comes after a recent study (can't seem to find the link now) that shows kids focus better when they are allowed to fidget. I'd quote the paradox of control again, if that didn't make me sound like a broken record.

In other news, Google seems poised to prove that (despite their claims) Android is no more open that the iPhone. As it happens, I said as much even before Android launched. Looks like a wish-I-was-wrong situation.

And so we get to the copyfight department, where last week's news come in pairs. While in Sweden they've got a tough antipiracy law, in the US they're getting rid of MPAA's president. Hopefully it will occur to them to put a younger guy in charge this time. And while France is going against the current (in more than one sense), a British band is siding with the fans. Guess who's alone against the world now. Finally, in a deja-vu-inducing move, AT&T adopts draconian terms of service, only to backpedal desperately, following public outrage. You'd think they'd realized by now that you can't toy with the people who pay you. Not unless you are a politician, anyway.

Last but not least, it is officially confirmed that Firefox 3 becomes top browser in Europe. Now can we please put an end to the myth that IE has 70% of the market? There, I've said it. Check back next week to see if the sky has fallen yet.

Digital Week #19 by Felix Pleşoianu is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.

"Oh, no, not again." That was my first reaction upon reading this New York Times article, that uses the whole Conficker worm debacle as a pretext to suggest (where have we heard it before?) turning the Internet into a controlled environment. Beyond the glaring logic errors in the proposal itself - e.g. it points out the lack of privacy on the 'Net, only to advocate giving up one's anonimity in exchange for access - the story is yet more proof that some people just don't understand security. Luckily, many bloggers do. Somebody pointed out that it's the people, stupid. Someone else cautioned (correctly) that fixing the Internet might break it worse than it's broken now. But it took another professional journalist, this time from the Guardian, to hit the nail on the head.

In other news, the historical Pirate Bay trial continues in Sweden. You can get full coverage on either TorrentFreak or Ars Technica, but the main point appears to be that the prosecutors don't understand technology, and neither do the prosecution's main witnesses. If they did, they would either embrace it, like the Norwegian Minister of Education, or at least compete with it like Valve, instead of tilting at windmills. Which is exactly what the guys at U2 have been doing lately.

But there is another thing the Pirate Bay prosecutors don't understand, and that is the group's lack of hierarchical structure. Hint: it's not chaotic, it's a meritocracy. No wonder they don't get it: it's a social system you can't fool... and in which you have to make yourself truly useful to stay on top. But - and here's the trick - that's the only requirement. I hope to revisit the topic one of these weeks.

On to the privacy-what's-that? department, where Facebook's new terms of service: "we can do anything we want with your content. forever." have been reverted after only a few days, following public uproar. I wonder what the players in Everquest 2 think about privacy, now that Sony admitted keeping logs of their every move, EVER.

Finally, in the surprising-except-not department, we learn that keeping violent media away from boys could be a bad idea, and we're given subtle evidence of global warming. Also, a survey reveals that iPhone apps are quickly discarded. Well, that's the fate of toys, what were they expecting.

I'll end with the news of a victory that's both temporary and bitter: New Zealand P2P disconnection plan [was] delayed after outcry. Glad to see politicians listening to the netizens for a change. Let's hope it will last. Verdict: bittersweet week.

Digital Week #13: Common sense on trial, part 2 by Felix Pleşoianu is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.