Slacktavism

Recently within the media their has been increased criticism in a new form of social media activism which has been coined “Slacktivism”. Unlike previous forms of political dissent, internet activism requires basic participation, with no cost or perceived expense to the individual.

On October 2010 Malcolm Gladwell wrote a piece in the New Yorker criticizing those who chose to draw comparisons between traditional activism and social media “revolutions”. He uses the example of the Greensboro sitin’s to illustrate that this form of high-risk activism which threatens the safety of individuals and entire communties cannot be compared to online participation.

As the historian Robert Darnton has written, “The marvels of communication technology in the present have produced a false consciousness about the past—even a sense that communication has no history, or had nothing of importance to consider before the days of television and the Internet.” But there is something else at work here, in the outsized enthusiasm for social media. Fifty years after one of the most extraordinary episodes of social upheaval in American history, we seem to have forgotten what activism is.”  (Gladwell 2010)

He claims that social media revolutions have weak ties and that this like and share form of activism is destroying real forms of social action. “The things that King needed in Birmingham – discipline and strategy – were things that online social media cannot provide.”(Gladwell 2010). According to Gladwell social networks are not hierarchical and that famous protests such as those in the civil rights movement cannot be organised over social media platforms.

Doubtless Gladwell is a talented writer, anyone who has had the privilege or reading his work is aware of this. However there are loud and persuasive voices who are critical against the idea that this form of social revolution lacks the motivation needed for effective change. Maria Popova in her article “Malcolm Gladwell is #wrong” states that its impossible for a person who does not use social media to weigh in on its value. “Malcolm Gladwell’s take on social media is like a nun’s likely review of the Kama Sutra — self-righteous and misguided by virtue of voluntary self-exclusion from the subject.”

In a landscape riddled with pessimists it is refreshing to find a voice amongst the masses willing to standup to the widespread criticism of clicktivism.

References

Popova, M. (2010) ‘Malcolm Gladwell Is #Wrong’ Change Observer, 10 June. http://changeobserver.designobserver.com/feature/malcolm-gladwell-is-wrong/19008/

Morozov, E. (2011) ‘ Facebook and Twitter are just places revolutionaries go’ The Guardian, 7 March. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/07/facebook-twitter-revolutionaries-cyber-utopians

Bohdanova, T. (2013) ‘How Internet Tools Turned Ukraine’s #Euromaidan Protests Into a Movement’, Global Voices, 9 December, http://globalvoicesonline.org/2013/12/09/how-internet-tools-turned-euromaidan-protests-into-a-movement/

All the News that is NOT fit to print.

The audience which were previously the passive consumers of traditional media have now become the manufacturers of user generated content. With platforms such as WordPress and Twitter anyone can become part of the global conversation. Twitter although limited to less than 140 characters has had a profound impact on communication. Although one tweet in isolation has little impact, in combined with thousands of other tweets it becomes extremely powerful, a “suspension bridge made of pebbles.” (Johnson 2013)

Twitter has changed the way content was commonly consumed, disseminated and gathered.The NSA leaks broke first on twitter with the central media outlets only becoming aware hours later. As Steven Johnson discusses in his work “How twitter will change the way we live” although the basics of how we use twitter are relatively simple websites who once saw their traffic dominated by Google search inquires are seeing a number of new visitors coming from “passed links” from social networking sites such as Twitter or Facebook. In areas where their is no edition in print twitter has been integral in driving traffic to The guardian sites. When Edward Snowden revealed his identity on The Guardian website the site received its greatest traffic ever with 6.97 browsers. Twitter then futher enables global expansion for traditional media in that it facilitates access to previously unattainable markets.

In his article Johnson discusses a conference concerning education reform a large majority of participants created and responded to tweets, creating a lateral stream of coordinate commentary. Johnson discusses this particular example extending over five paragraphs to make his central point that twitter is substantially expanding the conversation.

Early in the article Johnson describes how, at a day-long conference held in Manhattan on the subject of education reform, a large cohort of participants sereptitiously wrote and responded to tweets, creating a parallel stream of interactive commentary.  Johnson uses this example, which he describes in five paragraphs, to support as argument that Twitter significantly enlarged the conversation:

“And it gave the event an afterlife on the Web.  Yes, it was built entirely out of 140-character messages, but the sum total of these tweets added up to something truly substantive, like a suspension bridge made of pebbles.”

He states that twitter is a suspension bridge that links society, transports its users to the future through its cabling system: the sweep of cables suspended between towers and the vertical suspender the sweep of cables suspended between towers and the vertical suspender cables. It carries the weight of the deck below

In Axel Burns paper “News Blogs and Citizen Journalism: New Directions for e-Journalism” he discusses the transition from previous traditional media to new forms of journalism, a transition from gatekeeping to gatewatching. “This gradual decline of industrial journalism as the dominant force in the public sphere can be linked directly with a broader shift from industrial to post- industrial paradigms”

Interestingly Al Jazeera’s coverage of unrest in the Arabic world, employs citizen journalism in its coverage of uprisings. It cultivates relationships  with important bloggers and citizen reporters on the ground. Riyaad Minty, Al Jazeera’s head of social media stated that “The key to getting in early is verifying information before the noise gets out,”identifyThey identify key internet contributors so that before the protests began they have access to information later and can act as citizen reporters on the ground. Essentially employing new media to engage with citizens in a more integral way.

References

Johnson, S. (2009). How Twitter Will Change The Way We Live. Time, http://individual.utoronto.ca/kreemy/proposal/04.pdf

Bruns, A. (2009) ‘News Blogs and Citizen Journalism: New Directions for e-Journalism’,

Click to access News%20Blogs%20and%20Citizen%20Journalism.pdf

The Garden of Android – Apple vs Google

Rarely is there seen such a pure personification of the ideological difference between open source and closed source systems, then what is epitomised in the clash between Android and IOS.  The open source philosophy is built on the fundamental ideal that everyone should be able to freely contribute. It is an ideal which is closely linked to Cyberlibertarianism and illustrates that within an open source ecology,  there exists no discrimination for those who wish to contribute to the code.  In contrast the closed source system is a walled system; code is not revealed and debugging is only available as a direct result of ownership of the software.

Defenders of the closed source system, however, believe that this open model creates disorders, maximises error and leads to lowest-common denominator design and usability. Freedom from centralised control, they say, results in an absence of standards or a profusion of competing ones, as well as a lack of discipline and accountability. Central control makes it easier to roll out features and keep a handle on errors, while proprietary standards allow developers to work faster and more efficiently, because they don’t have to support multiple formats or guess where the next upgrade patch is going to come from.

Despite criticism the development of open source software has enabled a greater level of innovation. By making software public, it has allowed programmers or testers to edit, modify, develop, share and create better quality code. Debugging has also become easier with potential issues being recognised as the are easily accessible. Ironically this open and free environment has also facilitated a greater feeling of competitive spirit within the software community. In this community there is nothing distinguishing user from programmer fostering an environment where each individual is attempting to outperform the other. Programmers can come together communicate ideas in this “bazaar” admire each others skill and be further inspired to develop. In addition they can recruit and identify individuals with potential talent.

In his work “The Cathedral and the Bazaar” Raymond states that “given enough eyeballs, all  are shallow” meaning the more widely available code is for testing,  the more rapidly all issues will be discovered. In the “Cathedral model” in which source code becomes available with with each release, but between releases is exclusive to developers, an inordinate amount of energy and time must be spent searching for issues and bugs. The working code is only available to a few developers whilst in the “Bazaar model” code is developed in view of the entirety of developers. This “Bazaar model”  or open system allows free access to and the right to modify  source code.  In its construction it grants not only developers but also all users, who are potential developers, the right to read and change its source code.

Developers, users, and user-turned- developers form a community of practice. A community of practice in which a group of people who are informally bounded by their common interest and practice in a common field. These members can regularly interact with each other for knowledge sharing and often collaborate  in pursuit of solutions to a common class of problems. Within an OSS project success is unlikely unless there is an accompanied community that can provides the platform for developers and users to collaborate with each other. Members of such communities are volunteers whose motivation to participate and contribute is of essential importance to the success of OSS projects.

We see these differing ideologies epitomised in the struggle between the two vastly different operating systems IOS and Android.  The transition in society from PC’s to mobile phone platforms has seen  internet use by users become a valuable commodity.  There currently exists 1.5 billion smartphones worldwide with Mobile devices accounted for 55% of Internet usage in the United States in January.Mobile devices accounted for 55% of Internet usage in the United States in January. Apps made up 47% of Internet traffic and 8% of traffic came from mobile browsersAlthough total Internet usage on mobile devices has previously exceeded that on PCs, this is the first time it’s happened for app usage alone. This is following a fall in PC sales which has suffered recently it’s worse decline in history.

The mobile platform and its importance as a pathway to the internet has seen Google focus primarily on this medium.  No longer are the wars of Microsoft and Netscape the dominant clashes within the global network. Rather the central clashes of this era of internet history will play out in the arena’s of the open sourced Android and the ‘Walled garden’ of Apple.

Whether you prescribe to a particular spectrum of this debate it appears that this competition has resulted in greater innovation and increased production by these two mobile platforms.  Android is a  virtual bazaar that runs on a linux based mobile system. Emulators are accepted on Android as is side loading, and you can receive apps and code from a variety of sources. Apple in contrast does not allow anything with downloadable code. When google first purchased Android, it purchased the first real potential competitor of the IOS platform. There edge, openness an creativity,  a potential edge that Apple lacked with their fixed stores and strict guidelines. Choice is the central idea that dominants the open source system. In this ecology users can customize more than on IOS models. There is no limit on app sources and individuals can alter the code to fit their individual needs.

IOS also has its own advantages in its protection against dangerous installations of unapproved software. This is connected to early ideas of feudalism with users sacrificing their information for security.  IOS limits the varied sources of applications by locking down the software and doing decrease malware problems and increases device security.

In the world of operating systems, this tension exists between Windows, which is seen as the embodiment of everything centralized and proprietary, and open solutions such as Ubuntu and (more recently) the Chrome OS from Google. In the mobile world, the biggest battle is Apple vs. Google: the latter has the open-source Android operating system, with a totally open app store and development process, while Apple not only controls the code behind the iPhone, but is also notoriously controlling when it comes to its app store, routinely rejecting apps without saying why, and restricting the features they can have — and even the kinds of content they can include.

The same tensions are being played out elsewhere. Facebook has become one of the world’s largest social networks, but not by being open — or at least, not as open as some other web services. Although it provides access to some of its features (such as Facebook Connect) via its API, and is happy to suck information into its service from wherever possible, it is notoriously reluctant to allow much information to flow in the other direction. It controls the terms of service and restrictions on games and other apps with an iron hand, and reserves the right to change its terms on a whim.

In the world of video, meanwhile, there’s a battle underway between Adobe, which controls Flash, the de facto video delivery standard for the web, and (ironically) Apple, which has refused to support Flash on either the iPhone or the iPad and instead has been pushing developers and media distributors towards the open-source HTML5 standard. Meanwhile, on the networking hardware side, Cisco, which has been a vendor using proprietary code for most of its life, has been struggling to find ways to deal with the appetite for open-source solutions in high-speed networking, video conferencing and voice-over-Internet services.

This tension between open and closed runs across many different sectors, and exposes issues that are crucial to the evolution of the technology industry. We hope you will join us in exploring them over the coming weeks

Open source means there are a lot of people working on the software. Plenty of individuals are making sure the code is solid and that the software is easy to use. Documentation is usually easy to find, and there are plenty of people out there writing “how-tos,” which make design and development easier and even fun. You can count on regular updates that are continually improving the product. Open source systems let you see what makes the software tick, and you can often change it to suit your needs. Use this to your advantage when it comes to differentiating yourself from the rest of the pack.

However, because of the popularity of open source systems, many people are familiar with open source code, which creates a higher risk for hacking. If you choose to design in an open source system, your development team is going to need to put time and work into preventing third-party tampering. This difficulty will scale based on many factors such as how many people need to have access to sensitive areas of the site (like the admin panel).

Closed source software usually equates to better security and support. For an ecommerce site, it isn’t necessarily more secure to go with a closed source system, but unlike open source systems, developers don’t have to spend as much time securing code. If a developer runs into any issues in a closed source software, providers are more than happy to offer you support. This is a convenience, because it cuts down on the development time and cost.

Unfortunately with closed source, the barrier to entry is a lot higher. A smaller community means less experience and collective knowledge. This usually equates with much higher costs across the board. You often have to pay for the software or service, and if your support package doesn’t include it, you end up having to pay someone else for their expertise.

References

Roth, D. (2008) ‘Google’s Open Source Android OS Will Free the Wireless Web’. Wired, June 23. http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/magazine/16-07/ff_android

Zittrain, J. (2010) ‘A fight over freedom at Apple’s core’. Financial Times, February 3. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/fcabc720-10fb-11df-9a9e-00144feab49a.html

Raymond, E. (2001) The Cathedral and the Bazaar [pp.1-31],

Click to access CathBaz.pdf

http://philip.greenspun.com/ancient-history/managing-software-engineers

Click to access ICSE03.pdf

http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/10/technology/pc-sales/?iid=EL

http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/28/technology/mobile/mobile-apps-internet/

Digital Castles: Modern Feudalism in the contemporary world

Now when we reference the “Internet”, “networks” or “cyberspace we are referring to the devices who use them Macs or Smart phones and the massive stacks which define them “Amazon”, “Google”, “Microsoft”, “Facebook” and “Apple” .These providers take nothing from us except our allegiance, identity and the majority of our data. They are the modern equivalent of the feudal lords which ruled over serfs in the dark ages. We give them our loyalty, all they want is to be our sole provider of messaging, communication and megadata. They give us a space in which to exert our online existence even if they watch our every move. John Barlow once claimed that the internet was “A world where anyone, anywhere may express his or her beliefs, no matter how singular, without fear of being coerced into silence or conformity.”This appears contrary to the reality we now live in. The great rise of the cloud, means that we no longer have autonomy over our own data. Our photos email’s, calendars, address books and instant messaging are all accessible to the servers we prescribe too. The devices that we use we  have little control over, iPads, Smartphone, Mac are all subject to the control of the “Stacks” that own them. Contrasting with the previous traditional operating systems in that these “stacks” can limit the software that they run, the updates that result and the content that gets distributed. In addition we now exist in “walled gardens” where our servers can edit the content we are displayed in accordance with our own preferences, maybe to one day mediate your every interaction with your world. These “Stacks” are seamless, easy to use and simple. We can essentially transfer our entire online existence in an experience that feels almost natural. We become reliant on the hospitality of these mega-corporations much like serfs relying on their feudal lord for protection. The dynamic relationships between people are becoming more valuable than the internet itself. No longer are we living in a wild untracked and free environment such as the one depicted John Barlow declaration. Establishment of the internet coincided with a belief in the natural laws of internet, this belief that they would destroy barriers, spread freedom and empower the disenchanted. It was going to be a new world order, it was defined by anonymity and censorship appeared to be impossible. It allowed the smallest businesses to begin to compete with the mega-coporations and traditional media was going to be defeated by the ability for everyone to communicate.

The new Internet Fuedal Lords

However what has developed appears as vastly different to this Utopian dream. Power has become consolidated within a small number of business controlling the market. Unconventional Businesses such as Facebook, started by self-styled internet cowboys such as Steve Jobs vastly different from the suits of typical of American multinationals such GE  that once held much of the marketshare in our capitalist economy.   How how did this happen? Schneier has a good answer: The truth is that technology magnifies power in general, but the rates of adoption are different. The unorganized, the distributed, the marginal, the dissidents, the powerless, the criminal: they can make use of new technologies faster. And when those groups discovered the Internet, suddenly they had power. But when the already powerful big institutions finally figured out how to harness the Internet for their needs, they had more power to magnify. That’s the difference: the distributed were more nimble and were quicker to make use of their new power, while the institutional were slower but were able to use their power more effectively. Much like feudal lords the power that they exert is much beyond the user or internet serf. They also hold power and they exists in ubiquity. They sometimes fight with each other for power, but lack the blood wars epitomised by the ancient feudal lords. Why? because they each have their own monopoly and it is perverse in its wealth. We provide the raw material through our status updates or liking a funny meme. We toil Facebook’s soil so that Mark Zuckerberg can take our data and buy himself some more blue sweatshirts. Eventually war shall breakout and we our identities and our information will be the collateral damage. Their realistically must be change in this imbalance of power. Eventually medieval feudalism evolved to a constitutional monarchy and then to a conventional democracy and capitalist economy. Centralised government providing an autonomy and stability with a the rule of law. With Internet feudalism we have no choice to trust Amazon or Google or Facebook ruled by fuedal lords to who we provide allegiance to and gain no rights.We need a modern Magna Carta of sorts, something forced upon our feudal lords which forces them to stop acting arbitrarily with our interests. References Image:

References

Bruce Sterling at Webstock 2013, http://vimeo.com/63012862 [the relevant segment is at 9.30-21.00] On copyright and intellectual property as tools of permission culture:

Boldrin, M., and Levine, D.K. (2007). ‘Introduction’, In Against Intellectual Monopoly (pp. 1-15). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/papers/anew01.pdf

Lessig, L. (2004). ‘Creators’, In Free Culture: How Big Media uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Strangle Creativity (pp. 21-30). New York: Penguin http://www.authorama.com/free-culture- 4.html

Zittrain, J. (2008). ‘The Lessons of Wikipedia’, in The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It (pp. 127- 148). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press http://yupnet.org/zittrain/archives/16

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/jacobs/internet-feudalism/http://www.theamericanconservative.com/jacobs/internet-feudalism/