Category: web

The slow criminalisation of us all

I received another email today from the EFA stop censorship list pointing to Yet Another Call for Censorship (YACfC) and rating of Internet sites. It’s rather ironic that these calls receive any airtime, because they are essentially pointing to the criminalisation of large portions of the population and the infantalisation of us all.

In relatively recent times, in Australia, we have had changes in copyright law which resulted in the criminalisation of a large proportion of the population because it’s now against the law the watch a recorded video more than once (among other things).  How many of us record something and just watch it once?  But, with the wisdom of ages, it was deemed that this activity was not lawful.  Time shifting of content is only a once off affair.  How could anyone think that a recording of a TV program which one day could be kept indefinitely and watched frequently while the next was illegal was worthy of a legislative change?

We’re now facing a global challenge to what is considered okay.  Going is our ability to choose what we do when we use the Internet, most notably the World Wide Web (which is not equivalent, but let’s not let technicalities get in the way).  Why does anyone think it’s appropriate to restrict what is available on the web – which, I might add, is a grown ups place!  The majority of internet users are adults[1].  Why is it that we, the adults of the world, get to surf a kiddy internet instead of the real internet?

It struck me this morning that there has been a trend in parenting that is perhaps partly responsible for the current shifts.  Helicopter parents try to control every aspect of their children’s lives, every decision, every mistake.  Children (and we’re talking about 20 somethings here) need to have their parents ring their employer, their bank, their credit agencies, because they are children and cannot make decisions.  This is the kind of thinking that we are dealing with.  These Helicopter Parents, grounded in the benefit of growing up making their own mistakes, want to save their children from the pain of those mistakes[2].  Why would anyone want their children to remain children for so long?  Is this a response to empty nest syndrome?

But the thing that really struck me as I contemplated censorship and helicopter parents is that we are now entering an era of Helicopter Governance.[3]  Gone will be our ability to make mistakes and to learn from them.  No more will we be at risk of losing, of being hurt.  In its place will be laws for our protection, laws that make adults criminal.

I often contemplate what I would do if I ever did happen to find some child sexual abuse material[4] on the internet.  Would I be able to report it? Would I be able to do anything to protect that child?  Can I safely report that to the Police for investigation? Or will I be investigated for viewing child p0rn?  Will I have my life turned upside down in an effort to save the children from being saved?

Please, I’m 47.  I’m an adult.  I want to take risks.  I want to learn from my mistakes.  I want to push the boundaries of what it is to know, what we can learn from each other.  Don’t make me a criminal for doing my that!

  1. okay, I made that statistic up, but I’m pretty sure it’s correct and it has as much legitimacy as any of the fear mongering stats []
  2. among other things []
  3. See here for another example. []
  4. aka child p0rn []

Tags: , , ,

Social Networking and Me

Someone recently suggested that they “stalked” me across multiple web services and it got me to thinking which services I have actually signed up to and which I continue to use.  Between then and now, my cat died, a friend’s house burnt down and another friend had her PhD draft[1] torn to shreds, so I didn’t quite get to it.  It seems to have been A Bad Week (TM) after the high at the beginning with my sister’s graduation.

Below, I have listed most of the social networking sites I use or that are well known. Social networking websites are an interesting phenomena.  I find myself rather bemused at times, but do see their attractions.  I see myself as a peripheral participant in most of them, and sometimes that leads to a sense of voyeurism that is kind of weird.  I have a horror of being watched so perhaps it’s not surprising that I tend to stick to the sidelines when I do get involved.

I’ve broken it up into Things I don’t use, Things I do use and Other things I have used but don’t really keep up with. I think I got them all, but who knows where I’ve signed up in the past.

Read more of Social Networking and Me

  1. actually, just the first sentence of it, but where do you go from there? []

Tags:

I think you have it wrong!

Funniest thing I’ve read all day.  In amongst dealing with lots of (exactly the same) news reports about the Beijing Ticketing Scam for my paper on Online Reading (almost finished), I came across this little gem from Adrianne Pecotic, executive director of Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT):

but movie makers can’t compete with theft[1].

Firstly, that’s what shopkeepers do every day.  We could quite easily take what we want from shops, but, hey, they make it easier for us to buy rather than to steal.  It doesn’t take a day of faffing around (downloading), getting the right trolley and only the right trolley (piece of software or having the right piece of hardware, instead of the hardware you have), fighting to get to the checkout (fiddling and twiddling with different settings to get it to work) only to find you can’t eat (watch) what you’ve purchased.

For instance, a friend of mine recently downloaded a copy her favourite show.  She did this from an online shop. She paid for it.  After nearly a whole day of trying to get it to work, authorising, unauthorising, copying to different machines, trying desperately to watch her show, she gave up. She could have simply found a torrent, set it going, then come back in a few hours and hit play.  But she did the right thing and missed out.  So much for competing with theft, you’re not.  You are actively ensuring the continuation of easy to use sources of information and the reduction in the usefulness of your product.

Secondly, I thought they were competing with ‘free’[2].  There are ample examples of music makers competing with ‘free’.  There are ample examples of other sectors competing with free.  Heck, I have a garden and yet I still buy vegetables.

Thirdly, these ‘cultural industries’ are not competing with free or with theft.  They are competing for my dollars.  Make it worth my while to see your movies, buy your music.  But don’t treat me like a thief.  Get those gawdawful ‘public service announcements’ about piracy’ OFF my legitimately purchased DVDs.  Make it easy for me to watch them.  Compete for my attention and my dollars.

But fercryinoutloud, don’t tell me you have to compete with theft.  You’ll lose.  It’s simple.  Just make it easy, mkay?

And that’s AFACT~

  1. ISPs join the copyright fight – web – Technology – theage.com.au []
  2. I’m not enough of an economist to fully appreciate this argument, but I get it []

Tags: ,

Web2.0 and Learning

I’ve often wondered what the buzz is with Web2.0 and learning.  It’s not like it’s something so new as to be worthy of some of the overly hyped notions of what we do.  Sure, Web2.0 signalled a shift to a read/write platform from the read-only web, but we had interactivity before that and we just have more now and a reduction in navigation (clicks).  Less navigation can only be good for learning as it gets you to the necessary information quickly with less likelihood of wandering off to something else or forgetting what you were looking for[1].

Take the latest ‘upgrade’ to Blackboard[2].  I keep hearing our Educational Designers spouting off about how Blackboard is now Web2.0.  As I have just started using a pilot implementation of it, I’m already thinking that it’s not that big of a change.  Sure, the new ‘Grade Center’ is an improvement and it seems a bit more interactive.  It does take a little longer to load, but you get all the students in one screen rather than 25 to a screen – a significant improvement when you have classes around the 300 mark.  I’ll hold off on judgement about that, till later in the semester.

Our content collection seems a little better and it does have ‘permanent URLs’ which seem more usable, if you can take the time to navigate to them, particularly if you want to link the content collection into the folder structure (not a thing that the designers contemplated, apparently). When that is simplified, I think I’ll be almost convinced.

So parts of the ‘new’ system are more interactive, others seem to be stuck in the read-only web.  What I would really like to see in a ‘learning management system’ is a single screen for seeing everything and being able to change permissions, availability etc in a single space.  But even with the ‘upgrade’, I still have to modify individual pieces of content which seems to be only minimally interactive and hardly ‘web2.0′.

This may be a part of what leads people to the EduPunk or Meddler stance – the need for an encompassing view rather than a piecemeal view, of seeing the environment rather than the building blocks[3].  There has been a lot of development in interactivity for learning, but the organisation of that interactivity still seems very separate from organising the content.  Perhaps that’s one reason why wikis are becoming popular.

  1. This is why I stopped using (b)Lotus, it always took so long to find things, that I often forgot what I was doing or got sidetracked trying to get it to do what I wanted, but I digress. []
  2. apparently to version 8 but, in reality only a minor update – 7.3 – 7.4 but renumbered due to ‘business’ reasons []
  3. forest as well as trees? []

Tags: , ,

Rants

I just had a long rant on my old blog (the Griffith ‘official’ one). I’m not sure why, but that interface really irks me. I seem to continually get annoyed every time I sit down to write something there.

It got me thinking though about the whole web2.0 thing. Web2.0 is supposed to be about use-generated content, about community and involvement, and yet, there seems to be a need for control as well as other issues that are really starting to surface. I noted this morning (via my sister) that the whole web2.0 sharing thing is problematic. It seems (according to the New York Times) that web2.0 site Bebo.com has been sold for a whopping $850 million. That strikes me (and Billy too) as being quite amazing particularly as the whole of the site is based around user-generated content. Apparently, the owner of Bebo wanted to make sure that it was good for artists to put their music on the site, that there wasn’t an implied licence to use stuff perpetually (which a lot of licences state), but how then does he justify making so much of the back of these artists? How does he get to sell something for so much that has little value without the user-generated content? When will we see a licence that states that if (when?) the site is sold for a whopping amount some of that will be returned to some of the artists who busted their guts to get stuff out and some recognition? Why isn’t some of that being returned to the creative people?

It seems to me that we’re setting up a similar system to the old ‘labels’, where they make the money and the artist just gets recognition. Recognition won’t pay the bills, sadly.

There seems to be two kinds of social network system being set up. There is the open resources variety (kind of like Wikipedia and WikiEducator) where the objective is to get more content out there for the benefit of millions, and the other sort, which is supposedly open, but which results in someone making millions while the bunnies trying to make it work in some way to make a living make nothing except an increased reputation. I can easily participate in the former (I do have a job that keeps me going, although for how long given my latest rant), and I have very little to offer in the the latter (yes, I can sing, but it’s just not very pleasurable for anyone else). So how do we get these two different models doing what they do best? Getting things to people who want or need them?

At one level, I suppose that’s one of the differences. People need educational resources, but we want music, we want the cultural value of those other resources, we want to belong even just through the knowing of something that speaks to us. Many of us are willing to pay for that, provided we don’t feel ripped off (think of the time wasted watching all those ‘piracy is bad’ messages at the beginning of movies – we just paid for the frelling thing, but if we rip it, if we break some laws in some places we don’t have to put up with being accused of that which we just did in order to avoid being called pirates).

I just mispelt accused as acussed. I think there was a message in that.

Tags: , , ,

Theme by RoseCityGardens.com
Modified by Me!