andrewmcintyre.ca

Do LOLCats help fight censorship? The surprising answer is that yes they do.

This year’s Dalton Camp Lecture in Journalism was a feast for media nerds like me. Former CBC reporter and producer Sue Gardner, now executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation, made more insightful comments about the future of media, journalism and the way the web is changing our relationship with information than I can recount here. But one comment on the resiliency of the web in adressing would be censors of widely adopted social media platforms really stuck out for me.

Reflecting on the usefulness of Twitter to the Iranian election protests last June, Sue Gardner said (with my added emphasis and links):

Things like Twitter are really hard to censor because they are tools that lots of people use for lots of different reasons. There’s a guy named Ethan Zuckerman, who is a fellow at the Berkman Institute at MIT and he calls this the “cute cat theory.”

So the theory is that if millions of ordinary people use a tool like Flickr, or YouTube, or Twitter, or Facebook, or whatever – and they use it to share cute pictures of cats, or their grandchildren, or party invitations, or snapshots, or whatever – and meanwhile a few activists also use that same tool for other purposes, to share “information that wants to be free,” that people want to suppress: that makes censorship really difficult.

What happens is that if you try and shut down the tool that people are using to share cute pictures of cats they will freak out, right?  Because they want to share the pictures of the cats.

So what that means is that the pictures of the cat lovers provide cover for tools that are also used for, frankly, more important purposes such as for sharing information that would otherwise be suppressed. So the utility, the sort of general broad utility, of something like twitter makes it much much harder to censor.

Unsurprisingly, I’d recommend that you listen to the entire hour long 2009 Dalton Camp Lecture in Journalism, and while you’re at it, subscribe to the CBC Ideas podcast where I found this gem among many others. Lastly, a hat tip to the I can has cheezburger network, including the infamous FAIL Blog, for their enormous lack of FAIL.

The difference between science and ideology is that science tries to explain all known observations, whereas ideology selects only those observations that support a preconceived notion. As world leaders negotiate this week in Copenhagen, let’s hope science, not ideology, guides their discussions.

Thomas Homer-Dixon and Andrew Weaver in today’s Globe and Mail debunking four common nonsensical statements about climate change.

Barbara Ehrenreich has a PhD in cell biology, a 40 year career as an activist and an incredibly impressive curriculum vitae as an academic, journalist and writer. Listening to several interviews promoting her new book, including this appearance on The Daily Show, we hear the incredibly griping story of how her battle with breast cancer illuminated the immense problems with the ‘power of positive thinking’-fueled self help industry and the effects of an ideology Jon Stewart calls a “secular religion” on our society.

On one such interview on CBC’s The Current, Ehrenreich explained how the positive thinking ideology infiltrated corporate culture and contributed to the 2008 financial collapse:

Anna Maria Tremonti:

So what are the consequences for a world full of people who believe that everything you decide is true, is true ?

Barbara Ehrenreich:

I think we saw the consequence in 2008 when the huge financial meltdown happened. Because what I got very interested in tracing in this book is how is positive thinking became the corporate culture; how it infiltrated the corporate culture through the motivational speakers who were brought in, through the many many books, motivational books …

It really grew: in the middle of this decade you could be fired for being a negative person.

That meant if if you said, “hey, I’m worried our bank has too much sub-prime [mortgage market] exposure,” [they would say] “hey, that’s negative that’s a downer. Let’s get rid of this person.”

…we created  – around this positive thinking – a workplace culture  where the idea is not to get a job done, so much as it is to flatter and reassure the boss. Just say good things. Never be the bearer of bad news. Never raise a question or a doubt.

Sound familiar?

AMT:

What’s so bad about feeling bad?

BE:

Well, this is an ideology, what can I say? It is an ideology that says everyone should be cheerful and smiley at all times. And if you want to, you can think of it as a brilliant form of social control. If you tell people who are suffering from one thing or another, illness or layoffs or whatever, that they’re really supposed to be happy about it, and that the solution is in their minds anyway, you don’t get a lot of social protest.

Listen to the whole interview: [MP3]

Barbara also blogs at ehrenreich.blogs.com

I leave you with her answer to Jon Stewart’s question about ends vs. means: “I never think delusion is OK.”

[Start the video at the 16th minute for the story]

There’s a marvelous story in this hour long FRONTLINE documentary called “The Warning” about the woman who warned of the coming financial collapse.

It was the the late 90’s and while media manipulators of internet stocks proclaimed that “Santa Claus arrives early on Wall Street,” the tech bubble continued to inflate.  Alan Greenspan, then chairman of the immensely powerful Federal Reserve, told Brooksley Born, the head of an obscure small federal regulatory agency – the Commodity Futures Trading Commission – that he didn’t think the government should regulate fraud.

As Born challenged Greenspan’s orthodoxy on financial derivatives – the complex toxic financial products now blamed for the sub-prime mortgage meltdown and the resulting  financial collapse of 2008 – the story quotes Greenspan as saying “We’re never going to agree on fraud … you probably think there should be rules against it.”

“He thought the market would figure it out.”

In hindsight it seems as though the faith the public held in their illustrious financial wizard and the wizard held himself in the efficacy of his own magic potions, isn’t much different than that of religious fundamentalists. But to what god were they praying?

I’ve made my views and the views of those I share available here: http://andrewmcintyre.ca/tag/copyright/

But I think the views of Dr. Meera Nair best summarize my own. http://andrewmcintyre.ca/2009/08/17/locking-copyright-fair-dealing-vs-digital-locks/

My position is simple: Digital locks are bad for Canada. They do not meet Minister Clement’s standard of “standing the test of time” and actually take away existing rights.

To summarize I will quote the relevant section of my blog post here:

Dr. Meera Nair had a very interesting response to a question I asked her about how digital locks – software that blocks users’ ability to copy files including Technonological Protection Measures, TPMs, and Digital Rights Management, DRM – reconcile with the fair dealing provision afforded by Canadian legislation and case law.  Dr. Nair explains on her blog “Fair Duty”

Simply put, once a work is locked, it’s game over. Fair dealing is meaningless if you cannot access the material. Many individuals are anxious that IF Canadian law were to prohibit the circumvention of TPMs, such a prohibition should only apply to circumvention for infringing purposes. Meaning, if you circumvent a TPM for a noninfringing use, such as fair dealing, you will not run afoul of the law. Yet, there is a question of why permit the use of TPMs at all? TPMs take away existing rights available to Canadians. To limit access to published work is to deny fair dealing. Said another way, TPMs violate a structure of law that has been in place since the creation of copyright itself (nearly300 years) and present in Canadian law since its inception in 1924.

In other words, the very idea of companies or industry consortiums using digital locks to prevent people from making copies of works they’ve legally purchased runs counter to the notion of limitation in copyright law – which limits both creators and consumers -  as well as the existing provisions afforded by fair dealing under Canadian law.

Final Thoughts

I’m certain the word “balance” is almost losing its meaning after encountering it so many times in this consultation. I’m tired of it too.

In fact, we don’t need as much “balance” as most parties that invoke it are asking for. Adopting an overly-restrictive regime, that limits users rights, would be – in effect – criminalizing common behaviours of reasonable people.

You can make it easy for citizens to obey the law and create legislation that stands the test of time, while maintaining the incentive to create, by erring on the side of users.

Thank you,

Max Blumenthal on NPR’s Fresh Air on what the crazy, racist wingnuts are doing to paint Obama as the boogeyman:

The goal is to paint Obama as a totalitarian, secret communist, fascist, terrorist, Muslim, whatever they can do, a basic pastiche of right-wing hobgoblins, a multicolored pinata of every evildoer they want to smash in order to de-legitimize him and mobilize as much opposition as possible.

Sadly and unsurprisingly, the epicentre for these schizophrenic anti-government, anti-fascist, pro-theocracy anger-fests are gun shows:

And the crowd you see at gun shows, I mean, some people are just basic, apolitical gun enthusiasts, but it’s a very political gathering. There are Confederate flags. There are even Nazi flags being displayed throughout the conference because it brings in elements that are even considered extreme within the right-wing grassroots, like neo-Nazis.

And it’s a gathering place. Gun shows have become a gathering place for people who are the most extreme opponents of Barack Obama’s agenda, and they’re energized again by the battle over health care. And we’re seeing it across the board; it’s not just with the extreme, militia-oriented elements. We’re seeing it within the Christian right.

A recent poll showed that seven out of 10 white evangelicals are extremely opposed to Barack Obama’s proposed health-care reforms. And the Christian right is raising a lot of money, organizing against health care. So it’s across the board. The right is growing again. And those who pronounced the death of conservatism, or the death of the Christian right, were premature.

In related stories, Barack Obama is now receiving 30 death threats a day according to the Secret Service – a 400% increase over last year with President Bush – and in Canada our national newspaper of record is openly opining about whether Obama can even survive.

*SIGH*

Anytime someone puts a lock on something you own, against your wishes, and doesn’t give you the key, they’re not doing it for your benefit.

Excerpted the DRM section of Cory Doctorow’s excellent submission to the Canadian copyright consultation.

Eventhough a Fall election will almost surely derail the Canadian copyright consultation process, it’s positive that the Canadian public is engaged and participating in this needed conversation.

Eventually, Canadian copyright law will be reformed. We need to make sure Canadians’ rights to use, modify and comment on copyrighted materials are not locked up when it happens.