The Web Is More About Free Communication Than Transactions

from the pay-attention dept

Pistol points us to the news that a study out of the UK shows that the popularity of free online content and communication continues to grow, while transactional sites are losing marketshare. Now... the story is pitched a bit as "free beats paid," but I'll be the first to say that's a bit unfair. First, we're talking about marketshare here, not absolute numbers. Also, it's a bit of an apples and oranges comparison to lump content and communication into one bucket and put it up against e-commerce related sites. So I don't necessarily think this particular study is all that instructive in the whole "free" vs. "paid" debate.

However, what it does highlight is the fact that people still do view the web as a communication and conversational platform. This is a point that is important. The internet was always intended and used as a communication platform. Then, suddenly, there was a burst of latecomers in the 90's who thought it was actually a marketplace platform. And in the last few years, there are many who believe it's a broadcast platform. The neat thing is that, as a communications platform it can handle and allow those other things to take place (flexibility is great), but the core purpose of the internet has always been as a communications platform. Other stuff will happen and live on it, but pretending that it's not a communication platform, and working to limit the ability to communicate online will always backfire.

10 Comments | Leave a Comment..

White House Bans Twitter?

from the communication? dept

Well this is odd. Twitter was one of the many tools that President Obama used to help build up a strong base of supporters, and the White House has its own Twitter feed that is quite popular. Yet, reader Ben points out that White House spokesman Robert Gibbs has now admitted that Twitter is blocked from White House computers. Wonder who's updating the official feed, then... Apparently this isn't actually a new thing. A couple months ago, it came up in another press conference, and it came out that only a small number of "new media" folks are allowed to have access to Twitter from the White House. Someone ought to let the White House IT staff know that it's easy to update Twitter via SMS from your phone... Either way, makes you wonder if only the media communications people in the White House are allowed to use telephones, too.

37 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Is Voicemail The Next Thing To Fade Away?

from the moving-forward dept

I've noticed something recently: I rarely listen to voicemails anymore. If I know who called, I can simply call them back, or get in touch with them through other means. The whole process of calling in to my phone and actually listening to the voicemail is quite a pain -- and I've actually found myself annoyed when I felt the need to actually listen to voicemail. Apparently, I'm not alone. The NY Times is noting that many people are tiring of voicemail, noting that other options are a lot more efficient and effective for leaving messages for people. And it's not just anecdotal. The NY Times report above quotes a study that found over 30% of voicemails "linger unheard for three days or longer." Of course, some of that annoyance may be the user interface for traditional voicemail -- dialing in, listening to each message, remembering which button to press to delete... Newer visual voicemail solutions, like those found on the iPhone, may alleviate some of the pain. In fact, in a separate study that basically states the obvious, most people preferred visual voicemail over traditional voicemail.

38 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Shocking News: Communication Tools Don't Discriminate

from the who-knew? dept

In response to an article about how "Web 2.0 gives new tools to hate groups" I was tempted to write an entire post, mimicking the original, except changing every instance of "hate" to something positive. Yes, blogs and social networks can and are being used by hate groups. But they're also being used to combat ignorance and hate. They're just communication tools, and the fact that hate groups use them (as well as anti-ignorance groups) is hardly surprising. But rather than creating some moral panic about hate groups using these tools, why not encourage more people to use such tools to combat ignorance and hate? Instead, we get a bunch of supposed "experts" talking about how these uses need to be shut down. That does nothing productive. It just makes the hate group members feel even more angry and persecuted, which just fuels the hate. The solution is to educate -- and (oh, look at that!) web 2.0 provides some pretty good tools for spreading knowledge and fighting ignorance.

11 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Copyright And Its Harm On Culture

from the understanding-culture dept

A bunch of folks have sent in Cory Doctorow's essay on why he considers himself a "copyfighter," noting that sharing content is what creates culture -- and the attempts by Big Content to block sharing of content are effectively an attempt to stomp out culture, such that only they can determine what is culture (or so they believe).

Content isn't king: culture is. The reason we go to the movies is to have something to talk about. If I sent you to a desert island and told you to choose between your records and your friends, you'd be a sociopath if you chose the music.

Culture's imperative is to share information: culture is shared information. Science fiction readers know this: the guy across from you on the subway with a gaudy SF novel in his hands is part of your group. You two have almost certainly read some of the same books, you've got some shared cultural referents, some things to talk about.

When you hear a song you love, you play it for the people in your tribe. When you read a book you love, you shove it into the hands of your friends to encourage them to read it too. When you see a great show, you get your friends to watch it too -- or you seek out the people who've already watched it and strike up a conversation with them.

I would go even further than Doctorow does. I'm less concerned about the impact on culture, as I am on the impact on communication itself. Communication is at the heart of pretty much all economic activity -- and thanks to technology, these days, pretty much all communication involves some sort of "copying." Yet, because a rather recent industry was built up on the idea that "copying" was rare and was only done on professional built content, it's now trying to shut down and stomp out new means of communication just because, as a part of its nature, it allows for the copying of professional content as well. Yet, in doing so, they're slowing down basic communications, and with it, the core of economic activity and growth.

The attempt to apply ever more draconian copyright laws may appear to be in the interests of those who have relied on such artificial scarcity for years, but the end result is a significant restriction of economic activity, which harms everyone -- including the companies who are in favor of such copyright laws and enforcement. Purposely limiting a market is a dangerous short-term practice that has significantly negative long-term consequences.

108 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Imagine If Political Campaigns Couldn't Use The Web... Or Just Look At Japan

from the no-communicating-please dept

While there have been plenty of news stories about how the various political campaigns in the US have been using the internet to get out the vote, Newsweek has a fascinating story about how Japanese election law pretty much bans all use of the internet in campaigning. Once a political campaign is announced, that candidate can't update his website or blog. The only loophole is podcasts (the law doesn't cover audio), but that's hardly enough to make much of a dent. As the article notes, this has helped keep younger, more technically savvy politicians from succeeding when they run for office -- and that's part of the reason why older politicians are perfectly happy with the system the way it exists. It sounds like some are pushing for change, while others are actively defying the ban, but it's apparently quite a different online atmosphere during election season in Japan than elsewhere.

7 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Other Tools Terrrorists Might Use: Voice, Pencils, Fax Machines, Email, Mobile Phones, Etc.

from the everyone-be-afraid! dept

In recent months, we've seen various politicians freak out over the possibility that terrorists might possibly (gasp! oh no!) make use of YouTube and Second Life, and now a new Army intelligence report can get politicians all worked up over the possibility that terrorists might use Twitter. While there's nothing wrong with various intelligence officials looking at possible scenarios for how terrorists might make use of various communication tools, how long will it be until we get politicians complaining that "something must be done!" The fact is that anyone can use pretty much any communication tool for either good or bad purposes. For the most part, I'd imagine that Twitter would be a pretty bad tool for terrorists to use, since so much of it is public. There are Twitter competitors that allow much more private conversations, but maybe terrorists are like Silicon Valley hipsters who only go with the hottest of the hot web 2.0 startups. So, yes, it's important for intelligence officials to think through scenarios in order to be aware and ready for them, but hopefully calling out Twitter specifically won't lead to a ridiculous overreaction from politicians.

25 Comments | Leave a Comment..

The Family That Texts Together...

from the chats-together dept

There's been a perception among some, that the introduction of certain technologies into the household has made it more difficult for families to communicate. For example, some have complained that kids with mobile phones use them to spend all their time talking to and texting with friends, rather than with their family. However, some new research notes that this is mostly a myth, and families that have mobile phones tend to use them to communicate with each other quite a bit. Of course, now we'll hear people complaining about how this constant contact makes it impossible for kids to make decisions on their own. There's always something to complain about. And, to be fair, not all of the study suggests that all this communicating is a good thing. While people do communicate more with their family members, they're not as satisfied with family leisure time as those who aren't as technology-enabled.

9 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Would You Believe Most Kids Actually Like Face To Face Communications?

from the who-woulda-thunk-it? dept

There seems to be this common theme among adults who freak out about kids playing video games or surfing the internet that it's somehow a "replacement" for going outside or hanging out with friends in person. Instead, it's actually an enhancement to those things, providing another way to communicate, rather than a total replacement. Thus, those adults should be happy to hear of a new study that shows nearly 80% of kids still think face to face communication is the best. That shouldn't be surprising, but given the fear mongering stories we hear on a regular basis, it's a nice reminder that despite claims to the contrary, kids aren't as dumb as some adults make them out to be.

16 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Twitter As An Emergency Broadcast System? Doesn't It Have To Work Regularly First?

from the just-saying... dept

While we definitely found the story of a student in Egypt using Twitter to alert people that he had been arrested interesting, it does seem like a bit of a stretch to then say that it makes sense to create an emergency alert system via Twitter. Though it has some potential to be powerful, an emergency alert system needs to be reliable -- and Twitter is rather infamous for its pretty regular downtime.

7 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Ownership Doesn't Make Sense In Communications

from the you-don't-own-your-conversation dept

Earlier this week, we explained the root cause of many of the problems the entertainment industry runs into when it tries to deal with copyright online. It views the internet in the same way that it views a broadcast media content platform, when it's been designed and used primarily as a communications platform. The entire concept of copyright doesn't make sense in the realm of regular communications. You don't worry who owns the copyright on the conversation you have on the phone or the email that you write to a friend. Yet, when viewed through the prism of a "content" platform, these are open questions. The same is true of things like blog comments. Yet, suddenly we find people arguing over who "owns" comments place on a blog page.

Mathew Ingram does a nice job highlighting the key issues that were raised this week on that question, but the whole conversation took a turn for the bizarre when Hank Williams weighed in. This is the same Hank Williams who posted a poorly researched defense of copyright. Now he's back claiming that the issue of who owns the copyright on blog comments is a really important question. If anything, you would think that the points he raises in his post would actually be the perfect evidence for why his original post was wrong (though he seems to miss that). It's quite clear from what he wrote that copyright law doesn't handle this situation very well -- which makes sense, because copyright is (again) designed for broadcast media, not communications. But rather than realize that's a good reason why copyright shouldn't apply at all here, Williams doubles down on why "ownership" over comments is something that needs to be worked out -- he suggests that blog and comment system providers create a totally useless mechanism to "declare" ownership of comments.

Except that this system is not at all necessary, and would only lead to more problems. The entire purpose of copyright is to act as incentive for the creation of that content. Yet, I think most people would find it preposterous to claim that the reason they commented on a blog was because of the protections provided by copyright. In other words, there's no question to worry about here because this content was all created without copyright being the incentive. However, in this bizarre and twisted world where infinitely available resources need to be shrunk down and "owned," Williams insists that we need to figure out who has the copyright on comments.

In the comments to Hank's own story, things get even more bizarre. First, Hank suggests that if the blog owner "owned" the comments then that might mean that the blog owner also "owned" the liability associated with those comments (which could mean in cases of libel or copyright infringement). Once again, though, Williams is showing his ignorance, as both cases are clearly covered by the safe harbors of the CDA and the DMCA, and the stacks upon stacks of case law concerning liability on things like blog comments. It's quite clear that Williams thinks ownership of infinite resources is a good idea -- but he doesn't appear to have thought through what that means and why it's neither necessary nor a good idea. Too bad.

23 Comments | Leave a Comment..