How To Get Elected Officials To Actually Hear Our Worries About Censorship: Speak Up!

Politics

from the speak-up dept

I already mentioned Rep. Lofgren’s talk at the Section 230 Symposium from the High Tech Law Institute at the University of Santa Clara on Friday, but wanted to do a separate post on another point that Lofgren raised. EFF’s Cindy Cohn asked Lofgren a simple question towards the end of Lofgren’s talk, questioning what we in Silicon Valley could actually do so that folks in Washington DC actually understand these issues.

Lofgren, at first, seemed unsure that anything could be done, noting that those with lots of money and hired lobbyists in DC still get heard much more than the ordinary citizen, but after talking for a bit, she did make a point clear, and it was: we need to speak up. She pointed out that in this day, a congressional rep hearing from 200 constituents (she suggests physical letters) is something that gets attention, and gets Representatives to pay attention right away.

I know that many around here are cynical about the political process — and I’d include myself in that description. We’ve seen way too many ridiculously bad laws passed by Congress to protect this or that special interest. Our government too often seems to take direction (if not dictation) directly from corporate interests. However, Lofgren does have a point: people really do need to speak up when they hear of serious problems such as domain seizures, copyright expansion and other problems.

The domain seizures, in particular seem to have received very little attention in the press. I spoke to a reporter at the event who said that his editor just didn’t think it was a topic anyone cared about. That’s scary. We’re talking about wholesale censorship by the US government — almost certainly in violation of basic free speech and due process rules. And it’s all being done by a group within the US government who’s supposed to be “protecting our borders.” It seems reasonable to question why this group is involved in straight up censorship of websites. But it’s not going to happen if people don’t speak up.

Filed Under: government, participation, politics, zoe lofgren

When The News Lets Everyone Really Participate, It Changes The Way News Works

Journalism

from the participatory-journalism-is-about-more-than-comments dept

When we talk about things like “participatory journalism,” or “news as a community,” we’ve had traditional newspaper people insist they “get it.” They say that they’ve “added comments” to their website, so it’s now participatory. But that, of course, is cargo cult participation. They look at sites that have a lively community, and they see comments, so they think “well, if we add comments, we’ll have community.” They don’t bother to understand what actually makes journalism participatory, or what actually brings a real community together.

Clay Shirky has written another of his essays, once again, building on the idea of “cognitive surplus,” highlighting the difference between a “pipeline” model of journalism and a true community model. The pipeline model involves passing a story along a pipeline. Someone makes news, someone reports the news, someone edits the news and then everyone consumes the news. But the community model actually involves people who become a part of the story itself, in digging deeper, in adding their own input to the story, in shaping the further story. Shirky provides numerous examples of this, with the following being my favorite:

In 2005, the London transit system was bombed. Sir Ian Blair, the head of London’s Metropolitan police, went on radio and TV to announce that the cause had been an electrical failure in the underground. Within minutes of Blair’s statements, people began posting and analyzing pictures of a bombed double-decker bus in Tavistock Square, and in less than two hours, there were hundreds of blog posts analyzing this evidence and explicitly contradicting Blair’s interpretation.

Seeing this, and overriding the advice of his own communications staff, Blair went on air again less than two hours later to say that it had indeed been a bombing, that the police didn’t have all the answers yet, and that he would continue reporting as they knew more. When he spoke to the public, Blair had the power of all the traditional media behind him, but it was clear that merely having a consistent message on every broadcast channel in existence was no longer the same as having control.

This is not about just “adding comments” — it’s about enabling people who have the inclination to actually be a part of the overall process. It’s not “the 4th estate” talking down to everyone, but it’s about the press enabling those who wish to participate to do so. This doesn’t mean that there is no role for traditional journalists or editors or publishers. To the contrary, those roles are still important, but in a different manner.

As Shirky notes, this is a big change that may be difficult for some used to the old “pipeline model” to full grasp. It involves a different conception of what it is a journalism outfit needs to accomplish:

What’s going away, from the pipeline model, isn’t the importance of news, or the importance of dedicated professionals. What’s going away is the linearity of the process, and the passivity of the audience. What’s going away is a world where the news was only made by professionals, and consumed by amateurs who couldn’t do much to produce news on their own, or to distribute it, or to act on it en masse.

We are living through a shock of inclusion, where the former audience is becoming increasingly intertwined with all aspects of news, as sources who can go public on their own, as groups that can both create and comb through data in ways the professionals can’t, as disseminators and syndicators and users of the news.

This shock of inclusion is coming from the outside in, driven not by the professionals formerly in charge, but by the former audience. It is also being driven by new news entrepreneurs, the men and women who want to build new kinds of sites and services that assume, rather than ignore, the free time and talents of the public.

This a change so varied and robust that we need to consider retiring the word “consumer” altogether, and treat consumption as simply one behavior of many that citizens can now engage in. The kinds of changes that are coming will dwarf those we’ve already seen, as citizen involvement stops being a set of special cases, and becomes a core to our conception of how news can be, and should be, part of the fabric of society.

Until the various media players begin to recognize that participation within journalism isn’t about delivering the news, but enabling everyone who wants to to participate, they’re going to continue to struggle with the changing marketplace.

Filed Under: community, journalism, participation

Still Waiting For The First Real Particpatory Presidential Administration

Politics

from the this-ain't-it dept

Like many folks, I was certainly intrigued by the way President Obama ran his campaign in 2008, using various online tools to actually empower his supporters to be proactive and play a real role in the campaign. Many suggested that this was a facade, and that it would be politics as usual once he took office. While it’s still early, there does appear to be some evidence that this is, in fact, the case. This isn’t surprising, but that doesn’t mean it’s not disappointing. Last year, we saw this with the various stimulus proposals, where the plans were worked on in backrooms with the usual political insiders and then presented to the public afterwards. There was no real participation from the public. And since then, we’ve see the same pattern repeated over and over again. On healthcare, certainly, and (of course) on the secret negotiations on ACTA. This is not participatory democracy.

Micah Sifry has a great article at TechPresident exploring this “disconnect,” and suggesting that while it was true that the campaign really did enable thousands upon thousands of volunteers to step up and contribute, it may have been more of an accident of the techies who were involved, rather than an explicit plan by the Obama team. And, as a result, after the election, the team really didn’t know what to do with the mass of supporters it had built up, and they did (of course) the same old political thing: believing that it was a broadcast list, rather than a group of committed folks who wanted to actually participate. It’s hard to argue with this. The campaign still sends out emails, but they’re never about asking for input or participating in a larger discussion. They’re almost always about supporting the President.

I know that there are still many folks involved with the administration who are trying to build up the tools that can enable the public to be more involved, but it really looks like the administration totally dropped the ball on using the giant community it had already built up.

Filed Under: participation, president obama, social media, transparency

New White House Initiatives Take A Big Step Towards Participatory Gov't

Politics

from the good-news dept

I’ll admit that I was pretty hard on the new Obama administration when, early on there were news articles playing up how the administration was using its large social network of connections for “participatory gov’t,” but the details suggested they were really just using the people to sell policies, not give actual input on policies. While it was still early, there was enough talk about how sending out emails to people on a mailing list and begging them to talk up the new budget was somehow “participatory gov’t,” to make me worried that that was as far as the new administration would go. Thankfully, that’s not the case. While it still remains to be seen how far this will go in actually creating and driving policy, the White House has rolled out some new efforts on the web that really do appear to be trying to enable more participation and transparency. While I don’t see it yet, the Whitehouse.gov site will apparently “become a repository for citizen suggestions and discussion regarding new open-government policies.” And, more importantly, Data.gov has launched, and the administration is working to get various gov’t agencies to open up as much data as possible. These are both big steps forward. There’s always more that can be done, but it’s good to see that sending out emails to supporters wasn’t what the administration was really thinking about when it promised “participatory” government.

Filed Under: data.gov, government, obama, openness, participation, participatory government, transparency, whitehouse.gov

White House Opens Up For Questions About The Economy

Politics

from the but-what-about-answers? dept

I’ve been a bit critical for the Obama administration’s lack of transparency and inclusion on certain issues — or rather, their claims of being “transparent” and “inclusive” by simply asking their mailing list to “sell” the packages put together in backrooms. I was hoping for a much more participatory process whereby citizens actually could take part a bit earlier in the process. So, it’s good to see a step in the right direction, as the White House has announced its Open For Questions initiatives (thanks to everyone who sent this in). The site lets people ask questions of the president, and lets people see and vote on each other’s questions. The President will then answer a few of the “top” questions.

This is definitely a nice thing to add, but I’m hopeful that it ends up going further. At this point, it seems like nothing much more than a glorified suggestion/Q&A box. Rather than involving the community to tackle the questions raised, it simply gives them to the President to answer back. Real participation is about allowing the community to help out — not just pass big questions up to the top. Obviously, it’s still quite early in the administration, so hopefully we’ll see more participatory tools on the way as well. This is definitely a good step — and I don’t mean to take away from it. But, I’m going to keep pushing for further participation and further transparency because I think it could be quite powerful and transformative.

Filed Under: obama, participation, qa, transparency

President Obama Still Missing The Point: Include The Public In The Process, Not Just The Selling

Politics

from the the-difference-between-transparency-and-outreach dept

The new Obama administration was supposed to represent a revolution in participation and transparency — and while there have been some moves in that direction, there’s plenty that’s troubling, such as its recent decision to declare negotiations on an intellectual property treaty a state secret. However, more troubling is this fundamental disconnect between what the administration seems to think “participation” in the process means — and what it really should mean. Rather than actually having people participate, it seems the administration is a lot more focused on having people sell.

That’s not the same.

We saw it in the stimulus plan — which was written by the same political insiders, and then the various email lists and social network connections were used to try to get the public to support the bill — and now we’re seeing the same thing with the budget. Apparently, the DNC is putting on a big push to use the 13-million emails collected during the campaign to help urge passage of Obama’s budget, with David Plouffe claiming this is “the first major engagement” of that public list in the legislative process.

But that’s the problem. This is a bit late to be engaging everyone. The budget’s already been written. Shouldn’t participation included more openness earlier in the process and more of a real way to participate to get these people to actually buy into a budget that they had input on? But that’s not what we’re getting. We’re getting the same stuff, handed down from on high by the same political operatives, and being told that the people’s “participation” is to help this budget get passed.

I would imagine people would be a lot more excited about doing that if they’d actually been asked to help out in the process. I’m glad that the administration is trying to reach out to people more, but so far it’s doing so in a very fake way. It’s not getting people to really participate in the process at all. It’s just looking at them as a way to help sell. That’s not the same.

Filed Under: budget, community, obama, participation, politics