So Gary North has posted on his website a story about the Occupy D.C. crowd and why they have been allowed to camp for months in McPherson Park. You can read the story here : http://teapartyeconomist.com/2012/01/26/occupy-wall-street-breaks-the-law-but-government-ignores-this/
While I typically agree with Dr. North, I feel that he has missed the point on this story. He implies that the reason that the occupy protestors haven't been removed is because they are ideologically aligned with the president, and if it were the Tea Party instead of the Occupy movement that they would have been thrown out because of their political difference to the administration. I disagree. I believe that law enforcement, national parks service included, is afraid of the movement because of their ability to communicate news concerning their events, unlike other groups who rely on media coverage to spread news concerning themselves. The authorities are also afraid of the response that could be seen if videos of the park service evicting them would hit the web.
You see, the occupy movement has gained a lot of supporters by portraying itself as victims to police brutality. The videos of police attacking, using "kettling" tactics and using pepper spray against protesters has created mass support for the occupy protesters, beyond those people who agree with their message, as many people now see the occupy movement as a first amendment issue rather than only a money disparity issue. What the public is not being shown by the police is any activities to justify the violence, and since there has not been videos of that shown, we are left to believe that their actions are meant to silence political dissent, rather than to control "dangerous" protests.
Therefore, the National Parks Service is afraid to become the next group that is seen being bullies, for fear of a public withdraw of support for their organization, for threats that they may be facing by individuals that support the occupy movement, or just because there is a feeling in the administration that if we stop harassing the occupiers that their support will dwindle and fade out. So while Dr. North is correct that they would not treat the Tea Party the same way, it is less to do with the administration's supposed likeness in policy and more to do with the fact that the occupy movement only gets stronger the more authorities push against it, and the fact that the Tea Party hasn't been the subject of police crack-downs.
If the authorities want to stop the occupiers their best tactic would be to leave them alone, so that by allowing them to break the rules the administration will allow the movement to wear itself out and lose steam due to indifference. Once the thrill of fighting "the man" is gone, because "the man" is ignoring you, then you pack up and find a new way to get at the establishment. You find a way that will generate the public's attention, and co-opt their support, because the most popular story in America is that of the underdog with nothing standing up for himself and beating back the top dog who controls everything.
Friday, January 27, 2012
Friday, January 20, 2012
Where do we go after the Blackouts?
On January 18, 2012 America saw something that
has never happened before. In response to proposed legislation that would give
the government an easy route to shutting down websites that they felt were distributing copy written material without permission, without trial, many
major websites went dark in protest and offered their users easy forms to
submit a letter of protest to their representatives in congress. The legislation they were protesting would have a devastating effect on the internet, where the
some of the largest websites survive on user submitted content that could
easily be copyrighted and uploaded by someone without the permission of the
copyright holder.
The immediate response to the blackout and deluge of
protest letters was for several congresspeople to change their stance on the
two proposed bills. It now looks that these two bills will not have the support
to be passed, and the internet will continue to exist in much the same form
that it had before the bills were suggested.
I am of the opinion that while the blackout protest was
successful, this time around, it cannot be considered to be a strategy for
maintaining the freedom of the internet, as the blackout feeds heavily upon the
goodwill capital of the websites that participated. In short, the
internet has shown its hand and now stands in a strategically weaker position
because of it. While the internet has defended itself from the current attack on its freedoms,
it must create a strategy that reinforces rather than consumes goodwill.
Let us first focus on what the success of the SOPA/PIPA
blackout shows about the environment and the players in this conflict. First,
it demonstrates the ability of these web sites that make up “new media” to
quickly organize and educate a huge mass of people and set, at least in the
short term, the nature of the dialogue. The LA Times reports that Google claims
4.5 million people signed the petition against SOPA/PIPA. (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2012/01/google-anti-sopa-petition.html)
Most of these people hadn’t even heard of SOPA or PIPA until the blackout. This goes to demonstrate the number of people who use these products daily
and how much these websites matter to the people that were willing to take the time
to read about the proposed legislature and take the time to fill out the
form to protest. While many people might not feel that the short time that it
takes for this action is much to talk about but it really is. When you consider the
rational ignorance that members of the web community must operate under to help
them process the amazingly vast amount of information that they are faced on by
a second by second basis anything that can motivate them to act in unison is something to take note of. In fact it is the need for selecting and filtering information to suit
the needs of the user that that these websites have so
many users. However, when the website took the time to tell its users directly
and without distraction what concerned the web sites operators and why it was
important to both parties, they were able to send a clear message that
translated into action. It was a direct reversal of the flow of action that had
made these websites great but because of the goodwill that the websites had
created they were able to draw upon their users. The problem, as stated before,
is that this strategy cannot be continuously replicated as it consumes that
goodwill and will therefore generate a diminishing return each time it is used.
You might be asking yourself, why does it need to be
duplicated since support for these bills have been severely damaged? The answer
is that the “old media” of film, TV, and the music industry, who were the lobbying
support behind the bill, are going to continue to feel pressure from “new media”
and piracy. They have money and
political connections that they will use to their advantage to draft new legislature
to help them compete in a social media age. This is a much easier way for them
to protect their market share than other options due to the calcifying nature
that corporate culture causes. It is also a result of the group think that
fills any industry, and the “old media’s” thought is that their problems stem
from piracy of their content. They go on to claim outrageous losses due to
piracy (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/15/gao_spanks_piracy_exaggerators/)
which even the GAO agrees is exaggerated. What the truth of the matter is, is
that “old media” is falling behind in the service they provide, compared to
what it easily done. They fail to see the appeal of pirated content to the
consumer, feeling that it is about getting something for free, when it is much
more about the delivery stream. To illustrate this idea just look at the success
of Netflix streaming content and the effect that it is having on the piracy
community. (http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2011/07/how_netflix_is_killing_piracy.html)
However as long as “old media” feels they can gain ground through the use of
the government they will continue, and they know that they have a strong
relationship. As an example, not less than 24 hours after the blackout the
government shut down Megaupload.com due to piracy concerns, this is a strong
message that the government is going after “new media” and competing distribution
networks which they deem can or are being used for piracy.
The people in charge of creating the legislature understand
that they do not have the resources to police individual submissions for websites;
this is why copyright enforcement has always been in the hands of the copyright holder, who was expected to bring infringers to civil court to settle
damages. However they do not have the resources to police the web either, which
is why groups such as the MPAA and RIAA have used excessive damages on poster
child type cases, so that they can scare people from participating in piracy.
This has been largely ineffective as most pirates have determined that they are
unlikely to ever be caught and charged. This is why they changed tactics with
SOPA/PIPA to make the website operator liable for content uploaded or linked to
from their site. They targets site operator with what amounted to loss of
business should they be caught allowing copy write infringement. The back lash from the sites users showed that
they are not happy with the idea they could lose their tools for filtering
information because of other users actions. So the logical next step would be
to create a method where site operators would be given the needed tools to
track users and while subject to fines for failing to police their own sites be
given immunity if they turn in the contributor. This would satisfy both the “old
media” and the website operators would stand much less risk of loss offset by a
higher operating cost.
Why is this something to be stopped? The internet culture as
it currently stands is based on making changes to existing content to create
new content, creating a culture that is evolving and seeking to fill in niches
that “old media” neglects due to their delivery structure and the cost
associated with targeting a small niche. This can be seen in such internet cultural
entertainment as the meme, in musical and video mashups, and especially in the
viral spread of media, where new content can be relinked, embedded and reposted
so that an artist can quickly and for almost no cost be exposed to millions of
consumers. These are all things that stand opposed to the “old media” who has
made their fortunes being the gate keepers of entertainment, selecting winners
and losers to the overall loss of potential cultural development. As with any
development, cultural development happens at the margins of society as first
adopters search and discover new things and then bring others to it. If the “old
media” remains the gatekeepers of our entertainment and knowledge they
determine the dialogue we have in our culture, which will restrict access to
the margin, to the bleeding edge of cultural development. It will have a
chilling effect as the only real access people will have is what is provided by
the establishment, and will result in a culture that does not grow organically
but in spurts and with great opportunity losses.
We need a new strategy for protecting our cultural
development. The first strategic step is almost always to gain resources from
which to work form. I suggest that to accomplish this we need to continue to
educate people, not only of the risks that anti-piracy legislature creates for
the development of our cultural artifacts, but also of methods that can be used
to circumvent government actions, such as using ip addresses to access sites in
case of DNS blocking. This will make it all the harder for legislation to be
effective and therefore reduces the likely hood that it is used in the first
place. The second strategy that should be adopted is a change in our voting
patterns to reflect to political candidates that internet censorship is a
voting issue for us. To make this effective we need to communicate to
candidates, write letters, join campaign staffs, and make our voice heard. We
cannot afford to dilute our message though, so we are faced with making
compromises on other major issues. Much like the pro-life/pro-choice dialogue
has gone we need to make it clear to candidates that this is the topic that
decides who we vote for. We must make the candidates answer questions about
this and hold them to their position, and we cannot afford to send a mixed
message, if a politician goes against our position we must pull our support
from them based on this issue and this issue alone, otherwise they learn that
they can throw us under the bus on this issue to gain campaign financing from
the “old media.” It must be clear that it is either our votes or their money we
cannot let the politian have it both ways otherwise they will go for the money
and use a fraction to buy us on other issues. The final step of our strategy is
to tie our goal to a philosophy that can be sold to the wide public. This is
what is done with the pro-choice movement as they have tied the right for
abortion to the woman’s self-ownership a major plank of the women’s right
movement. It is what has been done to improve the position of the GLBT
community in their fight for the right to marry who they want to. Once again it
is ties to the idea of self-ownership and being able to make decisions for
oneself. We need to tie our cause, the right to communicate ideas the way we
choose, to this same idea of self-ownership.
In conclusion, while we have seen a great spectacle in the
SOPA/PIPA blackout, and it has signaled a popular sentiment that we want to
keep the internet free to continue to evolve organically and not according to
the plans of the self-appointed gate keepers of content, we accept a strategy
that is self-reinforcing that we can continue to defend the freedom of the
internet. To do this we must make the freedom that the internet has the one
voting issue that we cannot compromise on, otherwise the politicians will
continue to be purchased to chip away at the decentralized nature of the
internet while we are given lip service, which is what will happen if our votes
can be purchased with anything else than the protection of our freedom that we
experience on the internet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)