Using Social Media to Limit the Past

“An endless stream of created work, some professional, some amateur, all trying to motivate people to act and to believe differently.”

~ Lawrence Lessig, Harvard professor

Technology creates opportunities for us to not only be consumers of media but creators as well. Lawrence Lessig, Harvard professor and expert on copyright laws, calls this the “read-write” culture.

With such a shift of power emerging, it is important for us to not only be aware of it, but to fight to protect it. Understanding the remixer manifesto’s four basic principles can help us to understand the battle over copyright law in this country.

1. Culture always builds on the past

What would the world be like without Justin Bieber? As hard as that is to imagine for a certain age group, had it not been for his singing his favorite tunes and uploading it to YouTube, we might not have ever heard of the kid.

Newton once said he was “standing on the shoulders of giants,” meaning that his breakthroughs in physics would not have been possible if not for previous efforts he could draw inspiration and knowledge from.

2. The past always tries to control the future.

Hollywood studios, broadcasting corporations, and the music industry are trying to control internet media to serve their own interests.

Heavy-handed control over piracy is just the latest incarnation of the industry’s attempts at controlling perceived threats from future innovations.

“I say to you that the VCR is to the American Film producer and the American public as the Boston Strangler is to the woman home alone.”

~ MPAA Chief Jack Valenti proclaiming VCR’s would end the movie industry

Home video now represents nearly half of the industry’s revenue and from 2000 to 2010, revenues rose by 35 percent. Today, 65 percent of revenues come from sources the MPAA thought would end the industry.

3. Our future is becoming less free

Do you remember the last time you heard the song “Happy Birthday” actually being sung on a show or movie?

To use this century old song, you have to have permission from Time Warner, the owner of the copyright. If you sing the song to a friend and post it to YouTube – you are in violation of copyright law.

4. To build free societies we must limit the control of the past

We must create an environment that allows creativity and collaboration to thrive; a culture based upon shared knowledge and innovation.

Lessig presents the fundamental challenges of the existing and proposed copyright laws in two excellent presentations:

This is a longer TEDtalk by Lessig that goes into more detail.

As Lessig proposes, we need a system that allows experimentation and innovation without recourse or without operating outside the laws.

Laws that reflect the will of the people  – not the media industry –  are essential to creating a thriving culture.

The established past will continue to fight to control our media. It will be up to all of us to fight for the freedom to create and innovate without fear.

Using Wikipedia as a Neutral Source for Politics

Wikipedia is now the 6th busiest website on the planet with nearly 15% of all internet traffic flowing to the site daily. With such a huge amount of traffic, it wasn’t long before politicians were looking for a way to leverage the medium to their advantage…sometimes in shady ways. Thankfully, Wikipedia has evolved to meet the challenge and continue to provide a neutral and un-biased report.

The dark past that plagues Wikipedia

Not so long ago, Wikipedia was used as the proverbial punching bag. Candidates and their supporters looking for an edge would add color commentary to their rivals Wikipedia articles. Edits ranging from “too liberal” to “he beats his wife and children” began appearing on candidate’s pages.

The practice was so common that Wikipedia was forced to change their editing policies as well as set up a page called US Congressional staff edits to Wikipedia partly in response to the not-so-ethical edits.

These changes led to what is called the “Talk” Tab.

“Talking” it out

It would be nearly impossible for Wikipedia to catch every vandal in the act so the opportunity for unethical activity remains. Wikipedia thus uses the talk tab as part of the vetting process for the article.

The “Talk” section allows the conversation to happen and the vetting process to occur without impacting the casual users’ experience.

A recent example of this occurred when one of Newt Gingrich’s campaign advisers tried to edit the entry on the  former Speaker of the House and 2012 Republican presidential candidate. Aiming to paint the Speaker in a more positive light, the staffer made over 60 edits to sections on Gingrich’s marriages, ethics violation charges and his debt at Tiffany’s among others.

Learning to Trust Wikipedia 

With a vetting process in place, we can then begin to start trusting what we read on Wikipedia as being neutral and accurate.

A recent BYU study looking at gubernatorial candidates concluded that Wikipedia was a reliable and accurate source for political news. The study partly attributes this to the fact that the more polarizing an issue, the more likely it is to be accurate due to the ongoing discussions that occur.

Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, talks about the neutrality of Wikipedia in this interview with the Washington Post as well as responds to the charge that Wikipedia is “liberal.”

These ‘discussions’ can sometimes go on for years over a single subject. In this way, Wikipedia adds to its credibility by producing a history of discussion.

Transparency is key

Along with the “talk” section, Wikipedia has one other tool to combat inaccuracies – the History. Every edit that has ever been made by any user is stored in the history of that article.

The “history” and “talk” sections produce the secondary benefit of transparent reporting. Politicians not only cannot escape their own past, but they also cannot anonymously edit their competition’s either.

In a world filled with backroom deals and secret handshakes, the thought of transparent governance is rare but refreshing and I for one applaud Wikipedia for its efforts in maintaining neutrality.

“With Wikipedia,” as the world’s greatest boss summarizes in the following video, “you know you are getting the best possible information.” So true Mr. Scott, so true.

Millions of tweeting pundits

The Twitterverse was all abuzz Tuesday as President Barack Obama delivered his State of the Union address. The speech still holds an air of formality, but there is no doubt that the instant nature of social media is changing how the message is delivered as well as received.

The State of the Union Address is traditionally delivered near the end of January and is meant to highlight the successes of the past year as well as lay out the president’s agenda for the coming year. As the most important speech the president makes every year, every major network and cable news channel carries the speech live along with the opposing party’s rebuttal. With the explosion of social media, however, the traditional suit and tie pundits might have finally met their match.

Here are a few thoughts about how social media effected this year’s State of the Union:

We are all pundits

Twitter provided a way for viewpoints from thousands of people to be heard in real time as the president delivered the message. Now, instead of listening to analysis from a handful selected pundits, we were given access to thousands of sources that either repudiated or confirmed the facts and figures of the speech. I could post a link to an article that supports the president’s claim of the private sector adding jobs for 22 straight months, while Speaker of the House John Boehner can post his own ‘facts’. Erik Wemple of the Washington Post goes as far to suggest that Twitter and social media are replacing the traditional pundits and the official response from the opposing party. Social media opens up more channels for which we can all have a voice in the political process.

Got Milk? We can choose the message we want to hear

Prior to Twitter and social media, the discussion after the speech would be dictated by the networks, cable news channels and a handful of online publications. Now we have the option of digging deeper into a particular subject we are interested in or share with others what we thought was interesting. We can see other people’s opinions, both important people (John Boehner) and not so important people (me!). What was the most important message that people tweeted about during the speech? Yep, spilled milk (in reference to a comment Obama made about a regulation effecting dairy farmers).

Instant critics = instant response

I wrote about how  Obama uses Twitter to his advantage and here he is again embracing technology and leveraging it to his advantage. The immediacy of the ability for critics to attack his statements calls for an equally quick response. The following video appeared on Whitehouse.gov and is now available on YouTube. Notice how the enhanced version uses charts and visual cues to support his message. Obama is a shrewd politician and he again proves it by anticipating  the republican’s response and jumping out in front.

Redact this! SOPA takes center stage and it is about time

Some of the biggest names on the internet went black or censored parts of their content on Wednesday to protest two controversial pieces of legislation in Congress, SOPA and PIPA. The bills are aimed at stopping online piracy and to protect intellectual property rights but opponents say the bills will lead to the government and large corporations having control over the internet as we know it. With such far reaching implications, one has to ask the question: Why were we not talking about this earlier?

Wikipedia homepage from wikipedia.com

What is SOPA and PIPA?

The SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) in congress as well as the PIPA (Protect IP Act), if passed, will allow record labels and movie studios to go after internet companies that they deem as being in violation of copyright laws.

Chris Heald over at Mashing.com did a nice job dissecting SOPA and putting the salient parts in terms that don’t need a law degree to understand. Here are the highlights:

1. Gives the Attorney General (i.e. the US government) broad and sweeping powers to censor foreign websites
2. Any site that ‘allows’ its users to post copyrighted content (think YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, etc.) can be fined, punished, and shutdown or blocked
3. Makes it a felony to post copyrighted material

So what does that mean for you and I?

If you video yourself singing happy birthday to your friends and post it on Facebook, according to the new rules, you are now a felon and Facebook can also be held liable because they allowed copyrighted material to be posted.

Now, you might be thinking, “They won’t sue me over singing a song. I am small potatoes.” Just ask this 12 year old girl who was sued for downloading TV theme songs how small potatoes you might be.

Wired homepage from wired.com

Why has there not been outrage so far?

The folks over at the Huffington Post might have hit the nail on the head.

“The legislation is aggressively backed by Hollywood movie studios and major record labels, along with several major news providers, including Fox News and NBC-Universal, which have largely shied away from coverage of the bill.”

It was in their best interest not to cover the story. Despite being rivals otherwise, NBC and Fox can find common ground on one issue – legislation that can help pad their pockets.

To be fair, Google and other internet leaders are not small companies either. There is a profit motive for them in defeating SOPA/PIPA. But that’s ok in my book. So long as they continue to support our freedom of speech and continue to fight for the internet to be an open and free place to share knowledge and ideals, they will have my support.

Here is a video that sums up why it is important for all of us to fight back and help protect the voice that the internet gives us all.

PROTECT IP / SOPA Breaks The Internet from Fight for the Future on Vimeo.