Big Business Profits from Censorship

Usually, I am not attracted to the technical aspects of the internet. However, I was interested to read a study from Phil that stated (among other things) that American firms are helping China's notorious internet censorship program.

"Activists and human rights organizations have for years charged Cisco and other Western corporations with actively assisting China in developing censorship and surveillance systems.

... Companies such as Microsoft and Cisco respond to these charges by suggesting that they simply sell the technology to China; thus, they cannot and should not control how their customers use what they bought."

That sounds like the same argument that file-sharing companies use against the media companies. And that principle was just defeated in the recent Grokster ruling by the Supreme Court. I recognize that it's almost a completely different situation, but it seems similar in that good technology is being used for bad purposes.

Is it possible that businesses such as Microsoft/Cisco are shooting themselves in the foot?

Every company in the US wants access to the vast markets in China. The internet revolution in China will surely line the pockets of many internet darlings such as Amazon.com, Ebay, and others.

Restricting access to some internet content might ultimately limit a business' ablity to offer some products and that cuts into their bottom line.

The Disabled Divide

In class, we watched this video about the digital divide and accessibility for the disabled. When comparing all aspects of the digital divide, I believe that disability is the most important concern, rather than race, age, gender, or other factors.

I think we all take our senses for granted sometimes, but I have to admit, I never thought about disabled people accessing the internet. In the digital age, the internet is becoming more and more entwined with our daily lives. From online banking to work related intranets, the internet is an important tool, and denying access to a group because of their physical limitations can have serious consequences for the future.

According to usability guru, Jakob Neilsen, disabled users face many hurdles. People who are blind must tab from link to link to find what they are looking for on a website. Other users are disabled and cannot use a mouse for navigation. Some internet users cannot hear and are limited by audio directions for navigation.

Neilsen performed a study in which disabled users performed simple tasks such as buying a CD at Target.com, checking stock reports, and getting a local weather report. I did not understand everything about the survey methodology and testing, but I was shocked to learn that users with disabilities, on average, took almost 17 minutes to perform these basic tasks. The control group of non-impared users performed the tasks with an average of 7 minutes. Neilsen's findings included evidence that non-disabled users can use the internet 3 times faster than disabled individuals. That's shocking!

In the past, I've criticized Neilsen's website as ugly and bland, but I realize now that it would be incredibly user-friendly to users with disabilities. We should strive so that the "internet revolution" does not leave out these individuals.

Elites vs. Bloggers, Round 1

Every community has influential people. From politicians to wealthy socialites to the police chief, each of these "influentials" plays a major role in shaping public opinion in their community.

In the old politics, candidates scrambled to get the endorsement of the local influentials because it would be the talk of the town. Seeing a yard sign in the union leader's yard or hearing the minister at church talk about politics gave candidates an automatic leg up on the competition.

The Internet changed all that, however.

The internet is overflowing with influentials and opinion makers, according to Carol Darr. I would argue that it's not just that the internet is overflowing with influentials, but rather the internet allows anyone to become influential.

As the great equalizer, the internet removes barriers that have previously prevented the average joe from becoming influential. On the internet, no one cares how much money you make. They do not care how many employees work for you. Nor they care who your friends are.

Few people outside of Minnesota had probably ever heard of John Hinderacker, but he immediately became the darling of the MSM and right wing blogosphere when he unraveled "Rathergate." Claiming that CBS records implicating George W. Bush were faked, Hinderacker's blog immediately shaped public opinion and dominated the news cycle for that moment of the campaign.

Imagine the power when a 14 yearold kid in Wisconsin can have as large an impact through his blog as the local factory owner with the sign in his yard and a bumper sticker on his SUV? Instead of affecting the people in his direct community or state, an internet blogger could potentially affect opinion nationwide, as Hinderacker did. For too long, shaping public opinion has been the realm of the elites and large donors. The internet allows everyone to have a voice - and to become influential.

Spam: Laying Siege to the Fortress

"Open a Can of Congressional Mail."

The Washington Post had a good feature article today on the Congressional Management Foundation survey that Phil posted online.

The rise of e-mail to Congress has tripled from 2000-2004. Unfortunately, only 17 percent of House members and 38 percent of Senators can actually respond to e-mail messages electronically. Most members prefer to print out letters and send them snail mail because they are worried that their e-mails can be tampered with or edited.

According to the article, Congress has been seen as a "fortress" for years and outside groups were unable to gain access. They are quickly learning that e-mail is a way inside Congress, and they continue to hammer Congress with e-mails from their lists. To combat the additional spam e-mails, many Congressional offices change their webforms so that spam bounces back. The third parties remain a step ahead by closely monitor Congressional webforms to adapt to the changes.

What these groups fail to realize is that they might just kill the goose that laid the golden egg.

Many Congressional offices are getting frustrated with form letters and junk e-mail. They are hiring vendors to sort out their third party e-mail and blocking some of the spam. While the rise of constituent mail has increased, most Congressional offices cannot afford to add staff members to answer mail.

This means that third party mail is clogging inboxes, delaying time from constituents who really need help. It would not be surprising if Congressmen declined to answer form letters from constituents. After all, why should a staff member put an hour into a letter when it took the constituent 2 seconds to click a button? And in some cases, many of the constituents do not even realize that they sent the Congress member a letter. This revelantion comes much to the frustration of junior level Hill staffers that are already underpaid and overworked.

And, as a Hill staffer was quoted: "[Third Party Mail is] a waste of time and resources and does not influence the members' stance on the issue in any way."

If Congress is indeed an impenetrable fortress, you can't blame them for trying.