Lessig is spot on!

Keeping on the same thread of yesterday’s post, I’d like to again comment on Lawrence Lessig’s speech. And this time I’d like to focus on two of his statements: (1)“never have fewer people controlled more of our culture” and if you recall he quoted J.C. Watts and said (2)”If your explaining, your losing” because we live in a bumper sticker nation.

I completely agree with Lessig on both fronts!

It’s ridicules how pre-packaged and censored all our entertainment and art has become! Are there any true forms of expression? Somewhere amid all the American Idols and Apprentice winners of the world there is a smothered original thought we’re all being deprived off. I think Lessig’s point about how fast the world moves is especially relevant in politics. Direct mail, thirty second television ads and even interactive websites only get about ten seconds to engage the viewers. Fact is it’s hard to deny… if voters don’t get your message right away, they stop listening.

Are there any opportunities for candidates to make a second impression in the 21st Century? What about through different forms of communication (i.e.: t.v., radio, etc)?

Copyright: A Lifetime Pass?

I’d like to comment on Lawrence Lessig’s keynote speech at the 2002 Open Source Convention. Besides it being a bit long – over thirty minutes – I really enjoyed his comments.

His four main points: “creativity and innovation always builds on the past; the past always tries to control the creativity that builds on it; free societies enable the future by limiting the past; and ours is less and less a free society” really sparked my interest.

I think a lot of the same principles Lessig talks about with regard to the evolution of the copyright laws, especially on the internet, have a huge impact on the political arena as well as the software developer profession.

Lessig raises a great issue: should copyright be forever? And does crippling innovation through regulation protect or harm the industries it’s trying to defend?

I’ve always been an advocate of any policy or process that increases ingenuity in the work place, in the academic field and in professional arenas. But then again I’ve never had anything worthy of a copyright…

McCloud's New-Age Middle Men

I liked the comic’s rendition of the system of micro-payments as it relates to the artist’s world. He accurately depicts the old supply chain involving comics (or musicians, artists, etc.) and how it has been revolutionized by the internet. Besides the “middle men,” a more direct market openly linking the producers and consumers profits everyone. Should we be worried about the traditional middle men? It sounds like a familiar argument against Napster…

McCloud also makes a great point when he points out that advertisers have become the new middle men online. I’ve never thought of advertisers as the new-age censors of content. I guess it’s always true that the people signing the check have the final say.

What implications does this have for politically biased websites?

Not so fast with the online voting...

I watched the demo for the instant run off voting and I think that it is a great start to improving the voting process, but may have one huge flaw.

The process assumes that the electorate has perfect and complete knowledge of all the candidates. In order to rank their preferences with any kind of accuracy all of the voters need to know a lot about each candidate. Realistically, voters choose one candidate (or one political party) and ignore the rest. Assuming the entire voting population - which would be necessary if the instant runoff voting system is ever to be adopted nationally - would take the time to learn enough information about each of the candidates in every race is unrealistic!

Is this a fatal flaw in the instant run off voting system or is there a way to redeem it with moderate changes?

Umm, Bush you passed the ethical line awhile ago!

I wanted to comment really quickly on the article that was listed under recommended reading for this week. The article can be found at http://www.factcheck.org/article143.html and is titled, “Bush's Misleading Attack Video”. It is a great example of questionable ethical behavior with targeted campaigning. Bush not only out-and-out lied about Kerry’s donations; he actually made accusations about charges people could have argued he allowed in his own campaign while he was running for re-election. What’s the saying; “He without sin cast the first stone”… I think candidates at every level need to be very careful about blaming others for questionable practices when they themselves haven’t been the most honorable. Where is the ethical line in politics? Is it ever changing, or is there a true bare minimum? Across all boundaries (generational, regional or ethical ties) it seems people’s values represent the full spectrum.

Too much homework... sorry for the cop out guys!

Thank you Captain Obvious (a.k.a.: Zittrain & Palfrey)

The readings on the China study by Jonathan Zittrain and John Palfrey has to go in the “Thank you Captain Obvious” column. Who doesn’t know that China suppresses its citizen’s freedoms, creative outlets and almost all means of their interpersonal communication?

I think it’s so sad that in the 21st Century there are still people (and therefore governments) that believe they have the right, or even the power to regulate free thought. I think an interesting ethical follow-up study for the case study on China would be to look at what sites the general public in countries - like China – are flying under the radar of the regulating government. In other words, what are students and other subsets of the population currently permitted to access that they would probably not be able to in the future?

Another study might include a control group in those repressed countries in which web users are allowed to view the questionable sites and then track their opinions. Do they shift? Is the government regulation really impacting the population’s views?