Final Class

Well, the final class has arrived. As a result, I will no longer be blogging at regular intervals. To the throngs of people who have enjoyed my entries, I can only offer my apologies for denying you my thoughts; however, I have not entirely ruled out updating this blog from time-to-time. Thanks for reading. IL 2 DC is currently idle.....stay tuned.

I'm blogged-out

Why Do I Care?

Why does it seem that I care so much about criticizing micropayments? I think it just boils down to the idea of additional payments. I hate paying bills, and the thought of paying one extra bill a month for internet usage - remember, micropayments are payments to view pages, not just to access the actual internet - is just so ridiculous to me. I already pay for the internet....just ask Comcast....

Additionally, I just can't seem to understand how anyone would choose to pay additional money just so they are freed of annoying advertising......while they are being "freed" of their money.

I also think that my distaste for this whole concept - which doesn't seem to be growing in popularity beyond a novelty - is also due to the fact that I have a bit of faith in a free-market system to "weed out" useless, unnecessary and annoying products. If the internet surfing experience is not fulfilling....annoying....and not efficient, people should demand it be better with their individual choice....that way everyone can enjoy the consequential efficiency because it is internet-wide. With mmicropayments....some people might be left behind, like those who cannot afford them or just refuse to pay them. Let's just try and reduce the number of bills we have at the end of every month, shall we.

A Good Case....

I completely agree with Clay Shirky's analysis of micropayments in his work, Fame vs. Fortune: Micropayments and Free Content. He nicely articulated the reason why he feels - and I feel, because I agree with him - micropayments will fail.

This is a great description:

"...the act of buying anything, even if the price is very small, creates what Nick Szabo calls mental transaction costs, the energy required to decide whether something is worth buying or not, regardless of price." He goes on to say," The only business model that delivers money from sender to receiver with no mental transaction costs is theft..." I love it...

This is a great argument against the whole idea of mcropayments....I completely agree, because it makes sense. Shirky's analysis is backed up with actual terms for things...like "mental transaction costs." Everyone does this when they are about to buy something, now it has a name. According to Shirky, the amount of free publishing has increased over the last several years....it makes sense....I mean, who doesn't like free things?

Micropayments...Continued

Even in 2000, Nielsen still touted his idea that micropayments will become more popular. He says, "We are currently passing through a temporary phase of the Web where everything has to be free. At some point of time, people will tire of low quality and ever-more-intrusive ads and start paying." He also went on to state that he is "still waiting" for this new "business model" to take hold......me too. I'm still going to stick to my original point - that people will not give up having a free net surfing experience just to be freed of annoying ad content.

Nielsen states he remains convinced, but is there any empirical evidence, or is this just a hunch? Several years have past - seven to be exact - since his initial support for micropayments. They have not become popular....or at least as popular as he purports they will become.

Micropayments

Call me crazy, but the reason I turn off the lights when I go to sleep is because it's hard to sleep with lights on!

In Jakob Nielsen's discussion of micropayments he makes the grand statement that people turn off their lights at night due to energy costs....A statement that is but one component of his entire argument that micropayments are the wave of the future.

Micropayments, apparently, are (as the label suggests) micro....payments. These payments will be made by visitors to the internet and will be as low as several cents per visit, etc. His concept is similar to that of other metered utilities, like water and electricity....hence the turning the light out comment. Basically, web users will be charged micro "fees" as they surf, thus incurring a monthly fee....probably around $30 or so, according to Nielsen's article. Due to this fee, visitors will be freed of annoying and burdensome advertising.

I'm still not convinced by Nielsen's initial writings of the benefits of micropayments. I'm pretty confident that people value free things over less advertising and annoying content.

Nielsen makes the case (if I'm reading his analysis right) that microfees are another quality control mechanism for the internet, but isn't that what demand (or the lack of it) does for quality in a free market arena? If people believe that something - like a product, or a website - is not good, they won't buy it or visit the site. The consequential lack of demand will cause a change to take place (hopefully) with the way the site or the product is produced. If such a positive change doesn't take place, then the product will not survive.

Upon initial inspection, I have some doubts about micropayments, but further research is warranted of course....to be continued.

Free Culture

I just listened to Lawrence Lessig's keynote speech at the 2002 Open Source Convention. His arguments were very compelling. Along with his words, he utilized great visuals that really aided in his overall arguments.

I recently posted an entry where I stated that our national tradition of free speech would prevail against any threats to freedom that may arise in history. I still stand by that broad generalization. I do still think that Americans will only take so much trampling on their ability to express themselves in an appropriate manner. Lessig's own speech could be seen as proof for my statement. It is obvious that he feels that innovation and freedom are being curbed by the activities of a few through their savvy use of law and copyright regulations. He is "doing something" as he so often asked his listeners, during the speech, if they were doing the same.

His arguments certainly caused me to reassess these "hurdles" to innovation and ideas. I mean, it does make sense that ideas and future innovation do feed of of ideas from the past, and the "past" always tries to stop the present from utilizing its ideas. A society does become less free when it is increasingly not allowed to gain inspiration. Lessig's Mickey Mouse example was great. He, in not so few words, basically attributes the rise of Mickey Mouse - an his subsequent beloved place in our American society - to the fact that when Walt Disney created Mickey, there were less constraints on the use of past ideas. Apparently, Mickey Mouse was based on an already existing human character in a then present movie.

Its hard to think of the world today without such a popular and pleasing image (I mean, who doesn't like Mickey Mouse?) as Mickey. According to Lessig, Disney's inspiration would not have been allowed today. While I do value Lessig's argument, I do still think that some legal protections must be afforded to those who create. Whether, its a book or a song, the creator should be allowed to benefit from their creation; however, the extension of these legal protections may be too encompassing. A balance must be found that enables incentives for creation to still occur - when I mean incentives, I mean the comfort that comes with some legal protection for personal work through patents and copywrites - while at the same time not limiting the ability of those in the present to be innovative with information or creations that the past so skillfully developed, thus enabling the future innovation.

Even the framers of our constitution, under Article I, section 8, allowed for the protection of intellectual property for "limited times", in order "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." Indeed, it does seem that "limited times" does have a different definition today.

It's my B-Day...I'm taking the day off....again

The Future of Ideas

Lawrence Lessig describes an interesting senario - one in which the free internet is increasingly regulated and controlled. I have a hard time believing that the internet can or will ever be controlled. While legal challenges are annoying and obtrusive, the litigious nature of our society is really an American phenomenon. The internet is an international mechanism that can be used by everyone on Earth. Such legal challenges may affect the way in which we use the internet, but I don't think they will be such a force for change that ideas and discussions will cease to exist. I think the future of ideas is bright. No one has a copyright on free thinking and debate. I have faith in our ability as Americans to not allow anything to thwart these discussions, whether it may be burdensome litigation of legislation. The freedom of the internet is so alluring that I cannot foresee any one allowing the "rules" to be changed so much that "these changes will end the revolution."

I also don't understand how "the cost of questioning becomes too great." Sometimes questioning things means that you are going to step on some toes. As long as it is done in a respectful and non-threatening manner, the questioner and the questioned will exist in harmony. I do understand that there may be risks, but I cannot subscribe to the overly-pessimistic view that it will be to "expensive" to ask appropriate questions. As I alluded to before, this prized tradition of free speech will not go away due to some perceived "costs." Great thoughts and ideas have a way of surviving to be heard by others.

Day Off

The Digital Divide in Developing Nations

When ever anyone advocates for the acceptance and encouragement of free market forces, I'm always in agreement. After reading the article in The Economist concerning the real digital divide, I was pleased to read that the author reports that the use of cell phones are helping people in developing nations, even increasing GDP. The author also goes on to state that these developing nations should open up their telecommunication markets to the free market forces associates with competition. The Democratic Republic of the Congo and Ethiopia were used to illustrate how the existence of multiple cell networks has allowed more people to acquire cell phones than the closed market system. While I am not an economist, I have always believed that the free market is a great mechanism that developing nations may - if accepted - use to better their economic situations and standing in relation to other nations. I think it is great that people in these developing nations are using technology - that we in the developed world usually take for granted - to better themselves and their economies. As time moves forward and the use of the technology in these nations proliferates even further, the world will increasingly see how economic engagement with these nations benefits all parties, both the West and those in the developing world.

Government Intranets

Jakob Neilsen's analysis of government intranets versus private-sector intranets was interesting. His statistics that highlighted the increased efficiency of government operations within several U.S. and foreign government agencies does seem to suggest that government agencies are capable of reshaping and streamlining their practices even when market forces are not present to "encourage" then, like private-sector entities.

More government agencies should reshape their intranets, thus improving their efficiency. I agree with Neilsen when he makes this claim - the statistics certainly show it; however, I think that governments (especially the U.S government) need to increasingly take measures to simplify themselves and their operations. Nielsen's suggestions and illustrations should be adopted by more U.S. government officials. Our leaders need to rail against the common assumption that government agencies and the employees do not operate efficiently. Indeed, that may be the case in many of the U.S. government's many agencies, which makes it even more imperative that the examples of government successes on behalf of government agencies to improve themselves through an improves intranet are heeded by our government leaders.

VADP: A Case Study

Virginian's for Alternatives to the Death Penalty is a relatively young organization. Founded in 1991, the organization strives to incorporate alternatives to the death penalty into Virginia law. However, one would not really understand this mission until a careful search of the organization's site revealed this statement in the "History of VADP" tab that is positioned half way down the left side of the initial home page. While the organization has appropriate and important information on its site, the organization and placement of this information is not conducive to productive research on behalf of potential new members or other visitors. While there are many examples of effective and ineffective web development on this site, there are two examples that may be discussed.

The organization does do a fine job of placing appropriate links for its members on the site. "News & Updates" is positioned first in a long row of links. Additionally, it is important to include links to media pieces discussing the death penalty, like op-eds and articles of support, for these examples are important in the never ending battle to win over the hearts and minds of potential new supports of the organization's cause. With all this being said, there is still no rhyme or reason to the placement of these links. I would also recommend a prominently displayed link that discusses the organization's history, an "About Us" link, if you will.

Most importantly, the sidiscernibleiscernable grassroots mechanism being spearheaded by the organization. This is fundamentally the worse mistake VADP is conducting. Members and potential new members must be able to communicate with each other in order to plan and operate an effective grassroots or grass tops campaign. Conversely, the organization does have some positive aspects to its site and campaign. It appears from the organization's history that it has grown substantially since the 1990's, suggesting that a key element of successful campaign is present within its membership - passion. The links displayed on the site are important and illustrate a commitment to the organization's cause, but they are limited by their placement.

Therefore, the organization is doing well in developing a decent idea of what it wishes to convey to potential new members and visitors to their site, but still needs to work on how the organization of the site will effectively do this. The organization already has the tools available on their present site; however, they must be rearranged. The organization has done well in this regard. Although there are still many more to discuss, the one key element to success the organization must do more to develop is a grass roots network. This is the organization's fundamental mistake. Once this is established, the final website design will incorporate elements for this network and will be effectively complete.

Congressional Blogs

I think it is great that congressional offices are starting to utilize blogs to disseminate their messages and experiences. While the number of offices using blogs is not that high, according to the report from the Congressional Management Foundation, there are still members who have taken the plunge and are now blogging.

I can understand why many representatives and Senators are hesitant to start a blog. Blogs are relatively "unfiltered" as the Foundation states, thus it is more difficult to control a precise message, but I think the electoral benefits will far out-weight the possible negatives of having such an unfiltered means of expressing opinions. Ultimately it is up to each individual office to decide if they can dedicate the resources and time to maintaining an office blog. Every office is different; every office has their fundamental opinions on the effectiveness of blogs.

Representative Tom Tancredo seems to believe that allowing unfiltered comments on his blog is a better way of representing himself to his constituents and the people of the United States, while Ted Kennedy seems to think that a periodic post on the DailyKOS - without the ability to comment in real-time - is the better way for his office to represent him. The bottom line is that they are utilizing blogs and new technology to disseminate their ideas and messages. While Representatives and senators do not necessarily have to have such an unfettered blog as Tancredo's to be effective, I fear that if Congress continues to shy away from the medium of blogs and the internet completely, that constituents will eventually view Congress as an institution that is consistently behind the times as far as technology as concerned. Any attempt to utilize new technology and technological methods should be applauded.

Congressional Best Practices

It is important that constituents know who represents them in Congress. Part of knowing who represents you also comes with knowing a representative's or Senator's position and voting record on a particular issue. It is important that elected officials provide this information on their sites. Educational resources are perhaps the next most important tool to be placed on an effective website. It is very important to foster the ability of constituents to think critically on an issue. Representatives and Senators who clearly explain why they voted a certain way on an issue or why they support a certain cause do more to develop a good repoire with constituents than one that does not wish to explain their actions. Fundamentally, the best practice that a representative or Senator should do on their sites is to promote transparency whenever possible. I feel that if constituents understand the reasoning and though process behind a decision made by their elected official, they are more likely to respect it and understand it even if they do not agree with it.

Congress Online

I found it interesting after reading Johnson's Congress Online, that congressional offices have so many different programs to choose from to sort and direct mail. I also found it interesting that the Senate at one time had at its disposal software that Johnson describes as "artificial intelligence." The program could sort through constituent e-mail and sort it accordingly based on key words found in the text. There may be a drawback to this more efficient method. What if the program becomes corrupt and constituent e-mail becomes dangerously mis-sorted? Aren't the political ramifications of misplaced and misanswered questions too much for an elected representative to bear just for a bit more efficiency in responding to mail? Additionally, with this proliferation of e-mails to Congress, rather than written correspondences, what is Congress doing to make sure that response e-mails are not tampered with? Johnson touches upon this in his book, but until these concerned are addressed properly, is it any wonder why some congressional offices still respond to their constituents using conventional corresponding methods (i.e. writing a letter)?