Here’s the link. Exploring Assumptions

There is a reason there is a coming “war on general computing,” (I tend to think this is slightly hyperbolic but there is no other identifier as of yet). The shiny newness of internet technology has worn off and there are more then just corporations who want a say in how we relate to this new technology. More and more I see my limited work as an outward symptom of this, technology has acheived widespread adoption and is now for more then just techies.

We are now witnessing the beginning of techies comeing to terms with “non-professional,” if still intelligent people asserting themselves within and around the new technologies, sharing their opinions on technology both through the government and with the new technology. I think if the SOPA debate has tought us anything its that there seems to be a third “middle” way to address the problem that should involve extensive discussions between the aggreived parties. After all what are governments for.

If anything tech types should be happy as this has been their stated goal all along, “democratizing of technology”. Why now advocates and experts suddenly see a looming apocalypse is both odd and troubling. And frankly trying to work out this massive disonance in my head, or on my blog generally gets leaves me with more questions then answers. (I worry to many are so distrustful of government that they don’t realize when it is actually working in their favor… but thats another issue) Which above all is why I enjoy your show as you avoid the trope of self-righteousness that is so common amongst so many internet advocates.

The sort of counter example you cite is indeed troubling and I admit to not having a satisfying answer. I do try to highlight where creators are engaging with piracy of this type to their own advantage–coopting them into promoting their work, offering greater rewards behind the work itself in exchange for tangible support.

I agree with Tim O’Reilly’s assertion that piracy is a progressive tax on creators, http://openp2p.com/pub/a/p2p/2002/12/11/piracy.html. I think there is an inherent limit on the returns for tackling piracy head on via measures like the DMCA, SOPA and PIPA.

I think understanding the reasons why pirates don’t and won’t pay is a more fruitful exercise, whether we are considering legal recourses, market responses or evolving norms.

So if we agree on the respect of another’s works how then do we address this custom via law? There has to be some sort of compromise that can be reached here that addressess blatent piracy but leave room for fair use. The question is where is that space? I sense an unwillingness to address the fact that there are bad actors within your, or anyone elses, framework.

Let’s say that not everyone who engages in pirating is an unknowing dunce as you argued late last year, there are scofflaws and the question now becomes how do we address the scofflaws without targeting the legitimate fair users? The issue is far from black and white as both sides in this debate wish to characterize it one shade or the other.

I cannot use a free or open license in good conscience and do otherwise. The use of such licenses goes along with an expectation that others will respect my wishes with regards to the terms of sharing, free or otherwise.

Not all hackers may acknowledge it, but releasing free software and open media is logically and ethically inconsistent with disrespecting the value of the works by pirating it.

All that being said, laws like the DMCA and bills like SOPA and PIPA are not about respecting the value of works. They are about building a veto over innovation in the guise of fighting piracy. In the past, our legislature here in the US has worked at compromises, like statutory licensing, that allow innovation with due consideration to the value of existing creations.

The private rights of actions being lobbied for by big content do not reserve any room at all for fair use and for new and unanticipated inventions and expressions. Big does enter into it as only the big intermediaries, the labels and studios and the trade associations that represent them, have the resources to lobby for these unfair means of address a problem whose legitimacy is far from settled.

At the very least it is wrong to dismiss this question of the values of anothers work, even if it is from a lobby that you do not recognize. Can you answer the question that Huh did not? Can you support a legal regime that in some way recognizes the value of anothers work, or is this just too much? The hacker community philosophy needs to be expressly clear on this.

Beyond that the post addresses this modern notion of copy but in a rather benign, yet pertinant manner. In this post I see the roots of why I felt compelled to question your aims and intended audience. I warn you, its a bit long, but I think you will find it enlightening.

here’s the raw link.
http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2012/01/11/seeking-density-in-the-gonzo-theater/#more-2965

Often I feel that that same effort to close the other half of the gap is not made by those in the hacker community. I can’t go school to learn coding or start work as an web administrator to get the knowledge I need to properly relate (even if I had such knowledge one time in my past), and I think it is wrong to expect me to be capable of doing so.

This is what I was getting at earlier, if your comments are ment for just the self-identified hacker subset, then I need to know and I need to move on and not waste both your time and mine trying to come to terms with matters that are best left to the experts

(my blog grew out of this perception, a normal guy trying to cross the gap between normal, selectively-networked, citizens and web Denizens and hackers elitism (RE: Anonymous/LULZ)) and the ruminations of Shirky, Anderson et al.

However in unfortunate counterpoint to your honest engagements here, my criticisms and simple inquiries over at BoingBoing are actively resisted, and my comments there are deleted with some frequency. I know you are good friends with a regular contributor Cory, and so at times I am confused by the ambiguities between how approachable he seems on your show and how strong and combative his posts are on BoingBoing. Its a lot for a lone, uninitiated soul, to keep up with. Which face do you respond to? Never mind the nightmare of the moderators….

I find your open engagement policy very refreshing (even as at times I feel I’ve worn out my welcome (I profess ignorance on the proper etiquette and unwritten rules I might be breaking)), I generally feel I learn and grow when I engage with you and I generally find your points more constructive then combative.

The same can’t be said when I engage almost anyother facet of the hacker community, almost as if I am an enemy to them (RE: my BoingBoing experiences) even if I am just a regular everyday citizen, trying my best to keep up with a relevent community even as that community is also highly insular and resistant as a whole.

I am just not in a position to fully close the knowledge gap required in a way that is pertinent to my living and employment situation as a simple citizen, I can only cross part of that gap on my own, the realities of my situation are not unlike many others, and at the very least, we as citizens need to be recognized for what we actually are by the heroes of the Web, people not just angry comments.

Otherwise You Get What You See, the hacker community loses its potency for the average citizen and once again it slips into the shadows again until on of the more brazen members makes negative headlines for the whole of you and this circus starts over…

(perfect recent example is OWS slip back into obscurity, they didn’t listen to anyone in the 99% that asked them about the realities of their cause…)

So I am grateful for you engaging with me, I just wish the same could be said for the rest of the community…

I would say that I lean towards trying to make the podcast accessible. I doubt I always succeed and hence always manage to operate at all levels in the writing and production. I do try to be aware of it and absolutely rely on listeners and readers of all backgrounds asking questions and sharing thoughts to help me understand where I may be failing to clearly explain an assumption or overlook some particular perspective on the topic.

You cover a broad range of topics, in a fairly accessible manner. Are you attempting to generate conversation or are you simply desiring to lecture a subset? I realize you view me as a bit of a troll, and perhaps too attached to a subject that I don’t fully grasp; yet at times, this podcast seems to be aimed at any and all of curious types such as myself. This is the genesis of my question.

I, more frequently then I should, don’t fully grasp the jargon and concept of your podcast.

Often in conversations online I find myself being told, that I “just don’t get it.” in the technical sense. At the same time such intrigued individuals as myself find that we are treated as adversaries when our view are either differing or skeptical from the prevailing tech-geek baseline. I am worried that you, and the hacker community as a whole, nominally see people such as me and other, less technically-oriented online-types in this light.

So it is with all this in mind that I am wondering what “level” your podcast is “at”, who are you pushing hands with? And do you view such repeated inquires by the uninitiated, such as myself, as unwelcome, annoying, or not worthy of response?

I guess I am asking if someone of my lack of talent should bother to pay attention to your concerns, if you only intend them to be for a specific audience and not “all” of the public, even though your podcast is publically available and an open invitation for inquiries is at the end of every episode. If find the ambiguities confusing.

As for attribution, Apple credits Readability in the same way they credit other software code integrated in the browser: in the Acknowledgements window. This is no worse than scores of other software programs that also use open source components. Again, no controversy and no conspiracy.

Link to an article on slate on the rising “Geek lobby” , but what I find most interesting isn’t the article itself, but some of the push-back in the comment section. Many of those commenters (many of them claiming to be artists or filmmakers, most indie at that) are making much the same point I was earlier, that technologists as a whole aren’t “anti-corporate” so much just “anti-traditionalist”.

And perhaps before long, perhaps with the establishment of a well-to-do (middle class to upper-middle class at least) technologists we be witnessing the birth of a new sort of techno-conservative, around this new technology (indeed many commenters on slate put Sergy Brin, Zuckerberg, and the other tech giants into this category now) but there is no reason to not see this also as extending down into the information worker “mid-level”.

In fact I would go so far as to argue that many who still have jobs here in America are in these sorts of jobs, and from their self interests and demands for job security we will see this new conservatism grow.

For what those comments are worth and how they might inform the discussion, here’s the link:
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technocracy/2011/11/stop_online_piracy_act_can_the_geek_lobby_stop_hollywood_from_wrecking_the_internet_.html

However the very nature of the discussion also got me thinking about some of the underlying cultural phenomenon that inform the growing discussion on the technology itself.

In essense there is this dichotomy, there is a love of big corporate cultural content, yet there is an undying hatered of those creating institutions. This creates a dilemma, as you cannot separate the art (commissoned or otherwise) from the artist and still have “unadultered” content.

This is the space in which the technical discussions take place as they search for balance. Yet left unspoken, on both sides of the debate, is the fact that viewers of big content, by seeking such institutional reforms, are admitting that they are still beholden (on the cultural level at least) to these institutions.

Not that this is a very deep insight, but its all I could think about during your discussion, and its an area that receives no discussion, there is a deep irony in an anti-corporate crusade broadcast (as in tweeted) over corporately held media platoforms, a sidelong admission that the anti-corporate rant is in reality only a half-hearted play agianst certian targeted corporations.

This to me hits at the very center of much of the current politics in both its “traditional” (ie like your work at your think tank) and “extreme” forms (ie OWS), and perhaps too close to the center as this seems to be a touchy issue for both sides, as if neither side wants to admit how much they actually need the other. So to outside, mostly off the grid, observers like myself this all looks like a couple rabidly fighting out their tense marrige in public.

That s why he created REXX (which predates PHP), and why he evolved it into NetRexx, (Rexx for the Java VM), and why he carefully considered “human beings” into its syntax. He calls it “Human-centered” or “human-oriented” programming language, in other words, a human-friendly one. Plus, as NetRexx translates Rexx into Java, that means the programmer doesn´t have to worry about “porting” his code to different OSs.

So, yes, the writer has a point, but he isn´t by far the first to think about that.

http://news.techeye.net/software/why-an-open-netrexx-means-humans-can-do-java

FC

I’m not sure if this setup would seamlessly support a single feed folder that you want to follow at multiple locations, but even if it doesn’t, perhaps it could be tweaked to do so.

A beautiful and easy to use interface is still beautiful and easy to use even if you put it on a closed, proprietary, centrally controlled system. Steve Jobs gave us both.

This puts me in mind of another sort of community building. Prior to the advent of ubiquitous internet, GLBT folk often had to seek community by leaving home for the “The Big City”. This afforded the critical mass of others like themselves and allowed the building communities of identity. There is a new generation of GLBT youth that find support and community through the internet. Often people will still opt to change their locality to more fully participate in community. Being a teen is hard, and being a GLBT teen only adds to the challenges. There is some solace that, at least virtually, they know they are not alone.