Category: Four pillars

I shall comment on it later, but last night I finished reading the latest report from Pew Internet titled Bloggers: A Portrait of the internet’s New Storytellers.

As usual there’s much I agree with, and some bits I don’t. What is important is that we continue to build a body of evidence that explains, interprets and supports the value of social software in general; without this, we will never bridge the gap between the Got-Its and the Whatever-You’re-Smoking-I-Want-None-Of-Its. And Pew are good at helping us do this.

So take a read and see what you think. I promise to comment in detail this weekend.

I hear that all restrictions on access to blog sites in India have been rescinded. It is likely that the patchwork nature of the imposition of the controls is reflected in the process of taking the restrictions off. More later.

• Many financial institutions banned staff access to internet mail. So the staff used proxy sites.
• Then they banned (or at least tried to ban) proxy sites. So the staff used Google to get to the site.
• Then they banned that (or at least tried to). So the staff used Babelfish or its equivalent.

I could go on, but won’t. Point made. Where I work, people came in one sunny day to find access to Google Groups had been banned. Compliance had made an apparently valid request to ban access to some elements of Google Groups, and the only response that Information Security could legitimately provide was to ban access to all of Google Groups. Something to do with the lists we bought. There was uproar. And we couldn’t really find anyone who would stand up and say “I decided to do this”. No matter, the key thing was that Google Groups access was banned. And so IT staff regularly went home to work, because they needed access to Google Groups to do their work. And over time we worked out an elegant-ish solution, parts of Google Groups became unbanned by request, all you had to do was explicitly state the group you wanted to belong to and why, and access was granted. And we lived happily e. a.
We live in an intensely regulated highly litigious society, and this sort of thing is part of the price we pay as a result.

Which would be hard, except for the sheer joy of the unintended consequences of sledgehammer actions.

Internet access is not that easy to regulate or control, and it is easy therefore to look for sledgehammer approaches.

Now let’s take a look at what’s been happening in India. [Here I am summarising aggressively, so please do allow me some poetic licence in the process]

• The Indian Government feels that a small number of inflammatory and abusive and religious-intolerant sites should be blocked. It tries to be responsible and proactive. Try being the operative word.
• Some of these sites are nothing more than blogs, and are therefore hosted on blogging infrastructures.
• Government says to relevant agency, block these sites.
• Agency passes instruction to Indian ISPs. Instructions are appropriately amorphous.
• ISPs can’t do this easily, so they go sledgehammer. Bans galore in Bangalore.
• Many blog sites become inaccessible. But not consistently.
• This inaccessibility is neither uniform nor ubiquitous, and in no way comprehensive. Or for that matter comprehensible.
• So the bloggers go to intermediate sites where there are no such barriers.
• One such site is pkblogs.
• Which, I believe, was created to give Pakistanis access to the blogosphere in unconstrained form, reacting to the cartoon backlash.

So we have Indians, denied access in their own country, (denied access as a result of a sledgehammer response to an apparently reasonable Government request), going to a “Pakistani” site (itself formed in response to another sledgehammer) in order to read their own blogs.

Or something like that. Hands across borders.
Snowballs, like nature, abhor vacuums. The blogosphere is borderless. The genie is so out of the bottle it needs a passport to get back. And genies don’t do passports.

Malcolm sent me a number of links to and around Snakes On A Plane.[Warning: Contains strong language].

While there are many reasons the film could and should make cult status, there’s something quintessentially Gonzo about the whole thing. A lead actor who takes the role because he likes the title. Then finds out they want to change the title. And makes sure they don’t. A preview “audience” that intervenes and changes scripts and scenes (partly via web competitions) until a PG-13 becomes an R rated film. Extra footage shot as a result. A veritable Hollywood of related and snowballed material sprouting out of the web, particularly at Youtube and similar sites. Mock advertisements and trailers and film snippets, mock mock trailers and snippets. And a statement by the lead actor that it will win best film at next year’s MTV awards. Unless knocked out by its own sequel.

So I had to tell RageBoy.

Who, being RageBoy, pointed me back at this.

Wonderful. [Warning: Contains strong language.]

I’ve been a fan of, and a subscriber to, FirstMonday for as long as I can remember being able to subscribe to anything electronically. In fact, I think it was my first-ever electronic sign-up, probably sometime in 1997, confirmed by looking at the fossil record of the e-mail address I used to register :-)

If you don’t already receive FirstMonday, I can only recommend you do. It was the journal that first made me think that blogging was the opensourcing of ideas….

Today was the day I got my July issue, and it gave me the chance to re-read Jonathan Riehl’s Digitising More Than Organisational DNA. It’s a must-read.

If we want to understand the power of the web in the context of information (as opposed to communities and networks) then it is important to understand what Jonathan writes. His synthesis of concepts ranging from Descartes to Vannevar Bush through to Tim Berners-Lee and Ward Cunningham is essential to anyone who wants to understand information in today’s context.

I just love the Explicit Decentralised and Named versus Implicit Centralised and Enumerated method of framing what the issues are.

It is in this context that we can best understand the implications for identity, for permissioning, for authentication. It is in this context that we can perceive the pain of Polluted Paths and the waste that is created by such Polluted Paths.