Simonsays

Dear Lord Carter, please read this blog post - Why The Government's Digital Britain Report Worries Me

The UK Government made a significant announcement last week as it unveiled plans to seriously review and examine everything digital and its relation to business and culture.

As far as I'm concerned, the announcement, by Lord Carter, Minister for Communications, Technology and Broadcasting, is is a vitally important topic and while it gained some coverage in the UK blogosphere (notably posts by Wadds, Stephen Davies and Dominic Campbell), I think it deserves a lot more debate.

The reason it deserves more debate is that while the Government is appearing to take seriously the opportunities - economic and cultural - offered by digital convergence the language it is using to drive forward a review of these opportunities is worrying.

One phrase in particular I find intriguing:

"We [the Government] will seek to bring forward a unified framework to help maximize the UK’s competitive advantage and the benefits to society."

Now, while no one will argue that maximizing the benefits the Internet brings to UK society is not desirable, and while some would argue that maximizing the UK’s competitive advantage is not a necessary priority it cannot be denied that the Internet is throwing up enormous economic benefits.

But what concern me here is the term "unified framework". This brings to mind the idea of an extremely top-down, bureaucratic regime of Internet governance for certain industries or social/cultural groups that the Government decides is a priority or that would benefit specifically from support.

Of course, I'm prejudging what the government has in mind. However, I am prejudging to illustrate a point. namely, that as any fule kno - the beauty and power of the Internet is that it is a decentralised network where the power of creativity or production is in the hands of the individual user.

As a result, production and methods of production are as unique and *non-unified* as there are individuals involved.

It is perhaps worrying that the Government's announcement seems to indicate a failure to grasp this idea.

Related to this point of decentralised production by end-users is the notion of what actually gets created (and "digital content development" is one of the key Government areas for review).

The announcement observes that digital convergence is "critical to every business in our economy, acting both as a catalyst for creativity and allowing efficiency gains."

But if we look specifically at 'social or peer production' - the user-generated content I suspect the Government is alluding to (especially with reference to "efficiency gains" - then again it is acutely important that the *user-generated* element of this creative content and production is just that: created by the user.

This is significant because it means the Government can't just pick a key industry and say "Right. This is the sector in which we need efficiency gains and more creative content." This, of course, is for the individual with a PC in their study or bedroom to decide.

But don't get me wrong, we are experiencing a major transition in the way economic models, businesses, creativity and social relations behave. And the Internet is at the heart of this transition - both driving it and being driven. The fact that the UK government has woken up to it is extremely heartening. key issues are under review, such as:

• "Broadband Development - examining options for maximizing participation and levels of service across the UK 
• Spectrum: identifying the barriers to the release of spectrum and a fully functioning market in the trading and use of spectrum
• Universal access to high quality, public service content through appropriate mechanisms for a converged digital age
• Intellectual property: the UK Intellectual Property Office will take forward work to deliver a digital copyright framework which supports creativity, investment and job creation in these important sectors"

My concern comes from experience of the way government and organisations function which is usually highly top-down and hierarchical. Culture Secretary, Andy Burnham, who is sharing ministerial responsibility for the Carter Review, says as much in the press release:

"Over the last year we’ve worked with experts to get a clear understanding of the issues to address and obstacles to overcome if our businesses and citizens are to take full advantage of technology." [My emphasis]

IMHO speaking to self-appointed 'experts' about how other people ("citizens") should make use of technology is the old way of doing things. And in my view approaching the opportunities of the Internet in this way will achieve the exact opposite of what the Government intends to achieve.

Former Yale academic, recently appointed Professor of Entrepreneurial Law at Harvard University, Yochai Benkler, has written extensively about emergent economic models in a digital age.

As suggested above these models rely on social and/or non-market forces to achieve the "efficiency gains" flagged by the UK government. In his Wealth of Networks, Benkler observes that in this emerging economic and institutional ecology:

"the State plays no role or is perceived as playing a primarily negative role ... Just like the market, the state will have to adjust to this new emerging modality of human action."

Benkler suggests we are on the cusp of a new era for economics and creative opportunity as the UK government seems to acknowledge in its planned Digital Britain Report. However, Benkler is explicit that these new opportunities for the economy as well as democracy and human freedom are contingent on the key players (governments; regulators; gate-keeping corporations etc) getting it right from the outset.

The UK Government's announcement doesn't fill me with optimism that this is likely to happen.

Technorati tags: UK Government, DCMS, BERR, Carter Review, Digital Economy

Overcoming Stupidty

With timely prescience my former boss and creativity guru, Andy Green, has just published his new book: Overcoming Stupidty In The World Around You.

I haven't read (or indeed got hold of a copy yet) but Don't Panic's Andy Wake has a bit more on their blog.

You can pick up your copy via Amazon.

Technorati tags Overcoming Stupidity, Andy Green

*UPDATED* Markets, the credit crunch, uncertainty and a social solution

Heard on Radio 4 this morning:

"The market hates uncertainty."

While most analysts and investment bankers would agree this is a truism, it is no doubt a problematic statement when it becomes clear that the idea of perfect market systems operating in a vacuum of efficiency and equilibirum is inherently false.

You could argue that those of us working in PR - particularly digital and social media - have been able to recognise this quicker than others.

Indeed, I think this is what Umair had in mind with piece on Next Gen Business Strategy.

Linked with this is a video interview with Clay Shirky by Faster Future's David Cushman.

In it Clay addresses the current financial instability as an "interested amatuer" and thinks about how the financial 'system' might look in the future with community enabled micro-financing initiatives - such as Zopa or Prosper - supported through social and peer-to-peer lending.

 

As a footnote, it is worth noting that systems-based thinking is not alien to the field of communications: James Grunig built his four models of communication on systems theory and others in turn critigued his work for ignoring the 'human' elements within communication. You can download an evaluation of the debate Grunig vs Pieczka (pdf)I have written previously if you're interested.

*UPDATE* Rainier Stephen Waddington has posted showing Zopa's lending remains strong and asks: " whether the current financial crisis has created an artificial bubble for social lending schemes or whether they are set to go main stream?"

Technorati tags: Credit Crunch, Umair Haque, Clay Shirky, David Cushman, James Grunig

Interpreting the Macropocalypse: Umair Haque at his finest

I awarded Umair Haque's portmanteau term "Macropocalypse" one of the best neologisms of 2008 earlier in the year. With hindsight it turns out that Umair was absolutely on the money with his prediction.

Umair brings all his thinking on the macrocalypse, business strategy decay and the atrophy at the heart of global organisational infrastructures in this powerful post for Harvard Business' Edge Economy series: How to Build a Next-Gen Business Now.

Anyone interested in how the Internet can be the driving force for salving the current commercial meltdown should take a read.

Here's a tidbit:

"No wonder so many think anything "corporate" is a monstrosity. They're right - if the implosion of the investment banks tells us anything, it's this: when what we do is meaningless, it's neither economically valid, strategically viable, nor truly value-creating."

Technorati tags: Umair Haque, Macropocalypse, Business Strategy, Credit Crunch

When Think Tanks Go Bad: Policy Exchange and agenda-setting

I toyed with the idea of a career in academia for a brief time but decided it wasn't for me owing to its often detachment from the 'real world'.

I find that taking original ideas and applying them - or seeking to understand how they can be applied - to the real world is a more rewarding approach.

This is why I have a lot of time for think tanks: quasi-academic institutions that recognose the power of ideas to shape the real world around us.

Last Friday's Guardian had a fascinating profile of the think tank du jour, Policy Exchange; current favourite thinkers for the Conservatives.

Policy Exchange has "enjoyed a dizzy rise to prominence" according to Staniforth and LabourHome's Mark Hanson, in parallel with the rise of the Conservatives return to the political landscape.

But the Guardian article gives me some cause for concern as Policy Exchange's standards seem to be slipping - or perhaps more fairly, being shaped - in relation to the Tories' rise.

Firstly, there was the extremely worrying piece of research that claimed a number of British Mosques were publishing Islamic extremist literature which was revealed as dubious - if not entirely fabricated by Newsnight:

 

Then there was the bizarre report on UK regional development which recommended (according to the media) many people living in northern cities (e.g. Bradford, Liverpool) should simply move to southern cities (e.g. Oxford, London) as regional regeneration had failed.

There are also a number of other worrying examples flagged by Mark over at his PR Media blog and the Guardian profile, includiong PE's views on welfare ("make's people lazy") and transport ("build more roads").

Of course, I recognise a large part of this may revolve on ideology; some of PE's ideas may not marry with my own personal perspective.

However, I would like to think I am rational enough to stand by policy recommendations based on "comprehensive academic research" (which is how PE described its extremist Islam report).

Take a look at the Guardian's profile and make your own mind up.

Technorati tags: Policy Exchange, Guardian, think tanks, politics, policy

Interpreting Media Trust: The Devil is in the Detail

Claire from media measurement firm, Metrica, sent me some survey findings that reveal the "pulse" of the UK's trust in media.

Claire pulls out two interesting findings for discussion: the increased trust in national media (up from 46% last year to 70%) and the extremely low levels of trust in social media (only 5% trust blogs; 1% trust forums).

These findings interestingly echo Edelman's Trust Barometer results for the UK published back in January.

Back then we summised that the increased trust in media was due to a 'bounce' following the media's public contrition after its dressing down last year over the numerous vote fixing and competition rigging scandals.

The low trust in 'bloggers' (bottom of the pile, I believe) was due to people responding to a concept rather than personality. After all, trust in "someone like me" (argubly exactly what bloggers are, compared to formal media channels) topped the rankings.

However, Claire offers an alternative analysis, indicating that the public want more objectivity:

"my personal opinion is that the consumers of media, having so much more content to choose from, have become more savvy about their options. When choosing your news channel, the objectivity of the source is the key.  Generalising massively here, I would say that while social media is often authentic, it is less likely than traditional media to be objective.  Many blogs tend to focus on  'opinion' rather than 'reporting'.  And there's the issue - how much do any of us trust the opinion of someone whom we know nothing or very little about?"

But I'm afraid I must argue with Claire's interpretation here (no offence!).

My (personal) reading is that objectivity has always been a delicate lie which is being increasingly exposed as the internet offers us more and more conflicting accounts of (news) events around the world. For example, type in a top news stroy in Google news and you can get numerous different accounts of the event from a range of opposing - yet supposedly 'objective' media outlets.

Claire asks "how much do any of us trust the opinion of someone whom we know nothing or very little about?" But in a way this overlooks the point. Blogs and forums are not populated by strangers, but rather once you have spent time getting to know the people that contribute to blogs and forums you realise they are "people like me" - and as Edelman's Trust barometer indicates, the most trusted source of information.

If you unpick Metrica's survey results there are some more findings that are worth investigating.

For instance, the survey showed "the internet in general has gained four percentage points [of trustworthiness], with 34% of UK adults now saying they trust its content." With most adults unlikely to differentiate between a blog, forum, UGC site and 'general internet content'  - not to mention newspaper sites with comment features - how does this square with the overwhelming number of those that distrust specific tools like blogs and forums?

In addition: "News sites as a specific online media type though do fair a lot better with 54% - more than national newspapers!" I think this finding needs further delineation: national newspapers *are* online, aren't they. How exactly is the Times online more trustworthy than the Times in print?

So I suspect that if you can unpick the survey data or carry out a similar survey with a specifc focus on online then the results may yield even more interesting interpretations.

*****

As a footnote to this post, the advertising firm Universal McCann has just published a report examining the rise of "trusting strangers" - as it puts it. I haven't read it yet but judging from it's slightly negative title I suspect it will come at peer-to-peer communications from an adland perspective - i.e. how can advertisers mimic the trust generated through word-of-mouth.

The answer is simple: build deep relationships. But this is something the ad industry has never been able to do. Will we see this start to change?

Technorati tags: Metrica, Universal McCann, Research, Trust

That McCain technology policy

Further to my previous post, I appreciate this is more Weinberger (not in itself a bad thing) but it *is* relevant to the post below about copyright.

Weinberger flags Republican presidential candidate John McCain’s technology policy which, in Weinberger’s words, shows that:

1. He’s flat against Net neutrality.
2. He wants to see copyright extended and enforced more vigorously.
3. He thinks the current infrastructure only needs a couple of tweaks.

So there you have it. Not only are large corporations trying to protect IP through greater enforcement and tighter controls on the Internet, but politicians are now looking to curry with corporations. That's when we really need to start worrying!

Opening salvo on the battle for commons-based digital rights

As mentioned earlier this week I was catching up with some hard-copy reading during my holiday, including Eben Moglen’s Anarchism Triumphant.

Moglen’s essay explains why it is that “software” resists traditional forms of copyright  both legally and technically and instead embraces new legal paradigms, such as commons-based agreements.

I put software in inverted commas as Moglen extends this concept beyond the explicit programmes which our computers run; instead he suggests that “software” includes the creative ideas and content which produced, shared and adapted by individuals.

Thus, Moglen contends, traditional organisations with an interest in protecting their IP are becoming ever more aggressive and – some would say – desperate to make sure the Brave New World of commons-based digital rights never happens; or more accurately, happens in the way they dictate.

Fascinating stuff. Either way this is a preamble to flag a revelatory post by David Weinberger who blogs about an important federal judge ruling that will hopefully set a legal precedent preventing companies (Viacom in this case) from sending copyright infringement notices automatically in any instance where they pick up key words, e.g. “jon stewart” or "daily show".

Not only does this flouting the ol’ “innocent until proven guilty” line, it is also tantamount to a deliberate policy of heavy-handed copyright protection-as-future-deterrent.

As Weinberger points out, while sending infringement notes from an automatically generated list takes seconds, “the response is analog, and thus hard, time-consuming, and risky”.

I think it's fair to say these issues affect all of us - as individuals or professionals, whose clients may just be on the receiving end of an infringement action at some point.

Either way, they are definitely not going to go away. I only hope we have a judiciary far-sighted enough in the UK to make and uphold such rulings here.

Technorati tags: Digital Rights, Copyright, Copyleft, David Weinberger, Viacom

Is Knol *really* the great Wikipedia-killler?

Doc Searls is the first to echo some of my initial (private) scepticism about Google’s Wikipedia rival, Knol.

Knol "aims to include user-written articles on a range of topics".or as Search Engine Land’s Danny Sullivan calls it, "Wikipedia with moderation."

Knol permits anyone to author a page about a particular topic. While each article or ‘knol’ defaults to a ‘moderated’ setting, this can be changed to closed, preventing anyone else from authoring it.

This struck me as odd from the outset. I personally wouldn’t place too much trust in anything that was authored, put online then closed to revisions or third party intervention. That’s simply advertorial.

The power of Wikipedia, as David Weinberger has pointed out previously, is not necessarily the articles themselves – it is the social knowledge that is embedded in both the article and its discussion page. Wikipedia is trustworthy because it isn’t authoried by an authority rather, by many conflicting authorities.

But I presume Google knows this already as Knol is a shrewd business move. How smart a move remains to be seen.

Edelman Digital's Steve Rubel circulated an internal memo which highlighted some of the ‘operating rules’ for Knol. These include:

• Each article can list its “Affiliation” – a move intended to flag conflicts  of interest.

• There is a significant emphasis on authors and their authority. For example authors are asked verify their name using mobile phone or credit card details

• Google (apparently) has a team in place watching for spam, while links are no-follow in an attempt to prevent SEO spam.

But despite these worthy measures, it already looks as if the spammers are setting to work.

Going back to Doc Searl’s initial foray into the Knol-iverse, he writes that that a big chunk of the search results search for ‘hair’ were, in his words, “commercial gaming”.

More specifically he highlighted a clear example where Knol’s guidelines were being (or at least appeared to be being breached):

“The top result is for this article on hair loss, by Rob E. Angelino, Founder Hairlab center for hair restoration. Or so it says at the top. At the bottom it says "Copyright © 2005-2007 United Global Media Group, Inc. All rights reserved".

Not sure how that squares with Knol's defaulted Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License, but it's significant that Mr. Angelino also has collaboration closed on the document. You can do that with Knol. It also says here that Mr. Angelino is "Founder and CEO of United Global Media Group Inc." and "currently the CEO of The Beauty TV Network". Mr. Angelino has a total of six knols, including one each for the Beauty Channel, BeautyTV and The Beauty Network.”

And there’s my concern made real. I just don’t get the point of Knol. It is just one quick and easy algorithm away from a spammers’ paradise. But even despite Google’s best attempts to keep Knol spam free. I still don’t see the point. And perhaps that’s because there isn’t one.

The big hype around Knol has been that it is Google’s Wikipedia-killer. But, as Doc points out, Knol isn’t a rival to Wikipedia at all. It doesn’t come close or even compare.

And maybe Google knows that which is why they (or someone) has positioned it as such.

Technorati tags: Knol, Doc Searls, Wikipedia, Spam

"Terror outrage: BRITNEY, ANGELINA and OBAMA all unaffected as hundreds die in SEXY agony"

The story I blogged last week - and followed up by Shane Richmond - about UK newspapers using SEO to boost their online readerships continues to rumble on.

The Guardian's Neil McIntosh adds his perspective to the debate and links to the most amazing piece by Guardian columnist, Charlie Brooker, who highlights the inanity in what is, to most of us digital types, common sense. It also contains possible my favourote non-headline of all time as used in the title of this post (hopefully it'll bring me some extra traffic too).

Brooker's piece also neatly provides the tail to this story. What began life in the once-acerbic satirical magazine, Private Eye, has now itself become satirised by one of the UK's leading satirists after one-time collaborator, Chris Morris.

Technorati tags: SEO, Daily Telegraph, Charlie Brooker