Not So Invisible Children

On March 4, 2012, Jason Russell, co-founder of Invisible Children, was virtually unknown.  Within days his video Kony 2012 had over 50 million views and he, literally overnight, became a household name.  On March 16 he was taken into custody by police after complaints that he was naked through the streets, screaming, and making crude gestures in what appeared to be some kind of nervous breakdown.

With the recent popularity growth of the internet and social media, we often here concerns about how this trend effects our privacy.  What we don't hear about as often is the dangers that come with its incredible power of exposure.  Here is a case of someone who appeared to have good intentions, whether or not they were misguided, who became extremely famous almost instantaneously through social media and appears to have been unable to cope with the exposure and resulting backlash.

On March 5, 2012, a 30 minute video was released by a non-profit organization named Invisible Children Inc. The video was entitled Kony 2012, and its goal was to bring awareness to the atrocities of the LRA in Uganda, and its leader Joseph Kony.  The video currently has over 85 million views on Youtube, and Invisible children has over 3 million facebook "likes", and over 400,000 twitte followers.  It was also a top 5 trending topic on twitter for over a week after its release.  One of the results of the videos incredible popularity was a senate resolution being made condemning Kony and promising further support for Uganda.
Several high profile journalists such as Anderson Cooper and Jake Tapper had recently done stories on Kony through traditional news outlets, and yet the public remained largely unaware of the issue.  Somehow this video resonated with people, and spread through social media such as facebook and twitter like wildfire.

Perhaps even more interesting than the meteoric rise of Jason Russell's and the video's popularity, was the almost absurdly vehement backlash that followed.  Many felt the video's message was far too simplistic, and focused more on a 5 year old american boy than the suffering of the people of Uganda, but the criticisms went far beyond that, some going as far as to denounce Invisible Children as a fraudulent charity with nefarious intentions.  After his public episode, Russel's wife stated to the press that he was having difficulty dealing with the negative feedback from the video, and that this was atleast partly responsible for his public breakdown.  A second video, which begins with the cries of suffering Ugandans and then quickly tranforms into an expensive looking musical featuring Russel and his friends, only fueled the criticism, and the video was quickly removed from their website.

Their have been many examples of people's lives being effected negatively by viral videos, such as the infamous "Star Wars Kid",  but none of those videos seemed this benign, or spread so far and so quickly, with such immediate obvious effects.  We all need to consider the implications of this new media's incredible power to shine a spotlight on people suddenly, whether or not they want it or are ready for it.

Crowdsourcing Copyright Reform

Seeing as how both crowdsourcing and copyright have been discussed recently in lecture, I thought this new   Future of Copyright Contest was a particularly relevent topic, since it deals with the intersection of these two issues. This contest is attempting to crowdsource not only ideas for copyright reform, but the prize money as well.  Contestants are asked to create a short work about the future of copyright (20,000 characters for text or 15 minutes of audio/video), and the entries with the best ideas, as determined by an independent jury.  The jury already contains several respected professionals in the field including Michael Geist and Piotr Czerski.  The prize money that will go to the winner of the competition will come entirely from donations, so those that don't want to submit their ideas on the subject can contribute financially instead.

How appropriate would it be, perhaps even poetic, if ideas that help shape copyright reform for the information age were to come from a crowdsource contest funded by the internet community itself.  I believe that it is initiatives like this that will protect the freedom of the internet for its users.  Copyright is an extremely complicated issue, and the public can't really be too hard on the governments and media coalitions who feel threatened by the current state of the internet and want to impose stifling restrictions upon it, unless they can concieve of reforms themselves that are fair, enforcable, and don't impose on people's freedoms.  I feel that if idea's like this are successful, it will be evidence of a maturing internet community taking responsibility for itself.

Raspberry Pi, the $25 computer

My girlfriend finishes her Master of Information degree this spring and has begun looking for work as a librarian. She was surprised to see how many employers were looking for applicants with programming skills as well as the master's degree. This seems to be becoming increasingly common in all fields as we advance further into the digital age.

Surprisingly, research has showed that students applying for computer science in the last decade have less programming skills than they did in the 90's. One possible reason is that in the late 80's and early 90's computers were relatively simpler, and with the internet only in its infancy, fear of operating systems becoming corrupted or compromised was much lower. This lead to parents being more likely to allow or even encourage their children to experiment with programming on a family computer. These days, home computers have become a vital part of most peoples lives, and the last thing most people want is their child experimenting with things they don't necessarily understand on them. So as a result the skills which are becoming more universally in demand are actually becoming more scarce.

In 2006, Eben Upton and his colleagues at the University of Cambridge’s Computer Laboratory began working on a potential solution to this problem. They have since then created a credit card sized computer, capable of running modern software (the basic software package was developed in Toronto at Seneca College), which is being sold for the amazingly low price of $25 US. Not only is the computer extremely affordable, but it was also designed to be extremely energy efficient.

The Raspberry Pi just went on-sale last Wednesday and immediately sold out, with the website being completely unable to handle the amount of traffic from interested parties. Part of the reason this product can be sold so cheaply is that it is not being sold for profit, but for the benefit of society in general.

Not only can the Raspberry Pi provide a truly personal computer which children can experiment with programming on, but it could provide many other solutions and possibilities as well. Their is already a strong interest from third-world or emerging countries where the average citizen can not afford a regular PC or the power demands of such devices. This also presents an incredible opportunity to schools, since they could supply each student with their own computer for less money than they would spend on most textbooks. The affordability and extremely low energy demands of this device will cause people to consider using computers to solve all kinds of problems where it simply was not practical for.

The information revolution has provided society with an incredible open and democratic platform. We as a society have a responsibility to ensure that people in lower income brackets aren't excluded from its benefits, and the Raspberry Pi may go a long way towards making sure that virtually anyone can afford their own computer.

IT Giants Propose Integrated DRM for HTML5

A new proposal authored by Google, Microsoft and Netflix was just released that suggests a mechanism for incorporating encryption and copyright protection into the HTML5 standard.   While this could definately increase the ease and convenience by which copyrighted content could be legally distributed on the internet, it also raises several concerns about how the introduction of such mechanisms might effect it.

Including such mechanisms as part of HTML5, which is a core technology used by browsers, would potentially enable you to view or listen to any encrypted content which you had the rights to on any web enabled device, without having to install any proprietary software from the provider.  This would remove many of the restrictions and inconveniences that currently make DRM protected content unpopular with consumers.

One problem with this idea is that it would be completely ineffective with open source browsers.  Users could simply modify their browser to bypass the security mechanisms and gain access to the encrypted media.  This would probably lead to premium, for-purchase content being only available on non-open source browsers.  Robert O'Callahan of Mozilla has previously expressed his concern over the desire for in-browser DRM, and its threat to "open Web principles".

Another issue with this proposal is considering that exploiting browsers is arguably the main way computers become compromised these days, adding more functionality to a browser which is entirely invisible to the user and deals with sensitive information may not be in the best interest of the user.  Also, considering that bill C-11 would make DRM protection trump all forms of fair use, making the implementation of such mechanisms simple and part of core web standards might have a particularly significant impact in Canada.  If a good portion of the content on the web becomes protected by such mechanisms it would seriously limit the amount of linking, sharing and remixing of content which users currently enjoy.

Media and IT corporations should keep looking for business models that take advantage and expand the possibilities provided by modern communications technologies, instead of trying to restrict and limit them.  I feel this proposal only makes it half way to this goal.

The Dangers of Invisible Filtering Algorithms

Do you ever wonder how Facebook decides which items are included in your news feed and which are excluded?  Presumably, complex algorithms use information about your past use of Facebook (things you click on, things you "like", etc) to determine what items are most important or relevant to you.  The most concerning element of this is that you don't know, and you have no control over what is being excluded from your feed.

In 2002, M. T. Anderson wrote a novel called Feed that predicted a future in which everyone is connected to the "feed", which constantly makes suggestions for goods and services that someone may be interested in based on their consumer profile.  The idea behind it being that corporations would have an easier time increasing consumption and predicting demand by simplifying  people into basic consumer archetypes.  Ten years later, it appears that Anderson's predictions may have been surprisingly accurate.

Most of us are at least aware that Facebook is filtering our news feeds, But what is much more alarming is that Google search results are also heavily influenced by your past browsing habits.  In fact most of the busiest internet sites use this type of filtering to some degree.  Eli Pariser has recently written very informative book called The Filter Bubble which discusses the issue of these filtering algorithms in great detail.  In a recent TED talk he talks about the book, and how two different users performing a Google search on something as basic as "Egypt" can get vastly different results.

One of the dangers of this type of filtering is that people may have a tendency to click on more entertaining and less informative links most of the time, and this may lead to the more informative type links being left out of your searches or feeds entirely.  The simplifying effect it may have on our information sources could be very significant, as it tends to supply give the type of information that you seem to prefer, thus isolating you from alternative ideas, viewpoints or people you seldom interact with.

Perhaps due to the recent negative attention, just last month Google launched Search, plus your world which gives users more control over what factors effect their search results.  Most importantly, it includes an "opt-out" feature which allows you to search without any on-line social networks or user history effecting the results.  We need to encourage this type of transparency and increased user control in user interfaces if we want to keep the internet a source of vast and free information, instead of a means of self-indulgence that just further simplifies and tunnel blinds its users.

In Naomi Klein's No Logo  she talks about how popular clothing stores like the Gap and Old Navy started out trying to understand youth culture and determine what products would be considered in-style.  Before long this relationship switched and teenagers were turning to these stores to find out what was in style, and the stores themselves were having a significant influence on youth culture.  I believe a rather disturbing analogy can be drawn between what these chain clothing stores did in the 90's and what is currently happening on some of the most heavily used internet sites.  At what point does it change over from these algorithms trying to determine what information we want, to these algorithms determining what we're interested and informed about.

The Vanishing Line between Virtual and Real-World Economies

The recent increase in popularity of MMOs (massively multi-player on-line games) has given rise to a new social platform, and within it, the same concepts of pride, competition and vanity.  Just like in the real world, players want recognition for being and having the best, and many are willing to pay real-world currency for it.  Whether it’s buying gold coins to give their World of Warcraft character an advantage, or purchasing a vila for their Farmville farmer to show off, an increasing number of gamers are spending real money on in-game only items.  A recent survey done by playspan suggests that “one out of three gamers has used ‘real world’ money to purchase virtual content”, and most gamers felt that their spending habits would only increase in the future. 

Anyone who has played a MMORPG (massively multi-player on-line game) has seen the countless silent players hastily harvesting resources with seeming little interest in “playing “ the game.  These “gold farmers”, usually from countries with emerging economies like China or Thailand, are playing the game solely to collect gold and sell it to players from wealthier countries.  Most MMORPG’s have a strict policy forbidding the selling of virtual assets for real money, but the black market for in-game currencies is thriving, and exchange rates exists between USD and most forms of virtual money.  The World Bank Group’s InfoDev program did a study on these Virtual Economies and found that in 2009 this industry was worth roughly $3 billion USD, and that it supports the equivalent of 100,000 full-time jobs, significantly affecting the economy of developing nations where the majority of these gold farming operations reside.

Speculative fiction writer Neal Stephenson’s latest novel “Reamde” involves the creation of a new MMORPG that incorporates gold farming as part of its gameplay and business model, and the unique opportunities and problems created by this system.  In the novel, a group of Chinese hackers create a virus which locks people’s files, and the only way to get the password to unlock them is to deliver virtual gold to a troll inside of the game, essentially laundering this money through the bowels of a virtual economy. 

Allowing or facilitating the selling of virtual goods from MMOs would raise many legal and ethical questions.  One of the most obvious being whether this would place these games under gambling legislation, since it offers financial rewards to successful players.  Another issue is taxation.  Once virtual assets can easily and legitimately be exchanged for real money, could we be taxed on our assets which exist solely in-game?  This sounds less silly when you realize that virtual real-estate can sell for as much as $100,000 USD.  It is also estimated that roughly half of the virtual specie that is sold through third party sites is stolen from people’s accounts through phishing scams or other forms of hacking.  Increasing the ease with which virtual assets can be sold may lead to an increase in these types of crimes.  There is also an issue of how responsible the administrators of these games are for the stability of their virtual economies, since they can control and manipulate the money supply so easily.  Is their potentially insider trading concerns?

To avoid these issues, most games have taken a hard stance against the sale of in-game assets, some even employing large task forces to aggressively seek out users who violate their policies and ban them from the game.  Recently, however, several of these games have begun to experiment with providing legitimate means of purchasing virtual currency indirectly, hoping to decrease the sale from third parties and the problems created by this practice.  Blizzard has recently begun selling exclusive virtual items for World of Warcraft which can be sold to other players in the game for virtual gold, essentially enabling players to trade real money for virtual gold without the dangers inherent in making illegal transactions with third party sellers, and without effecting the supply of gold that is in the game.  Eve On-Line has taken this one step further and allowed users to trade subscription time to their game from within their game, which will always have a set value to players as long as the game continues to remain popular.  Whether these tactics will be able to compete with the cheap exchange rate, set by gold farming organizations, remains to be seen. 

Recently, Blizzard has also announced that its new title, Diablo III, will have an interface for users to legitimately sell virtual items for real-world money.  The implications of this decision may reach much farther than it seems at face value.  It may prove to not only revolutionize the on-line gaming industry, but also help shape a future in which the line between the real and the virtual is increasingly obscured.