Posted tagged ‘freedom of expression’

i’m mad as hell

July 25, 2011

when users of google+ get banned for being anonymous and companies-for-hire start recording your social media presence for potential employers  we are subject to oppression? coercion? in any event, i think there could be negative effects on freedom of expression.

if you provide a platform freely you should provide a platform freely. honestly. i believe that terms of service that force you to use your name on the net really do not accord with the norms of the electronic ecosystem. there are internet community standards of commercial morality and these standards welcome anons. this sort of policy undercuts the net’s value and in effect censors what people share.

i don’t know, i think this whole cloud buzz might just be a way to centralize information and shadow the end to end structure of the net. the structure of the net is its biggest advantage. when you screw around with the little nodes and make em one big node all you reflect is contingency, it might as well be an andy warhol screen print of a node. contingent mush!!

think about the particular value in a network and then decide if i’m way out in left field or not.

and i don’t think accountability is a true problem, although cyber-bullying is a real hazard.  i would like to see moderators and effective complaint system before a categorical rule is enforced. further if pseudonyms do something actually illegal the isps give ’em up.  i would expect an isp to give up a name even without evidence of illegality.

people need some anonymous culture votes but they aren’t gonna get em under the google+ name policy. SamuelClemens+ can’t be +1-ing his google searches, linking social media to his blog, writing without pre-judgment or living without (blog)post-judgment. the “point” of social media is different depending on what side you are on. google wants to exchange a product with your information. they want to control it. the user wants to benefit from the other users, not from google itself. get me on diaspora…i’m disappointed over here.


post script: to the internet and social media scroungers of my potentially future inchoate employers, clients, friends. ye who read this! i accept the fact that this is a certain and polarizing statement. you may not agree. when you meet me, i may not agree with the above-anymore-aNYway. this is merely a part of my online aggregate. these words don’t evolve over time. i do.


weighing in on arizona

January 11, 2011

two things have happened in the past few days that have caught my attention

  1. the U.S. DOJ has subpoenaed obtained an order to compel Twitter to disclose information on certain @wikileaks followers.
  2. a 22 year old gunman shot down a child, a judge and a congresswoman.  the congresswoman is lucky to be alive as the bullet passed clean through her head

I have read a good bit of the early response to the shooting and i feel that this event is going to [already has] become a polarizing  issue.  The ostensive left has suggested a link between the Palin camp’s loaded language and the tragedy.  Here, Egan suggests the potential that a “poisonous variant of free speech” could be the cause of the shootings in Tuscon.  The ostensive right counters that the individual was unstable to begin with.  The impetus for the attack rested in the individual accused and not in the political media that surrounded that individual.  Further, Thiessen points out that this kneejerk partizanship is becoming a sloppy trend in left wing rhetoric.

What i find interesting is that both instances involve a freedom of speech argument.  Palin hasn’t really done anything other than be in poor taste.  How should she be censored??  Hopefully this incident could be used to raise awareness that 22 year old dangers-to-society have guns.

In the times article, Egan argues that:

“Even if the gunman’s motives are never truly known, the splattering of so much innocent blood on a Saturday morning gives a nation as fractious as ours a chance to think about what happens when words are used as weapons, and weapons are used in place of words.”

The rhetorical undoing of Egan’s assertion however is that he uses the same Pey-Lin allegories [words are weapons that can neutralize security].  this argument subverts free speech.  when speech (words, signs, contingency?) can threaten our physical selves it is easier to control.  Further, when the media can convince the user that words are weapons, words are easier to control.

Paralleling this is the wikileaks debacle.  The U.S. government is definitely going to try and sidestep any freedom of expression appeals as they will likely argue that assange and manning conspired to steal the documents.  This wrong is separate from the actual publishing of the material.  In other words the U.S. really wants to get Assange so they don’t get caught on record like this again.  Again this censorship flies under the flag of security.

There is, of course, a security argument regarding the wikileaks.  uncensored information is foolish.  we are continually holding the edit button to manipulate our autonomy.  the diplomatic core should be able to function with this same freedom.  let international policy mimic internal policy.

the threat that looms in the wikileaks saga is its consequence.

after 9/11, international travel changed.  after wikileaks, information travel is tracked by crosshairs.  what guides the cursor must never be followed without doubt!