JS keeping it simple (as always) :)

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
From Here to Neutrality
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Hand in Glove Political Economy

I find this blog difficult to write. To be perfectly honest, I don not consider myslef a very politically or economically savvy person. I'm much more of a culture, history, society, psychology person.

But this reading was very enlightening. It's one thing to say that certain companies or organizations can manipulate governments into supporting their intersts, that the large financial gifts they can give influence politicians to be generous or sympathetic to their interests. It's quite another to have economic factions scrutinized and then put into perspective with political parties' agendas. For instance, "Democrats listen to consumer groups that equate traditional copyright with anti-consumer tendencies, but no Democrat can win the presidency without carrying New York and California, the two largest content-creating states. And there are large numbers of congressional Democrats from states
and districts with high tech aspirations that support strong IPR."(p.124-125) It reminds me that once again, geography does matter and that industry interests are mirrored in their regions, that interests do compete and conflict.

We talk about the tyranny of the rich, but we have failed to recognize the flexibility of America's nouveau rich scene - that as interests and technologies have changed over time, so have those who triumph the new come into conflict with the old. The hegemony, at its roots, is fragmented.

There's also been cynicism that our political parties are becoming too alike economically. Yet, this reading clearly shows the rivalries and party wooing that occurs in our political landscape. It reads almost like waves or cyclic contraction and expansion. I was reminded once again, that policy is in the hands of the government, which in itself, is a mass of goals and objectives that here align with some market interests, and there depart from that group.

An inflection point - Personal Network Platforms - concepts I find so hard to coalesce in my mind...

Democratization of the Internet

Sounds ironic, doesn’t it? Apparently, the medium which was thought to be one of the greatest (if not the greatest) agents of democratization has started going through a process of real democratization only recently. What was it before, then? To me, it seems to have been leaning towards more of an authoritarian structure, although very decentralized, and as the system could not handle this decentralization anymore, it had to reform itself (authority of the government is in its power, after all). Hence, the ICANN “liberalization.” ICANN is only about “name control,” of course, but then naming an object ultimately gives one authority over it (was it the Bible that said this?).

Yes, Cowhey and Aronson put forward several arguments – quite reasonable – suggesting that the US is there to stay, at least for another decade or two, as the “pivotal” power in the net-o-sphere. Seems like it might not last that long, though. Just last month ICANN completed the Joint Project Agreement with the US, ending its “final say” over the “international” private organization that oversees the Internet’s naming system. And whatever debate on net-neutrality was taking place within the US, seems to had taken a slightly different form at the international level… although, structurally, it ran roughly along the same lines: freedom.

Despite being somewhat ignorant of the tech aspect of it all, I still find it difficult to comprehend the arguments against neutrality. Seems like no matter what the content, as long as there is an element of regulatory involvement, a motion is considered to be necessarily bad by some; even when regulation is meant to ensure freedom (supposedly, at least). This is worrisome. After all, we consider the Internet as the ultimate tool of empowerment of the post-modern individual. Yet, it seems that it’s running the risk of falling to corporate interests. Again.

So, what does this have to do with ICANN?

We have been talking about globalization and the power of the networks for two months now. If we are to have a truly democratic global system of “Internet governance,” the major powers would have to give in, eventually, no matter how hard they find doing that. But then, it would allow genuine plurality, as well as true glocalization of the Internet: be it through domain names in one’s own alphabet, or local (i.e. non-state) TLDs [top level domains], such as .nyc for New York, for example. More freedom; more neutrality; more democracy.

Yes, the Internet gives power to the global network of both, state and non-state actors (as the latest ICANN ruling suggests). It is obvious by now that we cannot have a truly democratic global governance system in the real world (not yet, at least). Virtually, however, there seems to be more hope, and the first steps are just being made… perhaps?

The Need for Transparency

As Cowhey and Aronson explored the various forces at work that shape ICT infrastructure and its distribution in society, the overarching theme I took from the reading was the absolute need for transparency in these processes. Cowhey and Aronson make a clear case against technological determinism (and by extension, then, an "automatic" process of governance), showing instead that the political economy surrounding ICT infrastructure chooses winners and losers and has a significant impact on the market. That politicians and government parties with specific ideologies and "brands" to uphold, and that ICT companies and technology firms have a vested interest in what policies get passed, underscores the fact that the most powerful decision makers in these matters have priorities that might not actually correlate with the interests of the public good.

And yet, while conscious of the constructed market created by policies and government decisions, the public, through the market, can still assert a voice in these processes. The difficulty, of course, is that a public response must reach a critical mass before it can have any impact. Thus, regular Joes (or Jackies) like you and me can feel disenfranchised from policy-making if we don't agree with the mainstream opinion, even though the process maintains a place for individual agency.

It is here, then, that the hows and whys of legislation, policy, and governance must be transparent. While I'm no technophile up to date with the latest technology debates, having these processes open to public scrutinization is where the public can make sure that their interests are represented in the winners that get chosen. Overall as a society, we need to recognize that the technology that makes it to the market does not always represent everything that is actually available. In the same way that media literacy is necessary to help people deconstruct the hegemonizing forces of the media, we need technical literacy to understand the processes that construct our choices as consumers.

What Could be the Downfall American ICT Leadership? Net Neutrality

The readings this week took on criticism of those who say that the dominance of the US in ICT is on its way out because of China's new prominence, less spending on ICT, lack of real broadband access or some combination of all three.

However, what the critics did not see as a limit to the American dominance in ICT is the net neutrality debate. In this video featuring some of the greatest Internet innovators and thinkers (including a cameo by Lawrence Lessig), they all refer to the ultimate victim in a system where the Internet is no longer 'neutral' - American ingenuity and creativity.

The evangelist from Google Vint Cerf, addresses this exactly when he speaks about how the inhibition of Internet access will allow for other nations with more open systems to innovate beyond America.

This video uses the insights of some of the most innovative and intelligent people in digital technology to show that one area in which the open markets have really allowed for small companies to flourish into market and cultural behemoths is digital technology. As the video states, eBay, Google, Yahoo! all started in a basement somewhere and are now international brands that have come to change global vernacular - you don't search, you 'Google.'

To put a barrier on the access that let the minds behind these corporations revolutionize several industries would only set the United States very far back in terms of ICTs:

ICT Infrastructures

Our readings for this week were sections from Transforming Global Information and Communication Markets: the Political Economy of Innovation by Peter F. Cowhey and Jonathan D. Aronson with Donald Abelson. In the introduction, the authors describe their perspective as an optimistic and “upbeat” one, contrasting to the “gloomy” world view about international communication and global governance that seems to have pervaded the world in 2009. The authors feel that the expectations for governance are too high. They argue that “pretty good” governance should be lauded instead of criticized.

The authors argue that there is now a new inflection point for ICT infrastructure. ICT infrastructure is becoming more modular. The authors give the example of lego bricks. ICT infrastructures build upon each other and advance when they are formed so that they “stick” into one another. I feel like this is one of the main points that I am taking away from all of the readings and discussions that we have had in this class so far. The first few readings we had this semester from Thussu and Mattalart described the historical context of developments in international communication technologies. Both authors described each new development as building upon the last one. Each development was described as a continuation of every previous development instead of a timeline of developments independent of each other. I took away the same sort of concept from when we talked about different theoretical perspectives in international communication. Each new theory or perspective built upon the former’s weaknesses or limitations. For example, modernization theory which argues that communication will lift the third world was criticized for keeping developing nations dependent on the West, and thus developed new perspectives on how trade systems benefit the West.

The chapter really talks about the shift towards media convergence similarly to how Hanson described in her chapter “the Globalization of Communication.” The three major branches of communication that Hanson outlines in the beginning of the chapter, telecommunication, audiovisual products, and computer-mediated communication are becoming increasingly convoluted with new products like Blackberries and Apple’s iPhone which allow for phone calls, e-mails, and videos, straddling all three branches of communication.

Cowhey, et. al. describe public policy as the “critical driver” of ICT infrastructures. Historically, governments and policy have been the most important entities in shaping ICT infrastructure. But now, the authors argue, ICT control is more in the private sector (we also read about this trend in Elizabeth Hanson’s chapters).

The Core - a non-market?

I actually started to notice this trend in some of our earlier readings. For instance, that Amazon.com didn't make a profit until 2004, that Twitter has yet to come up with a way to make money - that some of the most defining online social communities are really not very commercially motivated. Or, if not motivated, at least without a clear commercial plan.

Benkler actually says that this "individual and cooperative nonmarket production of information and culture, however, threatens the incumbents of the industrial information economy."

Wow. How - anti-capitalist.

I'm also in a Global Knowledge Economy that deals intensely with what drives innovation. Financial incentive is considered one of the most important aspects. However, there is an acknowledgement that other things may drive scientists: prestige, reputation, internal drive, etc. But these are considered more minor.

This is in contrast to the historical understanding of art. In the book "Creative Industries" edited by Hartley, there's a discussion about how St. Petersburg was resisting a conception of art as a good, specifically for consumption. They viewed 'pop art' as a contradiction in terms. Art was supposed to be intrinsically motivated, untainted by the desire to 'please' the masses (basically commercialism), supported by a patron so as to allow an artist to be unfettered by financial concerns. ('Should' being the operative word.)

If this nonmarket emerges as "the core" rather than periphery, will this be a return to that idea? That cultural production will 'once again' be returned to nonmarket pursuits? Or will it just degenerate into a popularity contest? Not to mention, cultural industries would at least partially become free time pursuits, rather than full-time. A good chunk of today's internet creative cultural content by individuals or even small collaborations is done without funding in people's free-time. Therefore it becoming the core may actually be a negative effect as cultural content becomes more dominated by nonmarket interests, the market may be too threatened to continue funding cultural content.

I find this such a provoking idea.

So you say you want a revolution

Are you ready for a revolution? Benkler seems to be. In this week's readings, he seems to pose nothing less than a revolution of our media institutions from market-driven transactions to non-market activities. For my part, I remain skeptical.

Benkler states that with the networked information environment, the barriers to media production have been lowered such that we can all participate in the production process. However, Benkler doesn't seem to address the issue of how to get over the digital divide. He proclaims the grand potential of the "networked information environment", but overlooks the fact that many people in the developing world still don't have access to basic telephone service or a consistent food supply, let alone computers with networking capabilities.

He also envisions the potential for non-market actors to drive activity. But of the sites that you regularly visit, how many are truly independent, and how many are the sites of traditional, market-based institutions in the hunt for profit? His view of peer popularity taking the gatekeeper function of traditional media also doesn't seem plausible to me. To an extent we've seen this, with the "viral video phenomenon" such that even long-standing corporate institutions are trying to get into the viral marketing game. But where do we go to watch viral videos? Youtube, which is owned by Google, which is a out to make a profit.

Benkler's emphasis on the information that gets passed through networks, however, is something I can get on board with. Even though we're well into the Internet revolution, and using the internet has become a natural part of most of our lives (at least, a natural part of the lives of those of us in class), I still marvel at how Google can help you answer just about any question. When do classes start in January? I could try to navigate through American's website to find the academic calendar, or I could just google, "American university academic calendar 2009-2010". Bam, there's the info.

But while I'm more accustomed to thinking about the internet as a huge repository of information, I rarely think about the people behind that information. That is, I rarely think of the network behind that information. And Benkler's emphasis on the network struck a chord with me. It's true that the glory of the internet is not so much in the information available on it. Because if you think about it, that information exists or doesn't exist, whether it's on the internet or not. Rather, it's the people that bring that information to the internet, those nodes in the network that constantly supply and update and edit that information that makes the internet such a valuable resource. Without those constant connections to people, the internet is essentially just a big, un-dynamic encyclopedia.

I think Benkler captures a lot of the potential for transforming our society heralded by the Internet era. And I think what he proposes should be considered carefully and deliberately, as he notes the potential social implications for such a revolution. But he doesn't actually detail how such a revolution could be achieved, and until he does, I'll remain skeptical.

The Noömanagement Crisis

   That information is power or that the media are the space where that power is decided is not news. What is new, however, is the increasingly near-“perfect” information that can be transmitted and accessed by virtually anyone (at least in theory), unquestionably giving power to those with the ability and shrewdness to manage these flows to serve their interests, be it states, companies, civil society groups, or insurgent movements. What they have to do is just to overwhelm the “info market” with the right information, which will then transform into their desired result (propaganda, advertising, public relations, strategic communication, etc…). As Castells put it, “What does not exist in the media, does not exist in the public mind.” So they key is to put the “right” image in the public mind. But that image has to live up to its promises, even if partially.

   As all of this week’s readings pointed out, the new media are changing the structures of information flows, robbing the formerly powerful players of their ability to shape public opinion, and making the latter more malleable and susceptible to “counter-power” influence. This is not necessarily bad, but can be used to serve many not-so-friendly goals, too, as the success of various insurgent movements has come to prove. Networks such as Al Qaeda or Hizballah have utilized new media and the communication space not only for achieving financial sustainability and waging their war of ideas (which are among the key components of Mary Kaldor’s “New War” model), but also for achieving legitimacy outside of their own local communities. They have successfully created a new set of goals and ethics – be it the fight against a hostile foreign nation state (US or Israel, in these cases), or the provision of local support networks vital for the day-to-day survival of the local population due to the total absence of functional societal or state institutions (Qandahar or Southern Lebanon) – and have proved to be consistent in matching their deeds with their promises.

(Although the cartoon makes a "somewhat" different argument, it's still one of my all-time favorites! Courtesy of Cox & Forkum)

   Despite the increasing prominence of non-state actors, the nation state has not lost its status completely – yet – as many states are still attempting to manage the information flows so as to contain the “counter-power” influence over state objectives. Prominent examples of such attempts, to name just a few: the American efforts to embed reporters within military units in Afghanistan or Iraq; Russia (or Georgia and NATO, for that matter) flooding the international media with biased reports on the war in South Ossetia in August 2008; the desperate attempts by the Islamic Republic of Iran to control the web-space in the post-election debacle this June. And when these attempts fail, all the state can do is finding a clearly identified scapegoat to blame: Al Jazeera, NATO, or "The Great Satan." 

   As it has become increasingly obvious, addressing Noöpolitik with Realpolitik has not only NOT been successful, but has further discredited the attempts of the state to maintain legitimacy. To use the America example – after the alleged “win” in the Cold War, the US simply stopped its efforts in maintaining its international image, and even the eight years of “War of Ideas” have not brought it back to senses. Just as it is currently being discussed - openly - despite all the fluffy names, such as “public diplomacy” or “strategic communication,” effective coordination is nonexistent and the government has no clue as to what is REALLY being done, how to gauge the efforts and their success, or how to manage them more efficiently.

   The incumbent “powers” in the international sphere will need to adapt if they want to survive; otherwise, the increasing number and influence of the global “counter-powers” will deem them irrelevant in the Noosphere age. Arquilla and Ronfeld say that this would require rebalancing of relations among state, market, and civil-society actors. But then, why not match the rhetoric with deeds, for starters?

Noopolitik and Soft Power

I thought that “the Promise of Noopolitik” by David Ronfeldt and John Arquilla gave a very interesting perspective on international communication. Noopolitik is an alternative to realpolitik or hard military power. Noopolitik is about how nation-states and non-state actors (Ronfeldt and Arquilla cite Al Qaeda as an example) are using soft or “ideational” power. This shift in the way we view power is indicative of the extent of which we live in an Information Age.

Furthermore, the authors argue that non-state actors like Al Qaeda are practicing noopolitik via the Internet and social media more effectively than states. This reminds of the discussion we had in class about “spinternet”- the ways in which governments are using the internet to “spin” their images. For example, we talked in class about how many governments are editing Wikipedia pages to appear more favorably.