Teaching how to blog!

I’m a New Holly teaching a bunch of cool kids how to blog.

Don’t Be Evil

Google’s informal motto is “Don’t Be Evil” – there is even a structured Wikipedia page explaining the motto’s origin and controversy – and Joe Trippi does an impressive job of describing what that means for the future marketplace of the internet. His optimism hopes to change political campaign ads, community-building, the subsidy of information, civic empowerment, and the role of money in politics. While I appreciate his hopeful attitude, I’m not sure the “revolution” hasn’t been more of a realignment.

E-Governance in the EU

How essential are laws and regulations when the government connects with citizens over the internet?  How do they structure the release of information across departments; or into the great wide open?  How does federal policy shape state policy?  How do localities fit into the picture, and what role does executive leadership play in the process?  These are just a few of the questions posed by Krassimira Paskaleva-Shapira in her 2006  article, Transitioning from e-Government to e-Governance in the Knowledge Society.

Focusing her research on the EU, Krassimira believes that the legal and regulatory framework enabling e-governance is an essential element in advancing such initiatives.  Nations in Europe will need to strategically pursue a common ground for international collaboration and, most importantly, safety.  One large assurance, though, is that the European Union has foreseen technology’s impact on governance for nearly a decade.  This provides nations with some common directives for interpreting the schema of things to come, but it has not ensured coordinated collaboration.

What does digital engagement look like?

Two of this week’s readings – “Digital Deliberation” by Thomas C. Beierle and “Design of Digital Democracies” by Pirjo Elovaara and Christina Mortberg – investigate different ways we can design the IT systems that control our engagement with government agencies.  These authors have discovered similar lessons that we have uncovered through our readings of Joe Trippi and others: top-down moderation of collective channels enables discussion, but systems designed to interact on an individual basis can empower citizens to become engaged with their government processes.

Thomas Beierle’s piece recounted a 2001 forum conducted by the EPA to moderate discussion and receive feedback on the agency’s new Public Involvemenet Policy (PIP) and to gather ideas on how it should be implemented.  This dialogue featured several elements, including an advertising campaign to recruit members, a briefing packet for participants to ready themselves for debate, basic forum tools (such as sorting options, daily summaries), and moderators who would lead discussions.

These tools, Beierle adds, make up an “interactive dialogue [that] can support a more reasoned analysis of issues by reducing the incentives for opposing interests to hew to extreme views and by subjecting assertions to direct rebuttal.” (157)

New Media Analysis of WA I-1082 Campaigns

After briefly covering some claims about WA State’s Initiative 1082 at factcheckwa.org (regulation & funding), I believe there is some further analysis that can be useful in learning about these campaigns’ use of new media.

SaveOurJobsWa.com: Sleek and design-heavy, this website honestly looks like a corporate social responsibility website.  First you are struck with humanizing photos of workers in all different industries.  Then there are quirky ads and links to newspaper endorsements before you even notice the text that explains the motivation behind the initiative.  In fact, this page is not scannable at all, and tries to pack too much into one punch.  The volunteer page is quite simple, offering a form to submit one’s interest in helping, and contributions are accepted, through a second link, on an external, generic-looking site.  The section about claims is very defensive and heavy on rhetoric.

VoteNo1082.com: The campaign against the initiative is immediately rebellious.  Large print, bold colors, and informative page names that quickly inform you as to the intent of this website: Vote No.  There are a few different ways to volunteer, which you can choose without clicking through multiple pages, which is in stark contrast to the form submission option at SaveOurJobs.  Additionally, while contributions are handled by an external firm, the page for contributions appears to the unwatchful web surfer to be seamlessly integrated into the website.  What’s more, the claims investigated on this website are backed by citations from the text of the initiative and visitors can actually download a version of the initiative with highlights of “dangerous clauses”.

Crowd Sourcing Election Vigilance?

As we all know, there are always issues with voting in America.  But can cell phones rescue our fractured democracy?

According to an article on the ABC News Website, there are at least two smartphone apps that will enable voters to report violations at the polls. I’d be interested to know (I just don’t have time to do the research right now):

1. Who created these apps?
2. Does their position/angle matter?
3. Who is getting the information, and what are they doing with it?
4. Will this information be shared in a timely & sensitive manner?

It will be interesting to see the results of this new tool.  I would also be interested in knowing if people are acting as vigilantes, shadowing their polling place, or if this is a more passive activity.  But mostly, if even somewhat successful, these apps tap into a serious distrust of our government.  And who would trust our election process after the 2000 & 2004 Presidential debacles?

Here in Washington State, we have to vote by mail, unless you are unable to do so, in which case other arrangements can be made.  Will somebody be watching over the machines and/or people counting ballots with these apps?  Certainly not – which means this isn’t a solution for voter fraud, but it is a type of watchdog role that citizens can play in protecting the sanctitiy of their vote.

Very interesting.

On New Media & Habermas

Just some thoughts from our readings in Week 2.

Much of the debate we’ve read has revolved around an ownership model wherein the public domain is dominated by private enterprise.  Whether we speak of the corporate entities running our “public” media or the IT gurus operating our political campaigns, most analysis finds that we are operating in a controlled state.  Therefore, our public actions can only exist within a private, controlled environment.

I posit, however, a shift toward public ownership.  It is beginning in the food justice movement, which has blossomed out of the grocery co-op tradition in our nation (as well as slow food, peak oil, permaculture, veganism, etc.).  The Green Bay Packers are a non-profit, membership-run organization, and many “publicly owned” enterprises, such as local radio stations (e.g. KEXP, NPR), are doing exceptionally well.

But, of course, there is still some Darwinism at play and many of the entities we attempt to establish or retain will not, in fact, succeed.  Private investment still exists, be it through advertisement/sponsorship or even some form of subsidy, be it information or access.  And so, I wonder, just how far can we pull ourselves from top-down ownership of the public realm?  Some feel a re-alignment in politics is not possible, some think it is happening right now; how do we feel about the flow of information?

Other thoughts: private enterprise in the social sphere (i.e. companies working on social goods), crowd-sourcing vs open source