A few more links

Please don't disregard the previous post(s) because of this one.  And to those poor suckers who missed Wednesday's class, you might want to study up on the Singularity.  (I'm just saying...)

Mostly, I just wanted to share a few more things with you while the blog still lives:

Net Neutrality
Perspectives on proprietary software
The EFF
The Onion

And the front page of Thursday's Times has a story headlined, "Now Accepting Cash, Checks or Cellphone," which includes this:

"[These companies] are creating innovative ways for individuals to avoid cash and checks and settle all debts, public and private, using their cellphones."  

Sounds good, but consider the likelihood that every transaction you make will be tracked and stored by entities you're unaware of, along with more information, like your precise location, your search queries, your affiliations, your thoughts....

The Future

First, a note about the course: if you thought it was worthwhile, please pass the word along to anyone who might be interested in taking it this summer (in June).  The summer version of this course is less performance, more book-club. Mass Media in the summer is my favorite thing to teach (and students have enjoyed it too).  Thanks for helping me spread the word.

I think the best thing to do here, rather than writing at length is just to have a link dump.  Send me links to fantastic things you've found and I'll include them here.  Before we get to the futuristic stuff, though, here are a couple articles of broader relevance to the course:

This is a MUST READ.

A former MM&S student sent me these:
Why are kids so bored?
And this is a bit disturbing.

THE FUTURE

No matter what happens, the future will be unlike the past.  I don't just mean that things will change; I mean that either the Singularity will happen, or the trend that describes all of history will break.  This is Kurzweil's view.  If you think it feels too broad, too immense or too fantastic, remember that our linear intuitions are a very poor guide in these realms.

Here's a somewhat-old-but-still-cool BBC movie about the post-human future, featuring Ray Kurzweil, a remote control rat (yes, a real rat), and a monkey who can control a computer with his thoughts.

Here's the big dog.  And robots with skin. And don't let your enemies get an army of these. ["combining living and machine components, could eventually make robots more effective."]  Sorta like this.

This is amazing.  Here's a story about the brain-twitter interface.  And speaking of brains, I already showed you the visuals picked up in Japan.  But practical roll-outs are on the way too.  More and more comes out every day.

Implants are cool.  Or you could just grow some new organs.  And enhance away.

About the state of info gathering and "property" rights.  There's this.  And more everywhere you look.

I could keep adding things all night, and haven't even gotten to the weird stuff.  But you get the idea.

One more thing on that...

I'd love to share more ideas about ownership and property, but we're winding things down.  So, just indulge me a bit more on copyright.

The core of the issue, in my view, is that technology has altered the economies of scale in information reproduction so drastically that we have all become de facto publishers.  Laws that were clearly written as industrial regulations suddenly apply to individuals.  The right to own, share, or alter the information we use was never was never codified because it was assumed; it was taken for granted. Nowadays, these freedoms threaten the sanctioned monopolies of powerful interests, so they get crushed.

This redirection of the law is not inevitable, nor is it harmless.  We now face the prospect of all information going behind a pay wall. Our complicity is monitored and enforced by programs installed, often against our will, on the machines we depend on.  This is an affront to the notion of an open society.  It is entrenched by propaganda that teaches us to view ourselves as consumers (not citizens) within economies (not societies) where "free" means "without payment" rather than "without restriction."  (Richard Stallman points out the semantic difference between the phrases "free beer" and "free speech.")

Consider public libraries.  What is their purpose? What values inspired our predecessors to create them?  This is not a rhetorical question.  Clearly, libraries were put in place to (among other things) remove the barriers to shared knowledge.  Those barriers are being rebuilt stronger than ever.

Books were once so valuable that the were chained to desks.  Now they are so cheap that we are being chained.

Copyright

Well, I think Friday's class was an interesting one.  In retrospect, some of the words I used ("repulsive," "repugnant," "intolerable") might have been, well, a bit too harsh, even off-putting.  I apologize if that was the case.  But these blunders arise from my desire that you confront important topics--like the laws and systems that dictate what you can do with information--confront them in some way that isn't apathy or boredom.

To summarize the importance of this issue,  there are two converging trends:
1. Your increasing dependence on computerized information.
2. Your decreasing control over that information.

In all seriousness, I'd love to read some comments about Friday or any of this.

Leo Strauss

There are so many things I'd like to pack into our last week of class. I got the news today that we have one class fewer than I had thought. On Monday, we're having a guest speaker, David Brauer, a long-time Minnesota journalist.  Which should be interesting, but will cut further into our discussion of The Future. 
So.  I had promised a post about this guy, Leo Strauss.  I realize there is no way to give a fair depiction of his thinking or why it's important in this format.  My goal is only to pique your interests here, in hopes that you might edify yourselves.
Strauss was a Platonist.  He thought, among other things, that the ruling elites ("the ones who know") must mobilize the powers of media to create myths ("Noble Lies") to maintain social quiescence.  He believed, essentially, that politics should be left to the elite, and that the rest of us should not bother to be involved.  He believed, along with Plato, that some truths were too dangerous to tell the public.  These thoughts are repugnant to our own notions of political liberty in the modern age of Enlightenment tradition, yet Strauss was a surprisingly influential thinker.  His students and disciples from the U of Chicago, went on to fill many positions of great power, like starting wars.
The upshot of this is that many powerful people believe that lying to the public is the right thing to do.  One of them was Irving Kristol, who once wrote:

There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn't work.

A modern democratic fallacy?  These thinkers find the concept of democracy abhorrent, although they would never say so publicly.  Shades of this philosophy have been uncovered elsewhere, as in the famous reporting of Ron Suskind, who wrote in 2004:

The [senior adviser to President Bush] said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

Hence we believers in open society--in the individual's right to access the truth--find ourselves opposed.  They believe themselves worthy of knowledge for which we are unfit.  Are they right?  Should we just accept our place, have faith in their wisdom, and trust in the rule of our philosopher kings? *
***
If you're interested, watch this documentary.  It's by the same folks who made Century of the Self.  Lots of fascinating stuff:


*the last two sentences were cut off this post, because they they were terrible and read: " It's the most un-American idea I've ever heard.

If this doesn't concern you, fine, don't worry; go back to sleep; there's always something on TV."

Must Read

Uncharacteristically, I will link to this article rather than telling you to go find it in your papers. That's how important it is.

Network Neutrality Revisited

This isn't required, but if you're interested in the subjects we've discussed in this course, you will benefit from listening to this lecture. It's by a guy named Lawrence Lessig, a hero to those of us who support open media.

Also, expect an upcoming post about a fellow named Leo Strauss. I, regrettably, didn't get a chance to talk about his ideas in class, but they're important and I believe would change the way you view your government and its propaganda.

Quiz

We'll have a quiz on the 21st as scheduled on journalism and propaganda.

Update

The front page of today's Times has a must-read about civilian deaths in Afghanistan. It's headlined "Civilians Killed as U.S. Troops Hit Afghan Bus." I quoted General McChrystal in the comments to the previous post from a Times story last week, in which he said:

"We have shot an amazing number of people, but to my knowledge, none has ever proven to be a threat."

Plus, the Times just won three more Pulitzer Prizes, bumping its total to 104--way more than any other intstitution.

Videos

This first video is required viewing. We will discuss it on Wednesday. Expect a quiz.



This next one is the video Devin discussed on Friday, for those of us who missed it.



REMINDER: Extra credit paper on journalism, its impacts and import, is due on Wednesday.

must read

Front page of today's paper has two must-reads above the fold. Check them out.

Gary Webb, etc.

First, check your papers Wednesday for a story about the federal appeals court having thrown out the planned FCC "net-neutrality" regulations. It happened this morning (Tues.). This has, as I've said, potentially huge ramifications for the future of the Internet.

Here's the Gary Webb Prezi.