Joho the Blog
|
|
|
« [berkman] Academic copyright and fair use || Back to Blog | Spiritual Youth - An on-line HS research project » April 18, 2006
Yochai Benkler is giving a talk about his new book, the aptly named the Wealth of Networks. He asks: What can we say about the new economics and understand it as something stable, not a passing fad? What does the change mean to our core commitments to democracy, etc. [As always, these are notes and thus are not accurate, complete or reliable.] Between 1835 and 1850, Yochai says, the cost of starting a mass circulation paper rose from $10,000 and $2.5M (in current dollars). This signalled a "stark bifurcation between producers and consumers." Readers became passive. This lasted for 150 years. In 2002, the fastest supercomputer was Japanese. In 2004, IBM just barely inched it out. Meanwhile, the SETI@Home project enabled 4.5M to share their spare cycles, creating a far bigger computer. "We're seeing a radically decentralized capitalization" of computation, storage and communications capacity. "Every connected person on the planet has the physical capcity to create information, knowledge and culture." Human creativity, intuition, experience and motivation are widely distributed. Put together the capitalization and the human capabilities, and behaviors that used to be on the edge move into the core: Commons-based production and peer-production. Commons-based production is production without exclusion: Everyone can use the product. Peer production is large scale collaborative production without price or management. Peer production obviously works, as proved by Apache's 70% market share. Or Wikipedia. Or DMOZ... There are new opportunities, he says, most importantly shifting from finished information and cultural goods to platforms for self-expression and collaboration. Social production is a fact, not a fad. It is "the critical long term shift caused by the Internet." But it is a threat to, and threatened by, incumbent business models. Why should we care about the outcome of this political debate, he asks? Because of our core commitments to autonomy, democracy, and justice & development. Autonomy: In shifting from consumers to users, we have to do more for ourselves and in looser association with others. But we get pages such as the lead hit on "viking ships" at Google, which is produced by a 5th grade teacher in Democracy: Our democracy is a mass mediated public sphere. What do you get when you have peer production in such a democracy? You used to get The Pentagon Papers, which required several newspapers and the Supreme Court to get published. Now you get Bev Harris at BlackBoxVoting.org exposing Diebold. The Diebold code is opened up to public inspection. By the time Diebold sues the various places it's been posted, it's been distributed widely via email and Freenet and Overnet... Does the Internet democratize or fragment? The first generation critique (Cass Sunstein) is that the Internet "Babel-izes" culture. The second generation (Clay Shirky) says that power laws mean that only a tiny number of sites actually get read; it's the same as with broadcast. But, the claim needs to be assessed not against the utopia but against the access provided by mass media. And the claims are empirical and need to be examined. Yes, there are topical clusters. But thereare many entry points for discussion, there is something like "peer review" of claims, and some superstars who are known across clusters. The Internet, Yochai concludes, is indeed more democratic than what we've had. He sees the re-emergence of a new form of folk culture based on active participation. This he views as a return to norms of the pre-broadcast world. Justice: Much of what makes for human welfare depends on information, knowledge and culture. Commons-based and peer production can help. E.g., open source, open academic publishing, open source agricultural innovation, bio informatics, open source biomedical innovation, etc. He gives three quick examples: Free High School Science Text. The International HapMap Project. Biological Innovation for an Open Society. We're in a battle of institutional ecology, he says: DMCA, Net Neutrality, "trusted" computing, etc. Law is pushing in favor of the incumbents, he says. But that doesn't mean they'll win. E.g., the market doesn't want "trusted" machines. (He says they're trusted in that the content creators can create it not to do what customers want.) The sharing culture is increasing. The battle has begun and is worth waging. [Fantastic talk.] [Tags: yochai_benkler digital_rights berkman] Posted
by D. Weinberger at April 18, 2006 06:39 PM
|
Comments
You're missing a 'not' in your notes disclaimer, Dave :) Otherwise, great- wish I had been in town for it :/
Posted by: Luis | April 18, 2006 07:31 PM
Ha! I fixed it, Luis. Thx.
Posted by: David Weinberger
|
April 18, 2006 08:36 PM
I couldn't agree with your analysis more, Dave. My dream is that there is a slowly rising tide of realization and awareness of the awesome changes underway, that we can be producers as well as consumers, independent of control by large corporations. My nightmare is that the masses are sleepwalking through this shift, habituated to their roles as consumers and subscribers, and that incumbents will manage this change to their benefit, to keep the edge under their control.
In the end though, I'm optimistic, because new consumers and the Digital Natives (25 and under?) came of age with the Internet in place and they don't have that much respect for the status quo. And the more complicated our lives get, the more people long for the simpler things which would include a more community-based lifestyle. As the ants finally realize in A Bugs Life, there are a lot more of "us" than there are of "them." The common folk outnumber those with access to the levers of power, and in time, those of us out here on the Edge will prevail, there's just no holding back the powers that the Internet is unleashing and the numbers of people who are being empowered.
Posted by: John Cooper | April 18, 2006 09:27 PM
While he is of course a brilliant and thoughtful man, I am less than enthralled by the garden-variety blog-evangelism aspects :-(.
I've probably already taken whatever reputation-hit for skeptical comments, in the Lessig blog post on it, so I'll just reference that discussion. Deepest point:
Popularity Data-Mining Businesses Are Not A Model For Civil Society
Posted by: Seth Finkelstein | April 19, 2006 02:13 AM
You wrote:
"But we get pages such as the lead hit on 'viking ships' at Google, which is produced by a 5th grade teacher in Greenland."
That teacher actually is in Gander, Newfoundland, a different island and a different country.
Posted by: Ivan Smith | April 19, 2006 05:20 AM
John, just to be clear: I think you're agreeing with Benkler's analysis, not mine. I agree with your assessment of his talk although I remain pessimistic.
Seth, thx for the pointer.
Ivan, of course the error was mine, not Benkler's. I'll fix the post. Thanks and d'oh!
Posted by: David Weinberger
|
April 19, 2006 08:47 AM
An even better/worse example of skewed searches is Googling "Martin Luther King"; presently #3 is
http://www.martinlutherking.org/
which used to be #1 for months (maintained by Stormfront). OTOH, I haven't had much luck finding a search engine I prefer to Google. Teoma was recommended but it reminded me of Magellan: lotsa broken links.
In the same vein as the article, are bloggers "reporters"? Obviously traditional news sources would say not. Talk radio says the same; after all they only report "facts" while bloggers just make stuff up! But since bloggers seem to be getting the real stories first, who are the real reporters?
China is obviously trying to "tame" the internet. Where that will end up is anyone's guess. Creative searches? Hacked firewalls? Even more restrictions?
John has a great point; a lot of people really don't care. As long as they get their ATVs, cold beer, and mindless entertainment on the 100" TV, life is good. Just leave them in their comfort zone.
And the rapid changes are driving his other group (the nostalgia for simpler things like the 1900s bunch) to oppose anything technological. I look for a resurgence in Amish population.
Posted by: Charlie Green | April 20, 2006 06:48 PM