The Rising Specter of the Changing Internet

May 9th, 2009

It is my humble opinion that the Internet in its current incarnation is in its final throes.  What once was a thriving, glorious picture of equality and human potential is whithering even at its height, as all that is manmade is wont to do. It will follow largely in the footsteps of television before it, and radio prior, in shifting from an open and accessible medium to one that is controlled, cordoned off for specific users and rationed out on the whims of corporate America.  Already this has begun, and there is nothing that can be done to stop the juggernaut.

There are many who would argue with my conclusion, clinging still to their idealism and the notion that many are fighting in their favor, fighting for ‘neutrality’, and that ultimately the government will step in to save them.  I hope that it doesn’t.  While I realize the full weight and meaning of these words, net neutrality is not only a doomed idea, but it is one that brings with it far greater consequences than those with which it contends.  Yes, it seems unfair that the lines that feed us with this lifestream of data should be controlled by so few, but far worse would it be for these conduits to be managed by a government that demands ever more control.  In the words of Abigail Adams: “Power whether vested in many or a few is ever grasping, and like the grave cries give, give.”  No, government is not our savior.  Neither will the strength of advocates of freedom and neutrality - names like Lessig, Doctorow, Stallman - endure the onward march of culture and corporatism.  This is not to say that efforts to these ends will have no effect on the outcome; surely talk of net neutrality and of intellectual freedom will shape and refine the next wave of change, but it will not stop it from happening.

The problem lies not with corporate power, as many would say, but with the consumerist mentality of those who would rather take what they are served than seek out something new.  As the Internet becomes less and less a place devoted to minority culture (this referring not to racial minority, but rather to social minority, exemplified most easily by those we would call “nerds” or “geeks”, but also including a great many other groups), and more of a gathering place for the masses, the content it carries must necessarily change with it.  It is not that minority culture disappears - indeed, it thrives - but it is crowded out by a superfluity of mainstream media.  Furthermore, as the common people ‘invade the space’ of the minority groups, the latter will become recluse, and will seek out the places on the web that are less populated, where they will be less likely to be bothered.

These shifts can already be seen by anyone who cares to look.  The citizenry of the ‘net is demanding new content, and corporations are naturally more than willing to comply.  Thus we see the rise of streaming video, both through new companies (e.g. hulu and its many new competitors) as well as through the very same sources that bring us content over older mediums (nearly every major network provider has their own solution for streaming video).  This is not bad at all; in fact, much good can come from the new competition.  However, it comes at a price, and that is the creativity and individualism that the Internet was once known for.  The long tail of the Internet diminishes, and it becomes just another medium, dedicated largely to the propagation of the same content we have consumed since the invention of mass media.

Again, we see the same type of movement in the arena of social interaction.  Where once the Internet was populated by a horde of small social forums based on common interest, it has become a highly integrated and networked web of personal connections and interactions.  Forums gave way to MySpace, which in turn is giving way to the blogosphere and Facebook.  This too shall pass in time, quite possibly giving way to a more open social format, such as OpenID or Twitter.  Netizens are congregating in ever larger numbers, and the Internet as a whole is now more like a gigantic city, where once it was a plethora of isolated villages.  This growth will only continue as more and more people get connected.

But if you feel as I do, that the Internet you love is changing in some ways for the worse, take heart!  For where there is corporate interest there is always a cleft in the rock where those who search hard enough may discover what they seek.  As long as web companies like hulu, Amazon, facebook, Google, &c. can turn a profit through the network, there will still exist a congregation place for anyone with a connection.  And though it may not look like it does now, though it may be segmented into channels or served in varying payment plans and data rates, companies will follow their pocketbooks as they always do, ensuring that our children will still have this same vast social and informational resource we enjoy.  The Wild Wired West is growing and expanding, and with it comes new structure and governance; no longer is it the information frontier, but it is still the information superhighway.

Please America, Don’t Make (another) Unwise Investment

November 19th, 2008

This is the question of the day, week, month: Should Congress give the auto industry $25 billion to prop up the Big 3 in these difficult economic times.  The answer, for anyone who knows the facts, is a resounding NO.  These automakers are running a fear campaign, playing on the already heavy economic worries of the working class by trumping up the estimated impact of any one of them failing.  They want us to believe not only that their failure would cost us hundreds of billions of dollars and millions of jobs, but also that $25 billion split between the three companies would suffice to extricate them from the fury of the current market.  I find both assertions difficult to swallow.  My word to them: You’ve dug your own grave, now lie in it.

It isn’t that I believe the industry hasn’t tried to change.  Indeed, all three are working on alternative fuel projects, and all three have promising prototype vehicles in many different alternative energy fields.  But here is the real heart of why I feel the bailout is a poor investment: the three companies combined are losing somewhere around $5 billion in cash every month.  GM alone has lost almost $20 billion of its cash reserves this year.  Why should the American taxpayers believe that a $25 billion loan is going to do anything more than cause the automakers to come back for more in 5 months’ time?  On top of that, the CEOs of all three automakers made their pleas before Congress after spending thousands of dollars flying their private corporate jets to Washington.  Not only is that ridiculous, it’s insulting, and it certainly does not instill confidence in their ability to use government funds to avoid catastrophe.  Besides that, the record of recent bailouts has not been good; Congress spent $500 billion earlier this year bailing out the housing industry, and $700 billion more recently on the financial sector.  Despite this we have seen a continuation of corporate waste from the very companies we have bailed out, and the housing and financial markets have continued to flounder.  The auto industry is not any better off, and attempting yet another bailout is the wrong option.

The CEOs of the Big 3 have made it quite clear the impact they expect if they are forced to liquidate: $200 billion in cash losses, as well as up to 3 million jobs, most indirectly.  I am aware of the consequences, but I think these companies have too much power and influence if between the three they are able to cripple our economy.  Some say they are too big to fail; I say they are too big to save.  Besides that, there is another option on the table, which is Chapter 11 bankruptcy.  I know that it is a complicated matter, and certainly it is in no way an ideal situation, but it would be far better in the long run to allow for massive restructuring of these companies so that this is less likely to happen again.  The Big 3 have claimed that bankruptcy won’t work for them, and that they aren’t confident they can make it through bankruptcy.  Is bankruptcy below them for some reason?  Are they somehow better than Lehman Brothers, the $500+ billion company that was forced to file Chapter 11 last month?  And if they aren’t confident they can survive bankruptcy, why should taxpayers be confident that they can make it through a bailout?

The truth is, I don’t want any of these three companies to fail.  They are a driving force in our economy, and a source of pride in my home state of Michigan.  What they are trying to make us believe, however, is that it’s bailout or bust; if we don’t give them money, they and their suppliers will suddenly cease to exist.  This is simply not true; there are other avenues available to them that larger and more influential companies have been forced to endure before.  There is no reason that the Big 3 cannot survive bankruptcy, and to me, it seems about time for some restructuring.

Update: I want to make it clear that I have not supported any of the government bailouts, nor do I feel that the Big 3 should sell out to foreign automakers, as some critics of the bailout have suggested.  I will not make a judgement (indeed, I cannot make one) as to whether Ford, GM and Chrysler are any more or less at fault for their position than AIG, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, etc. were for theirs.

Media Ownership in a Digital Age (Part I)

October 27th, 2008

There are myriad problems that come into play when attempting to be a responsible consumer of modern media.  The questions of ethics and legality in regards to digital information have never been fully answered, despite numerous attempts at doing so.  Who owns your media?  The creator?  The publisher?  The end user?  And aside from the legal aspects, who should own creative properties?  I have to confess, despite my commitment to owning only legally-purchased music and media, I have many philosophical qualms about the underlying idea of information ownership.  Here is my take on some of the major issues regarding this topic.

Information wants to be free

Despite the ardent evangelism by the RIAA and MPAA that pirating is undermining their profits, and indeed the entire media industry, one has to wonder just how accurate these claims are.  After all, once digital media has been produced, it doesn’t cost anything, does it?  Due to the rising use of the Internet, digital media is ubiquitously available and can be stored and transferred for pennies per gigabyte.  The web has served more than anything to set free information of all forms, allowing it to be freely distributed among anyone who has a connection.  This goes for media as well, especially through P2P and torrent search engines such as the infamous Pirate Bay.

The biggest difficulty that I have is not whether the copyright holder should have ownership, but rather, how can the copyright holder possibly keep ownership.  Just as in every other industry, media creators should be paid for their work.  At the same time, the record industry for many years has served as a sort of dam, blocking the flow of media from creators to users.  Now that the internet has opened up new paths of data transfer, users (and even creators) have been subverting this blockade through any means possible.  And who can blame them?  Pirating allows end-users to get the content they want, in the format that they want it, without any of the shackles put on by industry (DRM being the most infamous of these).  Certainly progress has been made in the legal arena, with legal DRM-free MP3 downloads from vendors such as Amazon, but the industry is still behind.  I have yet to see high-quality lossless media available for dowload for any price, despite the availability of good (and free) lossless compression software such as FLAC.  Even aside from price, pirating is a good deal for the consumer.  And besides, argue many media pirates, if I wasn’t going to buy it anyway, it isn’t really costing them anything, is it?

And there is the key: pirating is not stealing.  Theft involves depriving the original owner of the stolen item.  Digital media, on the other hand, proliferates freely - the original owner can keep their copy, while the pirates get their own.  If nobody loses anything, it can’t be theft.  These concepts are expounded upon elsewhere, so I will continue to my next point.

Responsible consumerism in the face of used media

How can one support the idea of responsible consumerism when it is still legal to buy and sell used physical media such as CDs and DVDs?  I am by nature conservative in my spending: if I can save money buying second-hand, I will, provided I can still get decent quality for my money.  With digital information, however, this poses a moral conundrum.  If I purchase used physical media, what is to say that the seller of that media did not retain a digital copy?  What is the proper way to transfer ownership of media, digital or otherwise?  Is possession of the physical disc enough to qualify as ownership of the media?  I realize only the most stringent adherents to ethical consumerism would be concerned with these issues, and therefore I place no blame on those who buy preowned media - indeed, the blame would be with the original owners in this instance regardless.  However, this scenario still contributes to the overall picture of media piracy, so it must be considered.

Secondhand purchasing is an interesting case in all areas of capitalism, for this reason: the maker of the item being purchased is almost always losing a potential sale (provided, of course, that the item is still available from the manufacturer).  Sure, the buyer may not have paid full price for the item anyway, but they still bought the item at a price.  Pirates don’t have this distinction, since they are paying nothing for what they receive.  The mental gap between paying nothing and paying even a mere dollar for something is remarkably large.  Yet despite the lost sale, most manufacturers do not complain that the secondhand industry exists.  Even the media industry is accepting of this trend, though they fought it at first.  If the sale of used digital media is almost the same as piracy (indeed, it can be worse, as the seller makes a profit), yet is still legal, how can the industry complain at true piracy?

These factors make it very difficult for the concerned consumer.  How should information ownership be treated anyway?  Most would agree that the creator of media should be compensated for their work, but how to bring this about - and more importantly, how to enforce it - is an entirely separate matter.  For all the time, effort, and capital poured into it, DRM is still basically a failure - moreso now after Sony BMG’s highly-publicized virus-ridden discs, and the resulting lawsuit.  One can’t help but wonder, if the resources that are spent on stopping piracy were instead used to create new methods of media distribution and better content, would this have a more effective impact on piracy?

And this is far from the end of the questions.  What about media that is no longer available through legitimate means?  What about media with expired copyrights?  What about obscure music or movies that are difficult to obtain, aside from piracy?  And does the ethical weight of government restrictions on media and information give occasion to pursue less-than-legal means of obtaining said information?  These matters and others I will discuss in the second part of this essay.

Ron Paul: The Most Fascinating Politician

September 1st, 2007

When I first started to sift through the potential candidates for the 2008 election year, I was very disappointed with the offerings from both parties. None of the front runners even came close to matching my views on the major issues; each had at least one ‘fatal flaw’. New York mayor Rudy Giuliani is a staunch supporter of the war in Iraq, and seems too excited about war in general to hold a seat of authority in the world’s most powerful nation. Mitt Romney is defensive and abrasive[VID] in his debates, and is lacking many leadership qualities that I would deem essential, such as respectfulness and patience. John McCain is the same in essence as our current president, and the minor players are the same as these three with slight variations. As for Democrats, I consider most of them unelectable because of their support for universal healthcare and their belief that the government should take care of its citizens’ every need. In addition, I disagree with many of their liberal stances; most notably I am decidedly pro-life, and feel that in this debate we should err on the side of life. Eventually I started wondering who I could bring myself to vote for on election day, and concluding that it would have to be the lesser of two evils. Just as I was becoming discouraged, however, I found another candidate: Congressman and former physician Ron Paul, the most fascinating politician since the founding of this country. Read the rest of this entry »