The Internet as Playground and Factory - Patricia Clough from Trebor Scholz on Vimeo.

I attended the Oxford Social Media Convention 2009 on Friday (18 September) at the Said Business School. The theme of the Convention was ‘assessing the evolution, impact and potential of social media’; a fairly monumental tasks for a one day convention with speakers from both sides of the Atlantic and from the Academy, business, media, and politics. The Convention was ordered around panel discussion with a lot of participation from the audience. At times subversive and always humorous ‘tweets’ from the audience were also projected on the wall behind the speakers (we voted to do this earlier in the day).

Rather than divide my time between all the speakers, I will concentrate on two of the most distinctive speakers that hopefully convey the timbre of the conference. The first speaker is Mathew Hindman, an academic at the University of Phoenix and author of the recently published ‘The Myth of Digital Democracy (Princeton University Press; 2009). The other speaker I will discuss is Kara Swisher, the Technology Correspondent for the Wall Street Journal.

Hindman was on the panel titled ‘Social Media so what? Assessing the impact of blogs and social media?’ The main thrust of his argument was that the Internet isn’t inherently democratic and that it is not so much about the medium, but how the medium is institutionalised that makes it democratic. He discussed democracy in the broader sense and asserted that there are a lot of democratic values and they aren’t all about the web. Publishing is an important part of political expression, but as the barriers to publication are so low on the web, anyone can publish creating a cacophony of noise. In other words, a lot of people are publishing but who is listening? Hindman claimed that the very volume of data on line necessitates the need to filter and this may create a new set of ‘gate keepers’ rather than usurp the older gate keeping mechanisms of industrial media. He also discussed (as he does in his book) that the Internet hasn’t partially empowered a new political class and that unequal political expression and organisation remains. The most important lesson from Hindman is that technology is not good nor bad nor is it neutral and that all technological advance isn’t towards the removal of privilege. All technological advances create winners and losers and the increased use of social software isn’t necessarily good for democracy; we must make it good for democracy.

Kara Swisher, on the other hand was a technological determinist. She was on the panel ‘Blogging at 20? The future and potential of social media’. It may have been that it was the end of the day and people were grappling to find anything more to say about blogs (I have been blogging for 10 btw), but the discussion descended into the usual gee-wizz, determinist clap-trap. Swisher embraced the technological determinists’ narrative in a vigorous gravitas that I haven’t heard since the superstitious days of the late 20th Century. She performed brilliantly claiming that politicians and the rest of us don’t use social software such as Facebook then they will become redundant (not sure what ‘redundant’ means here). She made an historical and metaphorical leap that made me dizzy and claimed that as people learned to drive cars and left their ponies behind, democracy must do the same (no donkeys!). The usual catalogue of new gadgets was brought to the fore with the only argument it seems; that if we don’t embrace them then we are doomed!

I twitted a message that was projected on the wall behind her head ‘technological determinism bad; technology good!

In ending, the Convention shouldn’t have concentrated on Blogs so much; they are really not that interesting. Also I would have liked to see a speaker or two from China and other countries as the US and Britain were over-represented. Plus, I would have liked to see more evidence presented (as Bill Dutton; the Director of the Oxford Internet did), as Conventions such as this are in danger of being hijacked by trivia dressed up as revolution. As Dutton argued, the Internet reconfigures rather than changes, it has always been social and even wondered if it is possible to have an overview at all now.

But still, in the words of Bill Thompson, Technology critic, BBC News Online, people will do remarkable things if you remove the need for them to ask permission.

(Follow what others had to say…)

Matthew Hindma

Oxford Internet Survey (OxIS) research is designed to offer detailed insights into the influence of the Internet on everyday life in Britain. Launched in 2003 by the Oxford Internet Institute, OxIS is an authoritative source of information about Internet access, use and attitudes. Some of the areas covered include: digital and social inclusion and exclusion; regulation and governance of the Internet; privacy, trust and risk concerns; social networking and entertainment; and online education (link).

The Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, has today released the OxIS Report 2009, the latest report in a series of Oxford Internet Surveys (OxIS) that cover the changing landscape of Internet access, use and attitudes in Britain. Dutton, W.H., Helsper, E.J. and Gerber, M.M. (2009) Oxford Internet Survey 2009 Report: The Internet in Britain. Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford. Download OxIS 2009 [PDF, 1.9MB]: http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/oxis/oxis2009_report.pdf OxIS website: http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/microsites/oxis/ The Report will be formally launched at the House of Commons later this afternoon at an event hosted by Derek Wyatt, MP. Presentations on the significance of OxIS will be given by representatives from the sponsoring organisations: Adrian Arthur (British Library), James Thickett (Ofcom) and Mark Cowtan (Scottish and Southern Energy). Dorothy Zinberg from Harvard University will give a US perspective on the importance of studies such as OxIS, and OII Director William Dutton will present the key trends and themes in a talk on ‘The Internet and Society: A Tipping Point?’ A report of the launch event will appear on the OxIS website tomorrow. Please contact me if you would like to discuss any aspect of the report, Best wishes, Dr Ellen J. Helsper Survey Research Fellow

A recent post on ‘collaborative authoring’ caught my eye.  She is writing a article about social patterns that appear online through Time, Relationships, Context, and Geography.  I like how she relates these to trends to ’stories’ although I am still having a few problems making the leap;  perhaps it is because I am surrounded by people who insists on counting things! (link).

(Watch out…technological deterministic drones will attack your free will)!

Technological determinism is circulated, maintained, and advanced within the pre-existing hierarchies in the world in which we live. Determinism has its own political agendas, its own rules, its own contexts and hierarchies and antagonisms to an imagined ‘other’. Determinism utilises a proprietary language and culture and although it cloaks itself in ideas of interdisciplinarity, deterministic discourse discourages intellectual critique, dissent, and justifies itself with the high ground of capitalist practicality. Determinist rhetoric is only interested in other knowledge so that it can demonise it, remediate it, appropriate it, make it better, wrestle it out of the hands of the ‘elite’ and make it more ‘democratic’, more in touch with ‘the people’.

I wrote this some time ago (link).  A rather disturbing report I recently read on Web 2 and Education prompted me to re-visit this writing

Top-down

Hierarchy >poligarchy

Bottom-up

As an example of a ‘bottom-up’ governance structure Zittrain cited Wikipedia which includes a deliberative system to manage thorny editorial decisions. As a top-down system of governance he cited Facebook; although Facebook is beginning to include the community in decisions relating to its structure and functionality. He used the term ‘social governance’ to describe this bottom-up governance approach and suggested ways in which this approach may be designed into a system (through flagging certain tasks that help tap into the ‘reservoir of good will’ of the community). A well-designed system should have mechanisms to ask users for their input.

Although I tend to agree with many of the arguments of Zittrain, I feel there is a tendency to overstate the importance of sites such as Facebook and Youtube to the broader public. Sure they are popular, but this isn’t the British Library, the University of California, or the Library of Congress we are talking about! They are just large and fashionable web sites; a small part of the fabric of our complex lives. And commercial companies will perhaps always act in their own interests; either commercially or ideologically.

I suppose what is needed is some sort of bill of rights/responsibilities that is general to the operation of the Web within a certain geographical region balanced with the specific values of the site in question. There is nothing wrong with sites asserting behaviour norms upon users; but then again governance structures should be transparent and open; not outside of acceptable norms of the broader public sphere. A site should never assert policies that are deemed racist nor discriminatory (perhaps this is Zittrain’s anxiety when he claimed than many sites operate outside of ‘the rule of law’). The relationship between the community and the platform should always be fair and equitable; especially in large user-based sites such as Facebook. In my mind, governance structures, whether online or off, should always be open and transparent.

One of the respondents to the talk, Ian Brown, a Fellow at the Oxford Internet Institute (and author of the recent report Database state) asserted that the relationship between Citizen and State and Cyberspace needed to be reconsidered. He also claimed (from his experience) that that the issues raised by Zittrain are not well-known in the UK;  especially in senior government levels. As an historian (and not a legal expert), my  scepticism relates to the actual significance of the entire debate.  I suppose that the significance of the debates depends on the importance the public places on systems such as Facebook and their governance structures. I may agree with Eric Hobsbawn that Terrorism is more a perceived threat in the UK that an actual threat (to the state), but then again the public is led to believe otherwise so it now painfully significant.  So if the debates about governance are perceived to be important by the public; then they will become important. So we may have a ‘Facebook Parliament’ in the making deliberating about the rise of rudeness on Facebook . They should start with the Tube system!

For those of you in London, this will be an excellent event (and it is only cost 5 quid).  And this is one community that really understands how technology works in the public sphere (if that is your thing).  It is on at ULU.

* Ticket reservations now open – Please Redistribute Freely *

Open Tech 2009
sponsored by 4iP

Saturday July 4th – ULU, Malet Street, London, WC1E 7HY
http://www.ukuug.org/events/opentech2009/

Open Tech 2009, from UKUUG and friends,
Saturday July 4th
ULU, Malet Street, London, WC1E 7HY

Tickets only £5
Students Free Entry

Totalling 33 talks across 3 sessions covering 7 hours,
some space hijacking and plenty of time to talk in the
bar after sessions which challenge, inspire or talk about
something that makes you want to help how you can. The
last two times we have sold out in advance, so you are
strongly advised to pre-register.

This year’s line up features…
* Two Cultures from Bill Thompson
* Bad Science from Ben Goldacre
* Peace & War
* Making things happen, from those who do
* Web of Power – what’s next for Politicians?
* The Guardian and Ian Tomlinson Story
* Ways our Internet Laws are Broken

The full schedule is at
http://www.ukuug.org/events/opentech2009/

Brought to you by UKUUG and friends. Sponsored by 4iP

Tickets are £5 on the door; pre-register yours online now at
http://www.ukuug.org/events/opentech2009/registration

* Want to help out? *

OpenTech is organised by volunteers and we are now looking
for volunteers to help out on the day. In return for free
early entry and our eternal gratitude, we’re in need of a
few people to show up a bit earlier and help us set the
venue up.

If you’re interested, or have random other questions, email
us on opentech@ukuug.org

Final programme may be subject to alteration. OpenTech is a
not for profit event open to everyone so please help spread
the word online and offline. Thanks for reading!

Saturday July 4th – ULU, Malet Street, London, WC1E 7HY
http://www.ukuug.org/events/opentech2009/

When signing up for your tickets online, why not tick the
box to hear a little more from us, or just send an email to
join up opentech-info-subscribe@lists.ukuug.org . Your
address will only be used to contact you about OpenTech and
will not be passed onto third parties.

Saturday July 4th – ULU, Malet Street, London, WC1E 7HY

http://www.ukuug.org/events/opentech2009/

Final programme may be subject to alteration. Thanks for reading!

_______________________________________________
Opentech-info mailing list
Opentech-info@ukuug.org
http://lists.ukuug.org/mailman/listinfo/opentech-info