Book Review: The Wealth of Networks; Law vs. Culture

Yochai Benkler is one worrrrrrrrdy bastard.

By now the point has been belabored that the networked economy cannot and should not be treated like a proprietary economy. Though it is necessary to preserve some proprietary rights, it would be disastrous to do so in areas such as science and medicine. Obtuse policy makers and greedy Hollywood bigwigs alike don't seem to realize that even if proprietary restrictions are placed on information and end-products, people will find a way around them. I personally am quite thankful this is so; otherwise, I wouldn't be able to see my favorite drug-dealing suburban MILF on Weeds every week.

At the root of these attempts to force proprietary rights on the networked economy is fear. Fear that, mostly, money will not be made. It's the fear that most industries connected even marginally to the internet have. It's also entirely irrational. There will always be a way to make money, it just might not be in the traditional sense. Corporations will just have to adapt - the people already have.

Benkler offers a variety of explanations for attempts of policy makers to control the networked economy. His arguments fall short sometimes due to rapidly changing network industries - some of the companies he cites simply do not exist anymore. And this is precisely the reason why policy makers cannot continue to treat the networked economy like a traditional material economy. It simply outgrows its legal boundaries, and policy cannot keep up. I do believe, however, that Benkler agrees with me there.

Attempts of policy makers to curb the growth and free-for-all nature of the networked economy are, in some cases, ludicrous. The expansion of patents and copyright especially penalize nonproprietary items by disallowing use of intellectual property that could be considered by now common knowledge, or potentially life-saving. These restrictions can sometimes last several decades beyond their practical use.

It is a question, then, of whether law will prevail over culture and knowledge. It's clear that many other writers can imagine this dystopian drive, where service is highly regulated and restricted, where innovation stemming from the "commons" will be stunted entirely, where the government will be able to tell exactly what you do online.

We're really only a few clicks away from this anyway. Right now, through the use of cookies and other slyly invasive technologies, you are being profiled and sold to advertisers. If your interests can be tracked now by advertising firms, what's to stop the government from compiling information about you? They might be already.

But, aside from my digression, the main thing to take away from The Wealth of Networks is that the networked economy cannot be treated like a traditional, proprietary economy (he only repeats it about a million times). Forcing property-based restrictions on nonproprietary items is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. It's clear that the rights that need to be preserved (that is, rights for those who are truly innovative) should be preserved, but the method of preservation will just have to adapt.

Politicians and Celebrities and Politicians as Celebrities

Old maids, spinsters, and crazy cat ladies alike can now shed their stigma - they're the hottest new voting bloc this election, with the potential to emerge as the 'Democrats' Evangelicals'" - at least until they're dumped after the election (they're used to it). Then, some other marginally marginal group will emerge, like the gays. Or something.

Courting unmarried women (ha ha. ha.), campaigns frequently use celebrity endorsements to influence voting habits. Oprah now endorses Obama; the Edwards campaign is "sending its own celebrities in search of female voters," as if they didn't already notice his million-watt smile.

Swoon.


Democrats, meet your biggest supporter. Pretend those cats are Republicans, and she's throwing them right back at those red states.

Will using celebrities to campaign for politicians by association make celebrities the new politicians? Is there even a line between politics and celebrity? Arnold governates, Fred Thompson bores the audience to tears both on and off Law and Order, Stephen Colbert tries to run on both tickets in South Carolina. The same was true decades ago: JFK and Bobby were both celebrities in their own right.

The use of celebrities begs the question - why are celebrities more trustworthy than our peers? We've never met these people, and more than likely we have nothing in common with them. Really, just how big is the $20,000-a-month coke habit constituency anyway? Why does what they say matter?

There is also a tendency to believe that women subscribe more to celebrity culture. Look in any beauty parlor and you will find stacks of Us Weekly or Star. Does this mean women are more susceptible to media messages or that somehow women are less intelligent?

I would like to think not. I would also like to urge people, regardless of gender, to listen not to The Clooney or Oprah but to their own opinions about a candidate's policy.

That is, of course, if they have time to think after they're done in the kitchen.

Question: Why Did I Leave Again?

They say you can never go home again.

Well, you can. I did.

Oh San Francisco, the moment I stepped out of the 16th & Mission BART station and took in your lovely bouquet of piss and cheap alcohol and three weeks' worth of homeless body stench, I knew I was home. I missed you, crazy fuck in the garbage bag, sprawled out across the bus stop. And you- you transvestite that repeatedly harassed me for cigarettes every morning waiting for the train even though you had two lit in your hand (and despite the fact that I don't smoke)- there really is no one else quite like you. I love you.

I forgot what a real burrito tasted like; I forgot what dirty bars feel like; I forgot how great it feels to be around people who are absolutely and completely nuts.

DC: you're too closeted. Go ahead and admit that coke habit, run free with your cracky, skanky gay hooker habit. Dare to go out in public without popping that pastel pink collar.

Be fucking weird.

Or at least import some good crazies for my daily bus ride. Good, proper Christian South Carolinians are fucking boring to watch on my way to school. An idea? North vs. South Carolina throwdown- 1,2,3, go! If I can't have a nice bum fight, I'd settle for Southern belle fight in pearls (you know those girls are dirty).

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to eat some sourdough, drink some Peet's, and watch the birds drown in the oily bay.

No mention of actual schoolwork here, no sir.

Dear Cloon, I'm Sorry.

I know I'm heightist. I know. I dated a guy who was an inch shorter than me but in the end I just couldn't do it. I dumped him.

It might have had more to do with the fact that he disappeared on me for a month while trying to get back together with his ex-girlfriend who had just come back from Namibia than it did with him being an elf.

You might recall that earlier I semi-ranted on George Clooney being short. I stand by my word - he is a shorty. But that does not make him any less attractive or intelligent. Notice, for example, this fact I so blithely left out: the father of all my crushes, Jon Stewart, is a fucking munchkin. And I loooooooves it.

[Side note: I'm slightly disturbed by the fact that the three men I've mentioned having a crush on in my blog are all grey-haired and twenty years my senior, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm]

In a Rolling Stone interview- perfect bathroom reading, I might add- The Clooney had this to say:

"The Information Age? It's great, it's readily available, and it's also dangerous. The bloggers think they're the Murrows of the future, and that anchormen and news organizations are archaic. Here's the problem: If you're a blogger, who's your ombudsman? Who do I go to when you're wrong? Who can I hold responsible?"

Okay, first: some people who read this quote, and the interview as a whole, are going to think The Clooney is drunk with self-importance. He's just an actor; what the hell does he know about improving the world?

Second: given that our politicians are the most corrupt this country has ever seen, I'm pretty sure anyone could do a better job, even actors.



Look what a He-Man he is.

Third: he's right. Blogging is not subject to the same accuracy standards that broadcast news is. This is not to say broadcast news is better; in fact, I don't think you can even call it news today. But blogging can be irresponsible and dangerous. There are a bunch of nutjobs out there who believe in genocide or just live in their Mommy's basement with their erectile dysfunction and their middle age and spend their days trolling around the internet leaving incoherent ideologies and insulting everyone. Just ask Tyler - we both have experience with the crazies.

[Side note again, more of a rhetorical question, really: why does insurance cover medication for erectile dysfunction but not birth control? Why is it more important for a man to achieve an erection than to provide women with control over their own bodies? If it's a matter of money, wouldn't it be cheaper not to have the cost of a child? Why is this country so ass-backward when it comes to sex? Oh yes, it's because men like this, who repeatedly anally rape their wives while preaching to evangelicals about the sanctity of marriage, are part of the FDA.]

If people are to take blogging more seriously, there needs to be an avenue to ensure accuracy and fairness, as The Clooney laments. But the expense of that would be astronomical, and near impossible on a strategic level. Perhaps the future is collective action - that is, policing each other on social norms. It already works for Wikipedia, why not for blogs?

Book Review, Part II: Tom Tancredo For President of Glassy Eyes

I don't know which 24-hour news channel I was watching yesterday, but Tom Tancredo's new campaign spot was highlighted for its fear mongering and a desperate attempt to say, "hey, look at me, I'm running for president- no really, I am- my name's Tom, and I have serial killer eyes."*

Well, maybe journalists would be hesitant to call them serial killer eyes- that's rank speculation, something they know nothing about- but they did identify the desperate grab for attention for what it was, since most people have no idea who Tom Tancredo is. Not exactly a novel revelation, since most campaign ads are grabs for attention. But this one really does stick out, see for yourself:



Why is this disturbing?

Americans already confuse Iraq with Iran with Afghanistan with North Korea with Pakistan; hell, they can't even locate their own country on a map (unless, of course, they think the whole world is America). In talking about our "open borders," Tancredo is implying that Mexicans are Islamic terrorists.

You know what, I'm just going to go ahead and say it: Mexico was responsible for 9/11.

Shit, did I say Mexico? I meant Canada.

Shit, did I say Canada? I meant France.

Shit, did I say France? I meant...France.**

What else is disturbing about Tancredo's irresponsible ad? Well, it is "illegal to censor a candidate's political ad," and must be aired "even if a station...[knows it to be] unfair, factually inaccurate, or offensive" (Interplay of Influence 288-290). This is not to say that Tancredo is the only political candidate ever to air an offensive or inaccurate ad- plenty have, can you say Swift Boat? But what the hell?! This requires Americans to investigate on their own the allegations of campaign ads, but, given that most Americans don't know where their country is on a map, this is highly doubtful.

If candidates are sold like products, as Interplay of Influence claims, then their advertisements should be held to the same standards as consumer products. Wild allegations must be proven. In fact, there should be some product labeling. Instead of calories and trans fats, maybe we should measure bullshit and hypocrisy, creepiness. Then maybe we'd know what we were getting ourselves into.

For example:

George W. Bush
Age: 61
Ingredients: horse shit, crude oil, born-again Christian hypocrisy (hypoChristian?), puppy dog tails, that pretzel he choked on in 2002, nepotism, marbles.

It would make everything a whole lot easier.

-----------------------

*I once worked with this guy whom we called Serial Killer, SK for short. He had this incredibly creepy lurking problem. Like, you'd look up and he's staring at you silently. You look away for a split second and then he's gone.
**I don't mean it, Julie!

Should It Bother Me He Shares His First Name With My Father?

I may be a little behind here, but this pretty much confirms what I've been suspecting for a while- that Keith Olbermann has more balls than Stephen Colbert does, and that I have a huge crush on Keith Olbermann.



On the chance that you're afflicted with the same intellectual infatuation I am, check out more videos like this- hell, just type in his name on YouTube, you should get nearly 3,000 videos. Sure, some call him belligerent and over the top, but I call him best example of the freedom America affords to all of us until Bush decides to revoke the Constitution completely.

And he's not so bad to look at, either. Eh?

Eh?

BREAKING NEWS: I Gave Supermodel Too Much Credit

Apparently one shouldn't trust a column called "The Daily Dish." Turns out gossip is just gossip. Who knew?

Gisele Bundchen does not require payment in Euros only. She did not make a sound financial decision, after all.

I apologize to those who have found their worlds turned upside-down from my previous revelation that a supermodel has done something intelligent. Have no fear: the world has been righted again.

Does God Know Giuliani Is a Drag Queen?

Pat Robertson endorses Rudy Giuliani. I think perhaps his assistants may have mixed up a few words much like a frat boy would - such as "no" meaning "yes." Apparently someone told this evangelical nutjob that Giuliani is NOT pro-choice, NOT for gay rights, has NOT been married three times.

NOT meaning "yes, of course he is, you right-wing zealous apefuck."

I'm not exactly sure why Robertson did this, unless he's an evil genius intent on killing any support Giuliani would have with normal people.

Actually, you know what? Go ahead, Pat.

BREAKING NEWS: Supermodel Does Something Intelligent

Also, say goodbye to the real value of your savings.

Sorry to break it to you kids, but the US is not the best, richest, smartest, most powerful country in the world.

Why’s that? The value of the dollar has steadily been decreasing in comparison to the Euro (and any currency for that matter). Anyone who’s gone abroad know this, some of us curse the Germans for making spätzle so damn expensive in Munich. No? Just me? Well, whatever, curse the Germans anyway.

Renowned supermodel Giselle Bundchen now accepts payment in Euros only, citing the American dollar as “too weak.” She’s right. She deserves every million she’s paid for shaking her ass down the runway for 30.2 seconds. No one is going to con her out of the money she so diligently works for.

Will the dollar rebound? My hunch says it will, approximately on or around January 20, 2009. But don’t take my word for it, I’m no financial expert (I’m already tens of thousands in debt, thanks Georgetown University!).

Also, Prince, or the artist formerly known as the Artist Formerly Known as Prince, is threatening legal action to fansites that use his image. Ummm, what? Does this violate First Amendment rights or is it better not to have to look at his rat face that never seems to age? You decide!

This also just in: when you’re sick you spend too much time reading gossip online.

Book Review, Condensed Version

The “Interplay of Influence,” is a textbook written by Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Karlyn Kohrs Campbell, who shares my name, albeit spelled differently. The work is divided into essentially three themes: news media, advertising, and politics. Jamieson and Campbell list the ways in which all three are persuasive and can be persuaded, and debunk many theories and myths about each. I intend to focus on television advertising here, because it was the section that provoked the most thought for me, since I grew up in a television-saturated society and can remember jingles better than I can sometimes remember salient news events. This does not mean, however, that only young people are afflicted with the jingles burned to their brains. Ask anyone, nearly anywhere, and they'll remember this:



Why is it that we don't know anything about world events, yet we can sing the Oscar Meyer song half-asleep? This is precisely what Jamieson and Campbell examine. In identifying various (cheap) ploys advertisers utilize, we can see advertisements for what they really are: emotional manipulations for the purpose of profit.

We would all probably like to think others are more affected by advertisements. This phenomenon is well-documented; the “third person effect” has its roots in psychology, where we think we are superior to others in intellect and moral character. If we accept the fact that we are all affected by advertising, we can begin to examine how advertisements work, which tactics they employ, and how to counteract the focus group-tested messages companies spend millions to communicate.

Advertising preys on the ignorant, the unsure, the lonely, and the guilty, among others. Advertising strategies employed bank on deliberate vagueness and tricky grammar to mislead consumers into thinking that the advertised product favorably compares with other products, is touted by “experts,” or is backed by (unintelligible) research. Advertisers also employ the emotional and primal needs of consumers- if Mom didn’t make you a Skippy Peanut Butter sandwich, she doesn’t love you. At all. Advertisements also create associations that do not exist. Exactly what nutritional role does your sugar-coated corn-flaked cereal play in a balanced breakfast? Advertising makes false claims, especially when it comes to sex appeal. I’m pretty sure Axe Body Spray smells like a pubescent boy at a middle-school dance, yet commercials for the product show grown women making up their own porn soundtracks and literally throwing themselves at men who wear Axe. Gro-oss.



I’ve noticed especially, even without Jamieson and Campbell’s identification, the trend of companies reverting to old ads to evoke fond memories of the good ol’ days. Orville Redenbacher Popcorn has been re-airing what seem to be original 1970s ads with new graphics. I also noticed recently at my bus stop a poster which featured old-school popcorn poppers comparing the time-tested lightness and fluffiness of Redenbacher to the “ordinary” brands. In fact, Redenbacher has employed this evocative strategy for quite some time now, and there is a wealth of material on YouTube.



Which brings me to my next point: advertisements are so pervasive in our society that we devote entire television broadcasts to the “funniest” and the “sexiest.” Granted, it’s on TBS, but still. The line is blurring between entertainment programs and advertisements, to the point where we are making advertising our entertainment. What does this say about us? It seems to confirm our reliance consumer-based society. It’s driving us to “brand” everything about our lives. Even the Golden Gate Bridge was up for sponsorship. Pretty soon the University of Washington will be renamed Starbucks U.

I only hope they give out free coffee.

Mmmm, coffee.

Identity Crisis

Boiling candidates’ personalities down to one defining trait has its benefits. Voters tend to recall recent or salient events; this priming effect accounts for judgments on the character of political candidates.

Because of the fractured identity of each political party, candidates are scrambling to position themselves- even one full year before the election- on an ideologically coherent platform. This usually translates into for or against Bush, for or against the “war,” for or against gay rights, for or against the right to choose. But it also translates into displaying a prominent personality or, increasingly, a physical trait, and the media and society at large have run with it.

Mit Romney? Cyborg.
John Edwards? Teeth.
Ron Paul? Crazy Texan. This distinction he shares with Ross Perot. In fact, he looks suspiciously like ol’ big ear and has the same initials, which is why he is destined to lose.


Conjoined twins successfully separated at the ears?

I invite you to boil down each candidate to one word – I’ll post it soon.

Candidates have long understood that dumbing down their positions, their personas even, aids the memory of dumbed-down Americans on election day- that is, if Americans were inclined to vote. Nearly every candidate in the race now does this; those who don’t stand out as more honest and morally upright. I’m not naming names.

But it’s similar to Brahma, who, coincidentally, is the Hindu god of knowledge and protector of the world.

Innnnnnteresting.

In ComedyCentralLand, Talking Heads Make Sense

I doubt he really wanted to, anyway.

Stephen Colbert cannot run for “president of South Carolina.” It’s a very real loss because we need someone to make a mockery of our fatally flawed electoral system, and:

primaries
campaign donations/shitty nuclear-orange tortilla chips
Republicans/Democrats, indiscriminately
South Carolina
“favorite sons”
pandering
immobile hair

We cannot afford to break our political system more than it is already broken. It is already dangling by a last anorexic thread of dignity; to allow a talk show host to run for president would only demonstrate the degree to which our political system is a big freaking joke. I have to wonder what those abroad would have thought. Let’s face it, people: we cannot allow ourselves to look worse than we already are.

Also, last night, Jon Stewart quite implicitly supported the writers’ strike and maligned corporate denial of the importance of “new media.” Old school media corporations have been sluggish to jump on the “new media” bandwagon- “new media” being, of course, the internet, which has been around my entire life, in one form or another- and are trying to outright deny screen writers monetary rights for their work sold or streamed on the internet.

Don’t worry, kids. While we might feel the loss of such great shows as the Colbert Report for a while, your viewing of such ridiculous shows as Desperate Housewives will not be affected. You can exhale now.

The broader significance of this strike, and Jon Stewart’s support of it, is that corporations continuing to ignore the salience of emerging new markets for entertainment consumption creates more opportunity for those of us who see the significance of the internet to get around them.

That being said, all episodes of the Daily Show since Jon Stewart's arrival are available online. Is this Jon Stewart’s doing? Or is Viacom letting me embed videos to my heart’s content to bypass YouTube? Either way, I'm not getting dressed today. Enjoy young Jon and outdated topical humor: