Closing the Digital Divide: The Internet and Iran

The Internet is a fantastic way to facilitate communication among cultures and locations. Yet, as one of the articles on this topic states, “burgeoning power the Internet to close the digital divide in these countries is only rivaled by the strength of government-led efforts to ensure this divide—and their hold power.”

This tension between the freedom to explore the World Wide Web (in its most literal sense) and the attempt of the Iranian government to control this exploration leads me to a more fundamental question: is Internet access a right?

The writer of the piece described the growing ability to use the Internet in Iran as “gaining their own voice.” He describes the regime as “moving quickly to quash” this voice. It sounds like the conflict is being described as a human rights violation to me. Other clues include the assertion that “the government has… sought to muzzle and/or intimidate dissident Iranian voices on the Internet.”

This article emphasizes the rather intimidating idea that the internet is not only a way of getting information and communicating with friends—it is a political force. It is, in fact, a symbol of freedom. The writer states: “the Internet poses significant risks to the status quo and those who enforce it in countries such as Iran.” The web is full of information. If you don’t have the Internet, you can’t get the information… and information is a closely guarded commodity in countries with controlling regimes, such as Iran. The media plays a hugely important role—it is the link between the individual and the outside world. If a government assumes control of the media, there is no communication, no evolution, and no change. Change is precisely the thing that the Iranian government wants to avoid.

Yet, doesn’t everyone have the right to hope for things to get better, to know what’s available that could improve their lives? The Internet is a very important tool for crossing borders and sneaking past red tape—and Iranian people deserve the right to have this tool.

Do ethics codes do any good?

In the Journalist and the Murderer, Janet Malcolm examines the psychopathology of Journalism, and the tragic relationship between the journalist and the subject. In Malcolm’s view, the journalists and their subjects can not avoid the moral impasse that is built into the journalistic situation. “Journalists justify their treachery in various ways according to their temperaments. The more pompous talk about freedom of speech and the public’s right to know; the least talented talk about Art; the seemliest murmur about earning a living.”

            To explain the ethical dilemma (inherent in journalism)—that the journalist has different conflicting interests to those of his/her subject—Malcolm uses the relationship between journalist and murderer. Very often journalists lie to get their story. There are obvious moral questions that rise for the journalists, but as Malcolm states: “what gives journalism its authenticity and vitality is the tension between the subject’s blind self-absorption and the journalist’s skepticism”. But, the Constitution gives the Press similar elevated status in our democratic society as to religion, speech, assembly, and other protected rights. The question is:  Should journalists have the “right” to lie under the protection of freedom of speech law?

            Janet Malcolm portrayed the journalists as “a kind of confidence man, praying on people’s vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse” (The New Yorker, 1989). Her book, The Journalist and the Murderer, deals with journalistic ethics focusing on the libel suit that convicted murderer Jeffrey MacDonald brought against author Joe McGinniss for “perpetrating a fraud”, a breach of good faith after the publication of Fatal Vision—a book about the crime. Malcolm asserts that the responsibility of journalists is to both the subject and the reader, but the ultimate commitment of the journalists is to the reader’s interests. However, the journalists should not ignore the “moral impasse”. She focuses her argument around the example of MacDonald and McGinniss.  Malcolm discusses the morally indefensible state of the work journalists do, and the ways they use people’s vulnerabilities and vanity in efforts to gather information for their published work. This is a betrayal of the relationship between journalists and their subjects.

            The question that remains is: Are codes helpful in ethical reasoning? While the ethics codes remind us of the issues and ethical standards, conflicts of interests as well as sourcing and honesty issues remain important concerns of journalism ethics. The best example is Janet Malcolm’s own lie of omission—by not telling the reader about the conflicts of interests in MacDonald case—which ends up being the proof that journalists and journalism are not always reliable, but are ultimately the product of similar types of bias that they seek to expose in their subjects.

Online Gaming as a Business Experience

Online gaming is extremely popular these days, but it hasn’t been very interesting with me before I started doing research and reading about this phenomenon. After reading an article in the New York Times about the Internet Boom on Virtual Fun in China, I called my daughter, who is currently there. She participates at various international forums and has the opportunity to meet with students in Shanghai, Changzhou, Nanjing, Suzhou, and Beijing. She was amazed that every young person she met talked about playing QQ online games, downloading video and music into their MP3, and playing with instant messaging on their cellphones. She said that just about anyone under the age of 30 plays. They do this for social networking and entertainment, but the Internet marketing is booming in China.

Games have changed remarkably over the past five or so years. The new technology (gaming platforms) provides the experience of using your computer for fun, for social networking, and why not for business purposes. I recently purchased a new Toshiba laptop, and I was surprised to discover that you can play games on Windows Vista using the Xbox 360 Wireless Gaming Receiver that Microsoft has released.

I learned that MMOGs as “Second Life” and “World of Warcraft” contribute to the building of communities, because there are guilds of tens of people who play together frequently. I was interested to see how playing on Second Life, for example, these communities can create business. I signed up for an account, so that I could try to experience the Second Life for doing business myself.

I found confusing especially the orientation process, but upon entering the virtual environment, I encountered not only unlimited ways for entertainment, but also lots of business and commercial opportunities. I learned to communicate with fellow residents, participate in events, buy, sell, and trade objects. Shopping in Second Life is very tempting.

However, the economy Second Life supports really surprised me. I still not completely understand how the transactions with Linden Dollars work. How can you purchase Linden Dollar with US dollars on the Linden Dollar Exchange (LindeX)? With a regular currency, commerce takes place in open market.

Last year, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) launched its own Public Financial Management Blog joining in blogosphere its sister organization, the World Bank, and the World Economic Forum. Their topics would not include accrual accounting and financial frameworks, but rather news, resources and ideas related to financial stability. They are also planning to use games in doing international business, but are they going to include holdings of Linden Dollar in the Foreign exchange reserves in IMF Currency Composition of Official Foreign Exchange Reserves (COFER)? How about the Second Life economy?

How will blogs and games change development? What the impact of blogs on development might be? Can gaming be used to maximize the results of development? It is interesting to see how using games will improve development and international business results in less developed countries. I think that the issue of using Second Life, for instance, for business and international development is still a controversial topic.

How Do We Know What We Know? Or-Who do You Choose To Believe When You Turn On the TV?

             In his book, Mixed Media: Moral Distinctions in Advertising, Public Relations, and Journalism (2004), Thomas Bivins explores ethical issues and media focusing on the news media (journalism), advertising, and public relations. By reading this book, you can understand the tools and complexities of making moral and ethical decisions regarding the use of mass media.

            A recent study shows that the general public’s trust in newspapers and television news is at all-times low. (http://suppressednews.com/mynews/news/EEEApAlyAESOenPdnF.shtml)

This means that the news coverage is not fair and balanced. News media bias may be impossible to avoid, because on television almost every store is told in less than two minutes. Consequently, the reporter decides what part of the story to include or omit, and broadcast news is dangerous because of what is not reported.

            The commercial media are dominated by transnational companies. Most of the time, what we see on TV news is video news releases prepared by public relations firms. News broadcasters air these PR videos because they are free, and because the media’s primary source of income is advertising. The purpose of public relations campaigns is to increase power and profitability. Burson-Marsteller, a leading PR firm, claims: “the role of communications is to manage perceptions which motivate behaviors that create business results”.

            John Stauber, the founder of the Central Media and Democracy, explains how public relations work: “Public relations is a perversion of the democratic process”, he says (http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/bios.php/John_Stauber). But in order to make knowledgeable decisions on matters of public policy, it is important to our democratic society that television news and other media be undistorted, fair, and unbiased. Personally, I find the Internet a more reliable source of current national and international news, which you can gather much faster than watching television.

Online Journalism, Election, and Democracy

For election/voting issues, Brad Friedman, the owner of www.bradblog.com, deserves lots of credit. In 2005, he discovered and made public the voting issues in the 2004 election. His investigation showed that “The American Center for Voting Rights” was created only to distract the public from what really happened in Ohioin November, 2004. The Los Angeles Times states that he is “the state’s most persistent blogger-watchdog on the dangers of voting technology”. As an example, on February 5, 2008 (Super Tuesday), his blog reveals that “voters face long lines in Georgiaas photo ID Laws and Diebold’s crashing E-Pollbook system slow process”.

            The Internet is bringing so much information, debate, controversy, and coverage of the Presidential election. As I previously wrote, “The presidential campaign for the 2008 election has been exciting. With new technology and cultural changes, the voters had different expectations that required the adjustment of their campaigns to fit the needs and demands of the American people. In 2004, Dean’s campaign was one of the first to utilize the medium of Internet media to strengthen the power of his supporters. Now, many notable current presidential candidates have discovered the power of the World Wide Web”.

The medium that the campaigns employ is the Internet, but the philosophy that they utilize is the idea of decentralizing control. This philosophy makes it easier for us “commoners” to get more involved in communication, collaboration, conversation, deliberation, affinity, documentation, research, etc.—and isn’t that the ultimate goal of democracy, or so called “extreme democracy”?

Is Online Journalism Good for Democracy?

            The Internet and specifically the World Wide Web has had huge impacts on Journalism. In the last several years, Online Journalism has emerged. Journalists use specific strategies such as:  annotative reporting, computer assisted reporting, open source journalism, and hyperadaptive news sites.

            In this essay, I would like to focus on open source journalism. It is journalism produced by citizens, scholars, community activists, who not only write the stories, but also make them available for editing and corrections before final publication. Some examples of citizen journalism are: blogs, social networks, Wikipedia ( here is one of my own entries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldovi%C5%A3a ), and other new technology tools.

            The blogosphere is growing up. PubSub estimates that blogosphere has more than 8 million Weblogs, or online journals own and written by the new “pamphleteers”. As most authors agree, bloggers have different rules and standards from traditional journalists. For instance, Rebeca Blood, the author of “The Weblog Handbook”, has described six ethical standards for bloggers. At the same time, Steve Rube, the owner of Micropersuasion blog, argues that “the blogosphere runs on customs and norms—on what the community feels acceptable”.

            Although blogs lack the credibility of news organizations, I believe that blogging has improved Journalism and is good for Democracy—due to an immense number of people reading and commenting on news stories, and because of sourcing. For example, prior to the invasion of Iraq, Justin Raimondo at Antiwar.com provided the public with much wider perspective of the invasion than traditional media organizations. Later, it was proved that bloggers’ news was correct and that the invasion was based on pre-war intelligence that was not credible and valid.

A Bill of Rights for Participants on the Social Web

There is currently a big debate about who owns our personal information that Facebook, MySpace, and other social networks collect abut us.

Four prominent bloggers, Robert Scoble, Marc Canter, Joseph Smarr, and Michael Arrington, has drafted a “Bill of Rights for the Social Web“. This document outlines how companies should treat the data they collect from users of social web sites. Based on this document, users should be able to assert three basic rights over their data: ownership, control, and freedom.

The question is: Do we need a Bill of Rights for the social web?” I am trying to express my opinion about this issue. I think that a social bill of rights is necessary. Social networks should create more open systems that give users better access and control over the information and attention data they create. The users should be the ones who control their personal information, not the networks.

Users’ privacy should be respected, and their personal information must not be sold for any purposes, including for profit or promotion. All materials published on the social networks, including audio, video, writings, artwork, and other intellectual property created by users shall be copyrighted and should not be duplicated or used without the permission of users (similar with the permission given for publishing).

While I support “the Bill of Rights for the social web”, I am concerned about this issue, and I think that the draft bill does only partially cover the rights I would like to assert. It is open to interpretation. The softwares are not standard. They are not laws. The social networks are driven by popularity. They have aggregated a lot of data, and what if they abuse of it or sell our information for profit, for example.

Also, there should be a social web code of conduct. The users themselves should have a code of conduct. But even if there are “codes of conduct”, they are as open to interpretation as the “bill of rights” is.

On the other hand, adhering to those guidelines might not be worthwhile in the long term. In the future, Facebook, MySpace, Friendstar, Youtoube, and other social web companies might be relegated to the status of AOL or My Yahoo, and the web would become the social network with logins and all kind of restrictions. Some may argue that we should respect the Internet as a living entity, a source of interaction, information, communication, and community making sure that social web remains open and without too many restrictions.

To conclude, I think that social media bill of rights is necessary, but “The Bill of Rights for the social web” should continue to be a big topic of debate. As Joseph Smarr states, this Bill of Rights is part of a larger conversation that should continue to grow and to help both sites and their users clarify the way they want the social web to work.

Wikipedia and Truthiness III

So, why is the debate over Wikipedia’s reliability so fascinating? I must agree with the hypothesis developed by Larry Sanger, the Wikipedia’s co-founder. In the New Politics of Knowledge, he mentioned the creation of online Republics, about the creative Public, collaborative projects, wisdom of crowds, politics of knowledge, political systems of governance, and the role of experts in online Republics. He sugests that Wikipedia should consider the creation of online Republics, and is in favor of an online constitutional representative democracy informed by experts. “In an online Constitutional Republic, authority remains ultimately in the hands of the Creative Public, but they entrust that authority temporarily to their representatives, and all agree to be bound by a charter”.

I believe that it is necessary a more reliable free encyclopedia by giving people a place to work and create  under the direction of experts and by expecting personal accountability, including the use of real names.

Jimmy Wales, who invented Wikipedia, let the community evolve its rules based on its real needs. I completely agree. Open communication is a wonderful and practical idea that most democracies are founded upon. Just like capitalist economies, which function based on the supply and demand.

Wikipedia and Truthiness II

Often, Wikipedia is attacked based on false assumptions. Therefore, another question asked is if there are any actual verified data on how accurate Wikipedia is. To this question, I would use the example of John Seigenthaler’s experience. The former Administrative Assistant of Robert Kennedy states in “A false Wikipedia biography” : “I had heard for weeks from teachers, journalists and historians about the wonderful world of Wikipedia, where millions of people worldwide visit daily for quick reference facts, composed and posted by people with no special expertise or knowledge-and sometimes by people with malice”.

As Wales stated in an interview with Business-Week on December 13, 2005, Wikipedia’s use had grown faster than its self-monitoring system could handle–one of the reasons that hoax articles had gone undetected. You can follow Wikipedia’s growth by looking at this page: http://stats.wikimedia.org/

From my readings about the truth in the digital world, it came to my attention the claim of Stephen Colbert. During the premiere episode of The Colbert Report, he announced that “The Word” of the night was “truthiness“. He satirized Wikipedia and said that it is an example of truthiness.

Wikipedia and Truthiness I

“Wiki-wiki” is the Hawaiian word for quick. Wikipedia is a free-content, collaborative, internet-based encyclopedia, made up by individual entries. It is a fast and easy way to publish on line, and anyone can create an entry or edit existing entries.

Jimmy “Jimbo” Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, was inspired from reading Eric Raymond’s 1998 essay, “The Cathedral and the Bazar”  and Friederich Hayek’s 1945 canonical article advocating free markets, “The Use of knowledge in Society“, which argued that individuals have generally only limited knowledge and the “truth” is achieved when people pool their knowledge via markets. So, he concluded that writing an encyclopedia should be a collective work, opened up to many people.

The Wikipedia community has developed its policies and guidelines as well as a set of specialized roles for its registered users. Among them are: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; it has a neutral point of view; Wiki is free;  it has a code of conduct, but does not have firm rules. However, there are concerns about Wikipedia’s accuracy and reliability, expertise, authority, anti-elitism, and bureaucracy.

There is a lot of criticism and controversy, and Wikipedia’s reliability and accuracy have been questioned. Here is one of the questions: Is Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica? I believe that in the Internet age, the question should be “how should I trust”, not “who should I trust”-like in the consumer age.

Robert McHenry, a former editor-in-chief of Britannica, was concerned about the lack of formal expertise within the Wikepedia content-production process, and called it “the faith-based encyclopedia”. For instance, Britannica hired famous contributors to bolster its credibility while Wikipedia relies on the wisdom of crowds.

Likewise, Lary Sanger wrote an online article in 2004, in which he expressed his concern about Wikipedia’s lack of respect for experts. At the same time, the findings of an expert-led investigation by Nature magazine show that the content of Wikipedia is usually as accurate as the content of Britannica.

So, what is the issue? I think, the issues are that there is an implicit need for the exercise of judgement in using Wikipedia entries, which is also implicit but not exactly the same in using Britannica.