• The Davos Question. This time the Davos Question goes online. As the Google blog posted on the 18th of December:
  

  Every year, many of the world’s top leaders from politics, business and the global community — including some of our own — attend the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, to discuss how to make the world a better place. This year, we wanted to give people around the world the chance to join them, and help them, by submitting their own answers to “the Davos Question,” which is: “What one thing do you think that countries, companies or individuals must do to make the world a better place in 2008?”

  Until now the official Davos Question YouTube blog, has only one post, but I’m expecting more movement after the holidays. I have already expressed my skepticism, but nonetheless I am looking forward to observe reactions; reactions of the public, of the Davos ‘leaders’, reactions in general. I’ll keep you posted. [Did I say that I find it cool, that popular bloggers are also taking part in the Davos Meeting?]

• Google Knol. Shortly before Christmas Google surprised us again. It announced the plans of a new platform of knowledge, where authoritative figures will write articles about their specification. Since then a great debate has risen, discussing the project; [indeed it was one of the posts that "...elicited more reactions in terms of views and linkbacks"] its competition with wikipedia, its authoritative model and its potential in general. To be honest, I’m dying to see where this thing goes (if it actually goes anywhere).
• Hyder’s challenge. My personal favorite this one. On the 18th of December Hyder (Everybody GoTo) opened a poll, where everybody could vote a challenge for him (beginning a new blog or getting 100 RSS subscribers in a week among others). Well results are out, and his challenge is to launch a new blog and get 100 subscribers in a month. Will he make it? I don’t really care if he does or not. Its all about the process. And if the process is well documented, then every blogger will have lots to study. Cool, eh?

What’s your virtual self waiting for?

Happy New Year

From January 20, restrictions will be issued in online chatrooms, websites and mobile phones to protect children from viewing unsuitable material.

The Austalian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) will be able to force content providers to take down offensive material and issue notices for live content to be stopped and links to the content deleted.

(according to HeraldSun’s article).

Adults will not be affected by this law as explained by the chairman of ACMA, Chris Chapman.

“In developing these new content rules, ACMA was guided by its disposition to allow adults to continue to read, hear and see what they want, while protecting children from exposure to inappropriate content, regardless of the delivery mechanism.”

News, current affairs and personal communications will also be excluded by the new law.

The debate

Meanwhile a debate has risen in the slashdot community, in digg as long as in the controlcongress community. Should the government regulate the content children should have access to, or is it solely the responsibility of the parents to control what their children are allowed to see? As slashdot user, thegnu noted:

I would probably actually prefer my kids running rampant on an unprotected internet than living in Disney/Fisher-Price world. Kids are stupid enough as it is today. They need real experience, and while the Internet barely qualifies as “real,” it’s more real than a fake Disney Internet. As fucked up as I am from all the porn I’ve seen, I think I’m pretty OK. Especially when I compare myself to kids who grew up sheltered. And I’m probably more fucked up from all the things real live humans did to me. So let’s just leave the Internet alone, no?

That being said, as long as filtering along a top-level domain were voluntary to the parents, then I’m fine with it.
A discussion of similar gravity has started in Releaselog. Will the government regulations end in children protection? Is it impossible to witness a new law proposal ‘protecting’ adults too?

My Conclusion

I can’t see how regulating content can protect children - and to be honest I agree with thegnu’s view.

• Such law implies that children may become ‘corrupted’ by improper material. I find it a bit naive. Like blaiming heavy metal music or video games for the columbine tragedy (or any similar tragedy); its a solution, which does not identify the deeper problems.
• We underestimate childrens creativity. If they want to smoke they will find a way - and if the want to see porn, then they will see porn.
• Sugar coated reality, with teletubbies, disneyland and yellow/pink clouds of fluffy marshmellows? And enforced by the law? I totally agree with Thegnu.
• It reminds me of a Bill Hicks gig, you should check it out. He makes an interesting point.

I know its not as bad as it sounds, since (as noted by n4sa in the releaseLog) “…the focus will be on domestic content providers (.com.au) only and what they are allowed to display. Its not like they are filtering content thru the ISP’s.” And apart from that, the web is worldwide (duh) and Australia is just one country.

The question is: will it get worse?
Update: Traditional ‘hubs’ of the blogosphere have raised their voice against Australia’s movement.

• Scobleizer would rather raise his kids with freedom of speach rather than “…some government deciding what they can and can’t see”
• A news cast in Techcrucnch, proved (unfortunately) my worries that the Australian censorship will get worse.

The Australian Government has announced that they will be joining China as one of the few countries globally that broadly censor the internet.

As recently as the week prior to the election, Labor Party candidates were telling those concerned about the proposed law that the censorship wouldn’t be compulsory, and that the “clean feed” would be opt-in, not opt-out. Today’s announcement by Telecommunications Minister Stephen Conroy states that the censorship regime will be mandatory, although people will be able to opt-out of it. The problem of course then becomes if you opt-out questions will be asked as to why you want out, which in itself may lead to Government monitoring.

See also Mashable’s Australia to censor part of the internet for additional information.

Let’s see how our online rights will evolve.

Prashanth Ellina made a great work extracting topics using wikipedia data. Using the Graphviz program, he shows “…the wealth of information (both as text and as interconnects)” in wikipedia. The graphs are of incomparable complexity and might be not so easy to decode (see an example below, more high quality images in Prashanth’s blog), but remind me of some maps of the web I stumbled upon some time ago (the internet mapping project). It seems to me that even wikipedia obeys to power laws.

It makes me wonder: if some articles in wikipedia get more links than others, can this be considered as an authority breach? Are some articles considered more authoritative or just more popular?

Here is a link he suggests in understanding the interconnection between wikipedia categories.

A recent post in digital media world called ‘Facebored‘ pointed out that Facebook starts getting kind of boring. Not because it doesn’t update its applications or services, but simply because its bubble has now burst. I’ve heard of Facebook for quite some time but really didn’t feel the need to join the community. Now that I did - mostly out of curiosity - I can really associate with the digital media post.

The -in a sense- sudden growth of the Twitter community makes me feel the same. I don’t see the need to join twitter; let me explain why:

1. Sometimes, I enjoy being alone. (with my mobile turned off)
2. It’s addictive.
3. We have enough connectivity, thank you.
4. Like ‘Nobody’ said in the Jim Jarmusch film Dead Man: “you talk too much and say nothing”
5. Too many people know too much about each other (already)
6. Sometimes, it seems like spam.
7. “Having a blast with my nephews”, “enjoying paris by night”, “changing my ringtone”. *precious*
8. information and knowledge in 140 characters just doesn’t feel right.
9. it’s a marketing tool. (hurrae! more advertising)
10. it’s an ego distillery.
11. many headlines and no news.
12. inspite of its affinity to mobile technology, it remains a web application.

and by the way, why do you like mobile phones?

Nearly 10,000 U.S. adults were asked in a survey: How likely would you be to implant a device into your brain that enabled you to use your mind to access the internet if it could be done safely? 11% of the responses were prone to accepting such a perspective.

Marshall Kirkpatrick expressed today his opposition to the idea of an “internet brain implant“.

I find the notion of a web chip (a chip in general actually) oblique as it is; but it also makes me think. The points, that Marshall highlights are well argumented, but I believe we are already addicted to technology in a very high degree. I talk about a degree, where technology (the web, mobile phones, ipods, whatever) are already implanted to our (at least mental) existence. We can’t step out of our front door without our mobile phones and we can’t pass couple of days without checking our emails (I don’t know about you, but without internet I feel physically weak). The notion of media as extensions of ourselves (expressed by McLuhan) is becoming more realistic every day. Let me elaborate.

• Privacy. Marshall Kirkpatrick sees the idea of ‘privacy as an illusion’ nowadays as a hyperbole. I disagree. Anyone can easily ‘google’ your name and find information about you. Your habits online are open for anyone to see. And even without google, we have blogs, facebook, myspace and hundreds more communities which in one way or another define us. But also the mobile culture, leaves little room to privacy. We are reachable everywhere and anytime. Just call. And have you noticed someting else? When someone calls us on the mobile phone, his first question is: Where are you? Privacy has a completely new meaning nowadays.
• Information overload. We are facing a paradox. On the one hand people complain about the information overload. On the other hand though, this overload has enabled a democratizition of media, given the public an incomparable variety of choices and encouraged a whole economics about the long trail of the web. We are standing between a paradise of choice and a paradox of choice. Maybe our hands are too slow to get to all this information (as Marshall Kirkpatrick says). But only because they just receive instructions from our brain, bacause they are mediators. So maybe it would be better if we would let our brain do the work. Forget mediators.

Services like twitter show that maybe people don’t want “…a private place to hatch [their] plots”. They don’t even care for the information overload. Maybe they just need to be constantly occupied, to be in constant socialization. Information like “I’m waiting for my roommate to wake up, so that we can clean up the house” or “just put the kids to bed. ready for bed myself” REALLY make me think.

If I were to summarize my argument it would be: We are already addicted to some media and use them so often, as if they were an implant in our heads. Under that perspective, I don’t see the difference.

I suppose such an internet chip, could make many popular technologies obsolete. Who would need a mobile phone, an ipod or a laptop? You got it all in your head. When you want to be alone (if ever) just state ‘out for lunch’ or ‘brb’ or even ‘offline’.

And you can cheat on exams, just wiki everything. If you dare to trust wikipedia.

Boring meeting? Play World of Warcraft.

Boring sex life? Let your ‘imagination’ free.

After all its all in your head.

And if you are skeptical about the big vendors controlling your brain chip, install linux.

From January 20, restrictions will be issued in online chatrooms, websites and mobile phones to protect children from viewing unsuitable material. The Austalian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) will be able to force content providers to take down offensive material and issue notices for live content to be stopped and links to the content deleted. (according to HeraldSun’s article).

Adults will not be affected by this law as explained by the chairman of ACMA, Chris Chapman.

“In developing these new content rules, ACMA was guided by its disposition to allow adults to continue to read, hear and see what they want, while protecting children from exposure to inappropriate content, regardless of the delivery mechanism.”

News, current affairs and personal communications will also be excluded by the new law.

The debate

Meanwhile a debate has risen in the slashdot community, in digg as long as in the controlcongress community. Should the government regulate the content children should have access to, or is it solely the responsibility of the parents to control what their children are allowed to see? As slashdot user, thegnu noted:

I would probably actually prefer my kids running rampant on an unprotected internet than living in Disney/Fisher-Price world. Kids are stupid enough as it is today. They need real experience, and while the Internet barely qualifies as “real,” it’s more real than a fake Disney Internet. As fucked up as I am from all the porn I’ve seen, I think I’m pretty OK. Especially when I compare myself to kids who grew up sheltered. And I’m probably more fucked up from all the things real live humans did to me. So let’s just leave the Internet alone, no?

That being said, as long as filtering along a top-level domain were voluntary to the parents, then I’m fine with it.
A discussion of similar gravity has started in Releaselog. Will the government regulations end in children protection? Is it impossible to witness a new law proposal ‘protecting’ adults too?

My Conclusion

I can’t see how regulating content can protect children - and to be honest I agree with thegnu’s view.

• Such law implies that children may become ‘corrupted’ by improper material. I find it a bit naive. Like blaiming heavy metal music or video games for the columbine tragedy (or any similar tragedy); its a solution, which does not identify the deeper problems.
• We underestimate childrens creativity. If they want to smoke they will find a way - and if the want to see porn, then they will see porn.
• Sugar coated reality, with teletubbies, disneyland and yellow/pink clouds of fluffy marshmellows? And enforced by the law? I totally agree with Thegnu.
• It reminds me of a Bill Hicks gig, you should check it out. He makes an interesting point.

I know its not as bad as it sounds, since (as noted by n4sa in the releaseLog) “…the focus will be on domestic content providers (.com.au) only and what they are allowed to display. Its not like they are filtering content thru the ISP’s.” And apart from that, the web is worldwide (duh) and Australia is just one country.

The question is: will it get worse?
Update: Traditional ‘hubs’ of the blogosphee have raised their voice against Australia’s movement.

• Scobleizer would rather raise his kids with freedom of speach rather than “…some government deciding what they can and can’t see”
• A news cast in Techcrucnch, proved (unfortunately) my worries that the Australian censorship will get worse.

The Australian Government has announced that they will be joining China as one of the few countries globally that broadly censor the internet.

As recently as the week prior to the election, Labor Party candidates were telling those concerned about the proposed law that the censorship wouldn’t be compulsory, and that the “clean feed” would be opt-in, not opt-out. Today’s announcement by Telecommunications Minister Stephen Conroy states that the censorship regime will be mandatory, although people will be able to opt-out of it. The problem of course then becomes if you opt-out questions will be asked as to why you want out, which in itself may lead to Government monitoring.

Let’s see how are online rights evolve.

I stumbled upon this link, which lists universities with the best free online courses. From MIT to Berkeley. Certainly a great source for anyone looking for a new hobby.