Further on the Neutrality of Science

Further on the neutrality of science discussions on Moral Maze and Howard’s blog and picking up on an aspect out of interwoven fabric of issues raised, I would like to argue that discussing manipulation of data and fabrication of results by scientists are not the key issue here because, believing and thinking ALL scientists can be non-political and moral is rather naive. I agree with the Dr Parr argument that “…actually all scientists bring values to the table when they are talking about political issues after all they are all human beings.”

The issue here should be about us, the general public and the policy makers, needing and willing to question the rigorousness of the research design and validity of the results. The problem lies with the fact that we have stopped questioning the science and treating it to be objective. We have learnt to be sceptical towards what we read and watch on TV so, we need to be also sceptical towards scientific results.

Questioning the neutrality of science

Listening to the BBC moral maze on the 2nd 12th 2009, which discussed the neutrality of science. Where does the ethics of science begin and morality end? The debate was provoked by the problems of ‘climategate’.

The default defensive position of the politician is to use and say, as justification; “that the evidence says…”, which enables the politician to justify a political position and consequently help to make a decision. Is the politician hiding behind the facts and, can science be neutral?

It is without doubt that Climategate, has now become politically charged debate. Was it ever not a politically motivated subject? At the core of this particular spat is the accusation of ‘manipulation of the data’ by some scientists. The change was levelled after hacked (stolen) e-mails.

For the record, I do personally think that there is climate change, some of it is un-doubtable down to human activity, I have been convinced of man-made interference since the the causal effects of CFC upon the Ozone depletion. 80% of which is from anthropogenic (man-made) sources.

However, increasingly I have become ever more sceptical over the claim that scientists make about neutrality. This would, and does include everybody else as well, in making the ‘a’ claim of neutrality. This position has not been helped in reading (if true) the stolen e-mail by professor Phil Jones:

”If FOIA does ever get used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as well. Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them”.

The answer to the problem – MAKE all evidence transparent – and OPEN.

See Open Knowledge Foundation Blog

Dude, where is my moral responsibility?

Moral Maze presented a diverse set of viewpoints this week, highlighting our moral ambiguity on prostitution. This led Howard and I to re-think our position. I have blogged on Belle de Jour earlier and argued that my problem with the Belle de Jour case wasn’t about the individual actions themselves but rather their implications and influence on society as a whole. I do accept (don’t have a reason not to accept) as Dr Magnanti expresses; that there are individuals who are willingly go into prostitution. Therefore, I thought that as long as one exercises self governance over their actions and take responsibility for them, then, we should respect his/her decision even if it is conventionally regarded as socially not acceptable. However, discussing it over with Howard, I found a flaw in my argument. The problem should not be about whether she decided to normalize and glamorize prostitution by publishing her account, as I have argued in my previous blog, but what should be questioned is; the action itself, further, this should be examined from a social network perspective. This means that 'I' as an individual may consider as a private action may not necessarily be private, as it takes place within the wider context of being, belonging to, a social world, that is, I am not separated out from it. I think my view on the remit of individual’s moral responsibility was too narrow and limited.

Upon another note, I found the argument put forward by Dr Belinda Brooks Gordon in this programmed was very interesting and certainly provocative. She rejected the idea that a large number of people who go into prostitution belong to the socially vulnerable section of society (75% was presented by other guest in the programme) consequently, the claim is that they are forced into their actions and exploited. She dismissed such arguments on the grounds that there is no scientific evidence to support that position. She then presented some statistics to support her argument. So what is troubling, she dismissed someone else’s statistic and presented her own statistic as a fact in-order to draw an inference and to argue that our view on prostitution is stigmatized. Listening both sides, the conclusion I can draw is whether we are seeing what we only want to see. This may apply to all of us, including Dr Gordon. I think we can only be able to make our minds up when we are presented with the research work itself and not just the numbers so that we can judge ourselves the validity of these studies.

Social media – Twitter – Fry, Stone & Hoffman

At NESTA event, Fry, Stone and Hoffman discussed the future impact of social media on the 19th November 2009.

www.nesta.org.uk

The panellists were Biz Stone, Founder and Chief Executive of Twitter, Reid Hoffman, Founder and Chief Executive of LinkedIn and Stephen Fry.

Discussed the many aspects of Twitter, in particular. Fascinating interchange of ideas. Fry talks about losing his faith after being bombarded by critical comments. Biz talks about a start-up philosophies of web 2.0 companies having an open usage policy and then building a business plan out of the patterns that emerge.

The Myth of Loss of Individuality

Josh Harris was on Digital Planet. It caught my attention when he said, "The new big problem is loss of self, or loss of individuality." I wished the presenter had quizzed him further on this remark. Anyhow, what I can gather from his remark is that the penetration of digitalization in our every day lives is challenging our individuality as we are exposed publicly by various digital technologies.

There are two problems for me in his argument. One, the connections he makes between the words, ‘loss’ and ‘individuality’. He is implying that ‘individuality’ is something that is expendable and denying the fact that we, the individuals are inherently unique and individualistic. Two, for him to say that there is a problem of ‘loss of self, or loss of individuality’, he is also implying that we had individuality before the digitalization. Obviously, we can only lose something that we had in the first place, in this case, before the digitalization. However, individuality has been a subject of social enquiry even before the digitalization and Weber, as a critique of modern society, argued that modern rationality has acted as a constraint to individuality.

Social network and our moral responsibility

What worries me is that I may come across as just another morally righteous preacher as this blog is about ‘Belle de Jour’ and my problem with it. Throughout my studies, I have learnt not to assume anything. Things have to be critically examined and we should look into their supporting evidence and theoretical foundation. In life, I also try not to assume too much so that I am not judgemental. I do not want to judge her and whether it was right or wrong for her to decide to go into prostitution for the reasons she has given, as I can never be her. For me, it is not about her decision to prostitute to get what she wants, in this case, PhD. The problem I have here is the fact that she was morally irresponsible to glamorise such a serious social problem using a social network tool.

When the author was anonymous, there was a possibility of the story being fictitious. Now that the author is revealed, I feel unease about her misusing social network tools to glamorise the real social problem. There is a dark side of prostitution that woman (and possibly man) are forced into it, resulting in physical and mental abuse. I don’t think I need to explain the seriousness of the problem.

The social network tool has given everyone a platform to voice and express themselves but there is also responsibility that comes with it. The individuals have to think about how it is used and the implications that follow. The experience of prostitution may have been suited for her but, by and large, there is a real social problem in prostitution hence glamorising and normalising it, can seriously hamper the effort of many people who are trying to save lives that are threatened in prostitution.

Observing future of Mobile TV cautiously

The most interesting aspect of mobile TV for me is that how slow the take off it has been in spite of its seemingly obvious technological attractiveness. The combination of TV and mobile phone seemed to be a perfect match and must-have technology for 21st century consumers. Yet, it has faced with international politics over standards (there are three main mobile TV standards; DVB-H, DMB and MediaFLO) and technological limitations.

However, the BBC dot.life blog explains some recent changes in the market, prompting some hopes on the future of mobile TV in the UK. It points out that 'the proliferation of smartphones with bigger screens’ is one of the possible driving factors for a long waited take off of mobile TV. Even though in my previous research founded that the size of screen was not an inhibitor for the adoption of mobile TV, the advanced technology with viewing friendly feature should certainly enhance the quality of the mobile TV experience. Mobile TV has failed to live up to its initial expectations but it will be interesting to see how it progresses in this ever changing marketplace.

The Death of Taxonomies

Interesting thought provoking article (Clipped below). The point with which I agree; the disposal of traditional hierarchical taxonomies. The call is for meta structures, recognising that the one size fits all just doesn't work. The semantics used, should be syntax independent. Applicable in a variety of contexts yet are capable of technological translation and mapping onto local contextual situations.

 

clipped from: www.cmswatch.com

predicted the death of traditional, monolithic, and single-hierarchy taxonomies, as well as the death of what I’d call the typical turn-of-the-21st-century taxonomy project

---

Metadata continues to be vital, but technology is constantly getting better at mining and organizing it.

---

entity extraction and semantic analysis create multi-faceted categorizations by people, country, city, language, companies, and other topics. Most of the content was unstructured; no taxonomy or tagging projects were undertaken.

---

taxonomists need to adapt and work with technology to improve the results of what they can achieve for enterprises.

---

the title “taxonomist” should die

---

it pushes people into the mindset of fixed hierarchies and navigations

---

Metadata architects can no longer get away with being topic generalists, they must be specialists in the industry content they’re refining and understand the end-user

---

I propose embracing a new era of metadata architects, ones that work with technology

The project failure list is getting longer and longer

clipped from news.bbc.co.uk Plans for the £234m National Offender Management Information System system, known as C-NOMIS, began in 2004 with the aim of allowing the prison and probation services in England and Wales to follow offenders "end-to-end" through the criminal justice system. But by July 2007 the project was two years behind schedule and its estimated costs had increased to £690m. It was later abandoned. The committee's report finds that staff "grossly underestimated" the likely cost and neither ministers nor senior management at the Home Office, nor even the project board, were aware of problems until May 2007. "There was not even a minimum level of competence in the planning and execution of this project. "This project has been a shambles."

My trust on trial

I can only describe the state of my mind in the last few hours as frantic with a full of anger.

I received an email from my sister and when I opened it, I saw this invitation box below asking me to be her friend (see below). I confirmed her name (Sunghee Park) and her email address. I did not twice think about it and pressed the ‘Yes’ button. At the time, I thought it was some kind of online chatting application, social network, that she wanted me to use. When I clicked the ‘Yes’ button, it asked me to input my password for Hotmail. Yes, in hindsight, that is where I should have stopped and thought about it some more. However, it was from my sister in which I had complete trust.

As I progressed through the signing up pages, I realised that it was an online dating service so I decided to stop in the middle of signing up process (so I thought). As it was from my sister, I was laughing at the thought of my sister wanting me to try an online dating service.

A few hours later, Howard sent me a message telling me that he received the invitation email from Jhoos (on behalf of me). In that flash of seconds, I realised I have been had by a com site. I googled the Jhoos and found that it infiltrates user’s email contact lists and sends out invitations. Even though I halted the process in the middle, Jhoos still sent out invitations to everyone in my contact lists. Coincidently, my sister also did not suspect the invitation because in turn she received it from her friend.

For the rest of afternoon was spent sending out emails to everyone in my contact lists to warn them of the scam and contemplating that I had fallen for a con. Even though I would not consider myself as a tech savvy nor am I an expert on online security, yet, I am aware of online scam and not to open links in emails. Despite knowing all of this, I still felt for it. I feel awful not because I trusted Jhoos invitation unconditionally but because it disguises itself and appears to have been sent by someone we trust, in my case, my sister. My trust was put on trial and it appears to be guilty as charged.

Stalked by Twitter

I am not a regular Twitter user, and I have now found the process of follower association annoying. Today and not for the first time, I have received email notification that I have so and so following my Twitter. This person (supposedly), who is following me, tends to have few hundred followings, but followed only by one or two people. We do know, through inference, that these people are either selling products or of ‘themselves’. However, the issue I have with Twitter is that; I am and get followed by these people without my permission to do so. This is different from say, Facebook, which asks me if I want to be associated with so-and-so person, that I have to accept the invite. Now, Twitter works in a different way, each time I receive the notification of a new follower, I have to log in to my Twitter account so that I can remove the person from my follower list and block them. I do not wish to see my Twitter profile filled with such people who have profile images, featuring a ‘suggestive pose’. When it first happened I felt quite violated and still do. I consider my online profile to be in a minutiae way, a representation of myself and wish to regard my online space to be self-governed. Should I not have a say in who can and cannot follow me? Should I not have control over my online space?

Future Reading

Probably I am not the best person to discuss the likes of ‘the Kindle’ technology as I have never used them. However, I am quite interested to find out about its potential influence on our reading experience.

Previously I have downloaded an e-book legally available on online to my desktop computer but I have yet to turn to the second page, blaming my general disinterest in the e-books’ lack of mobility and accessibility. Whist, I agree with the BBC blog that there are constraints upon e-book readers to take off in the same way that iPod and MP3 players have. However, for me, because of its light weight, I can imagine myself having an e-book reader permanently in my bag as I normally have to think twice about the weight and volume of the book that I want to carry, together with the amount of walking I have to do on that day.

E-book and the reader technology may not be able to completely transform the publishing industry and enjoy the attention that iPod and MP3 have received from the users, however it is too early to rule it out from its potential business and social implications. One of the merits of the digital technology is the fact that it has infinite potential.

*********

In my previous blog, I have discussed and expressed some concerns over the News Corp’s decision to move to a subscription model. I have extracted a paragraph from the BBC blog which supports my argument.

“Suddenly I realised why a book worked on the Kindle but a paper did not. For me, reading a book is an analogue experience - I start at page one and continue until I've finished. A newspaper, on the other hand, is more random, more interactive. I scan the sections and leap from one article to another, much as I do on the web. That's what is already available to me - for free - on newspaper websites, so why would I pay for a less satisfactory digital newspaper? Newspapers have woken up rather late to the fact that they've been giving away content online which could be monetised through e-readers.”

Resisting will not halt the change

With the introduction of Google’s  ‘Fast Flip’, the debate over the validity of news aggregating service resurfaced in vitriolic  name calling. This time, managing editor of the Wall Street Journal, Robert Thomson suggests that some of the news aggregating services available on internet are ‘parasites’ or ‘tapeworm’ (see below extract from the BBC news).

"There is a collective consciousness among content creators that they are bearing the costs and that others are reaping some of the revenues.”

"There is no doubt that certain websites are best described as parasites or tech tapeworms in the intestines of the internet"

Such denial of the changing business environment, fuelled by personalization, connectivity and systems thinking is not going to benefit the ‘traditional’ news companies. Have we not learnt the lessons from early days of the music industry when it was faced with the inevitable digital age? The news of Facebook’s success clearly highlights the changes in the patterns of consuming information. We, the users are all actively engage in the information distribution in our own personalized way that the  emergence of such news aggregating services was inevitable. Instead of dismissing such services, the traditional news companies should embrace and adopt a business model that can exploit the changing market. Business needs to reread the history books on  changing technology and its implications.

Social technologies, tools for ‘EVERYONE’

Bill Thompson in his BBC article argues, quite rightly that “The next British General Election will almost certainly be called the first "real" internet election…” As we have already witnessed political usage of internet and social technologies in the US election, it is predictable that we can expect the same, if not more from our forthcoming general election.

Social technologies are perceived as tools for ‘Everyone’ to actively engage in content creation and dissemination. By facilitating and enabling users to have a voice and provide ways to share their views across time and space, consequently it has challenged the status quo, offering some innovative and alternative world views (positive and negative). The early days of social technology usage, when we said, ‘Everyone’, we were largely referring to users who were not professional photographers, journalists, commentators, programme makers etc. The internet and social technologies have helped to publish alternative political viewpoints that were not filtered through economic decision led editorials.

Now it is really for ‘EVERYONE’ (that is connected to social network) which also includes politicians. Social technologies are going to be one of many tools that politicians will fully exploit in their election campaign and the social network sites will be filled with their slogans along with the diverse and innovative thinking that are generated by general users. What we have to be wary of in the social network world is that, the masters of manipulation of public opinion are also becoming the masters of social technologies.

Understanding the Elephant

I just read through ‘J. Kirk and M. L. Miller(1986) Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research’, Sage.

Any researcher would have come across the story of ‘the blind men and the elephant’. I thought these two paragraphs below succinctly explains the characteristics and the issues of quantitative research approach when studying social phenomena.

“The familiar parable of the blind men and the elephant illustrates the problem of reliability. According to that story, several blind men encountered an elephant, investigated its various parts, and quarrelled over their mutually irreconcilable reports.

The thesis/punch line, or chiste, of the parable is not to poke fun at the visually impaired but to dramatize the imperfection of the various epistemic positions that can be taken with regard to such stories. A vulgar positivist might be imagined to take some sort of statistical average of the data (“compensating for error in measurement”), and conclude that the elephant is a formless blob covered with elephant skin” (P49).

However, now the problem is as a qualitative researcher, how we can produce the understanding of the Elephant which is objective (used in the qualitative research sense), reliable and valid.

Viacom. Google….oh yes, users

“A shrimp brakes its back in a whales' fight”

(Korean proverb)

Howard and I were bemused by the latest development of Viacom case against Google. The news from NYT read “A federal judge has ordered Google to turn over to Viacom its records of which users watched which videos on YouTube, the Web's largest video site by far.”

For us, there is an issue here (besides Google’s carelessness in protecting users’ privacy).

The Youtube user’s data is clearly at stake in the evidence of the case of Viacom’s $1 billion copyright lawsuit against Google. However, by ordering Google to relinquish ALL users’ details (the login name and IP address) to Viacom, the judge has compromised the privacy of the genuine Youtube users who make and share (upload & download) the User Generated Content (UCC). The NYT article asserts that, “Google and Viacom said they were hoping to come up with a way to protect the anonymity of the site's visitors.”

Surely, this should not be a matter between two commercial companies. This should have been a condition made by the judge to protect the genuine Youtube users, whose personal data does not belong to Viacom.

Why I blog

Since blogging, it has changed the way I read articles. Now, I read more carefully and critically than before. I read them from the perspective of trying to understand the ‘why’ of the author and his/her arguments. There is the perceptive instant answers to ‘why’ question that I do not need to think too much about for example, why I disagree, why the argument is logically flawed etc. However, there are articles that you read and you feel that you do not agree with the arguments, but yet you don’t know ‘why’. Writing a blog has sharpened my attention to looking at the ‘why’.

I have just watched a short clip of Seth Godin and Tom Peters on blogging. They also talk about the benefits of blogging and the advantages for improving our thinking and articulation of thinking through blogging. Which reminded me of being told by teachers and others that writing a diary is a good way of improving one’s writing skills, this was before the blogging era, and I am sure any form of writing using any medium helps to maximise one’s thinking and writing skills. However, I now argue that writing blogs in a public domain is particularly advantageous.

Why?

I think the motivation for thinking critically comes from the fact that there just might be a reader, an-other. With this comes the realization of the unknown possibility of a stranger’s eye being cast upon the points that I am making, the intellectual fear factor (the variation of panopticon effect, I suppose) challenges me to think about ‘why’ carefully.

Currently I am thinking about the whole discussion about ‘free’ as there are some ‘why’ aspects of the discussion that I am troubled by.

Customers who don’t want to pay

The article by Kevin Kelly on ‘How to get people to pay’ refers to Dan Cook’s business model for game developers and suggests the wider implications for other business sectors in digital economy. However, that is as far as it goes. Kevin Kelly wants us to figure the rest out for ourselves.

These are Dan’s categories of users.

• People who don't want to pay: Advertising is a good option to keep around. A few hundred bucks is still money in the bank.
• People who are interested in more of the same: Once you've established the value of your game, some players want more. Give them more levels, more puzzles, more enemies in exchange for cash.
• People who are interested in status or identity improvements: Some people see games as means of expression and identity. Give them items that let them express themselves or customize their experience.
• People who have limited time: Some people live busy lives and want to consume your game when they desire and how they desire. Cheat codes, experience multipliers and other systems that bypass the typical progression all help satisfying this customer need.

What Dan shows us is the conceptual change of our understanding and perception of ‘customer’ in the digital economy. In the manufacturing industry, customers are the ones who are willing to pay in exchange of goods. In the digital economy, ‘People who don’t want to pay’ are considered and should be considered as part of customer categories. One of the key aspects of Chris Anderson’s freeconomics and current discussion over News Corp's adoption of fee model for their general news is uncovering and understanding ‘People who don’t want to pay’ category, the ‘redefined customers’.

It is certainly important to identify categories of users (customers) to design appropriate revenue streams and also recognize and accept ‘People who don’t want to pay’ category as a valued customer (because virtually it does not cost anything to provide a service for them in the digital economy as Chris Anderson argues). However, as for the future of the digital economy, the holy grail is to figure out how ‘People who don’t want to pay’, pay.

Obvious? Not so fast

Rupert Murdock announced the end of free news era for News Corp. When the company is suffering from a profit loss, it is obvious for it to employ a new business model to look for an additional revenue. However, is the market ready to pay money to read a general news? Well, I am not.

My internet homepage has been set on BBC online News for well over seven, eight years now. I must seem very loyal to BBC News but the key question is, would I still read BBC News, if I have to pay for it? (this is an hypothetical question since BBC is run by TV licence fee, adopting a fee based model is unlikely) I do not have to ponder too long over this. My answer is simply, No, I would not. I would find other free online news sources.

There are two aspects that concern me.

One, their success of the subscription model is largely dependent on its ability to produce “unique, high value and well-differentiated content" in order to compete with other freely available online news and follow the likes of 'The Financial Times' and News Corp's 'Wall Street Journal'. News Corp explains that their content would be “better and differentiate it from other people". It doesn’t seem very convincing. News Corp seems to believe that they can replicate the revenue model of 'Wall Street Journal' which targets a specific market for their other general newspapers. In order to succeed in adopting a subscription model, it is paramount for newspapers to build their unique identity (differentiating characteristics) and a firm reader base whilst providing free online news.

Two, News Corp states “…I believe that if we are successful, we will be followed by other media.” It is not the followers that they need but the fellow members in order to coordinate a campaign to ‘over throw’ free professional news from internet. If all so called quality newspapers/media group decides to charge the readers for their online news content then my only option would be opening my purse. I am sceptical about their success and over the coming months, it will be very interesting to see how the seemingly obvious business venture pans out.

Are ‘Friends’ my FRIENDS?

Reading the news article, ‘Facebook criticised by Archbishop’, I wonder about our lack of faith in our understanding of relationship and friendship. To understand the implications of using social networking websites requires a longitudinal observational study. At the current time, we can only speculate what effect (good, bad or just different) it may have on community life as a whole.

What I am questioning is his usage of the word, ‘friends’ and ‘friendships’. He said, "Friendship is not a commodity” and "Friendship is something that is hard work and enduring when it's right". I completely agree with what he is saying about friendship. But are these definitions/explanations about friendship applicable to social networking based friends? Obviously our friends (those who certainly fall into Archbishop’s definitions) are also in the list of friends in the likes of Facebook. However, I would like to think that no one really consider every single listed ‘friends’ are really their friends. Some like to collect the names to add to their lists but such vanity also exists in our face to face relationship. We like to name drop especially if we know someone famous, successful and well liked. We like to give a false impression of the closeness with the person if necessary.

In a similar note, I had a bit of cultural shock when I went back to South Korea a few years ago. I noticed a change. When I spoke to a utility company, I was greeted with “Hello customer who I love, how may I help you?”. The word ‘Love’ was everywhere even the politicians were using ‘Love’ when addressing the general public. Surely, no one really thinks and believes that when the customer service talks about ‘Love’, they are talking about LOVE. We all know that collected and listed ‘friends’ in our social networking sites are not all necessarily our FRIENDS.

Desperately Seeking Wholeness…

I confess that I have only read (more like skimmed through) ‘Introduction’ and ‘Chapter 1’ of David Bohm’s ‘Wholeness and the Implicate Order’ (Reprinted in 2008, Routledge & Kegan Paul). Thus, I cannot say much about probably what is the most interesting aspect of this book, the quantum theory.

However, I found some interesting food for thought for both qualitative and quantitative research perspectives.

In page 19, Bohm explains, “Of course, the prevailing tendency in science to think and perceive in terms of a fragmentary self-world view is part of a larger movement that has been developing over the ages and that pervades almost the whole of our society today: but, in turn, such a way of thinking and looking in scientific research tends very strongly to re-enforce the general fragmentary approach because it gives men a picture of the whole world as constituted of nothing but an aggregate of an separately existent ‘atomic building blocks’, and provides experimental evidence from which is drawn the conclusion that this view is necessary and inevitable.”

As an interpretive researcher, making sense of any social phenomenon meant seeking out the context in which it is situated. However, in doing so, we tend to fragment the collected data into groups and categories, aggregating ‘atomic building blocks’ in the name of ‘seeking wholeness’. How can I obtain ‘wholeness’ without fragmentation?

I will be continuously thinking about what ‘wholeness’ and ‘fragmentation’ means.

Yes, we've got the point! Now what?

Just read ‘The anatomy of the Twitter attack’ article. Should we be thankful to “Hacker Croll” and TechCruch for raising some serious security issues with our increasing reliance on Web and Cloud to host our data and our security lax attitude? Yes, I would say so. This article seems to make sure that the actions that TechCrunch have taken have been ‘beneficial’ to internet industry and wider onlookers by raising to us the security issue. So, now what? Surely, TechCrunch does not need to publish any Twitter documentations.

Entertainment? I’m not Entertained by it at all.

About six hours after discussing current BBC expenses news with Howard this morning, I decided to write down some of the thoughts. I then went about trying to find the article which prompted the whole discussion about the role of public broadcasting service, “Yentob’s £1,600 BBC dinner claim”. ‘Naturally’ I searched ‘UK’ section of the BBC online news but I had no luck. With reservation, I restarted a broader search in ‘England’ and then ‘Business’ section. Unsurprisingly, I could not find the article. So, I decided to go and view my ‘History’ where I found the article, under the ‘Entertainment’ section of BBC online news. ‘Entertainment’? Have Howard and I wasted an hour of our morning discussing about entertainment news?

This is a serious social and political issue. BBC is funded by the TV licence fee. By law, even if you do not watch BBC channels, the mere act of watching and recording any live television programmes, you are obliged to pay the fee. We hear about the various BBC expense claims for example, “…in 2006, BBC Vision director Balraj Samra bought a £827.02 dinner for the then Culture Minister Tessa Jowell and BBC managers.” Such claims cause us to contemplate the moral and ethical implications of the whole concept of public broadcasting service, operating as it does in the free market. It also reminds us of our (the general public) role in co-constructing the current shape of BBC. It is easy to criticise BBC for their conduct but is it not also time for us, the general viewing public to think about how our 'demands' are making BBC to behave like that of a commercial broadcasting company?

It's About Time to Draw the Boundary of the Internet Law

Pushing at the boundary has been a key driving force in Internet development, creating greyness and fuzziness of the boundaries of privacy and identity etc. Whether Twitter decides to take the current case further or not, the mere discussion of the case itself has highlighted the difficulties that we (particularly law makers) are faced with.

Clipped from - PC World

the hacker's legal problems are easy to see. The legal responsibilities of others who published the information are less clear "If they can claim journalistic privilege ... it gives them a lot of different rights and privileges. [A journalist] doesn't have to give up his sources, Are bloggers considered to be journalists under the law? That issue, legal experts say, is still up in the air. "Everyone has something to say and a means to say it -- so are they all journalists?" asked Christie. "Is there a difference between full-time, traditional journalists and all these Johnny-come-latelies? It'll be hard to say. How much of a blogger do you have to be to qualify as a journalist? That's a burgeoning gray area that is just starting to be fleshed out in the courts."

It Is You, Not Me!

Let’s picture this. A couple living in a picturesque small countryside village where everybody knows everybody, left their front door unlocked whilst waiting for a neighbour in the back garden for afternoon tea. Then, in that short space of time, they were burgled. However, fortunately, the thieves were caught on their way out by the neighbour who arrived just in time. The neighbour asked the thieves why they were in possession of the goods not belonging to them. The thieves replied. “ We are not guilty. It’s not our fault that these couple left the front door open, making it ridiculously easy to get access to their things.” Do you agree with what the thieves said? I just hope not.

Now, below is the direct quotation from the TechCrunch’s article, explaining and defending their decision to publish some of the twitter’s corporate documentations as they believe, is in public’s interest. These documentations were given by someone who hacked into Twitter.

“It’s not our fault that Google has a ridiculously easy way to get access to accounts via their password recovery question. It’s not our fault that Twitter stored all of these documents and sensitive information in the cloud and had easy-to-guess passwords and recovery questions.”

In the case of the couple’s story, there certainly is the element of ‘carelessness’ in the couple’s notion of security. However, shouldn’t we be sad that we are living in a world one where we have to constantly watch our backs, treat strangers with suspicion and greet people through the peephole or behind the door chain? Well, I am. I am not trying to be idealistic and unrealistic here. I sadly have to accept the human behaviours that harms oneself and others such as thieving and hacking. It is a sad fact of our lives. However, just because it is common and widely acknowledged behaviour, that does not justify wrong doings nor any right to blame the victims.

Worryingly, TechCrunch is saying that we, the public is to be blamed for using Google or Twitter whose security issues are problematic. Consequently, the hackers can access and distribute our data in these services as long as the hackers can justify the publication of data that is in 'the interest of the general public'. Basically, it is saying that it is our fault and not the hackers.

Let’s picture this again. There is a couple whose house is secured by a system designed by a reputable company. However, the burglar figured out the way to bypass the security system and stole valuable goods from the couple’s home. Is TechCrunch saying that it is the home security company’s fault for designing the security systems that was cracked and also the couple’s for using that systems?

In here, I only have extracted one paragraph from TecCrunch article, however the case becomes much more complicated. They are trying to distrance themselves from the hacker and the ways in which the documents were obtained. However, if TecCrunch is trying to claim and use the same law that protects 'traditional' journalists, I would expect a more responsible attitude from TecCrunch than 'it is you, not me' sort of response.

Yet to Monetize Social Technology

The articles such as Freemium Services and the Economics of Social Networking and YouTube: The online hit that's losing £107m highlight the difficulties in monetizing social technologies. The emergence of social technology and its massive take up by internet users are influencing and influenced by the ways in which we interact with others and perceive ourselves etc. Its pervasiveness and embeddedness have been demonstrated and documented in every corner of our lives. Therefore it is an attractive investment opportunity for many. However, making social technologies financially viable is particularly difficult due to its inherent nature. The social technology is considered to be user orientated and as such, the current notion of social technology is closely related to a ‘free’ service. The savvy internet users will find free alternative applications if necessary and there will be continuous supply of innovative social technologies. Probably with the lessons learnt from the likes of Twitter and Youtube, the next generation of social technology will have a clear business model embedded from the start.

Writing? Not so Darwinian Experience for ME

I read a piece written by Julian Baggini in ‘Literal’ yesterday (I recommend the Julian Baggini’s Twitter (microphilosophy)). I am not a regular Twitter user. I've had a personal Twitter account for over a year but only posted one message, never returning since then, as I could not see any benefit for myself even though I could see, it has clear benefits and advantages of its use for public figures and PR companies etc. who have a clear interest in publicity, promotion etc. However, since I have started blogging, I created another Twitter account to be ‘visible’. I wasn’t interested and still not interested in twitting about what I do and importantly, I cannot see why anyone would be interested in my mundane activities. I havn't considered it as a tool for writers even though I do agree with the value of encapsulating ideas or themes in fewer than 140 characters as Gideon Rachman discussed in FT. I remember a professor telling us that we should be able to describe our own PhD thesis as a simple after dinner speech. Meaning that, regardless of the subject matter, we should all be able to succinctly summarize it for anyone and anywhere. I believe that without that core thinking, the focus of the writing could easily be lost. Thus, for me, I consider Twitter to be a thinking tool that helps people to crystalize their thoughts succinctly (for some!).

Then I read the Julian Baggini’s article which says,

“However, paradoxically, microblogging might actually
help longer, more thoughtful writing. The ever-shortening
nature of social networking communications could
help revive ‘proper writing’ by re-opening the gap between
off-the-cuff jottings and thoughtful prose which
blogging temporarily blurred.”

I do not intent to disagree with such an argument except the fact that my personal experience is rather different. Moreover, I also do not speculate that microblogging harms ‘proper writing’ as some would argue. I talk only about my own experiences. Since the PhD thesis, I found it increasingly difficult to write long scripts as I was getting used to writing shorter scripts. For that reason, I feel that I have to put a lot of effort to write longer pieces. Consequently, without that intention and determination, it is difficult to imagine how a tool which limits a number of character can help ‘longer, more thoughtful writing’.

Buying and Selling at Twitter

Another clever business idea that utilizes a social technology, Twitter.

Mighty Minutiae

Sungmin and I attended Open Tec 2009 last Saturday and heard a talk given by Heather Brooke. Upon listening to her account, it reminded and amazed us that from small acorns of ideas unexpected outcomes and major changes occur. Who could have predicted the outcome? So I dug out an article that I cliped back in May.

clipped from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/

(The Guardian, Friday 15 May 2009)

“campaigning journalist Heather Brooke has spent the last five years fighting tooth and nail for MPs to come clean about their expenses ...”

---

---

“I first telephoned the House of Commons about expenses, back in 2004 …. I didn't intend to bring a plague on all politicians' houses. But I was interested in our opaque parliamentary expenses system…”

---

“a five-year investigation, and take me to the high court”

---

“I wanted the detail. That's where you find the truth”

---

“in 2006. My request for details on second homes was rejected”

---

“Commons presented its two favourite arguments:

privacy and security”

---

“…rallied against me were a posse of lawyers and government officials, including the head of the House of Commons Fees Office Andrew Walker … FOI officer Bob Castle, the treasury solicitor and assistant and an outside barrister. All paid for with taxpayers' money.”

---

“….on 16 May the judges ruled in my favour ….”

---

“…Commons announced they would publish all MPs receipts in October 2008…October came and went and no expenses…”

---

“What's unforgiveable is that the House of Commons repeatedly obstructed legitimate requests”

Testing Our Sense of Social and Moral Responsibility with Social Technologies

Social technologies, in particular, Twitter has received much attention from the media recently. The value of most social technologies is that they enable people to connect and share, inform and generate content. Witness the political value, reaffirming that social technologies power to report demonstration in Iran as it unfolded. Thus, thinking that the ‘empowerment’ of users as one of the key attributes of the social technologies is not mistaken.

However, there are some worrying signs. For example, there have been some high profile suicide cases in South Korea resulted from the rumours that spread through the Internet network. Moreover, this networked online world has brought us an easy access to child pornography, religious extremists viewpoints etc. The Internet certainly has offered easy access to potentially everything. However, all these social ailments are not new at all. They have all existed but only a few had a means and interests to control over the content dissemination whether that was driven by political or business interests. Now then, what has changed?

Before the emergence of social technologies, we could blame the central power and their usage of tools in manipulating and forming of a public opinion. Edward Louise Bernays and the birth of PR has explain that very well. For example, in order to increase cigarette usage, presenting carefully designed stylish smoking female was all what they needed. However, such means and resources were only available to a few. Now that has changed.

With the emergence of social technologies, we can no longer blame the central power for propagating and manipulating our minds and behaviours. These new technologies have enabled us to check and give a balance to the power over information generation and its flow. Consequently, We now have only ourselves to blame. Our sense of social responsibility is now being put to a test. Can we free ourselves from information manipulation and propagation or are we ending up abusing the newly acquired power by ignoring social and moral responsibilities that individual users hold? Sadly, some of the examples I have pointed out in the above, paint a rather gloomy picture of future.

This is the testing time for all social technology users.

Challenging My Thinking Process…I am sure many more to come!

When Howard gave me a link to an article by Don Tapscott, ‘Higher Education Is Stuck in the Middle Ages-Will Universities Adapt or Die Off in Our Digital World?, my initial question was ‘Does it say anything we don’t already know?’ I skimmed it through and quickly came to two conclusions. Firstly, I agree with the needs of changes in the model of learning. There are lecturers who recognize such needs and offer students with choices and options to cater for their diverse learning styles. I do believe that these changes should be driven by University as a whole in a systematic way rather than an ad hoc response by individual lecturers. However, secondly, I disagreed instantly on the dismissal of the face to face lecture, the traditional teaching model. Labelling it as “Broadcast Learning”, a one way, linear information transmission, he suggests that such model is not suitable for the students of the digital age. I felt what we needed is a hybrid teaching/learning model that combines old and new that offers digital technology enhanced learning experience without losing human to human interaction (including lecture theatre experience).

Then I read the BBC article about Geoff Taylor who is the head of music industry body BPI, talking about the lack of music industry’s understanding of Napster when it emerged in 1999 or rather the inevitable social and technological changes coming ahead, directing and reshaping the music industry as a whole forever. We do know what happened to Napster. The music industry resisted and fought against it.

It made me question my response to the Tapscott’s vision. I was very quick to disagree with his devaluation of the traditional pedagogy model for future education. Why did I disagree with it? My university experience was based on lecture theatre learning/teaching that I was one of many students sitting in an imposing theatre where the lecturer taking a centre stage. Am I simply hanging on to that experience, just because that is what I know? Am I saying we need a hybrid educational model based on a rational decision through a careful examination of supporting evidence or saying it because I am unconsciously scared of a fundamental change? Am I resisting and fighting against such change by taking a hybrid stand without realising it?

Outing Moral Issues

I listened to The Reith Lecture last week. Prof. Michael Sandel talked about the importance of openly discussing moral issues in politics. He gave some very interesting examples where moral issues were disguised as economic ones in an attempt to avoid discussing them and in doing so, they were able to claim some sort of neutrality.

Recent MPs' expenses scandal sheds some light upon the extent in which morality is removed or rather intentionally avoided from our political arena. When the news first broke, MPs avoided their moral responsibilities by blaming the system. They wanted us to think that it was a system failure rather than failure in their morality.

I agree with what Prof. Michael Sandel is advocating. I believe in transparency and openness. However, I cannot stop thinking about ‘How’?….We all have different moral standards even though we may share some basics. I remember Stephen Fry's reaction to MPs' expenses abuse, 'so what?'

Why do I feel we will somehow find excuses to avoid or refrain discussing moral issues and seek answers in rules, laws, regulations and systems. Am I too cynical or have I been in a moral closet too long?

Twitter: “News doesn’t break, it tweets.”

The “ticker tape” of the Internet is Twitter?

The machines had wide spread use in 1930, but dates back to1867. The paper tape printout gave a rolling display of stock prices, it revolutionized the speed at which financial information flowed. It may have told you what is happening, this stock at, down or up, but it left the interpretation out.

But is Twitter nothing more than a cybernetic machine, a replacement ticker?

The current ‘greening’ of the twitter profiles suggest that entelechy processes are at work. The Twitter trajectory demonstrates a continuous stream of consciousness.

clipped from: http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/06/17/is-twitter-the-cnn-of-the-new-media-generation/

The world was watching . . . and it did so on Twitter, not on CNN or any other news network.

---

Jeff Pulver calls this the era of “now” media, fueled by new and social media and the people who power Twitter and other popular networks. The pursuit of “now” is conditioning us to expect information as it happens, whether it’s accurate or developing.

---

“Twitter is about approach, transparency, and immediacy.”

---

It’s about real people.

---

It’s about emotion.

---

It’s about empathy.

---

But we have the power as consumers to also become informed fact checkers to intelligently sort fact from fiction.

---

the opportunity for media to create entirely new channels that augment traditional news reporting

---

In the end, conviction, passion, investigation, accuracy, diligence, and striving for truth are the attributes of any good journalist, blogger, or micro-blogger. Crusading for higher standards in reporting and championing them into creating and growing new channels represents our collective crusade.

---

“transparency.” transparency that is missing from so many media organizations as it’s deeply misunderstood and underestimated.

---

“Companies that don’t assign managers for social media will fail!”

---

the media has yet to fully grasp and holistically embraced.

---

the escalating and influential online conversation with forcing a deeper examination

---

“News doesn’t break, it tweets.”

‘Using Social Technologies in an Act of Self Regulation’…Really?

Recently, we came across an article in ‘O’Reilly’s radar’, discussing the phenomenon of ‘the mass adoption of social technologies’. Using the notion of Jeremy Bentham’s ‘Panopticon’, the article argues that “The social technologies we see in use today are fundamentally panoptical - the architecture of participation is inherently an architecture of surveillance.”

There are interesting points made in this article for example, it says, “In many cases we are opting into automated reporting structures”. The article then points out the issue of changing our sense of privacy which is a fascinating area that begs for in-depth research.

However, there are two problems here for me; firstly, the suitability of the usage of the ‘Panopticon’ as a metaphor in the context of our social technology use and secondly, the implication of its argument.

Jeremy Bentham’s ‘Panopticon’ was adopted by Foucault as a metaphor for the ‘automatic functioning of power’. With increasing concerns over surveillance and monitoring usage of information technology, Foucault’s views have been adopted by many people to examine whether we are living in a world of electronic ‘Panopticon’. This is a hypothesis that needs to be challenged, proved and validated as our sense of privacy is changing.

If we accept the fact that our sense of privacy is changing, how can one claim that “…the architecture of participation is inherently an architecture of surveillance”? I expect that with the change in our sense of privacy, the notion of surveillance and our perception of surveillance should be changed too, surely.

What we are witnessing in social technology usage environment is; what was previously considered to be private information is now considered to be public. We post (‘report’) what we read, what we do and where we are etc. However, this information is about 'ME' and by ‘ME’. I intentionally publicised as a consequence of a mental selection process, unless we argue that we act independently from our minds!

I would say that the notion of ‘Panopticon’ is quite real in our CCTV usage. For example, we read and hear about how many CCTV cameras are installed all over the UK. The idea is that we do not know if the CCTV is watching us but because we know that the UK is the country with the largest number of CCTV that when we walk down the street, we become aware of ourselves and conform to norms hence, the self regulation. Extending such notion of ‘Panopticon’ to social technologies usage is problematic as the relationship is very different.

We should also not be confused with the notion of ‘Panopticon’ is the social technology usages by a few people who gather other people’s information with intention to abuse and intimidate i.e. cyber bully and spying.

In our social technology use, it is ‘I’ who decide to publicise information. It is an intentional action to use social technologies. If so, how can we explain the workings of the ‘automatic function of power’? Has the power over myself been shifted? Have I created a surveillance system for myself? If I know what information has been publicised, how would the self regulating mechanism work?

Book review by the NYT: Gillian Tett of The Financial Times on the global financial meltdown

Below is a clip of a book review “Fool’s Gold” about the global financial meltdown written by assistant editor of the Financial Times who ‘oversees the global coverage of the financial markets’. This review was published in the NYT: June 15, 2009. I think that this viewpoint expresses human fraility very well.

I have collected the keywords from the clip of this review, indicating and ascribing the human actions : self-inflicted, lack of supervision, naive, reckless, "downright stupid", hubris and greed, using complex jargon, over-reliance upon ‘innovation and creativity’, based upon faulty premises and finally to cap it all, folly of using mathematical models to predict human behaviour.

Apart from showing us how delusional humans are, I think that the predictable aftermath comments by the politicians and bankers that are being currently announced contain the following statements: “ oh well…. that was then…. we've learned our lessons… we've got a regulatory system in place now, so it won't happen again….”. In short, we will have regulation in place, that is all now history. I pause to reflect; that despite all of the reassuring assertions, fundamental change will, NOT happen. Yes, we will have regulation and overseeing etc. But that, for me is not the fundamental problem. Regulate and administrate the banks to the n-th detail, the banks will soon collapse in a bureaucratic conflict against the notion of free market attitude of the banks.

We will be doomed to repeat the lessons, like the end to boom and bust, tomorrow is another day. And like Scarlett O’ Hara rebellious and attention-seeking motives like these key words in the artical are only but a cracked mirror, an imperfect reflection of human behaviour itself. We can also infer, like the models used to predict human behaviour, regulation (model rules) will fail.

However, this “Fool’s Gold”, such an apt title, can only be defeated in my opinion, by openness, transparency and critical dialogue based upon knowledge. The very things that our politicos are suspicious of, and banks themselves shy away from any sunlight, seeking to hide away from behind walls of secrecy.

clipped from: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/16/books/16kaku.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&th&emc=th#

Gillian Tett of The Financial Times writes that the global financial meltdown, which economists estimate could result in total losses from $2 trillion to $4 trillion, was “self-inflicted.”

---

… the “entire financial system went wrong as a result of flawed incentives within banks and investment funds, as well as the rating agencies; warped regulatory structures; and a lack of oversight.”

---

the current global financial crisis is a story about people who thought they were the smartest guys in the room and who turned out to be remarkably naïve, reckless or, in some cases, downright stupid……hubris and greed and heedlessness, about people

---

…by focusing on an elite group of bankers at J. P. Morgan, who in the 1990s were pioneers in the world of derivatives, and who later came to regard what other firms and hedge funds did with their creation with dismay.

---

Ms. Tett explains how bankers “delight in swathing the concept” of derivatives in complex jargon…”…. She shows the premium that young hotshots there placed on “innovation” and “creativity”

---

Ms. Tett describes how banks invented increasingly complex derivatives, “all based upon the fundamental premise that the default risk of bundles of mortgages had been virtually erased by the process of bundling and then slicing them” into so-called “tranches,” which were supposed to give investors a choice of different levels of risk and return.

---

Her book starkly illustrates the folly of using mathematical models to predict human behavior and the Las Vegas-like bet-making embraced by many bankers.

Too many cooks spoil the APPLE pie!

In IT, break-down of communication or miscommunication is regarded as one of main reasons for project failure. It is understood that the top-down approach faces many difficulties consequently, to ameliorate this, workshops, formal and informal meetings are encouraged. Basically, 'talking' (communication) to each other is encouraged to know what others are doing (how much it is practiced or succeeds is another matter!). Apple's 'need to know basis' management approach is interesting, especially for us as we have been working on a paper which addresses these aspects. as the stratagy approach flatly contridicts the wisdom that cross sylo communication is a good thing.

It needs to be said that there are fundamental differences between Apple's product building and IT's business system building. However, there are some underpinning aspects and ideas that could be, incorporated into IT management; if you want to get it done hire a dictator!

clipped from news.bbc.co.uk "They don't do things by committee and having one person's vision drive the whole ship is hugely important," he said. "They can do things so much faster and so much more efficiently they just waste a lot less time spinning their wheels," he added. But part of the secret behind its powerful brand is the way the firm is run, with employees only having access to information on a need-to-know-basis.

I am afraid it is THE politics of the moment

I can understand why Sir Tim Bernerd-Lee wants to and needs to distance himself and his project of making government data transparent from the current political situation. However, can we really abstract this project from the context in which it is situated? By saying it is not political does not neccessarily make it apolitical.

Gaining access to some government data has been a political battle, led by some very brave people in fighting against the political establishment with a natural investment in secrecy. Sir TBL's involvement in this project should be regarded as another important step in the contribution towards politcal transparency. He is addressing THE politics of the moment and I hope his and our visions are realised. For this he gets our votes!

clipped from news.bbc.co.uk "I think there's a public demand for transparency. This is way beyond party politics and beyond global borders," Sir Tim said. He also explained he had recently given a speech about the subject in California: "I had the audience chanting 'raw data now!' about government data. This is an important thing to be involved, independent of the politics of the moment."

A Web of Data, driving future of Web?

After watching a short clip of interview with Berners-Lee about future of Web on BBC iplayer, it occurred to me that it maybe that it is a 'web of data' or rather our 'NEEDS' or 'DESIRE' we hold to connect data together could be the key driving force behind the shape of future of Web.

Possible to judge history objectively?

The other day, I watched ‘Churchill’s darkest decision’ on 4oD which I enjoyed very much as it made me think about dilemmas we face, small and big throughout our lives. While discussing the programme, we start talking about ‘mistakes’ that Churchill have made in WW2. ‘Mistakes’…then we began to think about judgements that we make about the past, especially other people’s past. We are not hesitant to make judgement but what are these judgements based on? In Churchill’s WW2 case, we may have access to vast amount of documents and first and second hand experience accounts, is this enough for us to make a judgement about what was a right and wrong decision etc. Some may claim that it is being objective and analysing data should provide a neutral perspective, ‘well, data says so’ argument. I begin to have a problem of whether we are being too ‘objective’. Shouldn’t we be subjective to be able to make an objective judgement? But then again, we could never be subjective to other people’s past which means, it seems to me that we can never make a judgement of other people’s past and claim that it is objective. Can there ever be an objective view point?

Radio Station embraces Web 2

An example of Social Media in action

NPR (National Public Radio) is a USA producer and distributor of non-commercial news, talk, and entertainment programming.

“A privately supported, not-for-profit membership organization, NPR serves a growing audience of 27.5 million Americans each week in partnership with more than 860 independently operated, non-commercial public radio stations”

3 KEY activities are changing their business model

• Focus on Local
• Focus on Social media
• Focus On Ubiquitous Access

clipped from mashable.com most networks are shedding viewers, and newspapers, where circulation continues to plummet NPR doing differently that’s causing their listener numbers to swell A Focus On Local NPR has a culture incredibly devoted to local coverage aggregating hyperlocal content will be an important part of the future of media. to reach disenfranchised listeners, provide more utility, and potentially offer greater value to advertisers A Focus On Social Media adoption of social media allowing consumers to define what’s worthy of attention Their Twitter account has over 780,000 followers podcasts blogs mobile apps social network. A Focus On Ubiquitous Access look at what makes sense now released a content API that allows developers to remix and reuse any content created by the network led to interesting mash ups released a mix your own podcast tool create their own programming schedule from the organization’s audio archives And they owe that success to the culture of open access and audience participation that they’ve cultivated over the past decade.