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.

This is the dumping ground for all our thoughts!