O’Reilly Emerging Technology Conference

Journalism 3.0
Dan Gillmor, San Jose Mercury News
“Until very recently, modern journalism was mostly a lecture — journalism organizations told you what the news was, and you either bought it or you didn’t. Today’s professional journalist needs to understand, and capture, the fact that our readers/listeners/viewers know more than we do. That’s not a threat. It’s an opportunity. Digital collaboration and communication tools are helping us all create a new kind of journalism, something resembling a seminar or conversation. The tools range from e-mail to weblogs to peer-to-peer, and they all add up to something genuinely new in news. Don’t ask about the business model, however; no one knows what it is.”

That all you can see from this talk but it says it all. Journalism 3. Is he right? I think so.



“Can anyone in the world reach anyone else through a chain of only 6 friends?
“With your help, we intend to find out.”

I registered.



“You’re sitting in one place when you use those things.”
“Same as writing a novel. You don’t write your books standing up, moving around.”
He’s backing away, looking to speak with some of the other folks congregated around him, “it sounds sort of like ham radio, people use that to talk all over the world.” And he’s absorbed elsewhere. I write in my notebook, underlined, “He’s old school.”

Nice piece by Justin Hall.


“Cyberspace as Place, and the Tragedy of the Digital Anticommons

The conception of “cyberspace as place” leads to the implication that there is property online, and that this property should be privately owned, parceled out, and exploited. Though private ownership of resources of itself is not problematic, it can lead to the opposite of the tragedy of the commons: the tragedy of the anti-commons. Anti-commons property occurs when multiple parties have an effective right to preclude others from using a given resource, and as a result no-one has an effective right of use. Part IV argues that this is precisely where the “cyberspace as place” metaphor leads. We are moving to a digital anti-commons, where no-one will be allowed to access competitors’ cyberspace “assets” without some licensing, or other transactionally-expensive (or impossible), permission mechanism. The Article shows how the “cyberspace as place” metaphor leads to undesirable private control of the previously commons-like Internet, and the emergence of the digital anti-commons. As we all come to stake out our little claim in cyberspace, then the commons which is cyberspace is being destroyed.”

I still need to read this long paper but it looks interesting.


Creative Commons » Home

“Cultivating a New Creative Commons: Creative Commons is a non-profit organization founded on the notion that some people would prefer to share their creative works (and the power to copy, modify, and distribute their works) instead of exercising all of the restrictions of copyright law.”

This could be good: somehow taylor making licences to suit. That will bring out the range more clearly & we will see a range from open to free – and learn the difference.


Mediamatic: Tofts, McKeich: Memory Trade. A Prehistory of Cyberculture

“In his book Memory Trade Tofts tries to show that in cyberdiscourse – the discussion of computer technology’s influence on communication and culture – there is nothing new under the sun. According to him, the technologisation of the word was not brought into being just by the arrival of the computer (as is sometimes short-sightedly claimed in cyberdiscourse); the word was always already technologised. The subjects Tofts handles in Memory Trade make this clear: alphabet, writing and language as technology; the origins of cyberthought in mnemonics; Finnegans Wake as the original media theory book. These form Tofts’ (pre)history of cyberdiscourse.”


Theology in a Digital World

“Theology in a Digital World is a collection of essays and lectures dating from 1984 to 1987. It was published by the United Church Publishing House and can be obtained through that source. Published here as Web documents are subsequent reflections on technology from a theological perspective. All of these are copyright © David Lochhead, 1995.”

For example:

“A hermenutic of digital technology is likely to resist that direction and to stress in its place a more playful interpretation of what the meaning of the text might become. In the process, our understanding of the authority of the text will undergo a profound shift. Authority will not disappear. But in place of a heteronomous authority of the original context, the authority will one that emerges out of the covenant of our play. ”

from the Footnote to McLuhan item.

Oldies but interesting.

Richard Stallman


Here is an item from Richard Stallman which I find both compelling and sad. After I have struggled hard with GNU/Linux – I now learn that the kernel nay not be free (in the sense of having all the sources available). I have never seen my foray into this area as solely technical but always as part of a sort of noosphere probe. It still is that of course but what my probe is revealing is how big this battle for freedom is. This is not libertarian freedom either – but freedom for people to be able to work together to be creative. Freedom for one generation to be able to build on the creations of the previous. Which is the exact opposite of the freedom to build private empires.

It is very like theological debate isn’t it. I am not really up with the history of that but I imagine whole churches split over such finery. I know I can’t be that ideologically pure – but I am glad that RMS is.

I am not a programmer but I do make web pages and I’d never have been able to do that without the “source” button actually working. Imagine a web that was not open source in that way. It would not have happened at all. What is closed software preventing today?