Right on Ed.

I makes me wonder how long before the internet is permitted to circumvent the control exercised on the other media. Remember how Telus prevented access to a website created by its union employees.

Serving a cause? Whose cause?

Open media, entirely open, objective, without its own interests media, is a myth. More, it is a joke.

That said, nonetheless, those of us who would seriously trsnsform society, should exploit its pretensions, to the max possible.

And they are just pretensions.

For in reality, within the current self-interest status quo framewark, we are all serving a cause; theirs or our own.

Stop the bullshit.

Oh Yeah?

You're a right bunch of people to talk about 'open'! When we just lived through a couple of weeks of having rock-bottom mindless blather thrown at us, which we couldn't answer back to.

This was a bad idea. Why not just let it fly and forget about moderating as a new experiment? Or how about making a competition for the post of volunteer moderator? The best five or six could've taken turns...Now you have a whole year to come up with a better idea than just shutting it down. This here MEDIUM lives because we can have dialogue, so why cut the branch we have gotten cozy on? Too MAINSTREAM by half. I work in a public service bureaucratic environment, and they do that sort of stuff.

Right on, Dorothy!

The last two weeks have seen some of the weakest, most ridiculous ideas and articles ever to appear on the Tyee...with commenting closed.

Do for ourselves

Big Ole Telecom networks were installed when the cost of ethernet/fiber network equipment and cable was hundreds of times higher than it is today.

With modern dirt cheap many times less expensive equipment than Big Telecom had available to it, public power (New West, BCHydro) utilities could easily provide a high speed one gigabit per second ethernet pipe with internet access into every household/business at a fraction of the cost the superexpensive Big Telecom offerings. The cost would be trivial if the ethernet pipe was combined with the communication's requirements of smart meters.

The cost of a fiber to the block network to a public power company would be a small fraction of fiber to the home - less than $20 a household/business to the block level wired/wireless N access point plus subscriber connect costs of $100 for Cat 6E, $50 for Phoneline/Powerline, $50 for a WiFi mesh repeater or zilch to the customer's wifi card. A buck or two a month would suffice for O&M.

Smart Phone/ATA based VOIP would cost nothing (Google Voice or City network access) nor would basic cable (off air/nearby channels)

The city/town network could grow like an amoeba block by block connecting subscribers for a service fee or higher first year monthly payment sufficient to cover network costs to that neighborhood requiring an insignificant investment from the city. Costs would be low enough that close to a 100% penetration should be achievable. If costs for some unforeseen reason spiraled out of control or subscribers stubbornly stuck to Big Telecom the the MuniNet would know about it after the first neighborhood was hooked up - risk is zilch. The easy peasy approach would be to start in areas with lots of apartment buildings.

The first neighborhood hooked up, would be called a test network to minimize political risk. It would take a muni power crew a week or two to wire up a neighborhood to the block level (with wifi) with a few thousand dollars worth of staple to the pole ADSS cable, equipment boxes, and access points.

Citizens could also do it for themselves with a cheap open-mesh router for $25 which lets them share their internet and secure the home network at the same time. The more plugged in, the more they mesh up. No fuss no programming just plug em in. Open-mesh allows restricting the amount of bandwidth available to neighbors. Contributors can also require logins, resell it if desired, restrict on mac addresses, and boot heavy users.

If people with enlightened social attitudes or a just a dislike of the phone company, switched to open-mesh WiFi routers from their junk easily compromised equipment Big Telecom sells, Big Telecom would be taking a serious beating and the world would be a better place.

It wasn't all "mindless blather".

I enjoyed some of the articles in the recent past. I particularly found "Canada's Corporations Aren't investing in You" interesting and enjoyed Rafe Maier's "Vancouver Council's Sucker Punch". Then there was the thought provoking "Vanitas and Caritas" by Crawford Kilian. Even Bill Tielmann's article on the Spirit of Christmas was good.

I had expected that the forum would be open on some of these after the holidays.

on mindless blather and free speech

Dorothy, you've got it all backwards. The real mindless blather is almost exclusively found in these user comments sections, not the articles! I second Skywalker's point, and think Rafe's "Sucker Punch" article was one of the best of 2009 on the Tyee.

I have a real problem with people who equate openness with entitlement. As far as I'm concerned, our privilege to comment here is precisely that - a privilege, not a right. And I thank the Tyee for allowing that privilege. The little piece of calm seen here over the holidays should serve as a reminder that none of us have a right to dictate how an online magazine should be operated.

I enjoy the comments sections for the most part, but they rarely, if ever, add substance and texture to the articles. They are platforms for a lot of venting, need-to-opinionate compulsions and phallic fencing matches. I actually enjoyed reading the Tyee over the holidays, because I was not tempted to be distracted by the usual mindless blather that these comments sections almost always devolve into. They usually start off good, but quickly digress into a series of irrelevant tangents, which inevitably involve personal attack, nothing to do with the topic at hand, and before you know it, the 3 of 4 domineering hotheads still standing at the end are calling each other 'Nazis'. End of thread. Nothing gained.

Another point on openness and free speech. I would take these comments sections much more seriously if the people commenting (including myself) did not enjoy the privilege of hiding behind anonymity. I don't buy the argument that anonymity allows for more open, free discussion. Quite contrary, it allows for deceptive, cowardly name-calling and opinion-giving. As such, anonymous comments have no credibility, unlike the old letters to editors, which required verification. If there is a true "Deep Throat" among us, I'm sure he/she is not going to be leaving his/her vital information via a comments section, but will go directly to David Beers with it.

If there must be a comments section, I hope it continues to be closely moderated to maintain some semblance of civility and keep out every spam-artist and their dog.

To David Beers and staff, keep up the great intrepid journalism for 2010, and I look forward to reading the articles, and not commenting so much, in the coming year.

wayfarer

Thank you. I agree with you about the comments, esp. over the Christmas holidays. It did give us some peace. However, I think, sometimes the comments are more insightful than the articles.

Fond wishes to the wayfarer, all in peace of course.

"I have a real problem with people...... The little piece of calm seen here over the holidays should serve as a reminder that none of us have a right to dictate how an online magazine should be operated."

Thanks, I do not need reminders - a lot of us don't, of the long list of rights some people think none of us have...

I am sure the supreme Dalek has duly noted that you are not to be terminated, for you are going to obey, and be grateful for the privilege to boot, not to mention that you are on the right side against us troublemakers with ideas of entitlemet.

May you get your just reward. You're paying dearly enough for it.

on openess...and all that...

The internet has brought with it values that will change the world, for there is no going back to the old days of the professional/expert who speaks from on high...whether it is journalists, or government , or education, as Steve points out.Sharing is very much the ethos here, and sharing is the essence of revitalizing these institutions, and others. After all, a truly democratic society requires that that we engage the talents of all citizens, not just a few.
There are always those who want to be spoonfed, I suppose. Then there are those of us who want to talk, to engage, to argue and debate, who want to participate in the shaping of our worlds. I visited the Tyee only briefly during the 'no commenting' period, as the essential element was missing for me. Without interaction, the site is a static as any old rag...
This should not be construed as denigrating the work of the contributing writers; rather that any single point of view is one-sided to a degree...that the articles become multi-facted when other writers interact.
Yes, this is a part of the very openess that Steve is discussing - who,or what (and why in the godesses' name)should be allowed to filter our information for us?

... and all that

VivianLea,

I actually don't have a problem with anything you say. I'm a believer in openness and free speech. However, I believe speech uttered from behind the veil of anonymity lacks credibility because anon users are unaccountable for their speech in any true, meaningful way.

The cynical part of me believes magazines allow and encourage anonymous comments because it contributes to volume of traffic to the site, or least gives the illusion that more people are visiting than actually are. Many repeat visitors, I venture to guess, are core regulars, returning repeatedly throughout the day to check if anyone has commented on their comment. Advertisers don't care about skewed site-hit graphs; they only care about the numbers.

I suspect the Tyee has to do it to compete with other online zines, rather than because of some noble principle of citizen journalism or openness.

In my experience reading many articles and comments sections here, the anon comments rarely contribute to the substantive quality of the articles. There are, of course, exceptions, and I completely agree with North of Hope that the occasional bright comment outshines the article itself. But mostly these appendages to articles devolve into.. how best to put it.. bitchfests and exhibitions of ideological and ego-driven narcissism, a price the editors must pay for allowing anonymous openness.

In our rush to embrace the new media, I wonder if we are forgetting one key essence of democracy, that rights to speech entail responsibilities, i.e, accountability and ownership of words.

Are there ways to address the problem of anonymity? Yes. Online magazines could set up a letters section, requiring verification and publication of identity, and the best of the lot could be posted in a general readers comments section. But that would be time-consuming, and we all know that in this biz time is cash.

I'm not proposing some sort of Luddite revolt against online journalism. I'm merely questioning the popular myth that social media's openness is necessarily some great progressive democratic expression. Aspects of it undoubtedly are. And aspects, such as allowance of anonymous speech, undoubtedly are not, in my humble opinion.

I'm all for free and open interaction. But the actors need to be accountable and responsible for their freedom and openness, or else it ain't worth shyte on the credibility meter. The article authors must lay their identities on the line. Why shouldn't the same expectation be held to those who comment?

No problem David. I hope I

No problem David. I hope I didn't sound too snarky but the effect of the word was really jarring.

:)

Even the best of us miss a few.

Well said

Well said, VivianLea:

Quote:

"I visited the Tyee only briefly during the 'no commenting' period, as the essential element was missing for me. Without interaction, the site is a static as any old rag...
This should not be construed as denigrating the work of the contributing writers; rather that any single point of view is one-sided to a degree...that the articles become multi-facted when other writers interact."

And Dorothy, too:

Quote:

"I am sure the supreme Dalek has duly noted that you are not to be terminated, for you are going to obey, and be grateful for the privilege to boot, not to mention that you are on the right side against us troublemakers with ideas of entitlemet."

I'm just curious, wayfarer:

Is "wayfarer", your first name.... or your last name?

.... just want to add....

.... just want to add...... that even though I greatly value the commentary/dialogue that accompanies the often fine articles here, I do understand that The Tyee has a small staff that works hard year-round... and that everyone deserves a break and some well-deserved time off to spend with friends and family.

I enjoyed the holidays....hope you did, too.

lynn...

Even if I listed my real name, there is no method of verification from your vantage, so your guess would be as good as any other user's. But I'll tell you what, on a level playing field, where everyone had to surrender anonymity, I'd be be first in line. And under such a scenario, I'd take your criticism a heck of a lot more seriously. I certainly don't expect you to take mine with more than a grain of kosher salt, having a name like wayfarer.

This issue of social media, citizen journalism and anonymity is not a hill I expect to win, much less defend. I'm old and jaded enough to know better and acknowledge that for better or worse, this medium is here to stay. Mind you, the medium isn't even my issue; the liberal allowance of anonymity is.

Despite all this, I do think these issues are still worthy of debate and the points I (and other social media critics) make need to be put out there, lest we fall victim to the greatest-thing-since-sliced-bread syndrome.

Again, I'm not against interaction and free speech. I'm merely in favour of a higher, more credible quality of it.

In answer to your question, it's Mr. wayfarer to you.

Thanks, Mr. wayfarer for

Thanks, Mr. wayfarer for your reply:

Quote:

"But I'll tell you what, on a level playing field, where everyone had to surrender anonymity, I'd be be first in line." End of Quote.

I would suggest it is hard to find a level playing field anywhere these days. Waiting for a "real" level playing field is like Waiting for Godot....because there are level playing fields and there are things that appear to be level playing fields that are clearly not ones when one peers closely.

For some people posting here, anonymity offers a layer of protection that I understand....because the real world is a seriously slanted playing field. To pretend that it is not, and put all the accountability on the part of the little guy while the powers-that-be and the governments that serve them arrogantly refuse to disclose information, endlessly delay FOI requests, actively work against the common good by spending our hard-earned tax dollars on a Public Affairs Bureau designed to sabotage our democratic rights, governments who prorogue Parliament our of pure self-interest....well, you get the idea......

Let the bullies disrobe first, then we'll talk disclosure.

As ever,

Lynn

lynn

Your points are noted an appreciated, and we likely share more in common on the issue than you think.

A couple closing thoughts...

I'm not waiting for, or suggesting a Utopian playing field, just one that demands more accountability and true openness. There's nothing open about anonymity, especially when it is used for malicious purposes to hurt others or to carry out deceptive campaigns. The Internet is still a relative infant, and improvements can and should be made. Some sites don't allow user privileges without doing a phone call-back to verify ID. This is a step in the right direction.

Moreover, I'm not sure exactly how anonymity benefits or "protects" the people like us in any real democratic, justice or liberating sense. If anything, the trend to allow anonymous user access in online media may actually hurt the people. Remember, the allowance of anonymity or lax ID requirements is a double-edged sword. The corporate and government bullies you decry have access to it, too! Internet forums and the new media are prime hunting grounds for government shills and corporate PR front groups (aka, astroturf groups), and if you think they aren't using this anonymous "protection" to push their wares, well think again.

Quite the contrary to your final point, the bullies, from big oil to big government, are donning the robes of anonymity and abusing the privilege to their own benefit. In light of this, a strong case can easily be made for making all new media more accountable for how they conduct civic journalism.

The impact that lynn, wayfarer et al can have on the democratic or journalistic process via anonymous access to new media pales in comparison to the damage the big powers can inflict by being allowed to run around free with names like 'joe everyday' and 'julie average' - without a single thing or editor stopping them from doing so. This is not openness or free speech. This is rights without responsibilities; deception without accountability.

PR front group activity and related activity by big lobby groups used to be a lot harder to pull off, but the luxury of online anonymity and citizen journalism has pretty much given them a free pass to conduct ideological and political warfare with zero checks or balances in place to stop them. Now I ask, whose interests are really being protected in all of this?

The bottom line for me is, the people who own and control the means of production will always have a hand up, regardless of the social media fad of the month; and these elites love the fact that the minions are being pacified by the illusion that greater, anonymous access to new media and information is somehow empowering in any meaningful way. But I digress.

Take care,
w.