crowdsourcing can save a life, but it mostly takes cool ideas from people

I don't have much to write about for Chapter 6. It discusses more of Lanier's concerns and complaints. He better start giving us some suggestions because I'm finding myself saying, "I know, I know... We're doomed."

Lanier discusses how investors don't value human creativity by paying to create new content--tv shows, movies, books, and music--because they can crowdsource for free. They can rely on "the chattering of the crowd within itself" to create free content.

When content is crowdsourced, the creator essentially gives up all rights related to their content, and gives it to the parent website. The parent site has a lot to gain from the work of others, including profits. It can be argued that the “content would be worthless without the parent site, but to that same effect, the site would also be worthless without its content.” More rights issues come up when the content published online is turned into a book or used for other merchandise.

Jaremy Rich, from virology.com, says, “crowdsourced content is created by users with no likely desire for fame or fortune. It's the equivalent of volunteering at a church or non-profit. However, a company IS making a profit off of this content.” While it's true that, in many cases, people are participating because they enjoy being creative; however, sometimes the content is extremely profitable.

For example, the website - icanhascheezburger - relies on content from users: lolcats (funny pictures of cats with captions). There is also an interactive element with users ranking the photos. This website receives hundreds of submissions per day, while it only posts about a dozen. There are a number of successful books. There is also a network of related popular crowdsourced websites, including loldogs, failblog, failbook, and engrish funny. These sites have millions of hits per day, and there are huge revenues because of the user-generated content

There are ways user-generated content can be successful, profitable, but somehow less profit oriented.

One of my favourite websites is postsecret.com. Creator, Frank Warren, says it started in 2004 as a “creative prank” when he bought 3000 blank post cards and put his address on them with an invitation to “artistically share their deepest secret on a postcard and mail it to [him], anonymously.” Frank left them in random places all over the city, and he was surprised when he received 100 in the mail.

He had the first postsecret art exhibit and created his blog. He was surprised with the overwhelming response because after that, they kept coming in. Now, he has received millions of postcards, and his blog has received over 350 million hits. He has published five books and tours the world for postsecret art exhibits and events.

The user-generated content in this case is essential to the essence of the project. The act of sharing the secret is both healing and empowering to the creator. The secrets are inspirational for the readers and give hope to people who identify with them. The anonymity of the secrets is important because it creates a sense of unity within the online community.

The reason I say this very successful use of crowdsourcing is different than most is because Frank Warren donates hundreds of thousands of dollars to charities and help lines. His work creates awareness for many mental health issues. He reads a lot of dark secrets with themes of suicide, self-harm and depression, and he is doing everything he can to raise awareness and financially assist the channels of support offered.

One really inspiring example of how social media and readers of postsecret came together is when one secret said that the anonymous writer plans to commit suicide this summer by jumping off the Golden Gate bridge in San Francisco this summer. With no way to contact the anonymous writer, people created a facebook page called, “Please don't jump.” There are almost 20 000 members and 500 photos with the same message: please don't jump.

So, I mean, really the crowdsourcing using the internet isn't all bad. Yeah, you probably won't make money (unless you're somehow the lord of a profitable cloud). And yeah, don't give away your awesome content and time for free unless you're getting something out of it (like having fun or personal healing or marks for a class or something).

(The quote from Frank Warren is from the introduction of one of his books, PostSecret: Confessions on Life, Death & God.)

(where voldy went to school after hogwarts &) the fate of musicians

A couple of days ago the New York Times published, "Merely Human? That's So Yesterday", and it caught my attention. The article profiles Singularity University and its discussion about how technological advancement will change the future of humanity. The program includes courses on nanotechnology, artificial intelligence and robotics, synthetic biology, space sciences, medicine and neurosciences, and immortality.

Writer for gizmodo.com, Kyle VanHemert, sums up Singularity U nicely: it's "basically some of the smartest people on the planet having the same discussions you did when you were stoned in college. But at this school, the participants in that conversation are the rare individuals with the intellect and wherewithal to make those ideas a reality."

Voldemort probably would've loved SU. He'd major in immortality. He'd fit right in with the super geniuses. After all, he did "great things. Terrible! Yes... but great."

&&&

In Chapter 5, Lanier discusses the fate of musicians as the world changes with technological advancements. There are hundreds of thousands of musicians hoping to be discovered on YouTube and Myspace. Many of these people want to be musicians for the wrong reasons: not because they are talented or passionate, but because they want to get attention and make millions. Yes, we (regular people) appreciate the entertainment industry, but I believe that the payscale for celebs needs to be reevaluated anyways. Maybe with artists making less money on music, it will discourage the people more interested in the money and glamourous lifestyle than actually creating music and performing for fans.

There will always be music. I'll always be able to get it. However, it might not be prepackaged or easy to find. I think of it sort of like a comparison between a chain clothing store and a vintage shop. In chain clothing stores, there are racks of clothes presented in an aesthetically pleasing and organized way. There are different sizes and colours, so everyone can have their own. There are mannequins to show you how the pieces might go together. There are new lines to tell you what will be cool this season. You are guaranteed that every store will be pretty much the same.

Vintage stores, instead of having mass produced and easy to find clothes, are all different. Some are more organized than others. Some carry only designer clothes in beautiful condition, while others have pretty much everything. They don't have sizes and colours for everyone. Normally, you have to search through racks and bins of clothes to find something that a) you like, and b) fits you.

The online music scene is kind like a crappy vintage clothing store: they accept donations from anyone. This music is not made for the masses. It is not organized. You need to have a lot of time to search through myspace profiles and youtube pages to discover new music. When searching for vintage clothes, you have to sift through a lot of crap to find something great. But, in both cases, when you make that discovery, it's awesome. Finding music on your own that you like is rewarding somehow. It's something the radio or Billboard 100 didn't tell you that you should think is cool. It's unique because not everyone knows the artist (and in the case of vintage clothing, where to get it).

Now, there are too many musicians for the average person (who isn't a University student looking for ways to procrastinate) to sift through and discover on their own. Most of them suck, and it's just easier to download mainstream stuff.

Lanier believes that the internet should be helping people “find new ways to get paid” and instead is causing people to have to run around in vans to go to gigs. I think that people running around in vans to play gigs are awesome and what music should be about (moreso than mansions, fancy cars and papparazzi anyways). While the internet has lead to 'vanity careers' for hundreds of thousands of wannabe musicians, it's also caused more musicians to share their talent. People don't have to rely on a major record label for exposure anymore.

I think that the music situation will become better. As record labels fail and digital music pushes cd's completely off the shelves, more discoveries of indie talent will be made. I think more people will rely on bloggers to sift through the garbage and discover new talent.

fragments given without pay to the hive

Because of this assignment, I'm checking up frequently on different technology blogs, and this article caught my attention.

A young bottle-nose dolphin was able to recognize and touch pictures on the screen to match objects he was shown. The researchers show the dolphin real objects (such as a ball, cube or plastic duck) then ask him to touch photos of the same objects on the screen. The dolphin is not being rewarded with food; he seems to want to interact with people. Researchers say that this is “an easy task for a dolphin, but it is a necessary building block towards our goal of a complete language interface between humans and dolphins.”

I wonder what the dolphins will say to us.

On to Chapter 4 ideas... Lanier moves on from discussing online identity and the changing role of technology to economic concerns for the future: what will money be?

He argues that free culture is causing disaster: degrading human expression. He claims music and newspaper-style reporting have already fallen into a “sorry state” and movies are on the same path. I'm not sure that the changes in the music industry and and news reporting are all bad. It is certainly different because there are more contributors and a greater quantity of media being produced (most of it mediocre at best). However, change isn't always bad. For the music industry, more people have the opportunity to showcase their talents (or lack thereof). This chance leads to more music, and although not all of it is good, there have been some really great discoveries.

I do agree with Lanier's ideas about advertising. Downloading and streaming have changed the way people get music. Unfortunately for musicians signed to major record labels, filesharing has led to a huge decrease in album sales. If you can get music for free, why pay for it? Overall, writers, musicians, and artists are “encouraged to treat the fruits of their intellects and imaginations as fragments to be given without pay to the hive mind.” Now, artists use the Internet for self-promotion, and they make money from other avenues: endorsement deals, concerts and merchandise. For unknown artists, they are often happy enough just to have fans and get their work out and into the hive.

fragments & anonymous trolls

I came across this article this week, and it reminded me of Lanier's comment that technology is moving without considering all the effects and adapting as necessary.

I don't know if I'm surprised that children are more likely to own a cellphone than a book. It's sad, but with so many other distractions, it's hard to sit down with a book and read for a while. Manafy, an editorial director Information Today, suggests that if more children have phones, then “we need to be looking much harder at creating content optimized for this reading environment [...and create] a reading experience that coincides with their [...]shorter attention spans [...and] non-linear reading style.” Maybe parents, librarians and educators should celebrate technology like the iPad that is more conducive for reading. Hopefully, eBooks (or iBooks?) will become popular with kids, or we could be facing a wave of illiteracy in the future.

In Chapter 3, Lanier gives readers his thoughts on the perceived wisdom of crowd. We've all done it: googled a question or wikipediaed something. The idea is that the mistakes of people cancel each other out and there's correctness centred around the right answer (this is also pretty much all I remember about my stats class). The fragments we read online obscure the context and author. This ideology devalues authorship and individuality. Collectives can be just as stupid as any individual, and all collectives rely on the leadership of intellectuals and visionaries to lead them. Therefore, I agree with Lanier's opinion that quantity doesn't become quality. I can't help but think that there's about to be a whole lot more stupid questions and answers as facebook announces a new questions and answers application.

Anonymity can be one of the bad things about the internet. Not only does it reduce the cultural importance of authorship, but it also encourages trolling. People are not held accountable to what they say, and they are rarely punished or penalized for their online bullying. YouTube pseudonyms are easy to create and recreate for the purpose of posting mean comments on videos. Although there are a lot of stupid videos, it's stupider to watch them and then be mean about it! On a site like SecondLife people won't be as mean because the pseudonym comes with developed personality that isn't as disposable. It requires a lot of work to recreate.

This leads to one of the good things about the internet: online communities. For example, fan forums allow fans to communicate with one another about a shared obsession. These sites use online pseudonyms; however, they come with personalities and the people get to know each other. They are not fragments of people. Like Lanier said about the printing press, it “is not the mechanism, but the authors” who are important. The people make the forum (not the software). The software creates the opportunity, but people run and participate in the forum.

Lanier's ideas resonate with me. A number of years ago, during a special time for discussion among Harry Potter fans while we waited for the next book, I was involved with a Harry Potter fan site and forum. There were very few trolls there. I got to know people by their avatar, their username, and eventually, their REAL name. There needs to be more opportunity for this kind of interaction online. While anonymity is important for safety, too much of it gives people the freedom to let out their inner troll.
Facebook is a place where trolling has repercussions. People have to constantly manage their online reputations. After an in-class conversation about employers facebook creeping potential employees, it's clear that companies want employees who represent them well in public. In the past, this included the workplace only, and it didn't matter what employees did in their private lives as long as they did their jobs. However, many people have accepted that the online world is in the public domain. If it's online, it's not private anymore.

computers can't read

After reading chapter 2 and reading some stuff online, I'm a bit more scared of robot computers taking over the world.

Technology is developing so quickly, and there doesn't seem to be much thought going into the effects it could have on the world. Just because we can make something, doesn't mean we should. For example, at Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne in Switzerland, the Blue Brain Project is attempting to reverse-engineer the mammalian brain. Their goal is medical and scientific: understand the function and dysfunction of the human brain including intelligence and consciousness. Although this project promises medical breakthroughs, it can also inform artificial intelligence. In two years, the Blue Brain Project hopes to have a working model of a rodent brain. (I read about this project here. Also, see a preview of a documentary about it.)

Maybe we are on our way to the Singularity. This blog is convincing.

The roles of person and computer are already blurring. “Playing against the computer” is nothing out of the ordinary now (although I can imagine how people must have felt in 1997 when Deep Blue beat Kasparov). I agree with Lanier's thought about people lowering their standards to make computers seem smart. For example, the expectations of grammar and spell check on word processing programs is ridiculous. People rely so heavily on this function that when they have to hand write even a paragraph on paper, it's almost unreadable. Many people look to computers as smarter than them, and they think computers can read and proofread. Their are many flaws with this software (See! It didn't catch that because computers can't read. And if you don't know... you've lowered your standards... and you should learn how to spell there, their and they're!). People can read. Therefore, only people can properly proofread.

The Turing experiment is interesting as people begin to anthropomorphize computers more and more. Most people assume there is a person typing back to them, but it's not always the case. For example, online dating website scams with auto-responses from templates that certainly were not written by a 25-year-old blond in California.

Maybe people will get to the point where they don't care that it's a computer they're talking to. Maybe robots won't take over, but we'll all get a long. Maybe in the future, people will marry robots?

web 2.0 ideas aren't so bad

Without having seen the book, writing two 400-word blog entries a week seemed to be a very daunting task. Thankfully, Lanier has some interesting things to say.

“Web 2.0 ideas are stinkers” - These web applications that allow online interaction and collaboration, rather than passive viewing of the information have their faults, but I don't think they've “demeaned interpersonal interaction”. Web 2.o ideas aren't so bad. Yes, online identities “transform self-esteem and social self-perceptions”, but is that so terrible? Web 2.0 applications, such as social networks, blogs etc., appeal to the common need to belong and the collective self-esteem. Many people benefit from the connections they've made online.

Lanier questions the quality and the meaning of interaction online. In an extreme example of the power of Web 2.0 applications, Eva Markvoort (aka 65_RedRoses in the Cystic Fibrosis online community) recently passed away after years of battling CF and her body's rejection of a double lung transplant. In the award-winning documentary, 65_RedRoses, gives viewers a look into the lives of Eva and two of her online friends. Though they are unable to meet in person because of the possibility of spreading infection, they are able to provide vital support for each other through various web applications. In addition, Eva's blog created awareness for CF and organ donation as well as contributed to the growing CF community online. Now, her words and online identity live on and inspire others to help raise awareness (See Link to the cbc page where other related links can be found).

Somewhat related... I came across a crazy article this week about a service that deals with digital accounts after death: a web will. What would Lanier think of this?

On a lighter note, videosharing has changed the music industry and our notion of celebrity. One week after posting this video of his grade 6 talent show, Grayson Chance was signed to a major record label. He is expressing himself following a template and in the same way everyone does on youtube: uploading video. Although youtube has created a cult of amateurism, I think the fact that Web 2.0 tools gave him this ability to share his talent is amazing. Anyone can upload a video regardless of talent, so there are more videos that are crap, but occasionally there are some great discoveries. The Web 2.0 idea that user-generated content is valuable and relevant isn't true in all cases, but there are redeeming qualities to the Web 2.0 applications.

Another idea I found myself thinking about after reading the chapter was the idea of technology locking in. Since the launch of Friendster (2002), myspace (2003) and Facebook (2004), the idea of an online social network seems to be locked in. Facebook has become the dominant platform for social networking, and most people have a standardized presence on Facebook. It seems there will always be something performing the functions of Facebook. As Facebook becomes more integrated, people are less likely to want to switch over to another platform. It is trying to lock itself in as our one true login, and reinforce the idea that our Facebook profile is the centre of our online identity. There are other platforms working quickly to win over the masses (or in the case of myspace, win back the masses) and pitching themselves as facebook alternatives: myspace, Diaspora and Collegiate Nation are a few that I’ve read about.

Collegiate Nation – provides privacy to students by being a network for students only.

Diaspora – a private, open-source social network giving users power over personal data.

Myspace – making public attempts to show concern for privacy by changing settings.

So far, I've been checking out the Blog Herald and ReadWriteWeb.