The texts on this page are drafts and ideas, so please comment if you have thoughts, ideas or suggestions. I think any project like the one suggested here would have to be a sort of grass-roots movement.
I started to write this page after feeling that there's something wrong about logging on to a social network like facebook or myspace and having to become a captive audience for advertising. Unlike with television, users of the social web can't just turn off this advertising machine; once we develop a network of friends and our own page, we've invested in the system, so it's hard not to keep our accounts active.
Do we need to be making money for companies that are just providing us with space on their networks? Mark Zuckerberg, head of Facebook, was recently telling advertisers that the old advertising paradigm isn't enough any longer, and that now the place to advertise is "in the conversations." Do we need his fingers in our conversations? Our friendships?
On this page are some thoughts about how the situation might be changed, and thoughts about distribution and payment systems for digital media in general. They are not polished ideas, but maybe they will contribute to the ongoing discussion about the future of the social web or, in the best case, help motivate someone to start a project like the one suggested.
A friend already pointed out the Bill of Rights for Users of the Social Web (http://opensocialweb.org/2007/09/05/bill-of-rights/). The texts on this page were drafted without knowledge of the texts on that page, just seven weeks later, so there seems to be a timeliness to the projects the pages advocate.
I agree with the Bill of Rights for Users of the Social Web, but I think it may be possible to go further, depending on how peer-to-peer media exchange is structured in the future, so that corporate power plays a much smaller role controlling digital media in general. Also, it should be possible to make advertising play a smaller part in shaping our everyday reality.
With respect to our current daily exposure to the influence of corporations, I think it can be said that 'unjust powers are never seen as such until alternatives are recognized'.
Thanks for reading,
Charles L.
Media-Consumer Rights:
Since distribution of material in the digital media costs little and media are instantly customizable, every user of the internet has the right to:
1. Freedom of choice with respect to viewing advertising. Since being exposed to advertisements is a method of payment, users should be able to choose whether to view advertising or, as an alternative, to directly pay the small sums otherwise generated by it. The locus of decision-making with regard to linking media products with advertising has been in the hands of media companies until now due to the practical constraints on traditional media. However, the proper location of the decision to view advertising is with the consumer. Software shall be developed to allow users to decide in real time whether to view advertising.
I bracket these two because they're not so strictly rights, but rather 'should-bes':
(2. Something like: Freedom of expression in the public digital space of social networks. Since social networking sites have become as ubiquitous and as personal as everyday conversations on the street, social networking should be free of corporate control. Social networks are like the sidewalk; they should neither be profited from nor controlled except as appropriate through the legal system.)
(3. Something like: Freedom of expression with regard to professional work. Constraints on traditional media, including the internet software of today, have forced professional authors and artists to submit to artificial hierarchies of control through media companies and editorial boards in order to get sufficient remuneration to pursue media-related professions. Through innovations in software, an 'open media network' can and should allow for professional expression to be remunerated and consumed in more direct correlation to market demands (for example, through enabling instant and automatic one-cent-purchasing of articles/songs from non-corporate web pages; pay-as-you-consume content), as opposed to being based to a significant degree on the decisions of a few individuals who have the power to publish, distribute and advertise.)
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Example of everyday surfing
Please bear with me as far as the software goes; I think it wouldn't be hard to figure out:
You would log in on a computer using username and password, and browse as usual. You would have a home page with social networking functions (like you do today on myspace or facebook) and you would have email.
In the corner of your screen would be a counter showing how much you spend on digital media (bear with me here; the parts of the internet that are free now would still be free). You would surf as usual, except any media that is for-pay media would be marked with something that tells you how much it costs (a little blue square means it costs one cent, green costs two cents, etc.) If you view stuff that costs money, you would be instantly and automatically charged.
Lots of stuff would be free, just like with the internet today (that is, that stuff would have no little blue squares next to it), and some free media products would be supported by advertising, just like today. However, if you were to decide that you don't want to see any advertising you could click a button to 'turn advertising off', in which case as you browse you would be charged the small sums otherwise generated by advertising. The money would go in full to the authors of the content you view.
Users would have pages that have social network functions, but could designate whether certain things on their pages cost money for other users to view. So, for example, an independent rock band could post their songs (like on MySpace) and get one cent, or a part of a cent, for each playing of the song (or, say, fifty cents for unlimited access to the song by a viewer).
Well-visited bloggers would become professionals without any association with a media corporation -- if a blog were to get two million visits then the author would get 20,000 dollars, charging one cent per view. Individuals could become independent professional reporters or filmmakers or musicians by creating content which is viewed by many.
The web would include much more than it currently does, since more copyrighted materials would be posted. Getting access to those extra materials would be much easier than today, and access would cost less since the middlemen would no longer exist; for example, books could be posted such that reading several pages costs a few cents -- and that money would bypass publishers and bookstores and go straight to the author.
The backbone of the system -- the individual accounts and the social networking function -- should be, I think, based on a non-profit or government-run network. Other software applications could be developed by for-profit companies (like the add-on applications one sees on Facebook).
Compliance issues (policing and legal questions) are still unresolved, but one possible approach would be to base each social network page in a local community, like is happening with WikiSpot pages. In this way the mountainous task of policing hundreds of millions of pages might be broken down to correspond to physical communities, policed by individuals in each geographical area.
You would log in on a computer using username and password, and browse as usual. You would have a home page with social networking functions (like you do today on myspace or facebook) and you would have email.
In the corner of your screen would be a counter showing how much you spend on digital media (bear with me here; the parts of the internet that are free now would still be free). You would surf as usual, except any media that is for-pay media would be marked with something that tells you how much it costs (a little blue square means it costs one cent, green costs two cents, etc.) If you view stuff that costs money, you would be instantly and automatically charged.
Lots of stuff would be free, just like with the internet today (that is, that stuff would have no little blue squares next to it), and some free media products would be supported by advertising, just like today. However, if you were to decide that you don't want to see any advertising you could click a button to 'turn advertising off', in which case as you browse you would be charged the small sums otherwise generated by advertising. The money would go in full to the authors of the content you view.
Users would have pages that have social network functions, but could designate whether certain things on their pages cost money for other users to view. So, for example, an independent rock band could post their songs (like on MySpace) and get one cent, or a part of a cent, for each playing of the song (or, say, fifty cents for unlimited access to the song by a viewer).
Well-visited bloggers would become professionals without any association with a media corporation -- if a blog were to get two million visits then the author would get 20,000 dollars, charging one cent per view. Individuals could become independent professional reporters or filmmakers or musicians by creating content which is viewed by many.
The web would include much more than it currently does, since more copyrighted materials would be posted. Getting access to those extra materials would be much easier than today, and access would cost less since the middlemen would no longer exist; for example, books could be posted such that reading several pages costs a few cents -- and that money would bypass publishers and bookstores and go straight to the author.
The backbone of the system -- the individual accounts and the social networking function -- should be, I think, based on a non-profit or government-run network. Other software applications could be developed by for-profit companies (like the add-on applications one sees on Facebook).
Compliance issues (policing and legal questions) are still unresolved, but one possible approach would be to base each social network page in a local community, like is happening with WikiSpot pages. In this way the mountainous task of policing hundreds of millions of pages might be broken down to correspond to physical communities, policed by individuals in each geographical area.
Non-profit online social networking?
Since the success of non-profit web sites like Wikipedia, Wikispot and craigslist, the following questions need to be raised:
- Can there be a non-profit media web site that does social networking and email?
- Further, is there an alternative to most internet media being under the control of just a few large for-profit corporations?
- Is there an alternative for professionals who create media, such that revenues go directly to them? Can a non-profit service allow for the remuneration of professional work and be easy and intuitive to use and organize for consumers? (something like producer rewards on Metacafe, but not run by a for-profit company)?
- Is there a decentralized, more democratic alternative to academic journals, which could flatten the power currently held by editorial boards, but still allow for peer review such that authors could build reputations through excellence in research, while having true academic freedom? Could it gain respect in academia as Wikipedia has?
The idea could start with a nonprofit online social network. Costs related to compliance (legal issues with illegal content in posts etc.) could be mitigated by allowing local management of the nonprofit sites. In other words, the social networking sites would work like the WikiSpot project -- instead of one organization running hundreds of millions of pages, each local social network would manage its users' pages. Of course, like with WikiSpot, a standard would allow people to link their pages with friends in other local social networks.
- Can there be a non-profit media web site that does social networking and email?
- Further, is there an alternative to most internet media being under the control of just a few large for-profit corporations?
- Is there an alternative for professionals who create media, such that revenues go directly to them? Can a non-profit service allow for the remuneration of professional work and be easy and intuitive to use and organize for consumers? (something like producer rewards on Metacafe, but not run by a for-profit company)?
- Is there a decentralized, more democratic alternative to academic journals, which could flatten the power currently held by editorial boards, but still allow for peer review such that authors could build reputations through excellence in research, while having true academic freedom? Could it gain respect in academia as Wikipedia has?
The idea could start with a nonprofit online social network. Costs related to compliance (legal issues with illegal content in posts etc.) could be mitigated by allowing local management of the nonprofit sites. In other words, the social networking sites would work like the WikiSpot project -- instead of one organization running hundreds of millions of pages, each local social network would manage its users' pages. Of course, like with WikiSpot, a standard would allow people to link their pages with friends in other local social networks.
Reasons to create an open media network
An open media network should be created because it is not necessary in the age of new-media that large for-profit corporations:
- profit from the personal social exchanges of people in online social networks;
- constrain freedom of speech in online social networks;
- overly control other media content such as news, music, film and books through their power to determine which authors and artists gain access to exclusive routes to remuneration; since more direct routes to payment for media products can now be made possible;
and because:
- peer-review is the only legitimate measure of the quality of academic writing.
The hurdles are financing and how to create a slick user interface without profit-kinds of funding. I think it's the same issues that confront any community-based effort: how do you create a nice product without (some of) the forces of the market?
I think there's not such a clear answer with social networking as to which is better. Is social networking more suited to the model of development that makes pretty cars (the capitalism model), or is it more suited to the model of development that makes Wikipedia run so well? It's not clear that the latter can work, but nevertheless I'm just bothered every time I log on to facebook or myspace and I'm basically a dart board for some large corporation's making profits through throwing advertising at my face (a private corporation, even, as with facebook).
The most frustrating thing is that it's not like the television: I can't just turn it off. I keep in touch with people on these networks and it would be a big deal if I were to cancel my accounts on them. There's something sinister about that; in the free world I'm used to having more freedom than that.
PLEASE READ AND PASS ON:
There is a new search engine called Wikia which just started today, January 7th. It was started by the same guy who started Wikipedia, but whereas wikipedia is non-profit, WIKIA IS A FOR-PROFIT COMPANY. When you search for something, it asks if you want to write an article about it. The idea is to create a huge database of user-written information which helps others BUT UNLIKE WIKIPEDIA, WIKIA WILL PROFIT FROM OUR WORK. There are already alternatives to this. We do not need to be making money for other people: look at Daviswiki.org and wikispot.org
The future will involve sites like this for EVERYTHING. Notice the reviews on the sites just mentioned of individual dentists, street signs, convenience markets etc.
DON'T LET CORPORATIONS AND WEALTHY INDIVIDUALS PROFIT FROM YOUR AND MY WORK WHEN THERE ARE NON-PROFIT ALTERNATIVES!
- profit from the personal social exchanges of people in online social networks;
- constrain freedom of speech in online social networks;
- overly control other media content such as news, music, film and books through their power to determine which authors and artists gain access to exclusive routes to remuneration; since more direct routes to payment for media products can now be made possible;
and because:
- peer-review is the only legitimate measure of the quality of academic writing.
The hurdles are financing and how to create a slick user interface without profit-kinds of funding. I think it's the same issues that confront any community-based effort: how do you create a nice product without (some of) the forces of the market?
I think there's not such a clear answer with social networking as to which is better. Is social networking more suited to the model of development that makes pretty cars (the capitalism model), or is it more suited to the model of development that makes Wikipedia run so well? It's not clear that the latter can work, but nevertheless I'm just bothered every time I log on to facebook or myspace and I'm basically a dart board for some large corporation's making profits through throwing advertising at my face (a private corporation, even, as with facebook).
The most frustrating thing is that it's not like the television: I can't just turn it off. I keep in touch with people on these networks and it would be a big deal if I were to cancel my accounts on them. There's something sinister about that; in the free world I'm used to having more freedom than that.
PLEASE READ AND PASS ON:
There is a new search engine called Wikia which just started today, January 7th. It was started by the same guy who started Wikipedia, but whereas wikipedia is non-profit, WIKIA IS A FOR-PROFIT COMPANY. When you search for something, it asks if you want to write an article about it. The idea is to create a huge database of user-written information which helps others BUT UNLIKE WIKIPEDIA, WIKIA WILL PROFIT FROM OUR WORK. There are already alternatives to this. We do not need to be making money for other people: look at Daviswiki.org and wikispot.org
The future will involve sites like this for EVERYTHING. Notice the reviews on the sites just mentioned of individual dentists, street signs, convenience markets etc.
DON'T LET CORPORATIONS AND WEALTHY INDIVIDUALS PROFIT FROM YOUR AND MY WORK WHEN THERE ARE NON-PROFIT ALTERNATIVES!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)