Two items here.

A reaction against the introduction of blatant advertising in the social network, in the form of an open letter, by Janine Carmona; the second concerns the privacy practices at Facebook.

Open Letter to Facebook on the Walmart ads

“I was alarmed today when I came across a group on Facebook sponsored by WalMart trying to sell me crap for my dorm room.

This is the first such blatantly corporate advertisements on Facebook I have run across.

No matter what you think of WalMart as a company (and there are many who think that their business practices are disgusting and harmful: walmartwatch.com/) you should note that Facebook is a social networking site that defines itself as a place for people to connect with those who live and work around them. This does not include faceless advertisers. The WalMart group is not a person to network with, to share stories and pictures with or to talk to- it is a portal to get us to buy stuff.

WalMart doesn’t have a “face” to “book” and neither do any of the other corporations that get advertising time from Facebook. I am tired of corporations invading one of the only Internet spaces left that are not simply trying to get their hands on my money.

In lieu of noting this Facebook should use these simple guidelines to keep me from deleting my account and moving over to the myriad of social networking sites that have not sold out:

1. Corporations are not individuals, they cannot “network” and should not have access to the human beings who use Facebook, their contact information, or their time.

2. Facebook should seriously consider the human rights and business practices of a potential advertiser. At least post a warning that there have been problems with these instead of bowing down to whoever has the money. It’s a bit demeaning, no?

3. I’m not saying individuals who like WalMart should have no say here, hell, -actual- users should make all the “I Love WalMart” groups they want. Let’s just make sure the people making groups are actually people, shall we? Free speech is fine, but money should not be able to buy the free speech of a human being. Otherwise, those with the most money would have the most free speech, and that wouldn’t be fair to the rest of us would it?

See 3 practical and simple steps to making me a happy Facebook consumer. If you agree with me, perhaps you should share this note, send the practical steps to the Facebook team, or go to the Walmart group and post a comment on the page-there’s already some fascinating discussion there.

All my love to the users of Facebook and the employees of WalMart everywhere-may you soon make a decent wage.”

The Privacy aspects of Facebook:

Summary by the Gnuband blog of a presentation by Alessandro Acquisti :

“Alessandro Acquisti , Carnegie Mellon University, delighted us with great insights about “Imagined communities: awareness, information sharing and privacy: the Facebook case” . His research is in the economics of privacy and he revealed interesting facts about Facebook, for example, 89% of Facebook users reveale their real name. And 87% of CMU Facebook profiles reveale birthday, 51% reveale the address, 40% reveale their phone number (40%!). 61% of the posted images are suited for direct identification. Remember that this information will never disappear, it will stored forever in many computers (facebook servers, google servers, archive.org servers and … as the following discussion easily revealed, governments servers, secret agencies servers and probably many companies who can just afford to save everything and decide in future what to do with this information). There is an evident privacy risk of re-identification: 87% of US population is uniquely identified by {gender, ZIP, date of birth} (Sweeney, 2001), Facebook users that put this information up on their profile could link them up to outside, de-identified data sources.

Facebook profiles often show high quality facial images, Images can be linked to de-identified profiles using face recognition. Some findings on Facebook: Non members rate privacy (concerns, worries, importance) statistically significantly (although only slightly) higher than members. Members deny they use Facebook for dating, however they state they think other members use it for dating. Majority agrees that the information other Facebook members reveal may create a privacy risk for them (mean Likert 4.92). They are significantly less concerned about their own privacy (mean Likert 3.60). Respondents trust the Facebook… more than they trust unconnected Facebook users.

The survey about how much users know about Facebook’s privacy policy is interesting as well: “Facebook also collects information about you from other sources, such as newspapers and instant messaging services. This information is gathered regardless of your use of the Web Site.” 67% believe that is not the case.

“We use the information about you that we have collected from other sources to supplement your profile unless you specify in your privacy settings that you do not want this to be done.” 70% believe that is not the case.”

Interesting technical solution that could be used in both developed and developing countries:

From World Changing:

“CUWiN — the Champaign-Urbana community WIreless Network — brings together a bunch of worldchanging ideas into one useful package: Free/Open Source software to create ad-hoc municipal wireless networks using recycled old PCs. The software — which can be downloaded from cuwireless.net — just needs to be burned onto a CD, which can then be used to boot a PC (even something as old as a 486) with a wireless card. Once the system boots, the software configures itself, looking for other nodes to connect to; the CUWiN system uses “ad hoc networking” principles to link machines together to reach the computer that’s actually connected to the Internet.”

Very interesting take by Rob Myers on Open Source as a movement that intends to obscure the principles of Free Software. This piece has an interesting critique of Wikipedia, but is generally addressed to the relationship of FS/OS with the art world, and what artists should do.

A critique of Open Source

Yochai Benkler describes Open Source as a methodology of commons based peer production. This means work made collaboratively and shared publicly by a community of equals. For Eric Raymond the virtue of Open Source is its efficiency. Open Source can create better products faster than the old closed source model. Many of the most successful software programs in use today, particularly on the internet, are Open Source.

Applying the ideas of Open Source to other projects, be they political, philosophical or artistic, is more difficult than it might seem. The idea of Open Source as a more efficient means of production has nothing to say about what Open Source politics or art should be like.

To take the example of the Open Congress event at Tate Modern, artists struggled to find an Open Source ideology to apply to their art, activists struggled to find an Open Source ideology to apply to their organisations, and theorists grinned and invoked Deleuze and Spinoza to cover the gaps.

This confusion is not a problem with the idea of Open Source. Rather it is the intended result of it. The name Open Source was deliberately chosen for its meaninglessness and ideological vacuity. This was intended to make the results of a very strong ideology more palatable to large corporations by disguising its origins. That ideology is Free Software.

Free Software is a set of principles designed to protect the freedom of individuals to use computer software. It emerged in the 1980s against a backdrop of increasing restrictions on the use and production of software. Free Software can therefore be understood historically and ethically as the defence of freedom against a genuine threat.

Once software users freedoms are protected the methodology that we know as Open Source becomes possible and its advantages become apparent. But without the guiding principles of Free Software the neccessity and direction of Open Source cannot be accounted for. Open Source has no history or trajectory, it cannot account for itself or suggest which tasks are neccessary or important. Free Software requires freedom, which is a practical goal to pursue.

Free Software is a historical development, a set of principles, and a set of possibilities. Free Software projects have converged on the methodology that Raymond describes as Open Source because of this. To describe this methodology as commons based peer production causes further confusion. There are no peers in a Free Software project. If contributions are deemed to be of acceptable quality, they are added to the project by its appointed gatekeepers. If not, they are rejected and advice given. This methodology is a structured and exclusive one, but it is meritocratic. Any contribution of sufficient quality can be accepted, and if someone makes enough such contributions they themselves may gain the trust required to become a gatekeeper.

This confusion leads to projects such as Wikipedia trying to create an open space for anyone to use as they wish. This leads to social darwinism, not freedom, as the contents of that space is determined by a battle of wills. Wikipedia has had to evolve to reproduce many of the structures of a real Free Software project to tackle these problems. But people still regard its earlier phase as a model for emulation, whereas it should serve as more of a warning.

It is therefore the condition of Freedom rather than the condition of Open Source that art should aspire to. Prior to the extension of copyright to cover art as well as literature, art was implicitly free. The physical artefacts of art were expensive to own and difficult or impossible to transport. But the content of art was free to use. Michaelangelo could rip off christian and pagan imagery to paint a ceiling, generations of artists could riff on the theme of the cruxifiction, and anyone could carve a statue of Venus. The representational freedom of artists, part of which is the freedom to depict and build or comment on existing culture, to continue the conversation of culture, is the freedom of art.

With photography and now electronic media, copyright and trademarks have increasingly restricted the artists freedom to continue the conversation of culture. Where once artists could paint gods and kings, they must now be careful not to paint chocolate and the colour purple or they will infringe Cadburys trademark. And new computer technology makes it possible to physically lock artists out of mass media imagery, closing off part of the world from arts freedom of representation.

In this context artists are not volunteers when they take on issues of cultural freedom. They are exemplars. Free art, a free culture, is of vital importance for a free society. Part of this freedom may be ideas of commons based peer production. But it is important not to confuse the results of an ideology with its principles. It is these principles that artists should pursue.”

How then can art learn from Free Software?

* Artists should campaigning to oppose the extension of copyright and trademark law and the reduction of fair use.

* Artists should use copyleft licensing to ensure the free circulation of ideas.

* Artists who are interested to do so can investigate the use of collaborative project management.

* Artists who are interested to do so should produce work to show the value of fair use and the public domain.

* Artists who are interested to do so should challenge copyright maximalists and censors by using mass media imagery and transgressive
imagery.

* Artists should use Free Software and free (or open) file formats for accessibility, and help drive improvement of them.

Via Still Open blog.

Here is one of the most interesting essays I have read this year.

This piece by Martin Larsen is a reaction to an earlier essay by activist Geert Lovink, who identified Blogging as a nihilist impulse.

As much as I generally admire Lovink’s work, I had felt very uneasy with the culturally pessimist and politically disarming view that he expressed in that essay. Martin’s text is a very clearly argued antidote.

This is a really excellent presentation by Robert Upton of Altruists.org, on why it makes sense for people to produce their own money, rather than rely on institutional middlemen. (slideshare presentation in this post)

“An anthill can survive and feed itself in some of the most hostile environments. No single ant knows how it all works – nor does it need to. Individually ants are pretty dumb creatures, collectively they are very smart. Human beings, on the other hand, are individually very smart” but can be collectively smart as well.

Stephen James Joyce has published an interesting book about ‘stigmergic‘ and collaborative intelligence in the workplace, in which he introduces us to ‘CQ’, :”i.e. the ability to create, contribute to, and harness the power within networks of people and relationships”.

The publisher’s blurb writes that:

“In the environment we live in today, never has our ability to ‘pull together’ been more important or more challenged. Developing ways of collaborating becomes a game everyone needs to play. Collaborative Intelligence (or CQ) exists in all groups and is defined as the harnessed intelligence and energy of networks of people. Highly successful organizations are those with the most collaboratively intelligent teams – this is no accident.

‘Teaching an Anthill to Fetch – Developing Collaborative Intelligence @ Work’ provides a practical outline of how to develop collaborative intelligence within groups, teams and organizations. At the end of each chapter there are ‘CQ Tools’ – exercises that enable the reader to explore the skills that develop ‘CQ’.

The parts that I started reading seem well reading and will appeal to people working in corporate settings. Chapter five for example, shows a very good grasp of the recent literature about collaboration, and inquires into the logic of bottom-up self-organization in the world of entreprise.

Here is a short excerpt about the evolution towards collaborative intelligence:

“Whether it is two cells sharing information or two nations negotiating international trade, connection is an essential factor in how things play out. Communication is impossible without ‘connection’ and in many respects it is the core issue of this book. Connection makes communication possible; communication makes collaboration possible which further enhances the state of connection. [Possibly use a simple diagram of this instead] Connection is a fundamental principle of all living systems, and this includes all those that make up human society (teams, organizations etc.).

In this chapter we explore how important ‘connection’ is in building resilient teams and at the same time further enhance our own collaborative intelligence (CQ). We will also look at the part ‘CQ’ will play in the increasingly flattened structures of modern companies and the resilient teams that are required to make the whole thing work.

Daniel Golemans’ work around the concept of emotional intelligence (EQ) was a major step forward in the thinking of how we operate as human beings. EQ is especially important because of the extent to which it was accepted by the business community. Indeed the concept of EQ has already made its way through the ‘early-adopters’ and into the mainstream. It is time for another set of skills to be introduced – based upon the ability to collaborate.”

More Information:

E: change@zenergypd.com
Visit the book at www.AntHillSite.com
Visit Stephen at www.StephenJamesJoyce.com

Anthony Judge, a keen observer of organizational dynamics, has written this reaction to our latest new video on P2P.

I will respond later to these subtantial points.

Tony Judge:

You make a good case. My comments are briefly as follows:

– in explaining the magic of Linux and Wiki, and generalizing from that, you use the expression that “somehow” things work. Clearly something works or the products/services would not exist and be valued. The question is at what price they works and what kinds of work cannot be achieved by such processes. Part of the issue is that you necessarilyu make an upbeat case and obscure the downbeat case. My own personal experience of the “magic” of Wikipedia I have documented in the article, Abusive Wikipedia Biographical Editorial Process.

my conclusion is that it works by what in other contexts would be framed as vigilantism which may be acceptable and valued in the Wikipedia context (as it is in some social settings) but there are contexts where this is entirely unacceptable

– I think you imply relevance to tougher decision making contexts but avoid discussing why P2P has not worked in those contexts. Briefly where is the “killer app” that defines the process and ensures runaway acceptance of it?. What makes it stop at certain styles of application? Why do all the apps you cite have peculiar relationships to money which prevent anyone earning a living from it, other than by parasiting on it?

– in the case of Wikipedia, you point to the fact that one has to engage with them to edit a page. My description indicates that such engagement is very similar to that with a totalitarian Kafkaesque hierarchy. You are therefore being misleading.

– I think that P2P works admirably where there are no constraints. But put half a dozen gurus together and there will be problems. They all may flee the context or others may flee any contact with them thru that context. P2P is not addressing the ego problem or is assuming
that it will be of no relevance. If you prefer not to call it an ego problem than call it preferences for Italian or Chinese cuisine, a trivial example except when “Italian” means “Islam” and “Chinese” means “Christian”

– why does P2P not work in tougher Middle East type situations, however well it may work under zero threat — by avoiding threat, “I can walk anytime” situations?

– my original interest in tensegrity was that it explicitly designed in soft and hard relationships. My disappointment is that (despite the potential and Stafford’s efforts) software protocols have not emerged to test the kinds of configurations to which you point in soft terms in order to see where hard elements need to be inserted to make the structures viable. As it is, we are as you said faced with the tyranny of structurelessness

Basically, in my view, there is a missing dimension. At this point in my time I am less interested in what it is or how to get it in and more in why it is assumed that such a dimension is not missing and that everything in the garden is lovely

More info:

Documents relating to Networking, Tensegrity, Virtual Organization: see

www.laetusinpraesens.org/themes/aznetwo.php

In Reality Sandwich, John Lamb Lash poses an interesting question about the spiritual nature of our interconnected computer networks.

Let me first say that I feel the article errs by attempting to create a univocal understanding of Gnosticism, as a movement which did not reject the material cosmos (anti-cosmism), while I have encountered Gnostics (and practiced with them for a short while) who did just that. Gnosticism is a very broad array of conceptions and movements, it cannot be reduced to the cosmos-positive interpretation that John would like.

But now for the interesting question:

Is the noosphere a medium of simulation, or it is an organic outgrowth of nous, the living, co-evolving intelligence of the biosphere? We have yet to see a definition that satisfactorily addresses this question.

Here is our attempted reply:

- The noosphere is a human creation, not a creation of the living co-evolving intelligence of the biosphere, though of course human are part of and embedded in nature. Any autonomous natural intelligence (Gaia) , if it exists, exists separately from this noosphere and can only be indirectly expressed through human presence.

- The evolving human noosphere materializes itself in computer networks, and in the simulation which they render possible, which reflect our full and contradictory human nature. Note that these networks cannot be reduced to the noosphere, there are just one manifestion of it.

- However I do agree that such networks go beyond the individual and his relations, and are therefore also constituted by the relational networks, and the ‘collective fields’ that they create. (see below for more details)

I believe our friend John Heron said it much better:

“I take a fundamentally relational view of spirituality. I don’t believe that spirituality is about individualistic states of consciousness, however subtle, refined and elevated.

By “integral spirituality” I mean, at the very least, a spirituality that is manifest in full embodiment, in relationship and interconnectedness, in mutuality and sharing, in autonomous creativity, and in full access to multidimensional meanings.
By “global commons” I mean a worldwide space to which anyone on the planet has rights of access, and which is a worldwide forum for communication between everyone who claims their rights of access. The cyberspace of the internet is such a global commons.

Cyberspace itself is fully embodied in the dynamic relation between humans and the planetary network of computers; it is a space generated by interconectedness; it is premised on the full and unfettered mutuality of sharing information; it is an unlimited space for the expression of autonomous creativity; and its provides access for all to a vast range of multidimensional meanings.

It is in this sense that I call the internet, i.e. cyberspace, a global integral-spiritual commons. It has the properties and potential of an integral-spiritual space. The fact that such a space can be used for vulgar or corrupt purposes does not, in my view, detract from its inherent integral-spiritual status, in the same way that the spiritual status of free will is not in any way undermined by the abuse of free will. It is precisely that continuity of status, whatever we do with the gift, that sooner or later calls us to a liberating and creative use of the gift.”

I have tried to distinguish the individual/relational/collective conundrum in the following words :

“”This articulation of modernity, based on a autonomous self in a society which he himself creates through the social contract, has been changing in postmodernity. Simondon, a French philosopher of technology with an important posthumous following in the French-speaking world, has argued that what was typical for modernity was to ‘extract the individual dimension’ of every aspect of reality, of things/processes that are also always-already related . And what is needed to renew thought, he argued, was not to go back to premodern wholism, but to systematically build on the proposition that ‘everything is related’, while retaining the achievements of modern thought, i.e. the equally important centrality of individuality. Thus individuality then comes to be seen as constituted by relations , from relations.

This proposition, that the individual is now seen as always-already part of various social fields, as a singular composite being, no longer in need of socialization, but rather in need of individuation, seems to be one of the main achievements of what could be called ‘postmodern thought’. Atomistic individualism is rejected in favor of the view of a relational self , a new balance between individual agency and collective communion.

In my opinion, as a necessary complement and advance to postmodern thought, it is necessary to take a third step, i.e. not to be content with both a recognition of individuality, and its foundation in relationality, but to also recognize the level of the collective, i.e. the field in which the relationships occur.

If we only see relationships, we forget about the whole, which is society itself (and its sub-fields). Society is more than just the sum of its “relationship parts?. Society sets up a ‘protocol’, in which these relationships can occur, it forms the agents in their subjectivity, and consists of norms which enable or disable certain type of relationships. Thus we have agents, relationships, and fields. Finally, if we want to integrate the subjective element of human intentionality, it is necessary to introduce a fourth element: the object of the sociality.

Indeed, human agents never just ‘relate’ in the abstract, agents always relate around an object, in a concrete fashion. Swarming insects do not seem to have such an object, they just follow instructions and signals, without a view of the whole, but mammals do. For example, bands of wolves congregate around the object of the prey. It is the object that energizes the relationships, that mobilizes the action. Humans can have more abstract objects, that are located in a temporal future, as an object of desire. We perform the object in our minds, and activate ourselves to realize them individually or collectively. P2P projects organize themselves around such common project, and my own Peer to Peer theory is an attempt to create an object that can inspire social and political change.

In summary, for a comprehensive view of the collective, it is now customary to distinguish 1) the totality of relations; 2) the field in which these relations operate, up to the macro-field of society itself, which establishes the ‘protocol’ of what is possible and not; 3) the object of the relationship (?object-oriented sociality?), i.e. the pre-formed ideal which inspires the common action. That sociality is ‘object-oriented’ is an important antidote to any ‘flatland’, i.e. ‘merely objective’ network theory, on which many failed social networking experiments are based. This idea that the field of relations is the only important dimension of reality, while forgetting human intentionality . What we need is a subjective-objective approach to networks.

In conclusion, this turn to the collective that the emergence of peer to peer represent does not in any way present a loss of individuality, even of individualism. Rather it ‘transcends and includes’ individualism and collectivism in a new unity, which I would like to call ‘cooperative individualism’. The cooperativity is not necessarily intentional (i.e. the result of conscious altruism), but constitutive of our being, and the best applications of P2P, are based on this idea.”

The Independent mentions how Wikiscanner has identified the various institutions that have been doctoring and censoring negative reviews of their actions in the Wikipedia.

This deserves to be known, so please go to the article to read the facts that they wanted to see removed.