Saturday, October 21, 2006

YouTube’s a fake!

Agog over YouTube, I totally missed it. Larry Lessig explains:

So there’s an important distinction developing among “user generated content” sites — the distinction between sites that permit “true sharing” and those that permit only what I’ll call “fake sharing.”

A “true sharing” site doesn’t try to exercise ultimate control over the content it serves. It permits, in other words, content to move as users choose.

A “fake sharing” site, by contrast, gives you tools to make seem as if there’s sharing, but in fact, all the tools drive traffic and control back to a single site.

In this sense, YouTube is a fake sharing site, while Flickr, (parts of) Google, blip.tv, Revver and EyeSpot are true sharing sites.

Fake Sharing Sites

YouTube gives users very cool code to either “embed” content on other sites, or to effectively send links of content to other sites. But never does the system give users an easy way to actually get the content someone else has uploaded. Of course, many have begun building hacks to suck content off of the YouTube site. (On the Mac, I’ve used TubeSock to do that). But this functionality �” critical to true sharing — is not built into the YouTube system.

True Sharing Sites

By contrast, ever other major Web 2.0 company does expressly enable true sharing.

• Flickr, for example, makes it simple to download Flickr images. (See, e.g., here.)


• blip.tv explicitly offers links to download various formats of the videos it shares. (See, e.g., here.)
• EyeSpot (a fantastic new site to enable web based remixing of video and audio) permits the download of the source and product files. (See, e.g., here.)
• Revver (the site that enables an ad-bug to be added to a video so the creator gets paid when each video is played) builds its whole business model on the idea that content can flow freely on the Net. (See, e.g., here.)
• And even Google increasingly enables access to the content it creates and collects. Its fantastic Book Search project enables people to download (funnily formatted) PDFs of public domain books.

More from Joi Ito’s Web.

Pelosi’s agenda

From today’s WaPo profile:

Should the Democrats win in November, Pelosi said, their new majority will push for the immediate start of a phased withdrawal of troops, to be completed by the end of 2007.

At the same time, she said, the new majority would quickly move to raise the minimum wage, allow the government to negotiate directly with drug companies for lower prices for seniors, repeal corporate incentives to take jobs overseas, make college tuition tax-deductible, and implement all the recommendations of the commission that investigated the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, securing nuclear material from former Soviet states to keep it from terrorists.

Sounds reasonable to me. And, after years of enforcing Democratic discipline - “the most unified voting record in 50 years” - she says she’d reach out to Republicans and be more inclusive.

In a pot-calls-kettle moment, Georgia’s own blame-the-Democrats-for-Foley star says he doesn’t believe it:

“That would not happen,” said Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga). “I have never seen Nancy Pelosi reach out to a Republican.”

Me, I’m one of those Democrats who dare to believe.

Colbert & Hall sing Dance With Me

Watch NY Democratic Congressional candidate and former frontman for the music group Orleans play the “smear your opponent” pick-a-card game with Stephen Colbert. Colbert pulled that game right from the Republican playbook. More on the playbook in a later post.

Hall’s got a nine point lead over incumbent challenger Sue Kelly whose five years as chairwoman of the Congressional Pages puts her in a problematic position to say the least. Wanna watch Sue Kelly run from reporters?

LATER: Edited to remove a pushers joke link that I just couldn’t make work.

Agree to disagree with Gilchrist

Jim Gilchrist went on the Colbert Report and said that he supports building a wall along the Mexican border. Not real interesting.

Much more interesting was a piece from Latino USA last March [MP3, Real] by Gustavo Arellano explaining why he genuinely likes the Minuteman Project co-founder:

I was one of the first reporters to interview Gilchrist. When I talked to him last February, I expected a frothy jerk. Now, Gilchrist did say some far out stuff. He thinks, for instance, that this country will devolve into warring tribes in about 20 years. And that Mexican immigrants can’t assimilate. Ever.

What a dope!

But, at the same time, I thought Gilchrist was one of the nicest people I’ve ever interviewed. He graciously answered all of my questions and when it was published he called and said it was tough but fair. Gilchrist, whose a Purple Heart veteran, even defended me when conservatives attacked my article. That was going beyond the call of duty.

The piece is a must listen; a model for all of us on the Left and Right - bloggers take heed - on how to agree to disagree and, most importantly, respect the people with whom we disagree, no matter how vehemently.

Arellano tells us that Gilchrist likes fajitas, has a son-in-law who is Mexican American and was opposed by Republicans when he ran for congress because of his views on U.S. corporate “capitalist pigs” he calls “professional slave traders” and blames for illegal immigration.

Now that’s interesting.

I guess that makes me a pusher

Also via Ze, Internet = Drugs. A Stanford study finds the US Full of Internet Addicts:

Most disturbing was the discovery that some people hid their Internet surfing, or went online to cure foul moods in ways that mirrored alcoholics using booze… the typical Internet addict was a single, college-educated, white male in his 30s, who spends approximately 30 hours a week on non-essential computer use.

Ze points out that we watch more television, and for the same purposes.

So how much do we watch? “The average person watches four hours, 35 minutes of television each day, a new high.”

Don’t bogart that remote, my friend, pass it over to me!

LATER: I’m told that most of you will not catch that the reference is to the Grateful Dead song, Don’t Bogart That Joint.

On small town gossip

Via Ze yesterday from Boing Boing Tuesday:

Nicholas DiFonzo is one of the world’s leading experts on gossip. Well, at a meta-level. The Rochester Institute of Technology psychologist studies how gossip and rumors spread and the difference between the two. According to his bio, he’s also been an expert witness in lawsuits surrounding the (false) rumors that Procter & Gamble was somehow involved in satanism. In a new academic book, titled Rumor Psychology, Difonzo and management professor Prashant Borida, present their findings on rumor propagation, the psychology of why people believe them, and how to manage the rumor mill in a company setting. According to their research, “most workplace rumors are 95 percent accurate.”

Maybe so. But most small town rumors are false. Heard the one about the new Home Depot coming out by the Wal-Mart? If we wait long enough, it just might.

I’m thinking small town rumors are more akin to gossip. From the press release for the book:

“A rumor is what you do when you try to figure out the truth with other people,” DiFonzo says. “It’s collective sense making. The classic example is ‘I heard that…’”

Gossip, on the other hand, is sharing information with an agenda, he says. It could be for entertainment or to bond with another person or to reinforce a social norm. Gossip, which may be true, tends to have an edge.

“Gossip is more to do with social networks,” DiFonzo says. “A strong motivation we have as humans is to connect with a group.”

Two factors hinder accuracy and tip small town rumor toward gossip; 1.) the primacy of enforcing the social norm, 2.) the small town’s smaller pool of people limits the diversity of viewpoints and exacerbates the human tendency to herd.

SEE ALSO: Human beings are not ants.