BBC -Web 'fuelling crisis in politics'

[Michael Lenczner]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6155932.stm

I think the most polite word for this is "malarky".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6155932.stm

"Mr Taylor said Mr Blair's online grilling from voters - and other
initiatives such asenvironment secretary David Miliband's blog and
Downing Street's new online petition service - showed the government
was making good progress in using the internet to become more open and
accountable.

But he said more needed to be done by the web community in general to
encourage people to use the internet to "solve problems" rather than
simply abuse politicians or make "incommensurate" demands on them.
....

"The internet has immense potential but we face a real problem if the
main way in which that potential expresses itself is through allowing
citizens to participate in a shrill discourse of demands."

I have sympathy for our public officials trying to figure out how to
use the web.  It's not easy.  But characterizing citizens for being
"shrill" when they speak up?  Especially given the confrontational way
the British Parliament office approached TheyWorkForYou for two years
before they supported the project?  jeesh.  Good things this guy is
outta there.

[Gurstein, Michael]

In some ways it is Malarky, Michael, but in other ways it is very
interesting as it shows how the politicians (and I would guess any of
the comparable Canadian politicians and their policy honchos who have
any idea or thoughts on the matter) are regarding these questions...

What's interesting of course, is that he doesn't seem to see that the
ways in which governments have either refused or been incapable of
figuring out how to link their activities into the on-line world is a
large part of the cause of the "irresponsibilty" that he is pointing
to...

But "we" also, I think share some of the blame here by not really
developing effective models of how to usefully engage the online world
in policy discussion/deliberation to some sort of effective outcome...

Not that "we" have the answers, but I think that "we" should be
addressing those issues rather more and once having addressed them "we"
should be looking for how to model what works and doesn't (and yes, that
is the useful role for academics/researchers...

I would say that Russell McOrmond (on this list I think) and his group
around Canadian copyright issues have gone about as far along this road
as anyone I've seen and I think anyone interested in this subject (I
know that I am) would do well to take a very close look at what he and
his colleagues have been doing.

I think in the context of this discussion how they have attempted (and
occasionally) achieved direct linkage into some of the policy
folks/discussions (and where and why they have mostly failed -- for the
most part because they were dealing in Canada with folks like Mr. Tayler
-- to this point) is I think especially revealing.

Best to all,

MG

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Michael
Lenczner
Sent: November 17, 2006 7:52 PM
To: civicaccess discuss
Subject: [CivicAccess-discuss] BBC -Web 'fuelling crisis in politics'


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6155932.stm

I think the most polite word for this is "malarky".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6155932.stm

"Mr Taylor said Mr Blair's online grilling from voters - and other
initiatives such asenvironment secretary David Miliband's blog and
Downing Street's new online petition service - showed the government was
making good progress in using the internet to become more open and
accountable.

But he said more needed to be done by the web community in general to
encourage people to use the internet to "solve problems" rather than
simply abuse politicians or make "incommensurate" demands on them. ....

"The internet has immense potential but we face a real problem if the
main way in which that potential expresses itself is through allowing
citizens to participate in a shrill discourse of demands."

I have sympathy for our public officials trying to figure out how to use
the web.  It's not easy.  But characterizing citizens for being "shrill"
when they speak up?  Especially given the confrontational way the
British Parliament office approached TheyWorkForYou for two years before
they supported the project?  jeesh.  Good things this guy is outta
there.

_______________________________________________
CivicAccess-discuss mailing list [hidden email]
http://civicaccess.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss_civicaccess.c
a

[Russell McOrmond-2]

Gurstein, Michael wrote:
> I would say that Russell McOrmond (on this list I think) and his group
> around Canadian copyright issues have gone about as far along this road
> as anyone I've seen and I think anyone interested in this subject (I
> know that I am) would do well to take a very close look at what he and
> his colleagues have been doing.

   I'm here.   Hope it is OK that I dive into some "thinking out loud"
as "just some guy" without a political science background that has been
trying to learn.  I'm a technical person, coming from a community that
is not known for getting politically engaged (In fact, many of my peers
believe in the "Net will route around it" ideology when it comes to
politics, and think I'm wasting my time).


   I suspect you are thinking of the information sharing BLOG, mailing
lists, letter writing campaign and 2 petitions at
http://digital-copyright.ca   . There is also some pretty exciting
things happening around the Community of Practice of
http://goslingcommunity.org


   I think part of the success has been because of what I learned from
the Community Networking movement over the last decade and a half.
While digital communications tools are great for educating, engaging and
organizing people, that activities in the online world can't be the goal
itself.  Online activities need to translate to offline activities, with
the greatest impact we have had being the submissions to various
consultations, showing up to consultations, showing up to conferences
(Techlaw conferences at UOttawa, CopyCamp in Toronto, KMDIs various
events, etc) and the multiple batches of *PAPER* petitions tabled in the
house.

   Far too many online groups think that online petitions will impact
policy, and I have yet to see this happen.  It impacts policy in that
people who have signed things online might feel "buy-in" to do something
offline, but if all they did was sign an online petition then that is
the end of that (IE: no real impact).

   Paper petitions, as low-tech as they are, go through a process in the
house.  They show up in Hansard, and show up in the summaries which MPs
and other policy makers use to figure out areas of policy.  We can bitch
and moan that we would like online petitions to count, but we can also
bitch and moan about how a snail-mail letter has greater impact on an MP
than an e-mail.

   Look for "Copyright" on the Journals Index.  This is just for the
39'th parliament, and we have had petition entries in the past few
indexes as well:

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/housechamberbusiness/ChamberIndex.aspx?View=J&Parl=39&Ses=1&File=jour-39-1_7-e.htm&Language=E&Mode=1


  * By the way: If anyone in this forum, or anyone that people in this
forum knows or could bug, have not yet signed our two petitions: Please
do so, as it is critical for our policy work to demonstrate the size of
our community!
    http://www.digital-copyright.ca/petition/


   The reality is: the harder it is for you to do it, the greater the
impact on the political process as it is seen to matter to you.  Signing
online petitions are the lowest form of engagement (better than
nothing), with sitting down with policy makers in person being the
highest form (I've met with many MPs, and was a witness at a
parliamentary committee).

   I will meet with Patricia Neri (Director General, Copyright Policy
Branch, Canadian Heritage) and Jean-Paul Boulay (Director, Policy
Development) on Tuesday.  I met the past Director General, but this is
the first time meeting with Ms. Neri.  I'm using online forums to get
feedback on policy summaries, which is critical for any face-to-face
meetings like this
http://www.cluecan.ca/pipermail/discuss/2006-November/001014.html






   To see an MP that has decided to experiment with some of this, check
out newly independent MP Garth Turner's BLOG if you have not already.
It isn't unusual to have articles with over a hundred replies to them.
And the MP does read at least some of them as he does comment (inline
after the comment) from time to time.

http://www.garth.ca/weblog/


   One of the comments I made recently is that he seems to comment more
to emotional comments and less to substantive policy discussion.  It
would be interesting for someone with the time to analyze this phenomena
and see whether his BLOG actually proves part of what the BBC article
was saying about the immature status of what Garth likes to call
"Digital Democracy"?

   Please also remember that it was his BLOG that was seen as the
primary reason he was kicked out of his party.  The transparency of
BLOGs isn't very compatible with the party discipline of our current
parliamentary "democracy".  We are talking about some major changes to
how government works before this type of thing would work well.


 From the BBC article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6155932.stm

     "They wanted 'sustainability', for example, but not higher fuel
      prices, affordable homes for their children but not new housing
      developments in their town or village."

   Sounds like most of the policy debates I've been involved with all my
life.  It isn't limited to the citizens, however.  With politicians and
departmental bureaucrats I have seen them say that they want "DRM" (copy
control, -- they use a variety of terms) that is both interoperable (IE:
doesn't lock you into specific brands) and respects the rights of the
owners of information technology to make their own software and other
choices.  The problem is: this is science fiction and not science as
"DRM" is built upon a use of technology to make content only
interoperable with "authorized" devices (those with the right digital
keys), and devices are locked down in order to treat their owners as
attackers.

   Nonsense from a rational point of view, but who ever said that
politics in a democracy was rational?

   I believe the Internet is fueling a crisis in politics, which is that
it is exposing to the general public just how irrational and ugly
democracy really is in a way that didn't happen in the past.  Take the
filters (and the ideological blinders :-) away that are offered by the
mainstream media, and citizens get to see all the warts personally!


--
  Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
  Please help us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our property
  rights as owners of Information Technology. Sign the petition!
  http://www.digital-copyright.ca/petition/ict/

  "The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and hardware
   manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre, or
   portable media player from my cold dead hands!"

[syd]

On Sat, 2006-11-18 at 14:28 -0500, Russell McOrmond wrote:

> Gurstein, Michael wrote:
> > I would say that Russell McOrmond (on this list I think) and his group
> > around Canadian copyright issues have gone about as far along this road
> > as anyone I've seen and I think anyone interested in this subject (I
> > know that I am) would do well to take a very close look at what he and
> > his colleagues have been doing.
>
>    I'm here.   Hope it is OK that I dive into some "thinking out loud"
> as "just some guy" without a political science background that has been
> trying to learn.  I'm a technical person, coming from a community that
> is not known for getting politically engaged (In fact, many of my peers
> believe in the "Net will route around it" ideology when it comes to
> politics, and think I'm wasting my time).
>
>

The notion that only experts can participate is killing democracy and
most other aspects of culture. Culture *is* participation. Democracy
*is* engagement.

>    I believe the Internet is fueling a crisis in politics, which is that
> it is exposing to the general public just how irrational and ugly
> democracy really is in a way that didn't happen in the past.  Take the
> filters (and the ideological blinders :-) away that are offered by the
> mainstream media, and citizens get to see all the warts personally!

I agree with your conclusion about the value of democratized media, but
I wanted to say something about your characterization of the bazaar of
public discourse as irrational and ugly. My comments may also apply
partly to the attitude of Mr. Taylor in the BBC piece and others like
him.

You have to separate the democratic ideal from its instantiated
actuality. The less we use patient, thoughtful discourse as our
preferred method of addressing social and political problems, the less
democratic we are. The more we abandon discourse for nihilism, the less
democratic we are. Democracy's ideal isn't ugly or irrational. Insofar
as we abandon its ideals, we stray from democracy. I don't mean this as
a way to save some eviscerated, hollow idea of democracy, but as a way
to encourage more discussion and debate from many points of view. The
only way to do that is to instill hope in citizens that the ideal of
democracy remains a worthwhile path. Instilling that hope will allow
citizens to maintain healthy skepticism  about democracy's warts while
remaining deeply committed to democratic ideals and practice. Such a
separation of the ideal from the actual will help rescue democracy from
the doldrums of apathy and cynicism where it currently languishes. We
will be able to "love the sinner and loathe the sin", so to speak. I
think the 50% split in the last few American elections is as much a sign
of apathy and lack of meaningful discourse as it is of the oft-noted
"polarization" of the US electorate. With no real discourse about ideas,
voter allegiance simply follows the law of averages.

Ugly and wart-ridden though they may be, Garth's weblog and even places
like slashdot (http://slashdot.org) are helping to renew interest in
citizen debate, and that's a Good Thing :-)

I don't suppose this is anything that hasn't been said before, but I
thought it important enough an issue to warrant mentioning.

Regards,
Syd

[Hugh McGuire]

> But "we" also, I think share some of the blame here by not really
> developing effective models of how to usefully engage the online world
> in policy discussion/deliberation to some sort of effective outcome...
I think there are two separate things here: internet as a means of  
public discourse on policy; and as a means of civic-engagement/action.

The first one (probably) is just seen as a headache in politics, as  
important as it is; the second they probably can't even imagine.  
civic action (not debate, although that is important too) to me is  
the real possibility that sits in front of us, and what  
civicaccess.ca should be (i think) striving for. Getting the data we  
need to *do* things, and actually ding them. Because without doing  
constructive things with the data, we are just part of the swirling  
hot-air of internet debate and cranks who complain to politicians by  
sending them nasty emails (as i do, on occasion).

But what I would love to see, under the umbrella or blessing of  
civicaccess.ca, is actual projects (based on data wrestled from the  
government) whose utility is obvious to everybody. That's much harder  
to ignore than another group lobbying the government for one thing or  
another.

2 cents.

[syd]

On Sat, 2006-11-18 at 16:20 -0600, Sydney Weidman wrote:

> I agree with your conclusion about the value of democratized media, but

[snip]

Sorry.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pedantic