Virtual Snowball

Mob mentality is nothing new to the world. In fact they are probably as old as human history. Scripture contains accounts of prophets, and even Christ, being killed by large groups of people who fed on each other's emotions and irrationality. While mobs may, in the moment, make a person feel as if they have lost their individual identity, they may be held accountable for individual actions, if not by the law, then by society.

That is, before the Internet. The Internet makes mob mentality more dangerous for three reasons. First, judgment and reaction can be nearly instantaneous. A person can literally read a blog, and post a defaming response in less than a minute. Second, location becomes irrelevant. People anywhere in the world can join the bandwagon, despite lack of proximity which may have lowered tension because of understanding of cultural context. Third, and perhaps most importantly, the Internet adds a layer of anonymity to human interactions. People who are concerned about their reputation are not likely to post something that could be perceived as over-the-top or irresponsible. When it is difficult to discover the true identity of a poster, however, there is much less incentive to self police one's comments.

While positive peer pressure can be helpful to society, we need to consider the broad impact online actions can have. Once something is on the Internet, it my be impossible to recall it. If something damaging needs to be posted, we need to think about the consequences. If we feel strongly enough about something to put it in a public place, then we also ought to have the courage to identify ourselves. It may look like a small snowball now, but let's stop and think before dropping it on the side of a freshly powdered Internet mountain.

Post Inspired By: http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/11/vigilante_justice (I don't necessarily completely disagree with Mrs. Wells, this article just got me thinking)

You Can't, Like, Own Music

There is a battle being being in the world of music artists, corporate executives, law makers, and consumers. While they fight, everyone suffers.

People who pirate music are able to somehow calm their moral concers. One example: you are not hurting the artists, only greedy record companies. Another is sharing songs actually helps the musician to gain notoriety. Perhaps, some just feel it is not all that bad, and that having 200 hours worth of songs outweighs the moral consequences.

Stealing is stealing. While tempting to download songs I like, it's just not worth it, no matter who I am or am not ripping off or how much music I can accrue. Perhaps the system should change, but for now, in order to get music I will (occasionally) pay $15 for a CD.

But the debate isn't simply to download, or not to download. It involves what can be done with music once it is legally acquired. I would love to use online music stores, and am even willing to pay $1 per song, but I am not going to pay anything for a song I can only use with one piece of software, one operating system, or on one device. It is technically possible to circumvent these barriers, but then there is again a legal and ethical dilemma: it is breaking the law (the Digital Millennium Copyright Act). I understand the motivation behind this law; record companies nor artists want their music stolen. It seems, though, that those who want to steal music will still find a way to do so, while those who want to legitimately buy music are punished.

There appears to be trend in the online music industry towards offering more non-restricted music. I hope it continues, for the sake of those greedy record companies and starving artists who want my dollars. Keep fighting everyone, I'm waiting...

Post Inspired By:
Santini, "Bringing Copyright into the Information Age"
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2003-09-07-1.html (Orson Scott Card)
The Copyright Wars (Anthony R. Reese, IEEE Spectrum, May 2003)
Extreme Lawsuits (Tekla S. Perry, IEEE Spectrum, May 2003)

Globalization

New technology damages people lives. For example, throughout the history of the world, most people have been farmers. New technology like plows, sickles, and eventually tractors put many small farmers out of business as owners of large farm were able to produce more food quickly and cheaply. There was probably a booming wagon industry when automobiles were invented and Henry Ford improved the manufacturing process. I'm sure many in the industry were put out of work. These were real people, with real lives, and real families who were hurt by new technology.

Yet most people would agree that the agricultural revolution and the automobile have been very good for America in aggregate. Prices fall, and over all there is more to share. In the last few years there continues to be innovations that cause major shifts in industries. For example, the advent of PDAs and scheduling software probably decreased demand for secretaries. Wal-mart coming to town means the end of many Ma and Pa shops. Programmers working for lower wages in India may cause a shift in computer science jobs overseas. And now we're a little closer to home.

Again, in the long run there will be economic gains for both parties, Americans, and those with whom we trade. But there will be, again, some shifting in the labor pool. These, too, are real people who will have real difficulties. The question that must be addressed, then, is what can be done for those who are hurt in the transition. This is a major discussion being considered by very intelligent people, with no easy answers, but I have three suggestions that might help.

First, we need to stop wasting time and resources trying to lobby the government to protect jobs that will inevitably leave our economy. The faster people can adjust to new careers in which we will have a comparative advantage, the better off they will be, sooner, and the better off society will be, too.

Second, training and education must focus on general skills that will help workers to problem solve and adapt to new situations. It is not possible to predict where the economy will be in ten years, so in addition to job specific training, people must have the skills necessary to quickly learn new jobs.

Last, instead of cursing the system, we can look to those in our country and families' past with gratitude for their sacrifice. Because they were willing to put up with the challenges of new technology, we enjoy the quality of life we do today. Perhaps the sacrifices we make will benefit our children and grandchildren and allow them a style of life that we today cannot imagine.

Post inspired by: reading sections of Thomas L. Friedman's The World is Flat