Disqus - Latest Comments for kdonovan11

Re: Assorted Links

kdonovan11 — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 13:30:26 -0000

I don't know if it is just me, but this post has shown up in my RSS feed probably a dozen times...

Re: Is Using Social Media for Social Good Self-Defeating?

kdonovan11 — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 11:27:42 -0000

Good call, Steve. Perhaps clearly framing the media can get people in the right frame of mind.

Re: Why the Chinese Government Hates WordPress

kdonovan11 — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:28:34 -0000

Nice hack.

But far more worrying is the way Egypt, Iran, etc. can use the net for authoritarian means: http://www.ted.com/talks/evgeny_morozov_is_the_...

Re: Not Every Digitally Mediated Act is a Political One

kdonovan11 — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 04:06:37 -0000

Hey Arik - Thanks for commenting.

The skeptics critique, though, is two parts:

1. Did Twitter users really not know about the Iran election violence? It inundated the media such that if you were missing it, your awareness of the situation probably didn't matter all that much (since you likely lack the deeper interest in global affairs to truly understand the situation).

2. Is the effort put into projects like this (by both creators and users) a displacement of other, more constructive efforts? I'm less convinced of this and think a better explanation is found in a form of social signaling that the green tint or Livestrong bands give off - they are subtle, contextual clues to inform peers that you are socially conscious. The problem is, many of the people doing that aren't - they're just bandwagoners.

Re: Section 230: The Cornerstone of Internet Freedom

kdonovan11 — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 11:23:08 -0000

Perhaps my lack of legal training is leading me to miss something, but I do see an "act of Congress" as one form of "government mandate." As long as the government maintains the legal monopoly on the use of force, a Congressional Act is a government mandate.

Re: Section 230: The Cornerstone of Internet Freedom

kdonovan11 — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 10:30:33 -0000

@Berin & Adam - I stand by Sec. 230 being a government mandate, as understood as an official commission or order. A mandate is not defined by bureaucratic meddling. It is defined by the ability to compel action (or, in this case, inaction). The would-be plaintiffs in cases thrown out due to Sec. 230 most certainly feel like they were mandated to do something: not sue!

But, really, that's just semantics.

On your extended point, Adam, I'm in full agreement. I, too, am fearful of the unintended consequences of NN laws. While I think there is a strong case against NN laws, my more general point was that properly structured legislation for the 'net can be written, and too often I feel like that is missing in the "regulation must equal bad" discussions (on an otherwise thoughtful blog).

Perhaps the task, then, is to think of ways in which the 'net can be made even more robust than Tim points out in his paper on the topic. I'm not nearly clever enough to do so, though... : )

Re: Section 230: The Cornerstone of Internet Freedom

kdonovan11 — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 03:10:59 -0000

As much as I have libertarian tendencies, I don't understand why you guys rail against speculative net neutrality laws, but are happy to support this law.

I have libertarian tendencies because I want to expand liberty - whether through lack of government involvement or through well-structured government involvement. Obviously government, for a variety of reasons you know well, often runs the risk of stepping on the toes of liberty; but if Section 230 shows anything, it is that government mandates can support liberty, as well.

Re: Slate’s Manjoo on Apple iPhone Regulation

kdonovan11 — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 04:40:37 -0000

Adam - Sure, there are far more serious contractual obligations for other commercial relationships, but that's certainly to be expected due to the more serious nature of, say, buying a house. (Also, personal mortgages, or at least the leases I've dealt with, are far more flexible and able to be changed than a cut-and-dry contract from a large telcom.)

And while I agree that we should approach government interference with freedom of contract with great suspicion, I'm not as dismissive of the importance of those contracts. For one, although a minority of customers (in which we are included) can certainly tinker with devices, that is (a) no substitute for the truly revolutionary differences that characterize the modern mobile phone market, and (b) not only a way to void the warranty, but also violate the legally binding contract.

Re: Slate’s Manjoo on Apple iPhone Regulation

kdonovan11 — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 04:32:17 -0000

Not sure what you're actually talking about here, Allen, but I think you're unlikely to be joined by many in your '$200 cancellation fees are a "damn good deal" camp.'

Re: Slate’s Manjoo on Apple iPhone Regulation

kdonovan11 — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 03:22:15 -0000

Adam - do you think the onerous contract that is required for an iPhone changes anything?

Re: First Amendment Protection of Search Algorithms as Editorial Discretion

kdonovan11 — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 09:43:07 -0000

"Why should Google be forced to change its PageRank algorithms any more than The New York Times should be forced to change how it decides which stories to run?"

Though I wouldn't want to put words in his mouth, I imagine it's because Pasquale believes Google to wield monopoly power. Whether or not you agree with that, I think it's a fair progression from monopoly -> government oversight.

Re: More on “Open vs. Closed” Technologies & Business Models

kdonovan11 — Tue, 12 May 2009 01:23:28 -0000

"Open" versus "managed"? Seriously? Are you telling me Firefox, Wordpress and Linux are not manged?

Re: Should We Wish for Information Monopoly?

kdonovan11 — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 15:59:00 -0000

As usual, you're much more eloquent than I. The search for new cross-subsidies is what I was trying to get at with "false-monopoly."

Though Mike's new post says that maybe even cross-subsidies aren't needed: http://techdirt.com/articles/20090317/031231414...

Re: Should We Wish for Information Monopoly?

kdonovan11 — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 15:56:37 -0000

Haha. Thought I'd get you to respond to this one : )

Re: Classification, Secrecy & The Transformation of Journalism

kdonovan11 — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 13:45:27 -0000

I'm trying to get together a screening of the film at Georgetown. I'll let you know if that happens.

Re: How Can We Further the Spillover Effects of Digital Networks?

kdonovan11 — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 19:17:10 -0000

Thanks for dropping by, Mark.

I didn't mean to say _I_ think VOA is paternalistic, just that it is often seen as such abroad, and a two-way medium might be more welcome by a wider spectrum (liberals <--> nationalists).

Re: How Can We Further the Spillover Effects of Digital Networks?

kdonovan11 — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 18:28:33 -0000

Hey Nelson - you might want to check out the paper I wrote on a similar topic last semester: http://www.scribd.com/doc/12599470/Freedom-Figh...

Re: Internet Security Concerns, Online Anonymity, and Splinternets

kdonovan11 — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 13:58:08 -0000

Couple thoughts:

1. Don't we have splinternet-lite already? Yet Facebook and MySpace certainly aren't secure. Aren't we just going to face the similar arms race within the splinternets (especially ones that are big enough (scaled up) to be a worthwhile target.

2. Also, I'm surprised you didn't address this more in the context of Zittrain's book. As much as there are examples of contingent generativity in the mobile arena, "The Future of the Internet" was about the broader threat coming from a backlash against the insecurities of openness. The ideas Markoff addresses are that.

I think what's missing from this discussion is what Zittrain has promoted: civic technologies. (If you haven't seen it already, you should check out the video linked here: http://blurringborders.com/2008/07/13/civic-tec...) People should be engaged and aware and have a civic ethic in dealing with technology.

3. Another reason to avoid an "Internet passport" would be that it could increase the risk - if identity is tied to Internet use, exploits would threaten our identity security.

Re: Great ESR EconTalk Podcast

kdonovan11 — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 11:51:11 -0000

Software can be judged objectively, post hoc, but that doesn't mean there isn't more than one way to skin a cat. I think the culture of forking is what makes free software different - it's much easier and more acceptable to do with software than Wikipedia.

Re: Walking Away from Transparency, Step Two

kdonovan11 — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 18:39:32 -0000

"Getting credit from the ACLU is much more important than pleasing the relatively tiny coterie of transparency fans - and there is almost no expectation among the public that a White House should practice good lawmaking hygiene."

Wait a minute... isn't the ACLU a part of the tiny coterie of transparency fans?

But, yeah, Obama better get on board and wait 5 days.

Re: Inauguration weekend journal: libraries, lines, press and pics

kdonovan11 — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 19:14:51 -0000

Go ahead and take your passive aggression back to North Carolina.

Your Hoya Host,
Kevin

Re: Web 2.0, Section 230, and Nozick’s “Utopia of Utopias”

kdonovan11 — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 13:07:34 -0000

Good to know that you guys are writing this paper.

I was deeply troubled that U of C Law Dean Saul Levmore was prominently speaking against it recently: http://uchicagolaw.typepad.com/faculty/2008/11/...

It seems that he is making a mountain out of the molehill that is JuicyCampus.

Re: The Right Way to Allow Cell Phone Jammers - And the FCC’s Way

kdonovan11 — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 13:28:48 -0000

Side point: how is cell phone use in prison such a problem? What do prisoners possibly do that is so dangerous?

Re: Where the heck is Ron Paul?

kdonovan11 — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 04:48:53 -0000

I didn't know any of those!

Re: The Future of Politics and Reputation

kdonovan11 — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 03:20:10 -0000

I think a while back we talked about "reputation cleansing" services. It would be a shame to see those distort the electoral process.