What is not pointed out is that no one in a public space assumes that it's alright to steal outright from anyone else. However, theft of music, writing or graphics online is less about public space and more about pastures and cattle grazing. "A cow is of the bovine ilk, One end is moo the other milk!" Ogden Nash.
REH -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Michael Gurstein Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2011 6:18 AM To: [email protected]; 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION' Subject: Re: [Futurework] FW: Blogpost:Is-facebook-a-human-right? Egypt-and-Tunisia-transform-social-media. Well it is an amazingly convoluted sentence ;-( I've now rewritten it as follows: If we see human rights as seamlessly encompassing activities and associations in both physical and virtual environments perhaps then we must begin to look at the virtual world as something other than a normless wild west which to this time has been the broad perception . Rather cyberspace should be seen as a "place" where the kinds of protections and regulatory frameworks (including existing human rights legislation) would apply equally as for off-line behaviours. It follows then that owners of platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube should be seen not as owners of the space and behaviours being manifest through their systems but rather as proprietors of virtual venues where these behaviours are taking place. My intended meaning as you will see above is precisely what you are arguing for below ie. To point out that the owners of FB etc. are owners of what in the emerging world are in fact "public" spaces and will very likely need to be treated as such once regulation/legislation catches up...(Apologies and thanks for pointing me to this ambiguity and very sloppy writing. Best, M -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mike Spencer Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2011 12:22 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [Futurework] Re: FW: Blogpost:Is-facebook-a-human-right? Egypt-and-Tunisia-transform-social-media. Mike Gurstein wrote: > http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2011/02/04/is-facebook-a-human-right-egy > pt-and-tunisia-transform-social-media/ > > Something a bit provocative from my blog. > > Comments/critique sincerely welcomed... I'm pretty much with you down to the last sentence. If we see human rights as seamlessly encompassing activities and associations in both physical and virtual environments perhaps then we must begin to look at the virtual world which to this time has been seen by many as a normless wild west rather as one where the kinds of protections and regulatory frameworks (including existing human rights legislation) would apply equally to online as off-line behaviours and owners of platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube should be seen not as owners of the space and behaviours being manifest through their systems but rather as proprietors of virtual venues where these behaviours are taking place. The *users* of such digital venues should be regarded as doing in cyberspace the same sort of thing that they do in the town square where freedom of assembly, association, speech etc. apply and so a government should not excavate or barricade the digital town square or sweep it with metaphorical gunfire. But Twitter, Facebook and YouTube are not town squares. They're in some sense the new agora but they are private property, owned by for-profit corporate entities. So we have a situation kinda like a town where the public common has been built over by a giant shopping mall. The mall has (and advertises) a "public" space, typically the "food court" where people can meet, chat and hang out. But what if some little controversy arises? One that directly affects the trade and profit of the mall and its businesses; one that causes one of the town fathers to drop by for some quiet conversation about the vulnerability of the mall's licenses and services? Right away the "public space" is very much private property and (in the US, armed) security guys will tell you what you can and can't do. This reflects the whole reason for the existence of democratic governments in place of feudal fiefdoms. It shows up in the debate over net neutrality. The major owners of glass & copper don't like the notion that people should do as they please with their privately owned but effectively public infobahn. Facebook won't like being told that they're the civic agora and that users, not the corporate entity, can to as they please. > Comments/critique sincerely welcomed... Please take this as a comment, not a criticism. It spins off from my last post [1] about Sen. Lyons. I don't have, just now anyhow, a clear alternative to what you wrote. - Mike [1] Where I seem to have omitted a couple of words. Should read: We contrived corporate personhood, inflicted it upon ourselves and continue to nourish its exfoliation. -- Michael Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada .~. /V\ [email protected] /( )\ http://home.tallships.ca/mspencer/ ^^-^^ _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
