How Many Irish Politicians Does It Take To Change A Lightbulb?

from the it's-not-a-joke dept

American politicians have been toying with such legislation for a while, and Australian politicians have already approved similar legislation, but it appears that Irish politicians are in something of a rush to ban incandescent lightbulbs. New legislation would ban the sale of the traditional lightbulbs as of January 2009 -- basically just one year. The Australian plan, that was approved earlier this year, would phase out the bulbs by 2010. While we can understand the basic reasoning, it's still unclear why a full ban is really necessary. Fluorescent bulbs keep getting cheaper and cheaper (and better and better in quality) than incandescent bulbs. They last so much longer and use so much less energy that it won't be long until most people voluntarily move to fluorescents, without any unnecessary ban on incandescents.

Filed Under: energy, environment, greentech, ireland, lightbulbs, politics

Harnessing Status Competition On Wikipedia

from the positive-spillovers dept

After writing yesterday's post about politics on Wikipedia, I came across a copy of the actual email Durova sent purporting to demonstrate that the Wikipedia user she subsequently banned was a "troublemaker." What it boils down to is that the user in question was too good at contributing to Wikipedia, and so must not really have been a new user when she signed up in July. Basically, Durova thinks that she's made a suspiciously large number of helpful edits, including familiarity with relatively obscure Wikipedia features, and so she must be an experienced user creating a "sock puppet" to help unspecified co-conspirators gain control of the site. Now, it's pretty clearly paranoid to think this proves there's some kind of conspiracy going on; there are any number of reasons an experienced Wikipedian might want to start a new account, and as long as the new account isn't being used as a "sock puppet"—and Durova offered no evidence that it was—it's not really a problem.

But at the very least, Durova is right about one thing: the way you gain power and influence within the Wikipedia community is by making thousands upon thousands of helpful edits to Wikipedia articles. To the extent that there are competing factions battling for control of the site, they conduct their battle by competing to make the best contributions to the site, thereby earning the respect of other Wikipedians and enabling them to win election to leadership positions like the site's Arbitration Committee. If you peruse the comments people make when they're voting, you'll see that a lot of people vote against individuals because they haven't been on the site long enough or haven't made enough contributions. What this means is that it doesn't matter very much how paranoid, vain, or power-hungry the senior leadership of Wikipedia is, or that there might be factions plotting to seize control of the site away from the current leadership. In fact, it might actually be good for the rest of us if that's true, because it will spur each faction to re-double their efforts to do more editing in the hopes of earning the support of rank-and-file editors.

There's an obvious parallel to real-world human societies here. People often criticize capitalism for promoting greed, but that's not quite right. Greed has always existed in human societies. In pre-capitalist societies, the way greedy and ambitious people got ahead was largely by conquering new countries, enslaving their inhabitants, assassinating political rivals, lobbying the government for monopolies, and engaging in other wasteful and destructive activities. The rise of capitalism didn't abolish greed and ambition, but it harnessed it for the public good. Now, if you want to become rich and powerful, one of the best ways to do it is by creating a company that produces goods and services consumers want. (You can also still get ahead by lobbying the government for special privileges, so the system's not perfect) The better you are at serving your customers' needs, the richer you get. In a competitive market, it doesn't really matter if our elite businessmen are nice people, the system is set up so that they're driven by their own self-interest to do things that benefit their customers. By the same token, it doesn't matter if, as critics claim, Wikipedia is run by a paranoid cabal; the system is organized so that they have to continue contributing positively to the site in order to maintain their positions of authority.

Filed Under: controversy, politics, wikipedia

Bipartisan PRO IP Bill Turns White House Into Hollywood's Private Enforcement Agency

from the please-explain-why? dept

Every time you think that the tide is turning and people are beginning to realize the ridiculousness of overly burdensome IP laws, some politicians start doing the dirty work of Hollywood's worst lobbyists. The latest may be the most ridiculous yet -- though, it certainly wasn't unexpected. Remember how NBC Universal execs started whining about how law enforcement's priorities were all screwed up, since they were focused on pointless things like burglary and bankrobbing rather than copyright violations? That was merely the starting point in a lobbying campaign for the new PRO IP (Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act) bill that has been introduced with backing of both top Republicans and Democrats. As the bill's not particularly subtle name makes clear, this law is all about giving Hollywood much of what it has been asking for. Rather than decreasing the ridiculous fines that can be handed out for copyright infringement, this law would increase them. But, more importantly, it sets up a brand new gov't agency within the executive branch to help crack down on "piracy." This despite increasing evidence that "piracy" isn't a problem for the economy at all -- but rather a problem for a few big companies with obsolete business models (who just happen to have tremendous lobbying clout) who are too lazy to even bother trying to adapt to a changing market place. This bill isn't just corporate welfare. It would be creating an entire government agency whose sole job it would be to protect the unnecessary and obsolete business model of a few dying companies while stifling innovative tools and services at every turn. It would help to kill off our creative industries by falsely assuming that creativity needs to be funneled through a few big companies. It's a disgusting travesty of the political process.

Filed Under: copyright, enforcement, government, lobbyists, politics, pro ip
Companies: mpaa, riaa

Shocker: Politics Exist On Wikipedia

from the perfectly-normal dept

The Register has a breathless write-up of a recent dispute among administrators on Wikipedia. Apparently, one Wikipedia administrator tried to ban another editor based on secret evidence, sparking widespread outrage among rank and file Wikipedians. The Register paints this as a grave crisis for the world's most popular encyclopedia. The rogue editor is apparently part of a secretive Wikipedia cabal that is fighting to maintain control of the site from outsiders, and Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales is apparently "not admitting how deep this controversy goes." Mathew Ingram points out that the apocalyptic rhetoric is rather silly. Wikipedia, like every large organization—and especially like every organization run predominantly by volunteers—has a considerable amount of internal politics. Senior Wikipedians spend a lot of time on the site, and so naturally they have strong opinions about the way it should be run. The "rogue editor" appears to have drastically over-stepped her bounds and has been reprimanded. I don't follow Wikipedia's internal politics closely enough to know if the reprimand fit the crime, or if it would have been appropriate to strip her of her administrative privileges as some Wikipedians were demanding. But I think it's a mistake to think that this incident reflects some kind of crippling flaw in Wikipedia. The site has hundreds of passionate volunteers dedicated to making it better, and it has an open dispute-resolution process that makes it harder for under-handed tactics to stay undetected. The fact that senior Wikipedians have vehement disagreements is not an indictment of the site. Most organizations have these sorts of disagreements behind closed doors, while Wikipedia makes them public for everyone to see. In the long run, that's going to prove one of Wikipedia's strengths, not a weakness.

Filed Under: politics, wikipedia

Shocker: Politicians Play Politics With Antitrust Law

from the everybody-pony-up dept

Declan McCullagh has a great post pointing out Congressional Republicans' recent flip-flop on antitrust scrutiny of big corporate mergers. During the telecom consolidations of the last few years, powerful Republicans like Joe Barton and Fred Upton pressed regulatory agencies to approve the mergers quickly with minimal scrutiny. But now that Google wants to buy DoubleClick, House Republicans have gotten the antitrust religion. A letter signed by 12 Republican Congressmen, including former House Speaker Denny Hastert, demands that the House commence hearings on the Google-DoubleClick proposal because "the privacy implications of such a merger are enormous." As Declan astutely observers, the telecom companies that Republicans waved through last year gave generously to Republican legislators, whereas Google's board and senior executives have tended to give to Democrats. It seems like there might be a connection there.

Filed Under: anti-trust, politics
Companies: doubleclick, google

Whistleblower Reacts To FCC Clearing The FCC On Supressing Study For Politican Reasons

from the must've-been-some-investigation dept

About a year ago, Senator Barbara Boxer surprised FCC chair Kevin Martin by asking him why a study on the impact of local TV ownership on the news wasn't published. A whistleblower claimed that the FCC had actually ordered the report destroyed because it didn't agree with the political statements those in charge of the FCC were making. Of course, after being confronted about this, Martin agreed to have the FCC's Inspector General (someone who works directly for him) investigate the claim. A few weeks ago, the report came back from the FCC clearing itself of any wrongdoing. Shocking, right? You let the folks accused of being partisan hacks let their own direct reports investigate whether or not they're partisan hacks -- and they come back saying no, of course they're not partisan hacks. Matthew Lasar writes in to let us know that he interviewed Adam Candeub, the original whistleblower. Candeub had been an attorney at the FCC in their media bureau (which produced the report), but has since left the FCC and is a law professor. He refused to take part in the FCC's investigation, knowing that it wasn't going to fairly portray the situation. Despite staffers telling the Inspector General that they felt they had been told to lie if they wanted the report to see the light of day, the IG still didn't find the FCC at fault. Candeub doesn't sound too surprised, and notes that the whole thing was political -- and it's ridiculous to believe that the FCC didn't suppress the report for political reasons. He also notes that academic researchers are now retracing the steps that were done by the original FCC researchers, suggesting they were doing things correctly -- unlike what the FCC implies. I realize it's all politics at some level -- but shouldn't an organization like the FCC be most focused on what's best for communications policy, not on furthering a party line?

Filed Under: fcc, local news, politics, suppressed reports

Technology Will Change Politics From Top Down To Bottom Up

from the but-it-won't-be-pleasant-in-the-meantime dept

Sometimes people wonder why so many people in the tech industry tend to fall into more of a "libertarian" viewpoint on things. Perhaps it's because they realize the empowering nature of technology to do away with the need for many more centralized top down structures. The reason that we often have big top down structures is because there was no efficient way to spread the control outwards, so you consolidate power at the top allowing someone else to make decisions for a large group of people as their "representative." However, technology erodes some of that, by creating more efficient means of communication, breaking down the need for such top down control. We see it many different aspects. Companies today are more fluid, with a much more bottom up approach. Products and services that involve a bottom up approach are becoming more popular (and more useful) every day. So it's only a matter of time until the same thing happens to the government.

It's almost surprising to find out that there's a high ranking politician who recognizes this. Apparently the UK's Tory leader David Cameron made exactly that point, noting that politicians need to let go, and let the technology distribute tasks out to citizens, rather than trying to control everything centrally. Of course, it's one thing to say it and another thing altogether to do it. Those who came up through the "old" way, which grants more power and control at the top freak out at the idea of giving up that control. You see it today with the way Microsoft reacts to open source, the way the RIAA reacts to Napster, to the way newspapers react to citizen journalism. They close up, circle the wagons and talk about how important that control is -- though, not in those terms exactly. Instead, they trash the quality of the more chaotic bottom up system, missing the point that it's not about the average quality, but the the abundance of options that make quality more personalized. The same thing will happen in politics as well. Many people get into politics (or get hooked on politics) because of the power that comes with it. Getting them to give up that power won't be easy by any means. But it will happen. It'll just mean a period of rather painful adjustment.

Filed Under: bottom up, politics, technology, top down

It's Election Season: Time For Presidential Candidates To Announce That The Internet Is Good

from the but-what-are-you-going-to-do? dept

Remember back in 2004, when both presidential candidates spouted totally meaningless statements about how important universal broadband connections were? If you go to that link, you'll see that President Bush stated that his plan (which didn't include any details, of course) would be to get "universal, affordable access to broadband technology by the year 2007." Ah, how did that work? Oh, right. This is politics, where you say a lot of stuff that people want to hear, but there's no reason to back it up. So, don't put too much stock as each of the new candidates for the job talk about the importance of investing in the internet either. First up, we've got Hillary Clinton, who is making some news by announcing her "Connect America" plan, which is designed to get broadband companies to offer broadband where it isn't. What, like the Universal Service Fund, which was designed to get telecom access to underserved areas, and instead became a way for big telcos to pocket extra money from customers with bogus fees? So, yes, improving the broadband access in the country is a worthy goal, and I'm sure we'll be hearing lots of presidential candidates on all sides of the political spectrum talk about it -- but it will be quite amazing if any of them comes up with anything substantial or, for that matter, real enough that we'd ever see it in practice.

Filed Under: broadband, broadband policies, politics, presidential election

Political Mudslinging Reaches New Lows: Using Anonymous Blog Comments In Attack Ads

from the well,-that's-just-too-easy dept

I almost hate to post this, because anything that touches on politics tends to dissolve into pointless name calling in the comments, but it is interesting (if sleazy) to find out that political campaign attack ads are now using anonymously posted blog comments to smear opponents. The ad in question has a voice-over announcing "what others are saying..." about the candidates opponent, and then shows some really negative comments that were placed anonymously on a blog post. Yes, this seems incredibly low. In fact, if campaigns are going to do that, they could simply post whatever kind of comment they wanted to any random prominent blog (as long as it has open comments) and then use that quote in their campaign ad. Yet, because it's now on a blog somewhere, they can pretend it's legitimately "sourced." So this is what they meant when people predicted that blogs would revolutionize politics?

Filed Under: attack ads, blogs, politics

How Many Politicians Does It Take To Change A Lightbulb? We'll Find Out Next Month

from the bright-idea dept

The environment continues to be a hot-button political issue, as it presents a chance for politicians to score some easy points with the public by mandating all sorts of new laws and restrictions to prove their green credentials. But this political grandstanding overshadows the fact that many green or clean technologies offer economic benefits to those who use them -- for instance, making facilities more energy-efficient isn't about companies just wanting to be nicer to the planet, it's about cost savings too. One example of this in the consumer realm is fluorescent lightbulbs. Despite their higher upfront cost, their longer life and lower power consumption offers substantial savings over traditional incandescent bulbs. Given these cost savings (as well as the ongoing improvement in the bulbs' quality and decrease in price), it would seem to be a matter of time before fluorescent bulbs will become more popular and they push incandescents out of the market. But that hasn't stopped politicians from all over to push for laws banning or phasing out incandescent bulbs, and it now appears that the US Congress will add such legislation to a wide-ranging energy bill that's expected to be voted on in October. The legislation would begin phasing out incandescents in 2012, and then by 2020, would call for lighting standards that could be met only by compact fluorescent bulbs or ones with equivalent efficiency. Lighting manufacturers aren't happy with the timetable, saying it's too quick, and add that they're exploring several different technologies to improve the efficiency of lighting, including more efficient incandescent bulbs, new types of halogen lamps and LEDs. It would certainly seem that the market will sort this issue out on its own, as technology improves and more consumers become aware of the cost savings that fluorescents and other types of bulbs can offer. But it would also seem that the brownie points on offer are too hard to refuse for politicians who want to make it look like they're making a difference to the environment.

Filed Under: congress, energy, environment, greentech, lightbulbs, politics