Peaceful Protests Around The Nation Are Being Greeted By Police Violence. Remind Me Again How Peaceful Protests Are Better?

from the 'fuck-the-police'---Mahatma-Ghandi-(1940) dept

I have written at least two (admittedly) incendiary posts for this site responding to the response (and -- one level further -- commenters' responses) to the killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin. Chauvin has been arrested and is now facing a shifting set of charges -- some of which are unlikely to be sustained. Minneapolis is still burning. And it will probably burn again once the justice system is done with what's left of Chauvin and his criminal charges.

In these posts, I openly advocated for the targeted destruction of government property. I do not apologize for that. If the problem is law enforcement, it should be law enforcement's stuff that burns. Say what you will for peace and reason, but we're dealing with unreasonable forces that consider themselves soldiers in a warzone, rather than public servants in troubled areas where a little kindness on their part would go a long way.

Peaceful protests can effect change. I'm not arguing that they can't. But decades of peaceful protests -- interrupted occasionally by violent civil uprisings -- haven't changed much in this nation. And that's just the last 50 years of this on/off cycle. The anger presenting itself now dates back more than 300 years to slavery. And the 300 years following that haven't been much better. Nearly 100 years after slaves were freed, governments in America -- along with the populace supporting them -- treated blacks as subhumans only worthy of very limited rights and privileges.

But let's go with the argument that peaceful protests will bring peaceful resolutions. Here's how that's playing out around the nation.

Need more? Plenty can be found here. And Twitter has no shortage of footage showing cops behaving violently in the face of non-violent protests.

With a nation watching them -- including the hundreds of cameras present at any protest -- police officers are acting as though nothing matters. They have responded to accusations of excessive violence with excessive violence. They have greeted non-violence with violence. And it doesn't appear to be slowing down. Empathy and self-awareness are apparently traits considered to be weaknesses by our nation's law enforcement agencies. Proving protesters right isn't helping the cops win. But leaving it up to ineffective and cowardly legislators isn't ending the cops' winning streak either. The cops claim fear provokes every violent reaction they have. But when they have nothing to fear, they engage in violence anyway.

Let's not abandon peaceful solutions. But let's not pretend they're more effective than violence targeting the objects of state oppression.

Filed Under: change, civil rights, defund the police, police, police brutality, police violence, protests

Listen To Stephen Fry Perfectly Analogize The Moral Panics Around Facebook To The Ones Over The Printing Press

from the do-it dept

So I'm a bit late to this, as Stephen Fry released a podcast "documentary" entitle Great Leap Years a few months back. I've just started listening to it recently, and it hits on so many of the points and ideas that I've tried to address here on Techdirt over the course of the past 20 years, but does so much more brilliantly than anything I've done in those ~70,000 posts. That is, in short, if you like what we write about here concerning the nature of innovation and technology, I highly recommend the podcast, after having just listened to the first two episodes.

And just to give you a sense of this, I'm going to quote a bit from near the end of the 2nd podcast. This isn't revealing any spoilers, and the storytelling is so wonderful that you really ought to listen to the whole thing. But this so perfectly encapsulates many of my thoughts about why people freaking out about "bad stuff" happening on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and more are in the midst of a a moral panic not unlike those we've seen before. None of this is to say that we should ignore the "bad stuff" that is happening, or try to minimize it. But it does suggest that we take a broader perspective and recognize that, maybe, this is the way humans are, and it's not "this new technology" that's to blame.

The episode itself is about the invention of the printing press by Johannes Gutenberg (which also wonderfully works in some details about Gutenberg's real name that I had not known). And after going through the details of Gutenberg and his invention, discusses how the Catholic Church was initially overjoyed at the invention, noting that it could print and sell indulgences faster (which is an important call back to the 1st episode...). There's a brief discussion of how the Church suddenly realizes its "mistake" and tries to fight back, and then this:

All kinds of bad people saw the opportunity to harness the power of the printed word for their own ends. Ends that could result in burnings, massacres, and wars. The speed of the transmission of information accelerated everything.

You might say that the medieval world had been like one of those sluggish hormonally slowed down catatonic patients in Olver Sachs' book, Awakenings, later made into a film with Robert DeNiro and Robin Williams. Encephalitis lethargica was their affliction. Statue-like, motionless, with low body temperature, slow heart rate, zombie-like lethargy and stillness, they lived almost dormant lives. Sachs saw one such patient with just this disease, who was otherwise perfectly healthy, save for a small tumor in his tummy. Sachs injected his magical L-DOPA serum, and the man swiftly woke from his torpor, totally restored. Smiling, walking, remembering. Fully awake and alive. Everything back to speed... including his tumor. He was dead within two months. Killed by the stomach cancer which had awoken from its dormancy with the rest of him.

You might regard Europe as having been in just such a torpid state. The arrival of printing was like an injection of life-giving serum into Europe. It awoke and energized the world. But aggravated all kinds of cancers of tribalism, sectarianism, and rivalry too. In a manner all too familiar to us in our day, a cultural, intellectual, ideological and doctrinal chasm opened up in Europe. Culture wars that foreshadowed our own broke out. The Muslim world banned printing of Arabic or of Islamic texts. For centuries, Jews were banned from the printing trade and Christian countries forbade the printing of Hebrew texts. Propaganda took off. Edicts and attacks on Protestantism flew from Catholic presses, and vice versa.

As the historian Nile Ferguson argues in his book The Square and the Tower: The invention of movable type printing and the unleashing of what is known as the Gutenberg Revolution, created social networks in which two sides countered each other with misinformation (fake news, as we would have it now), the vicious abuse, and (as in our time) all without supervision or a locus of recognizable authority. A free-for-all raging outside of what had previously been structured hierarchies. Because anyone could use the invention, all kinds of bad actors and malevolent hustlers did use it.

Technologies like printing, or any other information technologies that have followed in its wake, are essentially neutral, have no moral valency, no inner directive in and of themselves to act either for good or ill. Indulgences could be printed, and broadsides attacking the corruption of indulgences could be printed just as easily. Das Kapital or Mein Kampf. It's all the same to the type, the paper, and the platten. The Declaration of Independence or The Protocols of the Elders of Zion? The sonnets of Shakespeare or the thoughts of Chairman Mao? Collections of recipes for cake making or collections of recipes for bomb making.

All this is familiar to us, we who mourn the swift death of the Utopian ideals promised by the internet and social media. The letter types in their boxes could seem like the evil spirits that flew from Pandora's box and released strife, starvation, war, and wickedness into the world.

I've, perhaps, now gone too far the other way. After all, impulses and new ways of thinking and exchanging ideas that were benevolent flourished too. To depict the Gutenberg Revolution as causing a human disaster is as sentimental and over-simplified as seeing it as having ushered in a golden age of open thought and perfect freedoms. Or, as regarding early humans, moving from hunter gatherers to agriculturalists as catastrophic. Or, looking on social networks and media as wholly calamitous.

Part of what this series of podcasts is aiming to do is to come to terms with the inevitability of... let's call it "change." Progress may be regarded as too freighted a word. Change, transformation, mutation, cultural evolution. These are our weather systems. Our historical and future landscapes were and our shaped by these processes, just as our geographical landscapes are shaped by the action of water and weather. To believe that we should or could halt them, or to waste time mourning their existential alterations to our ways of living is, to put it crudely, to piss into the wind. The movable type revolution was necessary and never a genie that any sane person would want to be forced back into its bottle.

Yes, cancers may have woken up in Europe at the same time as a new life surged through its bloodstream. But surely better a quick hot life, however cut short, than a permanent frozen nothingness, a catatonic zombie nullity.

The key is not to bemoan or to overpraise change, but to attempt as best we may to know all we can about the transformative nature of our leaps of innovation and to understand them. For today, changes are coming that will dwarf the revolutions in information technology with which we are familiar. It has never been more important, in my view, to be armed with knowledge and understanding of our past in order to confront our future with anything like confidence.

There's more and you should listen to the whole thing -- but this is a succinct and brilliantly described viewpoint that I've long shared about technology and innovation. Going back all the way to the copyright debates that we had on this site from the earliest days, the key point that I kept raising over and over again is that fighting over the claims that infringement is somehow "bad" totally miss the point. It is happening. And if it is happening, bemoaning that it was undermining traditional business models (that had their own problems for culture, free speech and, importantly, for artists themselves) was a silly waste of time. Wouldn't we have been better served looking to understand what new things were being enabled, and how those might be used to encourage more creativity and innovation.

And, of course, now we're having similar fights and discussions (as Fry clearly notes) about social media and the internet. And I'm sure there will be others -- perhaps about artificial intelligence or 3d printing or blockchain or satellites and space travel. Many of those debates have already started. And, as new technologies and innovations come about there will be more to debate and to understand.

But if the default is to start from the position that anything bad created by these new technologies condemns the technologies themselves, we will lose out. Not necessarily on the technologies themselves -- as those seem to have a way of advancing -- but on the ability to harness those technologies in the most useful and most fruitful ways. If we fear the transformations or focus solely on what will most prevent the "bad" or bring back the world that used to be, we will undoubtedly lose out on many of the many good things that come along as well.

This is the key point that Fry so nicely puts forth in the two episodes I've listened to so far. Change is happening and it has both good and bad consequences. No one should deny that. Focusing solely on one side, rather than the other, doesn't change any of that, but can create a lot of wasted time and effort. Instead, understanding the nature of that change, looking for ways to encourage more of the good, while discouraging the bad, is a reasonable path forward, but that has to come through understanding what's happening and recognizing that it is an impossible and pointless task to seek to remove or prevent all of the bad.

So many of the technological fights we talk about today over copyright, patents, encryption, the future of work, surveillance, and more often seem to stem from legacy operations which had a handle on things in the past that they no longer have a handle on today. But rather than looking for reasonable paths forward that preserve the good new things, they focus on eradicating the bad -- which is not just an impossible and fruitless plan, but one that will create significantly more negative consequences (intended or not).

Fry's podcast is great in providing some more historical perspective on this, but has also helped me better frame the work that we've tried to do here on Techdirt over the past two decades, and which we'll hopefully continue for many more.

Filed Under: change, innovation, moral panics, stephen fry

New Year's Message: Optimism On The Cusp Of Big Changes

from the make-it-so dept

While Techdirt started back in 1997 (yikes), since 2008 I've had an end of the year tradition in which I use the final post of the year to reflect a bit more generally on the topic of optimism. It kicked off after I received some comments from people questioning how I didn't go crazy after writing about all of these negative things -- and I noted that I'm actually quite optimistic and happy. The frustration comes from all of the efforts to hold back the pace of progress, but I'm quite excited about all the progress that is happening. In 2009, I focused more on the power of creativity and innovation, and followed that up in 2010 by noting that innovation can help turn pessimism to optimism. In 2011, I pointed out that we could then take that innovation and optimism and finally start to make a real difference, because the power was now in our hands. That turned out to be prescient, because 2012 was a year where we started to see real change, as people spoke up and actually made a huge difference around things like SOPA and ACTA.

For this year, that trend continues in a big way. The accomplishments of the past have only resulted in continued pressure to change things for the better in the future. The story of the year, without question, is the revelations about the surveillance state (thank you Ed Snowden), a story that is still just beginning, but has already had tremendous impact around the globe and will continue to drive efforts towards real, lasting and important changes. It's interesting to see that the infrastructure that came together around SOPA starting in 2011 is continuing to operate today on issues related to privacy and surveillance. Yes, there's a big fight ahead, and it may not go perfectly (nothing ever does), but to suggest that change is not coming is naive in the extreme.

This kind of change is not just possible, it's becoming probable. In the past, it was nearly impossible for the public and a loose coalition of folks nowhere near the centers of power to effect change. But that's been altered in a big, big way over the past few years, and it's only going to continue. It's easy to be cynical about all of this, but we're already seeing the beginnings of change and it will continue so long as people continue to speak out, speak up and push for basic freedoms and rights.

And, of course, we're seeing similar things happen beyond the issue of surveillance, in other areas that we normally talk about. After years of pushing copyright law to be ever expanded, Congress has now started a (long) process towards comprehensive copyright reform, in which it's clear they're paying attention to what the wider public thinks, rather than just focusing on what one legacy industry thinks. Again, this is the earliest stage of this process, but just the fact that Congress is open to comprehensive reform -- something most thought to be impossible just a few months ago -- is a sign of how far we've come.

Similarly, on the issue of patent reform, Congress is poised to pass significant legislation to try to limit patent trolling. The legislation doesn't go nearly far enough, but a year ago it was laughable to think that Congress would even take up the issue, since it had passed (basically useless) patent reform in 2011 and pretended that it had solved all of the problems. The fact that Congress was willing to go back and revisit the issue so quickly -- and this time to actually look at the problems -- is a sign that when people really speak out about these problems, it is possible to create change. There's still more to be done, but things are moving forward.

Yes, there's much to be cynical about. And there is tremendous frustration in bad laws, bad rulings, clueless policy, dumb decisions and lawsuits. But if you go back just a few years and look at where we are today, you're being willfully blind if you haven't seen the somewhat astounding progress. Two years ago, you'd be laughed at if you said that at the close of 2013 we'd be talking about significant reforms to surveillance, copyright and patents. Yet we're right on the cusp of all of those things.

That's an amazing statement of the power to create change in important ways.

We can and should be frustrated that this change happens as slowly as it does, and at the efforts to dilute or limit the change. We should be furious at the steps backwards that inevitably happen in this process. But we should be energized by the power to create change that we've seen over the past few years, much of it driven by large groups of people gathering together and speaking out. The amazing ability of the internet to bring together and amplify those voices and to drive home the message that these changes aren't just desired, but necessary, should not be discounted.

2014 is going to be quite an interesting year in so many ways, and each and every one of you should pat yourselves on the back for helping to get us this far... while gearing up to continue the fight.

Once again, I want to put forth a massive thank you to everyone who is a part of the Techdirt community -- whether you comment, lurk, read, share, submit stories, discuss elsewhere, tell others about us or just drop in occasionally. We even appreciate those of you who feel it's your job to disagree with nearly everything we write. For many years we've pointed out what an amazing community this is. It challenges me to think through a variety of issues each and every day in new and different ways.

We're looking forward to 2014 and additional efforts we're making to do even more for the community here.

I've been writing here for over 16 years and it remains an absolute joy and pleasure every day to share this space with all of you, to learn from you and to discuss and debate with you. You continue to inspire me, each and every day, to see what we can do not just to make this a better place for the community, but to look at ways that we might, in whatever little ways we can, make this a better world for everyone. Thank you again, for being a part of this effort.

Filed Under: change, copyright, new year's message, optimism, patents, progress, surveillance, thank you

Tech Titans Shift And Change: Worrying About Dominance Is A Fool's Game

from the this-time-it's-different! dept

I've lived in Silicon Valley for a little over thirteen years now, and the one thing I've learned is that nothing is permanent. When I moved out here, the "big fight" over who was going to dominate the tech landscape was supposed to be between Netscape, Microsoft and AOL. No one had heard of eBay (and people thought that "OnSale" -- an online auction house -- had a better business model). Amazon was around but was "never going to be profitable." Google didn't exist. The search engine of choice was AltaVista or Lycos. Social networking was a site called "SixDegrees." Seriously. It was a big hit the summer of 1998 when everyone was connecting with their friends.

Just a few years ago, it was decided that the battle for the internet was between the "big three" of Google, Yahoo & Microsoft -- better known as GYM. Those three dominated the tech space and there was nobody else "big" worth mentioning.

So, it's a bit funny to see a new report declaring that, today, there's a "Gang of Four" who are fighting to dominate the tech world: Google, Apple, Amazon and Facebook. GAAF? AGAF? As in the past, the article seems to think that this battle is the permanent state of the world, with those four being the only players. It talks about how this battle is raising antitrust concerns and worries about less openness.

However, I'm with Adam Thierer in thinking this is totally overhyped "chicken little-ism."

Isn�t it funny how all the recent hand-wringing about the supposed dominance of today�s big four fails to mention Microsoft, Intel, AltaVista, AOL, Yahoo!, BlackBerry, or the old telcos? It would have been impossible to pen anything about technology �dominance� in past years and not mention those companies. Today, they rarely get a mention, except perhaps to highlight their rapid fall from the upper echelons of Tech Titan-dom.

This week�s big news was Google�s bid for Motorola, which positions the search giant better for battle in the smartphone and tablet wars with Apple. Think about it: A company that didn�t even exist 15 years ago and got started in a garage is now making telecom giants sweat. Meanwhile, Facebook, a company started in a college dorm, made News Corporation�s $580 million bet on MySpace turn out to be a mega-turkey. Meanwhile, Apple had what former CEO John Sculley called a �near-death experience� just 15 years ago only to experience a Lazarus-like rebirth and revolutionize the computing, online music, and mobile device sectors. Finally, Amazon.com, along with Apple, has upended media distribution methods and forced mass media giants to rethink how content is priced, bringing prices down in the process.

This is capitalism at its finest, not the catastrophe the tech pessimists preach about.

Five years from now, you can pretty much bet we'll be discussing a very different set of companies aiming for tech dominance. Their may be some crossovers, but it's likely that at least one company on the list is one that you've either barely heard of today or you haven't heard of at all. The tech industry is ruthless and ever changing. It's tough to stay on top for very long, and any effort to totally close things off will be seen by smart entrepreneurs as an opportunity to jump in and compete, with openness.

Filed Under: change, disruption, innovation, tech
Companies: amazon, apple, facebook, google

10 Industries That Are 'Dying'? Or 10 Industries That Are Changing?

from the i'd-argue-they're-changing... dept

A few folks sent in variations on a recent report about "10 Dying U.S. Industries," which lists out and discusses ten industries in the US that have already gone through serious declines and are facing even more declines: The discussion at the link above summarizes the key points as being that most of these were taken down by either technology or global competition:

Six of the 10 are clearly getting killed by technology: wired telecoms (i.e. landlines); newspapers; game and video rental; video postproduction; record stores; and photofinishing (i.e. photo printing).

Two of the 10 are clearly getting killed by global competition: apparel manufacturing and mills. (Mills, in this context, basically refers to what we think of as textiles � it includes textile mills, textile mills, apparel mills and carpet and rug mills.)

It goes on to note that the "formal wear rental" situation is really due to global competition as well, since cheap foreign production means that people are more willing to buy their own formal wear these days, rather than rent it.

Of course, I'd argue that the issue here may be more about how you define "industry." If we define them at a wider level -- for example "communications" rather than down to the specific level of "wired telecommunications carriers," it's easy to see that the industry is rapidly changing, but not at all "dying." I think this is a problem that we come across a lot. People look at a group of companies and falsely define them as an "industry," when they're really not. It's the old marketing myopia problem all over again, where people in the train business don't realize they're in the transportation business, and thus do little to adapt. I think it does everyone a disservice to call these business lines "industries," when they're really just a temporary piece of an ever-changing industry.

Filed Under: change, industries, innovation

Book Publishing Industry Just Now Realizing That Change Is Turbulent?

from the really? dept

As the latest episode of "the ebook wars" continues, there's still lots of chatter about last weekend's Macmillan/Amazon fight. Apparently a lot of authors are angry at Amazon for this. While I can understand how the fight might hurt some authors -- and they're justifiably worried about Amazon's dominance in the ebook market today, I think they need to take a larger view of things. The reason why Amazon tried (though, failed) to stand up to Macmillan was to avoid Macmillan making some really stupid decisions about ebook pricing and distribution windows. That Macmillan won may have helped some authors in the short run (avoiding them being cut off by Amazon), but could hurt in the long run by fighting against the economic tide.

Perhaps the best summary of this situation was written by Steven Pearlstein at the Washington Post, who recognizes that this is a technological transformation, and while it may be messy in the interim, the end results should be quite positive:

While markets have their flaws, over the long run they are good at executing these technological transformations.... Reports of the death of book publishing, like those of music publishing and newspaper publishing, are greatly exaggerated. Business models will change, companies will come and go, and people will lose their jobs. But at the end of the process, there will be fewer people who will be paid higher incomes to produce a wider array of products at lower prices. There's a word for that -- progress -- and it's exciting to see it unfold right in front of us.

If only those going through that transformation could recognize it in those terms...

Filed Under: books, change, ebooks, progress, publishing

Is It Possible For Newspapers To Save Themselves?

from the sure-it-is dept

Joshua-Michele Ross is suggesting that people suggesting new business models for newspapers should give it up, because newspaper companies are simply unable to adapt:

Because the news industry doesn't suffer from a shortage of ideas or possible revenue models, it suffers from a different but more acute malady: being an institution during a time of disruptive change.

While we have all been busy telling the newspaper institution what they should do differently we have missed one big point: Institutions are structured to precisely NOT do much of anything different.

I have to say, I don't find this convincing. While I think it's true that most newspapers won't do enough to change and will face more trouble because of it, claiming that they cannot change is questionable. Yes, it's quite difficult for companies in an industry being disrupted to make that shift, but there are cases where companies do make the shift. Intel switched from a memory business to a processor business. IBM has pretty much made the shift from a big tech company to a services company. Nokia used to make rubber boots. Companies with good and visionary management (and a healthy appetite for taking some big risks) can make, and have made, tectonic shifts. Yes, it's true that most don't do this, it does not mean that it's impossible. Claiming that they're structured not to make the change isn't true. They do have legacy issues, but it doesn't mean they can't make a big move to fix that.

Filed Under: adapting, change, institutions, journalism, newspapers

Whisper It, But Maybe Movie Theaters Are Grasping The Need For Change

from the sticky-floors dept

There have been several signs over the past year that movie theaters are beginning to understand that they need to change their businesses if they are to stay in business -- for example: bigger and better screens, more luxurious environments, richer technology like 3D, even making the pre-show ads more entertaining. While we're skeptical about some of these enhancements -- particularly when they're really only used as justifications for higher ticket prices, it does reflect that theater owners have recognized they have to change. One idea that's getting more and more attention is that theaters don't have to limit themselves to just movies. It's become common for theaters to show special events like concerts, or the Metropolitan Opera, that are well outside the typical fare of Hollywood films. This week, a number of theaters nationwide will show the BCS college football title game, hoping to draw some viewers away from their couches or sports bars. That might seem like an exercise in futility, but the theaters can offer something more: the game will be in 3D. Movie theaters used to be relevant because, apart from waiting for movies to show up (if ever) on TV, they were about the only place to catch films. When home video came on the scene, their position began to erode, and it continues to do so as home theaters get better and better. As a result, many theaters offer a comparatively poor movie-going experience. In addition to improving that experience, theaters will do well to un-pigeon hole themselves as movie houses, take advantage of their unique offerings, and diversify their content.

Filed Under: 3d, business models, change, movies, theaters