Social media lets you experience first hand the experiences of individuals -- not just perspectives filtered through traditional media organizations. While there is nothing good about the terrible earthquake in Haiti, perhaps it is at least comforting that it occurred in an era where an average person in Portland can see what an average person in Port au Prince is experiencing and with a few flicks of the wrist make a donation to help them.
Indeed, this AP story below tells of how the reaction to Haiti is dramatically different than the reaction to the big China quake just a year and half ago thanks to Facebook and Twitter...
To follow each of these recovery efforts as they progress, we can follow @redcross, @wyclef, and @oxfam. The Huffington Post, CNN, and The New York Times have spent time curating special lists to track events related to Haiti.
- The American Red Cross allows anyone in the US to text HAITI to 90999 as an easy way to donate $10 to the recovery effort. The money is billed to your mobile phone account.
- Musician Wyclef Jean's Haiti-focused organization, Yele is also accepting text-message donations. To donate $5, text Yele to 501501 or visit the foundation's web site.
- Oxfam International has also set up an earthquake response fund. You can visit their web site to make a donation to this fund.
As we warned on the second day of this year, even a change in government was unlikely to stem the Australian momentum for a national Web filtering implementation. Though, back then, it seemed as if it may be easy to opt-out. A story today from the Herald Sun suggests otherwise:
Australia will join China in implementing mandatory censoring of the internet under plans put forward by the Federal Government....
The government has declared it will not let internet users opt out of the proposed national internet filter.
The plan was first created as a way to combat child pronography and adult content, but could be extended to include controversial websites on euthanasia or anorexia.
Communications minister Stephen Conroy revealed the mandatory censorship to the Senate estimates committee as the Global Network Initiative, bringing together leading companies, human rights organisations, academics and investors, committed the technology firms to "protect the freedom of expression and privacy rights of their users".
Mr Conroy said trials were yet to be carried out, but 'we are talking about mandatory blocking, where possible, of illegal material.'
The Australian reports on the technical hurdles to this plan...
But System Administrators Guild of Australia president Donna Ashelford said the plan was deeply flawed and would slow internet access down by about 30 per cent according to the Government's own laboratory trials.
Despite this, the national web filter would only censor web content, Ms Ashelford said, and could not deal with the remaining 60 per cent of internet traffic, much of which occurred over peer-to-peer networks such as BitTorrent and LimeWire.
"The bulk of internet traffic is over peer-to-peer networks and the bulk of illegal content is trafficked is over peer-to-peer networks," she said. "There is no choke point at which they can block that material. I do not believe this is an issue that has a technical solution."
Then you get into the ethical issues. From one ISP CEO....
Malone is concerned both of the last two Federal Government's posturing on 'making the internet safe' might be the first step in a path towards censorship.
"I do worry that this is the thin edge of the wedge," he said. "That the Government will come in with a small list of sites for the ISP to block, and that just includes the real stuff that everyone agrees on like child porn and bestiality. So we say, OK we are willing to comply with that. But it becomes an area then that can be used for so much more. So you might see the next step is an attempt to block out XXX sites or hate speech sites, and you think, OK maybe we can live with that [too]."
"But then after that it could be to block out competing political positions or to block out sites about religion or sexual orientation that the Government says is no longer suitable for children in Australia."
All this negativity (commons sense?) is seemingly having an impact. While one wonders where they were when this plan was being talked about last year and into this year, some opposition politicians are beginning to publicly come out against it. Today, the Australian wrote:
A headline-grabbing election promise to crack down on internet nasties looks to be in trouble as Senate opposition grows.
As part of its election-winning pitch, the Rudd Government promised families far-reaching measures to block prohibited content at the internet server level. It now faces a concerted backlash against the proposal by the internet industry.
The Greens have added their voice to Coalition concerns about the plan, with the Greens' communications spokesman calling the proposal "daft".
If the Liberals block legislation imposing server-level filtering, the Government will need the support of the Greens, Family First senator Steve Fielding and South Australian senator Nick Xenophon.
And, when your best defense is that you are NOT China or Saudi Arabia, you perhaps don't have the best political footing. From the same Australian piece:
Communications Minister Stephen Conroy has launched a strong defence of the policy, hitting back at claims by the internet industry that the Government wants a sweeping ban on controversial content.
"I will accept some debate around what should and should not be on the internet - I am not a wowser," Senator Conroy told The Age. "I am not looking to blanket-ban some of the material that it is being claimed I want to blanket-ban, but some material online, such as child pornography, is illegal."
In response to arguments that the proposal would affect basic civil liberties and the principle that households should be able to be their own internet policeman, he said: "We are not trying to build the Great Wall of China.
"We are not trying to be Saudi Arabia, and to say that is to simply misrepresent the Government's position.
Cord Blomquist at TLF wonders if the US in line to have this debate. But, in my opinion, the post makes some pretty big, tangential leaps on what a potential Obama or McCain administration would do. The potential slippery slope of the Child Safe Viewing Act seems like a more apt point to raise eyebrows at.
A South China Morning Post story (reg. required) yesterday made a claim that:
Bar owners near the Workers' Stadium in central Beijing say they have been forced by Public Security Bureau officials to sign pledges agreeing not to let black people enter their premises.
"Uniformed Public Security Bureau officers came into the bar recently and told me not to serve black people or Mongolians," said the co-owner of a western-style bar, who asked not to be named.
The story since spread across the globe and has been harumphed by many a Western blogger, DIgg contributer and message board commentator.
I've never been to Asia -- let alone the Beijing club scene -- so I really have no qualification to speak to the truth of the charges. But, my guess is that while when there is smoke, there is some fire. However, it's also entirely possible that a reporter could have blurred the actions of a few overly-proactive officers with official policy.
But, the realities of the SCMP story isn't the point of this post. Rather, it's the reaction inside of China by bloggers and blog commentator that have, within hours, effectively "crowd sourced" the charge and countered it with their own research and perspectives. (And, granted, I'm obviously limited to English language posts). Check out this one. And, here's one blogger who writes exclusively on the Beijing bar scene:
A second update on the South China Morning Post story that claims Beijing is “secretly” trying to ban blacks and Mongolians from bars during the Olympics.
I hit some Sanlitun bars last night and made some phone calls today, and this is what I found:
- An owner said police met with Sanlitun bar reps and told them to monitor black patrons. He said the police told the reps that drug dealers are predominantly black in the area. He said the police did not ask bar owners to ban blacks.
- Several Sanlitun area bar owners said they had not been told by police to ban blacks or Mongolians.
- I also spoke to several people in the restaurant business and they told me they have not heard of police telling city eateries to ban people.
- Most interesting, two people working at one bar had different perspectives on the terminology used by the police. One said the police used “black” in reference to skin color; while the other said it was used in terms of bad elements (the Chinese character for “black” is part of a phrase used to describe criminals).
Bloggers/commentators have called out the credibility of the SCMP story and have underscored how educated, tech savvy folks inside of China are probably the country's most credible counterweights to Western media (and Icelandic singers) that are perceived as blowing internal issues out of proportion in the lead up to the Olympics. I mean, who would have thunk that a dude who writes about where to find the best whisky bar in Beijing, might contribute to taking the air out of a potential International Incident?
This naturally presents the question of whether the powers that be within China will reward this unprompted support and begin to loosen controls on social networking tools and services (i.e., YouTube, Facebook, 56.com, etc.). I'm reminded of when Thailand temporarily banned YouTube because of one negative video about their and, by doing so, effectively took down reams of homemade and heartfelt propaganda about their great leader.
Of course, odd policy considerations about social media aren't limited to Asia. MediaShift wrote yesterday of one EU Parliament member (from the supposedly ultra-tech savvy country of Estonia) who wants to create a blogger registry...
...in an article on the European Parliament’s website, the intentions behind Mikko’s recommendations became clear:
Ms. Mikko told us “the blogosphere has so far been a haven of good intentions and relatively honest dealing. However, with blogs becoming commonplace, less principled people will want to use them.”
Mikko goes on:
We do not see bloggers as a threat. They are in position, however, to considerably pollute cyberspace. We already have too much spam, misinformation and malicious intent in cyberspace…I think the public is still very trusting towards blogs, it is still seen as sincere. And it should remain sincere. For that we need a quality mark, a disclosure of who is really writing and why.
The conclusion to be drawn from the report recommendations and Mikko’s later comments is that legislation should be put in place to identify bloggers and the “quality” of their writing lest they be used to harm cyberspace.
