who owns web 2.0?

who owns web 2.0?:
Via Tama Leaver, I found this great overview of who owns what from Amy Webb– as you can see, Google, Yahoo and the rest are far more likely than Murdoch, at this point, to end up controlling our media lives in five or ten years time. Amy Webb suggests printing it out from the PDF and hanging it up in your cubicle. I need something for my office door: this might be it.

Jill points us to this excellent graphic showing who owns which web 2.0 companies. the concentration is pretty clear, but what does it mean for academics? or students?

I drank Google's beer, then left

It was the only right (ethical) choice that I had. You see I went down to google’s new york office tonight to see a colleague of mine speak on the future of the internet. I thought it was an open invite without any specific rules as to what I could do with the knowledge that I found there. I registered and attended until Google asserted the rules.

Sometimes… Google gets it wrong. You see I did not have any prior ruleset to know that they do not allow people to blog or otherwise publish their visit to such talks. They did not send one, it was not in any announcement that I received, and I’ve otherwise not seen one. However, there is a set of rules that prohibit blogging or publishing that they announced before the talk. Google said that if i wanted to blog or publicly discuss the event, I had to get their permission. If I’d have known, I would not have attended or been affiliated with the event in any way. I am a professor, was and still am, and by the very nature of my job, i cannot guarantee that I will follow their rules about publication or blogging. I couldn’t consent to them, so I had to leave. I don’t want to have to ask google for permission to speak about something that I already know a good deal about and am perfectly happy dashing an email off to colleagues to learn more. I don’t want to be obliged to them for any intellectual content or public knowledge at all beyond the general service they provide.

The rational that google said justified this request for secrecy and the privatization of knowledge was one of collegiality. I found that justification to be ironic. Colleagues share within the limits of their judgment. Collegiality is broken as soon as the judgment is turned into a ruleset, as soon as trust becomes moot and i no longer have to trust you, instead i just have to trust that you are following the pre-ordained rules. At that point in time of the announcement of rules, anyone in the room could be called colleagues, afterwards we were all subjects to Google and any collegiality was limited by Google’s rules. We were all constructed as lesser beings, less equal, more likely to damage others. We were ‘other’, and untrustworthy, which is the implication of the ‘no blogging’. If you want people to be friends, to become a community, you have to let them communicate, you have to let them establish the common ground by consent.

Thus I had to leave, as I was not going to be subject of Google beyond what I’ve already contracted. I could not consent to silence. I am surprised that the speaker in question would allow this rule, but not that surprised in the end.

Please if you have a talk where people who take ethics seriously are present, never change the rules after the fact, make them public beforehand.

Now I know 2 things,
1. Google changes the rules of public engagement to suit it’s own interpretations
2. Before I attend any future Google event, I should ask for clearly defined rules to be made public and distributed, so that I can decide to either be complicit or not beforehand.

Public access group challenges Smithsonian over copyrights

Public access group challenges Smithsonian over copyrights:
Grabbing pictures of iconic Smithsonian Institution artifacts just got a whole lot easier.

Before, if you wanted to get a picture of the Wright Brothers’ plane, you could go to the Smithsonian Images Web site and pay for a print or high-resolution image after clicking through several warnings about copyrights and other restrictions — and only if you were a student, teacher or someone pledging not to use it to make money.

Now, you can just go to the free photo-sharing Web site flickr.com.

—-

Carl Malamud and his group are doing some good work on freeing and sustaining the freedom of access to public resources

Usability News – CHI 2007 – Can User Centred Design be Harmful?

Usability News – CHI 2007 – Can User Centred Design be Harmful?:
CHI 2007 – Can User Centred Design be Harmful?

Source: UN, 6 May 2007
Submitted by Andy Dearden

Researchers and practitioners meeting at CHI 2007 produced the surprising argument that user-centred design is a bad idea! Instead, a range of alternative approaches were proposed for projects in developing countries such as “community centred design” and “deployment centred design”.

“A critical observation was that in these settings, the idea of a single user owning and interacting with a single device, around some individually oriented task, is often inappropriate. Instead, systems are more often shared and used by communities, and their objectives are also geared to development and growth of the community.”

—-

the answer is yes. The second paragraph, I argue, is universal, not just for developing countries. It recognizes a part of human nature and human experience that is fundamentally collective.

International Journal of Internet Research Ethics

Announcing the release of the International Journal of Internet Research Ethics

Call for Papers for the Premier Issue of IJIRE

Description and Scope:
The IJIRE is the first peer-reviewed online journal, dedicated specifically to cross-disciplinary, cross-cultural research on Internet Research Ethics. All disciplinary perspectives, from those in the arts and humanities, to the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences, are reflected in the journal.

With the emergence of Internet use as a research locale and tool throughout the 1990s, researchers from disparate disciplines, ranging from the social sciences to humanities to the sciences, have found a new fertile ground for research opportunities that differ greatly from their traditional biomedical counterparts. As such, “populations,” locales, and spaces that had no corresponding physical environment became a focal point, or site of research activity. Human subjects protections questions then began to arise, across disciplines and over time: What about privacy? How is informed consent obtained? What about research on minors? What are “harms” in an online environment? Is this really human subjects work? More broadly, are the ethical obligations of researchers conducting research online somehow different from other forms of research ethics practices?

As Internet Research Ethics has developed as its own field and discipline, additional questions have emerged: How do diverse methodological approaches result in distinctive ethical conflicts – and, possibly, distinctive ethical resolutions? How do diverse cultural and legal traditions shape what are perceived as ethical conflicts and permissible resolutions? How do researchers collaborating across diverse ethical and legal domains recognize and resolve ethical issues in ways that recognize and incorporate often markedly different ethical understandings?

Finally, as “the Internet” continues to transform and diffuse, new research ethics questions arise – e.g., in the areas of blogging, social network spaces, etc. Such questions are at the heart of IRE scholarship, and such general areas as anonymity, privacy, ownership, authorial ethics, legal issues, research ethics principles (justice, beneficence, respect for persons), and consent are appropriate areas for consideration.

The IJIRE will publish articles of both theoretical and practical nature to scholars from all disciplines who are pursuing—or reviewing—IRE work. Case studies of online research, theoretical analyses, and practitioner-oriented scholarship that promote understanding of IRE at ethics and institutional review boards, for instance, are encouraged. Methodological differences are embraced.

Publication Schedule:
The IJIRE is published twice annually, March 1, and October 15.
Submissions are accepted on a rolling basis, and are subject to
Editorial and Peer Review.

Subscription:
Free
Editors- in- Chief:
Elizabeth A. Buchanan, Ph.D.
Director, Center for Information Policy Research
School of Information Studies
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
elizabeth.buchanan@gmail.com
Charles M. Ess, Ph.D.
Distinguished Research Professor
Drury University
cmess@drury.edu

Editorial Board:
Andrea Baker, Ohio University, USA
Heidi Campbell, Texas A&M University, USA
Radhika Gajjala, Bowling Green State University, USA
Jeremy Hunsinger, Virginia Tech, USA
Mark Johns, Luther College, USA
Leslie M. Tkach-Kawasaki, University of Tsukuba, Japan
Tomas Lipinski, JD, Ph.D., University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, USA
Ulf-Dietrich Reips, Universität Zürich, Switzerland
Susannah Stern, San Diego State University, USA
Malin Sveningsson, Ph.D., Karlstad University, Sweden

Style Guidelines:
Manuscripts should be submitted to ijire@sois.uwm.edu; articles should be double-spaced, and in the range of 5000-15,000 words, though announcements of IRE scholarship, case studies, and book reviews of any length can be submitted for review. Please ensure that your manuscript is received in good format (proper English language usage, grammatical structure, spelling, punctuation, and compliance with APA reference style). The IJIRE follows the American Psychological Association’s 5th edition. Articles should include an abstract no longer than 100 words, full names and contact information of all authors, and an author’s biography of 100 words or less.

Copyright:
In the spirit of open access, IJIRE authors maintain copyright control
of their work. Any subsequent publications related to the IJIRE work
must reference the IJIRE and the original publication date and url.

Web site: http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/SOIS/cipr/ijire.html

BRISTOL / BRONX INTERNET YOUTH A/V PERFORMANCE.SATURDAY 3RD MARCH – 5.15 – 6.00 PM GMT (12.15 – 1 PM EST )In partnership with Basement Studio, Bristol and The Point Youth Centre, New York. Furthernoise.org present audio visual performances by young people mixing images and sounds live from both cities on the internet using the multiuser A/V platform VisitorsStudio.The first of it's kind, the performances are the culmination of workshops held over 4 weekends where 12 young people aged 16 – 20 in both cities have met each other on the internet to create images & sounds based on themes they have developed together over the course of the workshops.The performances will start at 5.15 GMT (12.15 – 1 pm EST ) sharp and will be available for anyone to view on their computer.Note: Flash 8 plug needs to be installed.To log on and view the performances go to http://www.visitorsstudio.orgFor regular updates about visitorsstudio visit: http://blog.visitorsstudio.orgReviews an

BRISTOL / BRONX INTERNET YOUTH A/V PERFORMANCE.

SATURDAY 3RD MARCH – 5.15 – 6.00 PM GMT (12.15 – 1 PM EST )

In partnership with Basement Studio, Bristol and The Point Youth Centre, New York. Furthernoise.org present audio visual performances by young people mixing images and sounds live from both cities on the internet using the multiuser A/V platform VisitorsStudio.

The first of it’s kind, the performances are the culmination of workshops held over 4 weekends where 12 young people aged 16 – 20 in both cities have met each other on the internet to create images & sounds based on themes they have developed together over the course of the workshops.

The performances will start at 5.15 GMT (12.15 – 1 pm EST ) sharp and will be available for anyone to view on their computer.
Note: Flash 8 plug needs to be installed.

To log on and view the performances go to http://www.visitorsstudio.org

For regular updates about visitorsstudio visit: http://blog.visitorsstudio.org

Reviews and features – http://www.furthernoise.org

Supported by Furtherfield.org, Arts Council England, Awards For All, CAV Bristol, Watershed, Basement Studio, The Point CDC.

Internet should be run by key players: new ITU boss | Tech&Sci | Internet | Reuters.com

Internet should be run by key players: new ITU boss | Tech&Sci | Internet | Reuters.com:
The Internet should continue to be overseen by major agencies including ICANN and the ITU, rather than any new “superstructure”, the new head of the International Telecommunications Union said on Friday.Hamadoun Toure, who took up the reins of the United Nations agency this month, said the ITU would focus on tackling cyber-security and in narrowing the “digital divide” between rich and poor countries.

——

or perhaps… it should be run by …. its users?