[WSIS CS-Plenary] =?ISO-2022-JP?B?UmU6IFtXU0lTIENTLVBsZW5hcg==?= =?ISO-2022-JP?B?eV0gUmU6IFtXU0lTIENTLVBsZW4=?= =?ISO-2022-JP?B?YXJ5XSBNZSwgGyRCIUYbKEJQZXJzb24gb2Yg?= =?ISO-2022-JP?B?dGhlIFllYXIbJEIhRxsoQj8gTm8gdGhhbmtz?=

[Nyangkwe Agien Aaron]

Quite an elaborate and educative analysis by Bertrand. It was a nice
new year gift for the forum.
Nyangkwe

On 1/4/07, Bertrand de La Chapelle <bdelachapelle at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks Ralf for pointing to this post.
>
> I also read the Time issue very carefully. And what came to my mind is that
> this issue was not so much about "You" but about two major trends that
> structure today's cyberspace community : the "Me" trend and the "We" trend.
>
> The "Me" trend is about expression, individual voices, everybody's capacity
> to contribute and be recognized. It's the power of Blogs, posting of
> individual videos, etc... At best it is empowerment of the individual, the
> recognition that everybody can bring something to the community, a
> redistribution of power between the haves and the have not, a possible
> refoundation of democracy and a many to many interaction. At worst it can
> become a mere popularity contest, irrespective of the nature of the
> contribution to society, a marketing exploitation for maximum personnal
> profit and the aspiration of everybody to his/her wharolian 15 minutes of
> fame, just the usual desire for individual power through other means.
>
> The "We" trend is about community, sharing, collective intelligence and
> collaboration. It's the rise of the open source, creative commons and open
> acces movements, the success of wikipedia and the rating mechanisms of
> tagging sites. In its best form it is about the social fabric, about
> solidarity, the spreading of knowledge and respect gained from a
> disinterested contribution to the common good. At worst, it can be the
> refusal of any retribution for creative work, the exploitation of generous
> work by coporate interests, or ultimately the risk of a totalitarian
> preeminence of the community at the expense of individuals.
>
> Both trends are made possible by the technological innovations that emerged
> in the last years, and the fact that digital content is reproductible at
> almost no cost and therefore shareable if we want to.
>
> Individuals can be more of one fabric or the other but most people have both
> dimensions in varying degrees : we all are willing to contribute and share
> and at the same time want some recognition and reward. Both trends are
> positive but I believe even more so when they are combined. But both can be
> dangerous if they want to reign alone and refuse the existence of another
> model than their own.
>
> The challenge the global Internet community is facing is to find the
> appropriate rules for coexistence of the two facets, the best way to harness
> their positive potential and avoid their respective drawbacks, to design the
> best framework for everybody to feel at ease with one's personnal balance of
> choice and to create the maximum social and ecomonic value. Defining these
> rules and the appropriate decision-making procedures to elaborate them is,
> among other things, what Internet Governance is about. In other words : what
> kind of digital society do we want to create ? And it's up to all
> stakeholders to define that together.
>
> Best wishes to everybody for the Year 2007. May it see progress in human
> understanding.
>
> Best
>
> Bertrand
>
> _________________
> Bertrand de La Chapelle is the French Foreign Ministry's Special Envoy for
> the Information Society.
> The views above are a personal contribution and not an official position of
> the French government.
>
>
> On 1/3/07, Ralf Bendrath <bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
> > [Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the entire list.
> Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended for specific people]
> >
> > Click http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/ to access
> automatic translation of this message!
> > _______________________________________
> >
> > < http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16371425/>
> >
> > Me, 'Person of the Year'? No thanks
> > For some reason I just don't feel as empowered as you think I feel
> >
> > By Siva Vaidhyanathan
> > MSNBC contributor
> > Updated: 2:06 p.m. ET Dec. 28, 2006
> >
> > Consider this: the flagship publication of one of the most powerful media
> > conglomerates in the world declares that flagship publications and
> > powerful media conglomerates no longer choose where to hoist flags or
> > exercise power.
> >
> > That's exactly what happened last week when Time Magazine declared its
> > Person of the Year to be you, me, and everyone who contributes content to
> > new media aggregators like MySpace, Amazon, Facebook, YouTube, Ebay,
> > Flickr, blogs and Google.
> >
> > "It's about the many wrestling power from the few and helping one another
> > for nothing and how that will not only change the world, but also change
> > the ways the world changes," Lev Grossman breathlessly writes in Time.
> > Story continues below $B"-(B advertisement
> >
> > "And for seizing the reins of the global media," Grossman says, "for
> > founding and framing the new digital democracy, for working for nothing
> > and beating the pros at their own game, Time's Person of the Year for 2006
> > is you."
> >
> > Well, thank you, Time, for hyping me, overvaluing me, using me to sell my
> > image back to me, profiling me, flattering me, and failing to pay me. As
> > soon as I saw myself on my local newsstand, I had to buy a copy of Time.
> >
> > Notice that Time framed the Person of the Year as "you." That should sound
> > familiar. Almost every major marketing campaign these days is about
> > empowering "you."
> >
> > "You" have freedom of choice. "You" can let yourself be profiled so that
> > "you" only receive solicitations from companies that interest "you." "You"
> > could customize "your" mobile phone with the "Hollaback Girl" ringtone,
> > but "you" would not because that's so 2004. So you choose Ne-Yo's "Sexy
> > Love" instead. "You" go to the Nike Store to get your own design of shoes.
> > Because "you" roll like that. After all, "you" are an "Army of One."
> >
> > But to quote the Who, "Who are You?" Are you the sum of your consumer
> > preferences and MySpace personae? What is your contribution worth? It's
> > worth money to someone, if only as part of a whole.
> >
> > We have simply let a handful of new corporations aggregate and exercise
> > their own will on us. And we have perfected online dating.
> >
> > Google, for instance, only makes money because it harvests, copies,
> > aggregates, and ranks billions of Web contributions by millions of authors
> > who unknowingly grant Google the right to capitalize, or "free ride," on
> > their work. Who are you to Google? To Amazon? Do "you" really deserve an
> > award for allowing yourself to be rendered so flatly and cravenly? Do you
> > deserve an award because media mogul Rupert Murdoch can make money
> > capturing your creativity via his new toy, MySpace?
> >
> > The important movement online is not about "you." It's about "us." It's
> > about our profound need to connect and share. It's about our remarkable
> > ability to create among circles $B!=(B  each person contributing a little bit
> > to a poem, a song, a quilt, or a conversation.
> >
> > So it's not about your reviews on Amazon. It's about how we as a community
> > of Web users choose to exercise our collective wills and forge collective
> > consciousnesses. So far, we have declined to do so. We have not harnessed
> > this communicative power to force the rich and powerful to stop polluting
> > our air and water or to stop the spread of AIDS or malaria. We have not
> > brought down any tyrants. We have simply let a handful of new corporations
> > aggregate and exercise their own will on us. And we have perfected online
> > dating.
> >
> > But there are signs of real profound triumphs of "We." Wikipedia is the
> > best example. Blogs are another. Communities $B!=(B both local and global $B!=(B
> > have generated amazing collections of content and communication in recent
> > years. They have truly challenged the status-quo in ways that Time hypes
> > so well.
> >
> > Discuss: Why should YOU be the Person of the Year?
> >
> > During the Southeast Asian Tsunami of December 2004 we relied on video and
> > photo blogs to give us a vivid account of the devastation. No collection
> > of professional reporters could be in every important place at the same
> > time. Only the grand, networked "we" could have shown us the vastness and
> > gravity of that event. Compared to the instant, global Tsunami coverage,
> > nothing that LonelyGirl15 or Tila Tequila did on MySpace matters at all.
> >
> > The Time article describes this "Web 2.0" phenomenon as a "revolution."
> > Let's be very careful about that term. First of all, a real revolution
> > would be a radical rupture in the flow of history. I would submit that
> > what we now call "user-generated content" has always been a major part of
> > the American media diet.
> >
> > Take a look at a copy from 1910 of the Daily Forward, the newspaper for
> > immigrant New York Jews, and you will find a major portion of it devoted
> > to letters from its community of readers. People wrote in asking for
> > advice. Others responded with advice. The Forward, like all community
> > newspapers back when community newspapers mattered, made itself essential
> > by facilitating public deliberation and giving voice to the voiceless.
> >
> > Now, to keep even that phenomenon in perspective, it's important to
> > realize that today's Web grants all of us who are wealthy enough to afford
> > one of these computer gizmos and a subscription to enough bandwidth the
> > ability to both broadcast and narrowcast even the most mundane and
> > irrelevant of expressions. So we do. The Forward, of course, carefully
> > selected its published letters and responses. Not everyone who wanted a
> > voice got one.
> > Story continues below $B"-(B advertisement
> >
> > And ever since the rise of radio producers realized the value of the
> > "real," the authentic, and the common. Audiences love to hear or see
> > people whom are no more talented or important than they are. It's
> > comforting to know that with a little luck someone might care what I
> think.
> >
> > It's part of a slippery slope between true democratic culture and crass
> > commercial culture. Because we all matter equally in the polis we pretend
> > we all might matter equally in the public square. Granting that illusory
> > wish can be very profitable.
> >
> > So what's truly revolutionary about the current communicative moment is
> > part of a 20-year process of the steady proliferation of digitization and
> > networking in the hands of millions of people. It's not about a handful of
> > sites that make such connections easier and cheaper. Those are valuable
> > changes. But they are not revolutionary in and of themselves.
> >
> > The results of this revolution (Of the late-20th and early 21st centuries
> > $B!=(B not of 2006) are hard to gauge. I tend to see them as substantially
> > positive. More people have a chance to be heard on matters of public
> > concern. And more artists and songwriters have a chance to find audiences
> > without selling out to bullying corporations. And as consumers, we have a
> > better chance of avoiding exorbitant prices for goods when the Web links
> > us to more competing vendors than our local main street markets (or
> > Wal-Mart) used to offer.
> >
> > But we should not be blind to the costs as well. While we find it easier
> > to "link" to "friends" thousands of miles away because they also
> > appreciate the musical stylings of Coldplay, we spend less time in the
> > presence of our neighbors $B!=(B the folks who would come knocking (we hope)
> > when they notice those community newspapers (that we probably no longer
> > get) piling up on our doorstep.
> >
> > As sociologist Eric Klinenberg explains in his brilliant new book Fighting
> > for Air: The Battle to Control America's Media, media concentration
> > remains a formidable problem. Not long ago, in times of need, we could
> > rely on our local radio stations and newspapers to help us deal with
> > dangers and help our neighbors. No more. The lack of local,
> > community-based communication (thanks to more automated radio stations and
> > consultant-driven playlists) endangers us all, especially during times of
> > crisis and disaster.
> >
> > User-generated content, whether via low-power radio or community blogs,
> > only goes so far to fill the void. And if the subject of that content is
> > "you," instead of "us," we gain nothing from the new medium.
> >
> > We do ourselves a major disservice when we exaggerate the revolutionary
> > power of ourselves as individuals. Narcissism may be good marketing. But
> > it's not good for humanity.
> >
> > Siva Vaidhyanathan is an associate professor of Culture and Communication
> > at New York University. His latest book is The Anarchist in the Library:
> > How the Clash Between Freedom and Control is Hacking the Real World and
> > Crashing the System (Basic Books, 2004). He blogs at Sivacracy.net.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Plenary mailing list
> > Plenary at wsis-cs.org
> > http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
> >
>
>


-- 
Aaron Agien Nyangkwe
Journalist/Outcome Mapper
Special Assistant To The President
ASAFE
Tel. 237 337 50 22
Fax. 237 342 29 70