The proliferation of Web 2.0 social media services has magnified the old problem of cyber-squatting: Every new service represents the possibility that someone else might claim your name, or your organization’s trademark, as a user name before you do! This problem is especially significant where user names correspond to vanity URLs, as with Twitter and, more recently, Facebook.

So I was intrigued to discover that the market is responding to this need: ClaimMyName (CMN) will take care of user registrations on 30 Web 20 services for $329 or on an astounding 300 services for $799. CMN is a “freemium” service offered by DandyID.com, a nifty free service that allows users to organize all their social media profiles for something like 390 services so that buttons for each service can easily be added to an author bio page on a blog, as we’ve done at the TLF. So if I really wanted to make sure that no one else registered http://<WEB2.0service>.com/berinszoka, or /techliberation or /ProgressFreedom, this service would allow me to do so with just a few clicks—at a price of either $10.97/service for thirty or $2.66/service for 300 services.

CMN is essentially a mini-Mark Monitor, the international company famous for protecting trademarks online—except that CMN facilitates self-help by users outside of trademark law: No registration is required; everything is done on a first-come-first-serve basis. Pretty cool.

In an earlier post, I mentioned an important new online child safety task force report that has just been released from the “Point Smart. Click Safe.” Blue Ribbon Working Group. It’s a great report and I encourage you to read the whole thing. It was my great pleasure to serve on this task force, and as we started finalizing our conclusions and recommendations, I started thinking about how much of what we were finding and recommending was consistent with what past online safety task forces had also concluded.

By way of background, over the past decade, five major online safety task forces or blue ribbon commissions have been convened to study online safety issues. Two of these task forces were convened in the United States and issued reports in 2000 (“COPA Commission”) and 2002 (“Thornburgh Commission“). Another was commissioned by the British government in 2007 and issued in a major report in March 2008 (“Byron Review“). Finally, two additional online safety task forces were formed in the U.S. in 2008 and concluded their work, respectively, in January (“Internet Safety Technical Task Force“) and July (“Point Smart. Click Safe.“) of 2009. [And yet another task force — the Online Safety Technology Working Group — was recently formed and has now gotten underway.]

In a new PFF white paper, ” Five Online Safety Task Forces Agree: Education, Empowerment & Self-Regulation Are the Answer,” I walk through a chronological summary of each of these past task forces [click on covers of each report below to read them in their entirety] and highlight some of the similar themes and recommendations from them.

Altogether, these five task forces heard from hundreds of experts and produced thousands of pages of testimony and reports on a wide variety of issues related to online child safety. While each of these task forces had different origins and unique membership, what is striking about them is the general unanimity of their conclusions. Among the common themes or recommendations of these five task forces:

• Education is the primary solution to most online child safety concerns. These task forces consistently stressed the importance of media literacy, awareness-building efforts, public service announcements, targeted intervention techniques, and better mentoring and parenting strategies.
• There is no single “silver-bullet” solution or technological “quick-fix” to child safety concerns. That is especially the case in light of the rapid pace of change in the digital world.
• Empowering parents and guardians with a diverse array of tools, however, can help families, caretakers, and schools to exercise more control over online content and communications.
• Technological tools and parental controls are most effective as part of a “layered” approach to child safety that views them as one of many strategies or solutions.
• The best technical control measures are those that work in tandem with educational strategies and approaches to better guide and mentor children to make wise choices. Thus, technical solutions can supplement, but can never supplant, the educational and mentoring role.
• Industry should formulate best practices and self-regulatory systems to empower users with more information and tools so they can make appropriate decisions for themselves and their families. And those best practices, which often take the form of an industry code of conduct or default control settings, should constantly be refined to take into account new social concerns, cultural norms, and technological developments.
• Government should avoid inflexible, top-down technological mandates. Instead, policymakers should focus on encouraging collaborative, multifaceted, multi-stakeholder initiatives and approaches to enhance online safety. Additional resources for education and awareness-building efforts are also crucial. Finally, governments should ensure appropriate penalties are in place to punish serious crimes against children and also make sure law enforcement agencies have adequate resources to police crimes and punish wrong-doers.

The consistency of these findings from those five previous task forces is important and it should guide future discussions among policymakers, the press, and the general public regarding online child safety.  As I note in the paper, the findings are particularly relevant today since Congress and the Obama Administration — including 3 federal agencies (NTIA, FCC, & FTC) are actively studying these issues. So, in light of all that, I hope this short paper can shed some light on the collective wisdom of the past task forces. While more study of online child safety issues is always welcome — including additional task forces or working groups if policymakers deem them necessary — thanks to the work of these five task forces, we now have better vision of what is needed to address online safety concerns.

Five Online Safety Task Forces Agree [PFF – Adam Thierer] http://d.scribd.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=17181137&access_key=key-z6cxfgrjkqaqtxbix&page=1&version=1&viewMode=

Scott Cleland is nothing if not interesting. And I was interested by a post he has up this morning: The Growing Privacy-Publicacy Fault-line – The Tension Underneath World Data Privacy Day.

Today is World Data Privacy Day. You can tell by the demonstrations and fireworks displays in capitals around the world. (ahem)

I’ll be speaking at a Dialogue on Diversity Internet privacy briefing on Capitol Hill this afternoon, in case you’re interested and have time.

But Scott’s point – privacy is in tension with the “publicacy” ethos of the Web 2.0 world – I think it’s a very interesting point.

My differences with him are two.

The first is semantic: I think the word he should use is “publicity.” It has the benefit of already being a word – and it’s capable of being pronounced as well!

The second, and more important, is where the ethos comes from: It’s a demand of people – not the Web 2.0 set, but all people.

Privacy and publicity are two sides of the same personal-information coin. People want some information to be kept private – we know that. But they have at least equal or greater demands to make information public – to give it publicity. This is why restaurants and bars are open, curtainless rooms. It’s why email, blogs, Flickr, Facebook and other social networking sites are popular.

The reason why privacy is sought-after and its twin “publicity” is ignored, is because publicity is the default. The laws of physics mean that information about you is automatically displayed when you walk on the street. Photons of light bounce off your body and convey personal information to the photo-receptors (or “eyes”) of people around you.

The ‘physical’ laws of the Internet are similar. You have to ‘publicize’ your IP address to have any contact with another on the Internet. You have to publicize lots of identity, biographical, and other personal information to have any meaningful contact with others on the Internet.

But imagine a world where privacy was the default and information did not naturally travel to others. People would demand publicity. Poeple would demand to be seen and remembered, to have details about their lives recounted by others.

Publicity is not an incursion on social norms being perpetrated by Google and other Web 2.0 types. Web 2.0ish things are a response to the broad implicit demand for publicity. Oh, it’s implicit to the point of contradictory: People say they want privacy even as their actions betray their longing for publicity.

The trick is for people to figure out how to give themselves publicity in the things they want known, and to maintain privacy in the things they don’t. That’s a problem that will most likely be solved by the passage of a few generations, when the technologies that are new today are familiar, and when people have reset their personal information practices and their expectations.

As a means of introducing myself to TLF readers, this is an article that I wrote for the PFF blog in September that has not been previously mentioned on the TLF. Most of my other PFF blog posts have been cross-posted by Adam Thierer or Berin Szoka, but I’ve taken ownership of those posts so they appear on my TLF author page.

This is the first in a series of articles that will focus directly on technology instead of technology policy. With an average age of 57, most members of Congress were at least 30 when the IBM PC was introduced in 1981. So it is not surprising that lawmakers have difficulty with cutting-edge technology. The goal of this series is to provide a solid technical foundation for the policy debates that new technologies often trigger. No prior knowledge of the technologies involved is assumed, but no insult to the reader’s intelligence is intended.

This article focuses on cookies–not the cookies you eat, but the cookies associated with browsing the World Wide Web. There has been public concern over the privacy implications of cookies since they were first developed. But to understand them , you must know a bit of history.

According to Tim Berners Lee, the creator of the World Wide Web, “[g]etting people to put data on the Web often was a question of getting them to change perspective, from thinking of the user’s access to it not as interaction with, say, an online library system, but as navigation th[r]ough a set of virtual pages in some abstract space. In this concept, users could bookmark any place and return to it, and could make links into any place from another document. This would give a feeling of persistence, of an ongoing existence, to each page.”[1. Tim Berners-Lee, Weaving The Web: The Original Design and Ultimate Destiny of the World Wide Web. p. 37. Harper Business (2000).] The Web has changed quite a bit since the early 1990s.

Today, websites are much more dynamic and interactive, with every page being customized for each user. Such customization could include automatically selecting the appropriate language for the user based on where they’re located, displaying only content that has been added since the last time the user visited the site, remembering a user who wants to stay logged into a site from a particular computer, or keeping track of items in a virtual shopping cart. These features are simply not possible without the ability for a website to distinguish one user from another and to remember a user as they navigate from one page to another. Today, in the Web 2.0 era, instead of Web pages having persistence (as Berners-Lee described), we have dynamic pages and “user-persistence.”

This paper describes the various methods websites can use to enable user-persistence and how this affects user privacy. But the first thing the reader must realize is that the Web was not initially designed to be interactive; indeed, as the quote above shows, the goal was the exact opposite. Yet interactivity is critical to many of the things we all take for granted about web content and services today.

Stateful Sessions

On the original World Wide Web designed by Berners-Lee (Web 1.0), Web servers responded to each client request without relating that request to previous requests. There was no need to remember what other pages the user had requested because the requests were for static pages. But if you’ve used a Web-based email system like Gmail, Hotmail, Yahoo! Mail, etc., you know that once you log in, the service remembers who you are as you click from message to message. When a website can keep track of a user as they move from page to page within a site it is called a “stateful session.” The website doesn’t necessarily need to know anything about the user, it just needs to be able to distinguish that particular user from all other users. For example, if you go to an online store and place a few items in your virtual shopping cart, the site still does not know your name, email address, or billing information. But it does know what you’ve placed in your cart–or more precisely, it knows what someone using your browser has placed placed in a particular cart. If you leave the site before buying anything and then go back an hour later, it’s possible that the site will have completely forgotten about you. In that case, the unique identifier persists during your “session” on the site, but it doesn’t persist between sessions.

URLs and HTTP Requests

Web 1.0 sites achieve Web page persistence by having a unique address or Uniform Resource Locator (URL) for each Web page, which is displayed in the address bar at the top of your browser as you browse the web. For example, http://www.pff.org/about/ is a simple URL pointing to a specific Web page. Every user that visits the PFF site at www.pff.org and clicks on the “About” link will be taken to the exact same page.

URLs can also store information about the user. For example, if you search for “test” on Google, the URL of the resulting page may look like the following: http://www.google.com/search?q=test&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a.[2. http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2006/07/meaning-of-parameters-in-google-query.html] The URL contains a number of different pieces of data, separated by ampersands. There is the search query (“q=test”), the character encoding of the input (“ie=utf-8”), the character encoding of the output (“oe=utf-8”), the type and language of the client (“rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official”), and the Web browser used (“client=firefox-a”). None of this information can be used to uniquely identify the user, but this basic example illustrates how URLs can be used to specify more than simply static Web pages–and how some information can be remembered as a user navigates a website even without using cookies. Knowing how this works, you can create your own advanced searches or change the way the results are formatted (e.g., changing the language).

So how did Google know I speak English and use Firefox? That information is included in the HTTP request that my Web browser sends to the Google Web server when it requests a page. HTTP requests specify (among a few other more technical things) the desired language and a “User-Agent” field that includes the name of the browser and sometimes your operating system. This information allows websites to customize their content for different Web browsers (e.g., to ensure that it displays properly). HTTP requests also include your IP address so the Web server knows where to send its response, and geotagging allows Web servers to associate an IP address with a geographic area (though the area is rarely more accurate than the country or state). HTTP requests can also contain HTTP cookies.

HTTP Cookies

URLs can be used to uniquely identify individual users and allow stateful sessions, but unless a user bookmarks the URL containing their unique identifier, there is no way for the site to associate the same unique identifier with the same user on subsequent visits. Another option is to have users create an account and then log in each time they access the site. The website could then include the user’s unique ID in the URL on subsequent pages, so that the user only needs to log in once per session. Having to bookmark or create an account on every site you want to remember you would quickly become unmanageable. It would be nice if mapping and weather websites, for example, just remembered your location. It would be nice if the blogs you follow remembered what post you last read and displayed only unread posts when you next visit their site. What was needed at this point in the Web’s evolution was a way for websites to automatically store a unique identifier on the user’s computer and send it back to the website automatically[3. A site could also try to uniquely identify users by the IP address of their computer, but this is unreliable as there can be many computers behind a firewall sharing a single IP address.]—which is precisely what a cookie does.

To quote Wikipedia,

“HTTP cookies, or more commonly referred to as Web cookies, tracking cookies or just cookies, are parcels of text sent by a server to a Web client (usually a browser) and then sent back unchanged by the client each time it accesses that server. HTTP cookies are used for authenticating, session tracking (state maintenance), and maintaining specific information about users, such as site preferences or the contents of their electronic shopping carts.”

A cookie can contain one or more pieces of data, a description and/or URL for an online description of the cookie, how long the Web browser should store the cookie, and the domain, path, and port that the cookie should be limited to. Cookies can be set to expire after a specified interval, or can be “session cookies” that will expire when the Web browser is closed. When a cookie expires, it is deleted by the Web browser. Unexpired cookies are automatically sent back to the originating Web server when the Web browser makes any subsequent requests to the same server (the same domain, path, and port).

Neither Web servers nor Web browsers are required to support cookies, but a server may refuse to work with a Web browser that does not return the cookie(s) it sends. Cookies do not contain any executable code and are extremely small in size. They only contain data sent by the website and the data is not changed by the client computer, so there generally should be no privacy concerns about sending a cookie back to the website that created it (“First-party cookies”).

First-Party and Third-Party Cookies

Cookies are normally only sent to the server setting them or a server in the same domain ( e.g., a cookie set by mail.google.com could be shared with calendar.google.com). These are called first-party cookies because they’re set by the site displayed in the address bar of the Web browser. These cookies are typically used to tailor the website for the user. Third-party cookies, on the other hand, are typically used by advertising networks to track users across multiple Web sites where the networks have placed advertising–which allows the advertising network to target subsequent advertisements to the user’s presumed interests and also to limit the number of times a user is shown a particular ad. This targeting allows the delivery of “smarter” advertising that is less annoying and more informative to the user–and therefore more valuable to the advertiser, who will be willing to pay websites more for their ad space. However, this targeting also raises privacy concerns.

It is trivial for a Web page to contain images or other components stored on servers in other domains (“third-party elements”). In fact, it is often easier to link to an image already hosted online elsewhere than it is to host an image on your own Website.

Examples:

• Typical first-party embedded image:
• Typical third-party embedded image:

Whenever a Web browser loads a Web page or component of a Web page, it will include in its request for that component any cookies already stored on the user’s computer that are associated with the domain hosting the content. The Web server, in turn, can send a cookie or update a cookie already existing on the user’s computer.

Although your Web browser will not send a third-party cookie to the first-party Web server (and it won’t send a first-party cookie to the third-party Web server), the first-party Web server can send information to the third-party Web server by embedding it in the URL for the third-party content. The most common form of this communication between the sites you visit and the sites they rely on for content or ads is called a “web bug”–a small (usually 1 pixel by 1 pixel) graphic not meant to be noticed by the user. Its purpose is to cause the user’s Web browser to load the third-party embedded content from the external Web server, which will allow the third party (usually an advertising network) to track the user.

• Example third-party embedded web bug:

While this all may seem scary and invasive,the fact that a website or ad network can uniquely identify your browser does not mean that they have any clue who you are. Even if you provide your name, email address, or other personally-identifiable information to the first-party Web site, most sites’ privacy policies state that they will not share this information with their advertising partners. To use a real-world analogy, third-party advertising is equivalent to a marketer in a mall watching you come out of a music store and then offering you a flyer for a concert: The marketer may know that you’re interested in music (because you were shopping at the music store), but they have no idea who you are. And as my colleagues Adam Thierer and Berin Szoka explained in their post on Adblock Plus, websites (especially smaller independent websites) depend on advertising as a source of revenue and to cover their overhead costs.

Alternatives to Cookies

Cookies are not the only way websites can do stateful sessions. As has already been mentioned, Websites can put unique identifiers in URLs. But custom URLs don’t last between sessions. Websites that need to remember users ( e.g., websites that charge a fee for access) can require users to create an account and log into the site every time they use it.

But most websites do not require users to create an account and log in every time. And more and more users are configuring their Web browsers to delete all cookies when they close the browser. In response, Web site operators have found other methods to uniquely identify users by storing a unique identifier on users’ computers.

The cookie alternatives listed below are not any more or less invasive of privacy than cookies if the user is aware of them and manages them the same way they manage cookies. But most Web browsers don’t give users the same amount of control over cookie alternatives that they do over cookies, and few users know about these alternatives.

Per-session cookie alternatives – These cookie alternatives are not saved to disk and thus are not accessible after you close your Web browser.

• Hidden form fields – Web pages can contain hidden Web forms that submit data back to the Web server when an on-screen button is pressed. This method is quite limited because it requires the user to click a specific button, and there is no method for saving data after you’ve navigated away from the site. Beyond these limitations, the only way to detect hidden form fields is to inspect the HTML code for a page. There is also no easy way to block hidden form fields.
• window.name – JavaScript embedded in a Web page can set or read the this internal value that’s not really used for anything else. The value can be up to 32 megabytes in size and once set a value can be accessed by any Web site. Although the only way to detect this is to inspect the HTML code for a page, you can disable JavaScript.

Persistent cookie alternatives – These cookie alternatives are like cookies in that they are saved on your computer and can be accessed even after you’ve closed your Web browser.

• Flash Cookies – Also known as Local Shared Objects, Flash cookies require Adobe Flash to be installed on your computer. Whereas HTTP cookies are limited to 4 kilobytes, Flash cookies can contain up to 100 kilobytes by default and can contain an unlimited amount of data if the user desires. To view and delete the Flash cookies stored on your computer, go to this page (although accessed via a Web page, the Flash cookies shown are stored on your computer). You can also permanently disable Flash cookies on that page.
• DOM Storage – DOM storage was designed specifically to allow Web 2.0 applications to work offline, saving data locally when they are unable to access the host website and to save data that would otherwise be lost if a page is accidentally reloaded. DOM storage is currently only implemented in Firefox (and Internet Explorer 8 Beta). If cookies are disabled, DOM storage is also disabled. Users can also manually disable DOM storage even when cookies are enabled.
• userData behavior – The userData behavior does for Internet Explorer what DOM storage does for Firefox. Each “document” is limited to 128 kilobytes of storage, with a per-domain limit of 1024 kilobytes. The data is stored in Internet Explorer’s cache and are deleted when you delete cookies using the Delete Browsing History dialog box.

Conclusion

This article should give you a better sense of what cookies are used for and how they work. You should now see that per-session cookies and cookie alternatives are completely harmless. Persistent cookies (and cookie alternatives) can make your Web browsing a bit easier, but deleting them will not (in most cases) cause any problems. If you are concerned about your privacy, you will need to do a bit more than just delete cookies–you also need to delete or disable the above-mentioned cookie alternatives.

Of the titles I included in a mega-book review about Internet optimists and pessimists that I posted here a few months ago, I mentioned Lee Siegel’s new book, Against the Machine: Being Human in the Age of the Electronic Mob.  It is certainly the dourest of the recent books that have adopted a pessimistic view of the impact the Internet is having on our culture, society, and economy. Because Siegel’s book is one of the most important technology policy books of 2008, however, I decided to give it a closer look here.

Siegel’s book essentially picks up where Andrew Keen’s leaves off in Cult of the Amateur: How Today’s Internet is Killing our Culture (2007).  I posted a two-part review of Keen’s book here last year [Part 1, Part 2], but here’s a quick taste of Keen’s take on things.  He argues “the moral fabric of our society is being unraveled by Web 2.0” and that “our cultural standards and moral values are not all that are at stake.  Gravest of all,” Keen continues, “the very traditional institutions that have helped to foster and create our news, our music, our literature, our television shows, and our movies are under assault as well.”

As I noted in my earlier “Net optimists vs. pessimists” essay, after reading Cult of the Amateur, I didn’t think anyone else could ever be quite as over-the-top and Chicken Little-ish as Keen. But after working my way through Siegel’s Against the Machine, I realized I was wrong. It made Keen seem downright reasonable and cheery by comparison! Keen and Siegel seem to be in heated competition for the title “High Prophet of Internet Doom,” but Siegel is currently a nose ahead in that race.

Keen and Siegel are both essentially channeling the ghost of the late Neil Postman, the one-time dean of the modern school of techno-pessimism. Postman’s 1992 book Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology, was the first major anti-Digital Age diatribe and it remains the reigning champion of anti-technology screeds. “Information has become a form of garbage,” Postman argued, “not only incapable of answering the most fundamental human questions but barely useful in providing coherent direction to the solution of even mundane problems.” If left unchecked, Postman argued, America’s new technopoly — “the submission of all forms of cultural life to the sovereignty of technique and technology” — would destroy “the vital sources of our humanity” and lead to “a culture without a moral foundation” by undermining “certain mental processes and social relations that make human life worth living.”

Although Lee Siegel doesn’t bother citing him, he owes much to Postman’s brand of social criticism. Indeed, in large part, Siegel is simply bringing Postman’s critique of the Information Age up to date. Like Postman and Keen, Siegel is concerned about the “destructive side” of the Internet and the Information Age, which they all feel is being overlooked. Specifically, the attack these authors mount on the Information Age and the Net can be boiled down to two major themes:

1. The Net is destroying (or at least greatly diminishing) the role of experts, authority, “truth”, and traditional societal norms and institutions. This is having (or eventually will result in) dangerous ramifications for our culture, economy, and democracy.
2. The personalization and customization that the Information Age and the Internet have spawned is an unambiguously negative development for our society and culture. Moreover, in large part, the entire Web 2.0 experience is largely just about commercial interests furthering their ends.

Let’s take a closer look what Siegel says about each.

Experts, Authority, and “Truth”

Like Postman and Keen, Siegel doesn’t mix words when it comes to his contempt for the disintermediating influences of modern information technology. He is particularly concerned about the loss of “truth” and “authority” in our new environment. “Culture needs authoritative institutions like a powerful newspaper; it needs them both to protect its critical, independent spirit and to make sure that culture’s voices heard in the louder din of more powerful economic and political entities.” (p. 140-1) By empowering the masses to have more of a voice, Siegel says, “unbiased, rational, intelligent, and comprehensive news… will become less and less available.” (p. 165) “[G]iving everyone a voice,” he argues, “can also be a way to keep the most creative, intelligent, and original voices from being heard.” (p. 5)

Like many other Net skeptics, Siegel views Wikipedia, YouTube, blogs, and almost all user-generated content with a combination of confusion or contempt. “[S]elf-expression is not the same thing as imagination” or art, he argues. (p. 52)  Instead, he regards the explosion of online expression as the “narcissistic” bloviation of the masses and argues it is destroying true culture and knowledge. “Under the influence of the Internet,” he says, “knowledge is withering away into information.” (p. 152) Our new age of information abundance is not worth celebrating, he says, because “information is powerlessness.” (p. 148).

One reason Siegel gets nostalgic about the age of scarcity is because elites like him — and others who were lucky enough to have access to mainstream media — had a more privileged place in the old media world.  As a social / cultural critic, he can’t be happy with all the competition he now faces in that field from the blogosphere and online media outlets.

But it’s difficult to sympathize with Siegel’s position that others should be excluded from having a voice now in an effort to preserve the old order. After all, for the past seven decades, public policy has largely been preoccupied with getting society out of the scarcity mess (even though public policy created much of that mess!) by ensuring that citizens had more choices and outlets. Now that we have more options, some people like Keen and Siegel aren’t happy about the fact that the hoi polloi have been empowered. But, even if some traditional institutions lose the dominant position they once held in society, plenty of “authoritative” and “professional” media options and outlets continue to exist. Our new Information Age simply empowers millions of other voices to join the conversation and offer alternative perspectives and input.

But Siegel also disputes what he regards as such romanticized notions of “online participation” and “personal democracy.” To him, everyone is just in it for the money. “Web 2.0 is the brainchild of businessmen,” and the “producer public” is really just a “totalized ‘consumerist’ society.”  But what about all those bloggers who (like me!) are in it for the love of the conversation and debate?  Well, says Siegel, we just don’t realize the harm we are doing by trying to have our say!  “[T]he bloggers are playing into the hands of political and financial forces that want nothing more than to see the critical, scrutinizing media disappear.” (p. 141) And as for those true believers and Net evangelists who believe that something truly exciting is happening with our new online conversation, according to Siegel, they are simply “in a mad rush to earn profits or push a fervent idealism.” (p. 25-6)

It’s difficult for me to imagine anything more insultingly stupid than those last two statements.  The insulting part about them is that Siegel is essentially telling us all to shut up!  We all need to put down our pens — or, rather, our keyboards — and understand that we are doing great harm to those journalists, institutions, or other enlightened few who are really providing the “critical, scrutinizing” function so essential for a healthy democracy and culture. It’s just blatantly elitist for Siegel to suggest that only a select few have any business sharing their views with the world, and he even acknowledges that several times in the book. But he wears that elitist tag like a badge of honor as he stares down his nose at the newly empowered masses, snorting in disgust at everything he sees.

And the stupid part about those statements above is that the vast majority of bloggers or online participants are absolutely not in it for the money, or even out to take down mainstream media. They just want to be heard. But, again, Siegel believes that what you all have to say is not worth hearing anyway.

The Supposed Perils of Personalization

Indeed, Siegel’s primary gripe with the Web 2.0 world is that while most of us appreciate the growing personalization of information and content as well as the increasingly participatory nature of the Internet, he sees that as an unmitigated evil.  “The Internet is the first social environment to serve the needs of the isolated, asocial individual.” (p. 6)  The “Daily Me” (personalized, instantaneously delivered content) that Nicholas Negroponte predicted and longed for in his prescient 1995 book Being Digital, is viewed by Siegel as nothing more that the creation of a “narcissistic culture” in which “exaggeration” and the “loudest, most outrageous, or most extreme voices sway the crowd his way; the cutest, most self-effacing, most ridiculous, or most transparently fraudulent of voices saw the crowd of voices that way.” (p. 79)  He goes so far as to refer to it as our “democracy’s fatal turn” in that, instead of “allowing individuals to create their own cultural and commercial choices,” Web 2.0 has instead created “a more potent form of homogenization.” (p. 67)

In this regard, Siegel is channeling another Net skeptic, the prolific Cass Sunstein of the University of Chicago Law School.  In his 2001 book Republic.com, Sunstein also referred to Negroponte’s “Daily Me” in contemptuous terms, saying that the hyper-customization of websites and online technologies was causing extreme social fragmentation, isolation, and alienation, and could lead to political extremism. “A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government,” he wrote. As I said in my review of his book in Regulation magazine that year, Sunstein was essentially saying that the Internet is breeding a dangerous new creature: Anti-Democratic Man. “Group polarization is unquestionably occurring on the Internet,” he proclaimed, and it is weakening what he called the “social glue” that binds society together and provides citizens with a common “group identity.” If that continues unabated, Sunstein argued, the potential result could be nothing short of the death of deliberative democracy and the breakdown of the American system of government.

Siegel continues this line of reasoning in Against the Machine but, like Sunstein, completely fails to offer anything more than a few random anecdotes in defense of their thesis that the Net is leading to close-mindedness, homogenization, and the death of deliberative democracy. Worse yet, they also both completely fail to look at the other side of the story, which is that the Internet and Web 2.0 may be having the exact opposite effect. I made that argument in my 2005 book, Media Myths: Making Sense of the Debate over Media Ownership (p. 39):

The reality is that citizens do face an overwhelming number of media choices today, and that probably does make it somewhat more difficult for them to have “shared experiences” involving any individual news or entertainment program. But that isn’t really such a lamentable development. Government need not take steps to make sure everyone watches or listens to the same programs each night so they can all talk about them around the watercooler at work the next day. It’s just as good that everyone can discuss something different that they saw or heard the night before. And the very fact there are so many distinct media options available to citizens is better for a healthy democracy than a limited range of media options. Again, regardless of who owns what, the fact remains that we have more sources of news, communications, and entertainment than ever before in this country. Still, some media critics wax nostalgic about a mythical time — a supposed “Golden Age” of newspapers, radio, or television — when the populace was more closely linked or unified in some grand sociological sense by common reporting or programming options. But that is a stretch. The days when William Randolph Hearst dominated media, or when only three TV networks brought us our news at a set time each night, could hardly be labeled the “Golden Age” of those respective mediums. If that’s the world media critics want us to return to, then this represents, as Jonathan Knee argues, “an argument for homogeneity hiding under the pretext of diversity.”

And, indeed, that’s exactly what Siegel is proposing in his book, as Keen also does in his. They want to roll back to clock and return us to the mythical “good ‘ol days” of media. Again, when were those days? I simply cannot fathom how anyone can claim that the age of media scarcity — with its limited outlets and opportunities — was truly better than the world we find ourselves in today. As I noted in the first part of my two-part review of Keen’s book, which was entitled “Why an Age of Abundance Really is Better than an Age of Scarcity”:

What Keen doesn’t seem willing to tolerate is that when everyone has a voice, a lot more silly things are going to be said and heard. Back in the days before we all had our own soapboxes (websites, blogs, social networks, YouTube posts, etc.) we all had opinions, but we had few ways to get those opinions out. Now that the Internet has become the great leveler and given everyone the ability to be a one-person newspaper or broadcaster to the world, the dream of a more fully empowered citizenry is slowly becoming a reality. The upside is that everyone gets an equal chance to be heard. But the downside is that everyone gets an equal chance to be heard! That is, with the good comes some bad. There are wonderful contributions to culture and human communications being made by average Joes and Janes across the globe because of the Web. But let’s face it, there’s a lot of crap out there too. Cutting through the cultural clutter can been a real challenge, and even with the best search tools in the world at your disposal, it can still be difficult to find that diamond in the rough. But aren’t we better off as a society because of the opportunities now at our disposal? Isn’t an age of media and cultural abundance — warts and all — still preferable to the age of scarcity which preceded it?

I believe it is. And as I concluded in my review of Keen’s book, which seems like an equally sensible way to conclude this review of Lee Siegel’s tedious screed:

I think we are definitely better off because of this seismic shift in our communications and media environment. The human conversation is more diverse than ever before, and we have been empowered to experience the full range of culture and human creativity (for better and for worse!)

Via ParisLemon… Here’s a really outstanding (albeit somewhat vulgar) slide show about the increasing importance of social media and how social networking is profoundly changing the way we humans communicate. Some great stats in there.

http://static.slideshare.net/swf/ssplayer2.swf?doc=whatthefissocialmedia070208-1215026815612657-8

| View | Upload your own