Stanford Center for Internet and Society

Check out this interesting slashdot entry CmdrTaco put up regarding Blizzard's decision to force him to change his online name.

I've had some interesting conversations with Beth Noveck about online identity, so I immediately sent this link to her when I saw it.

This triggers a couple observations for me.1. How violated he felt when this decision was made. He says, "A real human is wearing a shroud of anonymity and handing out the bitchslap to a total stranger. That really makes the whole experience even more dehumanizing." Telling, as WoW is an entirely virtual experience.

Larry Lessig was interviewed in Foreign Policy about the row over control of the Internet. One exchange I thought was interesting:

'FP: Are the biggest challenges and questions that face the Internet right now essentially social and political, or are they more technological?

LL: I don’t think there’s an “or.” The fundamental point I’ve conveyed in my writing and teaching—apparently no policymaker has yet learned this—is that policy is a function of technology. You can’t do policymaking in cyberspace without thinking about the interaction between technology and policy. It’s as ridiculous to be a policymaker and believe that you can make policy without thinking about the technology as it is to be chairman of the Federal Trade Commission and think that you can talk about competition policy without thinking about the economic consequences of the rules you impose. A smart policymaker asks, “What technology will my policy produce?” and “Will the net result of that technology in my policy be the policy result I want?”'

Who remembers Morton Downey Jr.?

For a time his antics seemed to be an anachronism. Now, however, his spirit seems to haunt all of us.

Partisanship has come to dominate our civic discourse, especially that in the blogosphere, and it seems to be getting worse. For example, the judiciary, once revered as impartial and scrupulously devoted to rationality, has been accused of partiality from both the right ("activist judges" "legislating from the bench") and the left (the Supreme Court's involvement in the 2000 election). To wit, the judge in the DeLay trial is removed because he donated to Democratic causes, and then his replacement is removed because he donated to Republican causes. In this manner, everyone in the country can be divided into one camp or the other, and their every action can be called into suspicion. The only people spared are those who have never publicly expressed any opinions one way or the other.

Deliighted to be here with all of you. What an honor to be invited in. I'm still reeling.

Well, a good place to start with is Kofi from the Washington Post on Saturday. Couldn't have put it better myself:

"In its short life, the Internet has become an agent of revolutionary change in health, education, journalism and politics, among other areas. In the United Nations' own work for development, we have glimpsed only the beginning of the benefits it can provide: for victims of disaster, quicker, better-coordinated relief; for poor people in remote areas, lifesaving medical information; and, for people trapped under repressive governments, access to uncensored information as well as an outlet to air their grievances and appeal for help.

Marketplace Safety Columns in the eBay Chatter

May 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005