Intrinsic Value of Free Software?

Intrinsic Value of Free Software?

I recently read an article by Benjamin Mako Hill called When Free Software Isn’t Better. This article addresses the fundamental argument of importance, between the Open Source engineering paradigms and political Software Freedom. For an outsider, this argument can read more

Read More

Allocation and Consequence

Pigeon FeathersThis weekend, I found the consequences of a hawk catching a pigeon in my driveway. It basically looked as though a grenade had blown it to pieces.  There were about a hundred and fifty feathers spread all over, strangely, there was not much red in the picture. This led me to a few thoughts on economics.

Also, this weekend, a couple of friends of mine, were having an extremely esoteric argument about version control systems. This is all the rage in programming right now.

It is wonderful that we have enough free time to discuss these obscure topics, but it is also one of the primary reasons that economists are led to believe that they are the only ones thinking about the “important” or “real” problems.

Seeing the pigeon, bothered me in a strange way, perhaps that I am not thinking about the important problems enough. Second, it’s body was completely annihilated, it is rare that we humans are left like that. Even if we die from a car accident or cancer, our bodies are usually left in tact for a funeral and burial. Humans like to control this process. To leave another human to be eaten by an animal is an insult to our pride. We are obsessed with the process.

The free spirited mind spends so much time thinking and arguing about the minutia, but in the end success or failure is binary, life or death. It is similar to how kittens play, while adults hunt and defend.

Your business and/or professional model must work or you will die. You can struggle all you want and still, indeed, fail. There is nothing wrong with incorporating new thoughts and techniques into your hunt, but do not place too much time and energy into fine tuning means to an end, while loosing sight of the end. In fact, we all fail eventually!

Read More

Has Web 2.0 had a Corrosive Effect on Democracy?

About two months ago, I watched a documentary on PBS entitled The Truth According to Wikipedia. As the title suggests, the film focuses on Wikipedia. But it’s really an exploration of how the Internet has enabled worldwide collaborative ventures, and how this has affected the way the world gathers, assembles, shares, uses, and discusses information. The creators were able to present in a clear, informative manner (a rarity for issues-based documentaries, in my experience) the reasoning of both proponents and critics of Wikipedia-style approaches to online media.

One of the critics featured in the film is Andrew Keen, founder of the defunct website, During the 90’s and early 2000’s, Keen was a strong proponent of Internet ideals, such as universal access to digital content, but more recently has developed a profound distaste for all things Web 2.0. In the past few years, he has gone on the offensive, arguing that the core values of the New Internet – decentralization, participation, and user-generation of content – have had an increasingly corrosive effect on our economy, politics, and culture. Consider the following excerpt from the film, where Keen addresses an audience of Web 2.0 architects and enthusiasts who believe that their,

‘MyWorld’ … will lead to ‘more democracy, more equality, and more freedom.’ Now I [i.e. Keen] strongly disagree; that’s the essence of my polemic. I argue ‘me’ – that this personalization of media, personalization of culture, the fragmentation of society, indeed, into ‘me,’ into everything becoming increasingly more personalized, is resulting in reality in less democracy, less equality, and less freedom. (The Truth According to Wikipedia, @ circa 12:15 – 13:01)

A bold thesis, to be sure. One that challenged me to evaluate my own intuitions on this issue and intrigued me enough to read Keen’s book on the subject, The Cult of the Amateur. I wanted to see how strong his argument was in support of his view. It essentially boiled down to this:

1. In order for our culture to survive. society needs “gatekeepers,” individuals whose judgments and abilities to perform certain duties can be trusted.

2. Experts and professionals are the gatekeepers of society.

3. But Web 2.0 principles destroy expertise and professionalism, since they require that one extol the anonymous amateur, elevating amateur judgment and performance to a level equal with and sometimes even superior to that of the expert or professional.

4. Therefore, Web 2.0 principles are a threat to the survival of our culture.

Keen spends virtually no time arguing for (1) and (2), instead opting to make the case for (3). He cites statistics about how, since the mid-90’s, profits have increasingly fallen in professional journalism and the music and film industries; he highlights cases where misinformation spread via the Internet has had damaging effects on people’s personal and professional lives; and he points to trends in marketing that increasingly blur the line between advertisement and content.  According to Keen, this evidence not only shows that blogs, social networking cites, and peer-to-peer file sharing technologies are responsible for lost revenue in journalism and the entertainment industry, effectively ruining the careers of media professionals the world over, it shows that amateurs and advertisers are taking over their roles and filling the Web with untrustworthy, low-quality content.

Of course, Keen’s own interpretation of this evidence is questionable: one could maintain that professional journalism and the music and movie industries are seeing reduced profits because they employ a legacy business model ill-equipped for the digital age, and one could dig in one’s heels and cite contrary evidence regarding the amount and quality of trustworthy content on the Internet. But debating the fine points about how Keen’s evidence should be interpreted is really a moot point. His analysis suffers from a more basic problem insofar as he has, at best, shown only that increased untrustworthiness of Internet content and decreased revenue in professional journalism has coincided with the implementation of Web 2.0 principles when what he needs to show in order for his argument to work is that the implementation of Web 2.0 principles has caused the supposed ‘destruction of expertise and professionalism.’

But suppose for a moment that Keen does establish a causal connection. Should it then be beyond any reasonable doubt that Web 2.0 threatens to unravel our culture? This hinges on the plausibility of Keen’s assumptions that gatekeepers are needed for the continuation of culture and that only experts and professionals can fill that niche. Now even granting that professionals are to be exclusively identified with gate keepers, it doesn’t necessarily follow that professionalization of a field or cultural activity will guarantee its survival. Indeed, as I have written elsewhere about my own field (i.e. philosophy), professionalization has largely proven to have a cannibalizing effect and the key to its survival may perhaps involve some degree of “informalizing” and “amatuerizing.”  So, contra Keen, Web 2.0 principles might enhance rather than threaten the survivability of culture in at least some cases.

Of course, Keen could admit that a healthy dose of amateurism is needed, while still maintaining that a society’s culture can’t do without its gatekeepers. But this begs the question: just what is it about the role of the gatekeeper that makes him or her so indispensable?  According to Keen, culture is about truth, and “the gate keeper is the key player in the truth, because the gatekeeper, whether they’re an editor at an encyclopedia, or a record agent, or a newspaper publisher, they’re the one’s who determine truth” (The Truth According to Wikipedia, @ circa 24:00-24:20) And in The Cult of the Amatuer, Keen draws on the work of anthropologist Ernest Gellner and political scientist Benedict Anderson to explain that gate keepers provide society cohesiveness by presenting the public a shared narrative and common worldview:

As anthropologist Ernest Gellner argues in his classic Nations and Nationalism, the core of the modern social contract is rooted in our common culture, in our language, and in our shared assumptions about the world. Modern man is socialized by what the anthropologist calls a common “high culture.” Our community and cultural identity, Geller says, come from newspapers and magazines, television, books, and movies. Mainstream media provides us with common frames of reference, a common conversation, and common values. Benedict Anderson, in Imagined Communities, explains that modern communities are established through the telling of common stories, the formation of communal myths, the shared sense of participating in the same daily narrative of life (The Cult of the Amatuer, p. 80).

The notion that truth, trustworthiness, and their intimate relationship (among other things) lie at the heart of culture should be unproblematic. However, Keen’s description of culture’s gatekeepers as determiners of truth sounds far less like our own cultural ideal – namely, a culture that is both free and democratic -  and more like the ideal state of Plato’s Republic. Indeed, Keen’s gate keepers are virtually indistinguishable from Plato’s description of the guardian class, whose role is to present a noble lie to an overwhelming mass of people inherently incapable of understanding truth. The culture Keen envisions is oligarchic, one in which societal control is placed in the hands of an elite class who have presumably exclusive access to truth and a monopoly on creativity. By contrast, a democratic society, whether it has professionals or not, leaves no room for Keen’s gate keepers. It assumes a fundamentally different epistemology and “technology” – one in which each person is presumed to be endowed with an inborn capability to discern truth and to utilize their creativity for productive purposes. Reality is supposed to be the determiner of truth, and it is through observation, conversation, and debate that we arrive at it. If anything, then, the principles of Web 2.0 would seem to compliment or support the ideal of democratic culture, rather than usher in it’s demise.

Creative Commons License
Has Web 2.0 had a Corrosive Effect on Democracy? by Nathan M. Blackerby is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.

Read More

Comparison of Open Source Activity by Country

My senior year in college I wrote a paper about Open Source and it’s implementation in Brazil. This work follows that same line of thought. This is really cool because it shows how different governments are implementing open source.

It’s especially interesting that some countries (USA, China) have such active communities, while other countries (France, Spain) are so aggressive to implement in their governments.

Read More

Why I use Linux

I use Linux for several philosophical reasons and technical reasons. I think open source code is open knowledge and pretty much a basic human right. This article highlights why others use open source. One of his most innovative ideas, is people don’t criticize you for the way you do something, they normally say, “Hey, I didn’t know you could to ABC like that.”

Read More