Disclaimer: I work in Google's Policy Team, developing multistakeholder cooperations for internet governance & policy themes, hence I want to point out that all the opinions and ruminations on this blog are mine, not Google's.


Showing posts with label freedom of speech. Show all posts
Showing posts with label freedom of speech. Show all posts

Thursday, November 10, 2011

Speakers’ Tube - Meine Rede auf dem ersten Speakers' Corner in Berlin


Ich bin 33 Jahre alt. Als ich aufwuchs, informierte ich mich über die guten alten Medien: Buch, Fernsehen, Radio, Zeitung. Mein 9 Wochen alter Sohn wird mit einem ganz anderen Bezug zu Medien und Partizipation aufwachsen. Erlauben Sie mir mit ein paar Worten zu analysieren, was sich in den letzten 33 Jahren verändert hat.  

Ich fühlte mich dabei meistens ganz gut informiert. Doch schon damals fragte ich mich, wo denn eigentlich all jene Menschen Gehör finden, deren Themen nicht für die sogenannten “Massenmedien” tauglich sind. Und was war mit Ländern, die nicht über die breite, freie Medienlandschaft verfügten wie Deutschland sie zum Glück heute besitzt? Wie mochten sich wohl dort die Menschen informieren?

Die einzige Chance, seine Stimme zu Gehör zu bringen, lag für viele Jahrhunderte buchstäblich auf der Straße: in Demonstrationen, Versammlungen oder eben auf der berühmten “Speakers’ Corner” in London, wo immerhin schon seit Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts die Kraft der freien Rede zelebriert wird.

Es ist aber ohne Frage das Internet, dass die Möglichkeiten frei zu reden, Position zu beziehen, sich zu informieren und demokratischen Protest zu organisieren tiefgreifend revolutioniert hat. Grenzen überschreiten, Konventionen missachten, Debatten über alles zu führen - von Filmen bis zur Monarchie. Online war alles möglich. Im Internet entstand ein neuer globaler “Speakers’ Corner”, ein Forum der freien Rede, auf Twitter, Facebook und YouTube und (in Bälde auch unter jedem Pseudonym ihrer Wahl) auf Google+.

Über zwei Milliarden Menschen sind heute im Internet aktiv, und jeder kann seine Meinungen, Träume, Positionen und Forderungen veröffentlichen, die wiederum von allen anderen gefunden und beantwortet werden können. Diese Demokratisierung der Medialen- der Meinungs-Produktionsmittel bedeutet im Allgemeinen eine größere Auswahl und im Endeffekt mehr Macht für den Einzelnen. Erinnern Sie sich an die Bilder aus Ägypten? Leider ist es für viele Regierungen und Institutionen unbequem, die Kontrolle zu verlieren. Dies bedeutet, dass das kommende Jahr möglicherweise von einer zunehmenden Einschränkung der Freiheiten im Internet geprägt sein wird.

Staaten schränken das freiheitlich demokratische Potential des Internets ein. Doch nicht nur Staaten stehen der Rede- und Meinungsfreiheit immer wieder im Wege. Beispiel Mexiko: Im brutalen Drogenkrieg des Landes verzichten die klassischen Medien inzwischen zumeist auf Berichterstattung, die Journalisten fürchten um ihr Leben. Aktuellen Berichten zufolge sind Blogger und Aktivisten aus sozialen Netzwerken als letzte mediale Kraft übrig geblieben, die noch über das Treiben der Drogenbarone informieren. Auch hier beweist die sozio-technologische Infrastruktur des Netzes und die Netizens eine beeindruckende Kraft, die sogar über die der klassischen Medien hinauszureichen scheint.

1989, im Jahr, in dem die Mauer fiel, steckte das Internet noch in den Kinderschuhen. Doch auch damals gab es mutige Menschen, die für die Freiheit aufgestanden sind und gesprochen haben. Engagiert und offen.

Wir wollen hier und heute eine Brücke bauen zwischen der klassischen Kraft der freien Rede, der Speakers Corner, und jener neuen Kraft, dem Internet und seinen technischen Möglichkeiten Dialoge global, in echtzeit und (ver)öffentlicht zu führen.

Denn wer heute spricht, spricht nicht “nur” zu den Menschen, die gerade hier am Brandenburger Tor dabei sind. Ihre Stimme kann weltweit gehört werden. Wir werden Sie unmittelbar im Anschluss über den YouTube Kanal “GoogleFreeExpression” ausstrahlen.
Selbstverständlich holen wir dazu von jedem Redner und jeder Rednerin die Erlaubnis ein!

Hier und heute treffen sich also die analoge Speakers Corner und ihr digitales Pendant in Gestalt von YouTube. Nennen Sie es meinetwegen “Your Corner” oder “Speakers’ Tube” - der Name ist nicht wichtig. Lassen Sie uns diesen Tag zu einer Feier der Meinungsfreiheit machen. Fassen Sie Mut. Kommen Sie auf die Bühne und bringen Sie die Kraft Ihrer eigenen freien Rede zur Entfaltung. Vielen Dank!

Sunday, January 03, 2010

Breaking Borders Award & Reflections about Freedom of Expression online

This Tuesday Google and Global Voices announced the details and call for nominations for the Breaking Borders Awards, which will honor activists, policy makers and technologists who make a contribution to develop the net as the global forum where netizens around the globe can express themselves and collectively deliberate and discuss ideas. In this post I'd like to share my own take on why freedom of expression is important and highlight some aspects regarding the potential of the net to improve governance and transform social conduct.

On the outset I'd like to set the scope regarding the importance of Freedom of Expression: Nobel economist Amartya Sen famously found that freedom of expression and access to information are fundamental conditions for development. In his analysis, no country in which information is freely disseminated and debated has ever suffered a famine. More broadly, political freedom correlates directly with economic success.


Let me now share my understanding of how internetworked technology advances freedom of expression and societal information sharing/management: One can distinguish between “factual news”, opinion and subjective contextualization.

What happens when reportage comes not from a select few professional sources, but from a multitude of decentralized observers feeding their social networks (and, incidentally, the public)? We see a dramatic increase in transparency—and, through the proliferation of sources, in credibility.

This “reported reality” (from neitzens posting their perspective on Twitter, YouTube, etc.) informed coverage of the recent demonstrations in Tehran and Urumqi. Such reportage will be still more important when, as well as covering breaking news, it brings transparency to institutions like the World Bank and the United Nations Development Program.

The other aspect of ”news processing”—analysis and interpretation—traditionally represented the view of an institution or, at its best, sought to deliver a balanced perspective. In times of blogs, social networks and other means of sharing your views online the information you publish defines your identity and how others perceive you; and it transforms and multiplies the original information.


The virality of information (the way it spreads and changes) has long been exploited by marketers and politicians. With the Internet democratizing information—putting a global publishing outlet and, more recently, a mobile live-streaming camera within every netizen's reach—you can not only globally publish your opinion but debate it. The process can have a substantial, and healthy, effect on citizen participation and decision making, and therefore on governance and societal dynamics.


The real pragmatic challenge however is not in the principle of free speech but in the hairy details of balancing it with other rights like privacy, and defining and deciding on defamation, hate speech complaints, etc.. All nations agree, for example, that child pornography should be banned. But individual governments have decided on highly divergent areas where national history necessitates thematic restrictions on freedom of expression.

If content is legal in one country and illegal in another, how do we foster the net’s potential as a global public space?

In my opinion there can, and should, be no final answer: human judgment and mores inevitably change over time. That is why I think two approaches should be pursued: To encourage the creation of national (and possibly international) expert bodies that transparently identify content which is illegal. And to create multistakeholder alliances like the Global Network Initiative, which has embarked on a step-by-step process to ensure good privacy and free speech practices within its constituents' online services.

Professor Lawrence Lessig warns us that the web—combining software (technological) code and legal (social) code—forms a perfect architecture of control. While we are very successful in building globally spanning internetworked technology on the basis of open standards and simple, liberal rules like “running code and rough consensus,”; we have been less successful at rooting our social code in similarly simple and liberal rules: those that nurture human rights.

With the Breaking Borders award Google, Global Voices and Thomson Reuters are looking for your nominations to promote good practices in freedom of expression online.

Sunday, July 12, 2009

openDNS - seems to be a decent way of content filtering

last night i met someone from www.openDns.com (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDNS). As the name says, they offer a free/open Doman Name resolver and what i thought was quite interesting: they allow for community based (crowdsourced) filtering by categories.

I just signed up for their service to test it. Here is how it works and some reflections:

You select the network you want to have filtered by either choosing one of the categories or doing a custom category filter:

  • High - Protects against all adult-related sites, illegal activity, social networking sites, video sharing sites, and general time-wasters.
  • Moderate - Protects against all adult-related sites and illegal activity.
  • Low -Protects against pornography and phishing.
  • Minimal- Protects against phishing attacks.
  • None - Nothing blocked.
  • Custom - Choose the categories you want to block.
---------------------------------------------------

in their category list they have some pretty strange themes to filter like "Educational Institutions", "search engines" as well as really broad ones like "news & media"

once you selected the "evil" content you dont want your children, roomates or workers to see all you have to do is active the filter and no-one in your IP/network will be able to access these pages. In fact you can define custom messages/pages to be displayed for the different blocked categories.

I am not 100% sure how the system works though. I played around with it and e.g. didn't see a reason why weeklygripe.co.uk or even more strange http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ was tagged (to be decided for blocking) as hate & discrimination. In fact i didn't think any of the sites in that category were reasonably tagged.

In their defense it has to be said that from the 5,399,836 sites submitted only 1,034,372 are aproved for blocking right now.

here are some relevant answers from their FAQs

  • What Do I Do If A Domain Is Tagged Incorrectly?
If an undecided domain is tagged incorrectly, vote No.

If a decided domain is tagged incorrectly, go to the domain detail page and click the "Flag for review" link.

Community moderators will review all reports.
  • Who are the moderators?
Moderators are a mix of OpenDNS employees and trusted community members. Moderators are identified throughout the community by a badge .

**And they invite applications to become a moderator from the community.


--------------

so here are my 2 cents worth of thoughts about this approach

A) I think the way the decisions about blocking are made should be described clearer (who has the final say?) and a wikipedia like discussion page would also be helpful

B) having that said, i think it is a rather transparent, community driven and therefore commendable approach

C) it would add substantial value if there was a "suggested warning" category -- so say nazi propaganda gets flagged and a warning page is displayed when a user tries to enter, but if s/he descides s/he wants to see the page there is a link to enter

-------------------

Interestingly Prof. David Casacuberta and myself had envisioned a relatively similar service in our 2007 article "Do we need new rights in Cyberspace? Privacy and the Need for an Internet Bill of Rights ", presented at the GigaNet Symposium 2007 and published in Enrahonar 40/41

Allow me to quote:

"Lets imagine the institution managing the cyber address assignment includes meta-information regarding the content of the information and service provided. This would enable, for example, the classification of content to be only appropriate for mature users as well as the insertion of a informative page advising the user of the quality of the content. This upstream page would also allow for public discourse and collective assessment of content provided at the site. This way there is no enforcement of particular axiological dispositions in the form of restraining the freedom of expression but vulgar and extremist content would be classified and debated."

-------------------------------

Lastly i looked and it seems quite easy/possible to "hack" (=circumvent) the openDNS system. You can go to the sites IP directly, or you can use a proxy server.

Also it seems that openDNS finds pretty interesting (value added) services to complement their core functionality. For example you/the admin can define shortcuts to point to urls; so you can define that the word "mail" points to your webmail etc.

I would be interested what you think about their system. For me it is clear that openDNS is operating in a space that is very relevant to internet governance so i would like to invite them to join our efforts and discussions; and if possible come to the IGF so we can work with them "in real life".