But there’s a much deeper and more important conversation taking place that has to do with identity, privacy and the right to anonymity.

Danah Boyd, a researcher with Microsoft and fellow at Harvard’s Berkman Center, considers real name policies an abuse of power:

I’m really really glad to see seriously privileged people take up the issue, because while they are the least likely to actually be harmed by “real names” policies, they have the authority to be able to speak truth to power. And across the web, I’m seeing people highlight that this issue has more depth to it than fun names (and is a whole lot more complicated than boiling it down to being about anonymity, as Facebook’s Randi Zuckerberg foolishly did).

What’s at stake is people’s right to protect themselves, their right to actually maintain a form of control that gives them safety. If companies like Facebook and Google are actually committed to the safety of its users, they need to take these complaints seriously. Not everyone is safer by giving out their real name. Quite the opposite; many people are far LESS safe when they are identifiable. And those who are least safe are often those who are most vulnerable.

News sites are continuously grappling with how to elevate the tone of reader comments. One chosen way is to make people use their real names in order to comment on stories. For example, some sites require you to swipe your credit card for a nominal one-time fee (say, a dollar) in order to prove you’re you.

Site’s that have done this (or found other ways to implement “real name” systems) generally report that while the overall number of comments goes down, the quality of discussion improves. That is, there’s less of an impulse to lob rhetorical bombs when people know exactly who you are.

But apply what Boyd writes here to the newspaper rather than the social network and we have the same dynamic. Namely, the paper dictating who can comment and participate, and ignoring the very real reasons why some in a community would need to anonymously contribute to a conversation about sensitive issues.

If news sites want to clean up comment sections, create a civil culture within them by having moderators, reporters and editors set the tone by actively participating in them. Otherwise, your crazies with an axe to grind will continue to ruin the roost.

Originally posted on the Future Journalism Project.

Via LA Times:

Powell will become president and chief executive officer of the National Cable and Telecommunications Assn., taking on the role of “the cable industry’s leading advocate, spokesman, and representative in its relationship with the U.S. Congress, the administration, the FCC, and other federal agencies,” the group said Tuesday in a news release…

…He left the FCC in 2005 after more than seven years as a commissioner, including a controversial four-year tenure as chairman. Powell led an aggressive crackdown on over-the-air obscenities while at the same time pushing to scale back the government’s role in the telecommunications industry. He championed a loosening of media ownership rules that was later struck down by the courts.

Takeaway, Part I: The more things stay the same, the more things stay the same.

Takeaway, Part II: If Network Neutrality is your thing you have a deep insider you’ll be battling against.

Originally posted on the Future Journalism Project.

Originally posted on the Future Journalism Project.

The State says this is a no-no until he pays for a permit and gets a $2 million insurance bond to film

Doyle, and the ACLU, says this violates his free speech rights.

Via the BBC:

Mr Doyle said no complaints had been made to the state park service in 2009 when he first dressed as Bigfoot, traversed Mount Monadnock, then took off his costume and interviewed bystanders about what they had seen.

“People loved it. It was socially engaging,” the 30-year-old told AP.

But when Mr Doyle announced he would head back to the mountain on 19 September last year, Monadnock park manager Patrick Hummel brought it to the attention of his supervisor in an e-mail entitled “Bigfoot problem on Monadnock… not kidding”.

Mr Hummel then intercepted Mr Doyle during his next outing, barring the film-maker and his friends from filming and requiring them to obtain a permit.

“Jonathan Doyle started this thing with nothing but good humour and intentions,” said Barbara Keshen, a lawyer for the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union. “But it does have serious overtones.”

What say you? Do filmmakers and other media creators need permission and permits when in or on public places and spaces?

Originally posted on the Future Journalism Project.

Tom Brokaw visits Silicon Valley to interview foreign nationals about their efforts to create new companies in the United States. The response from these entrepreneurs: it’s tough, they say. American immigration and visa regulations distract from their efforts to build companies at Internet speed.

Surprising though are some of the radical incentives mentioned that other countries give new businesses to stay local. Say Singapore, for every dollar a start-up raises, the government will give four. Or Canada, where in Ontario the government will give fifty percent of wages back to the company.

Originally posted on the Future Journalism Project.

The conference will feature panels and speakers on a variety of topics, including information communication technology (ICT) and development (including a special forum on Haiti and a discussion of telemedicine strategies), new media and authoritarianism, open governance, and a roundtable discussion of how policy schools can get involved in the debate. Our high profile speakers come from the U.S. Department of State’s Office of eDiplomacy, New York City Council, FrontlineSMS, Ushahidi, and Columbia, Harvard and Stanford Universities.

I mention this not just because I teach there but because I’ll be on an afternoon panel exploring how information and communication technology is being used by governments, development agencies, non-profit organizations and ordinary citizens to work toward a better world. I think there’ll be some authoritarianism thrown in for good measure. Or, at least, techniques activists are using to get around authoritarian attempts to repress and block speech and citizen access to information.

As mentioned, the event is free. The schedule is here. Some notables include John Zittrain most likely talking about open and closed Internet systems, and Patrick Meier discussing how he and others used Ushahidi to respond to the earthquake in Haiti.

Hope you can join us.

About Policy Making in the Digital Age

This article originally appeared on ScribeMedia.org.

Please visit the original to rant, rave or otherwise discuss.

Related posts:

1. Alert: Ushahidi in Haiti
2. MEDIA AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY-MAKING IN THE 21ST CENTURY: BY THE TIME YOU READ THIS, IT WILL BE OBSOLETE
3. Dollars in Digital: Producing Web Programming and Making It Profitable