One of many anti-SOPA web pleas

The NY Times article (In Fight Over Piracy Bills, New Economy Rises Against Old) by Jonathan Weisman on the proposed anti-piracy legislation in Congress  highlights the conflict between old and new business models.

The battle of the SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) and PIPA (Protect IP Act) bills signals the changing times.  It suggests that public understanding of media use is shifting.  It highlights the reallocation of  political heft, dollars and lobby power from the old to new economy.  It also shows the power of the new communications model of many-to-many.  When people are connected across networks, rather than isolated in buckets, word travels fast.   Weisman quotes John Feehery, a former House Republican leadership aide, as saying: “… the Internet world, the social media world especially, can reach people in ways we never dreamed of before.”(p.2)

It also shows how fast politicians’ ideologies move when they fear losing votes.

In my mind, the article leaves out some critical information about the proposed legislation of both the House and Senate bills.    How do the proposed bills define things like: what is ‘fair use,’  who is responsible for ‘violations,’ who handles enforcement and assigns penalties, and the bigger question is who gets to decide all this.  Will enforcement allegedly aimed at the producer and distributor work its way down the entire food chain à la Napster?  (Ask yourself how they are going to find out if you have pirated material on your computer.)

At a time when Congress supports the Patriot Act, I’m not willing to trust them to protect individual rights of privacy and due process.  Beyond that, the financial burden of the proposed onus of self-policing on providers and sites means that, like with Sarbannes Oxley, only the largest can afford to comply, effectively raising the hurdle on competition. That’s no problem if you’re Disney. Not so good for the rest of us.

Weisman also includes these remarks by former Senator and now chairman of the motion picture lobby, Christoper Dodd*: “… Internet companies might well change Washington, but not necessarily for the better with their ability to spread their message globally, without regulation or fact-checking.” (p.1)

I don’t fear the ability of the Internet to spread a message globally, I celebrate it.  And, frankly, I’d like to be in charge of my own fact-checking, given the government’s record.  SOPA and PIPA may be stalled at present, thanks to the outpouring of netizens.  But that doesn’t guarantee there won’t be an end run that starts us down the slippery slope of the erosion of individual rights, particularly when Congress is proposing legislation designed to control something that is continually evolving and taking business models with it.  Not to mention that fact that most legislators don’t appear to understand social technologies, if continual viral ‘oops’ are any indication.   On the other hand, this won’t go quietly into the night, nor should it.  Theft is wrong, whether it’s IP or rights.  And you have to give snaps to the guys who proposed the alternative Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act (OPEN).  Politicians may not understand the new media environment, but they do get the persuasive power of framing a message in this heated debate.  The alternative  bill designed to control content has the acronym of ‘OPEN’.

—

*While we’re on the subject of legislation, am I the only one who thinks ex-legislators should be prohibited from becoming lobbyists?

The in-flight safety message on a recent Virgin America flight ended with a clever info-cartoon intended to raise awareness of how obnoxious airplane behavior impacts everyone on the flight called “We’re all in this together.”

This is a message in short supply today.  We should take a cue from Virgin America & Method (who co-sponsored the message). Instead of politicians trying to convince voters that the other guy is the problem, or, like after the London riots or the BART cell phone shut down, that access to communications tools is dangerous, we need a new mindset.  It’s time for a Public Service Announcement that focuses on the strengths that come from unity; a nationwide public relations campaign based on the understanding that we are all in this together.

"We're all in this together" from Virgin America & Method info-cartoon

Social media and communications technologies are in everyone’s sights.  Technology does contribute to what David Altheide (2010) calls the ‘politics of fear.’  He talks about it in terms of the ubiquitous expansion of surveillance.  Technology also allows bad news to spread fast.  Bad news produces fear and uncertainty—from local concerns like potential job loss or inadequate retirement funds to global anxiety recalling images of the Stock Market Crash and the Great Depression.  Bad news spreads fast because emotions are contagious whether they are facilitated by social media or pamphlets.  Fear is an emotion, in fact, one of the most powerful emotions we experience.

Speaking to threats, taking away rights and looking for someone to ‘blame’ send and reinforce powerful and dangerous messages of fear.  It will certainly get people’s attention, but if people are afraid and feel powerless, one of three things happens: 1) the act of destruction becomes an act of agency, 2) they give away more rights to feel “safe;” or 3) they seek out a segment of society to blame.

Media is a powerful tool.  Let’s use it to bring people together, not drive them apart.  Let’s remind people that:

• Freedom is precious—it is worth fighting for, not against.  You don’t get more freedom by violating the right so of others, whether you’re a government agency or a rioter.
• We’re all in this together.  This is not a zero-sum game.  If we, as a society, grow and flourish, there is more for us all.

Psychologically as well as biologically, fear serves to warn us of danger.  The human brain is hardwired to pay attention to these warnings to ensure our survival.  Our rapt attention to bad news is the coping mechanism of information gathering—paying attention to news and other media—in order to find some certainty and make some sense out of the whole mess to manage the fear and figure out if there really is any danger. The human brain also seeks order, because order represents predictability.  Predictability increases safety.  Yet, while economic news may have personal consequences, what is going on is somewhere between complex and unintelligible and solutions far beyond the reach of the individual.  We, for better or worse, rely on government and financial structures to manage our fiscal health.  So we are left not only fearful, but helpless.  What is not in our control is, by definition, less predictable.  This escalates the fear because there is little more frightening than when our future well-being is out of our hands, putting us somewhere between Alice’s Looking Glass and Kafka’s Trial.

All of these things are exacerbated with knee-jerk policy decisions and political rhetoric . No matter which side of any argument you’re on, people make investment decisions in EVERYTHING based on predictability — investments of time, emotions, and effort not just money.  Behavioral economists have won Nobel Prizes showing that peoples’ understanding of probability is inaccurate and that they rely on heuristics.  While we could debate whether the definition of optimal risk and reward to an economist is the same as ‘optimal’ to someone balancing a complex interpersonal and socioeconomic environment, that isn’t the point.  People are still trying to make the best judgments they can about what to do — ‘rational’ or not.

Fear hampers our cognitive and moral capacities.  It makes us worry about ‘not enough’ and about ‘losing what’s ours.’  It creates a divisive, us-versus-them environment that influences our behavior — and not for the better.  It also makes us extremely vulnerable to those who offer solutions in the guise of usurping individual freedoms.  Fear creates a narrative that ‘control is necessary to keep us safe.’

When authority figures play on that fear by warning of worse calamities, taking away rights, or responding to a protest with cadres of riot gear, they are adding to the problem no the solution.  They are diverting the attention of the public away from the real issues.  In the case of the BART station protests, the over- and possibly unconstitutional – reaction by BART of shutting down cell service not only obscures the purpose of the original protest—the circumstances surrounding the shooting of Oscar Grant by Bay Area Rapid Transit police—but turns all of BART into bad guys instead of isolating and addressing a problem incident.  It also distracts us from the blatant disregard of people for their fellow citizens in the looting, arson, or other costly damage of protests that escalate to social disruption and violence rather than engender dialogue.   In a society where social media can bring people together quickly, it can also let people know when what they are doing has crossed the line.  (See “Twitter Users Blast the London Rioters.”)

It’s time to let the politicians, the government, and the media, know that using fear and blame to get people’s attention and votes is not okay.  It may succeed in getting people elected or products sold, but it undermines our social cohesion turns us into a nation of ‘us’ versus ‘them’ instead of ‘we’.

—-

Altheide, D. (2010). Risk Communication and the Discourse of Fear. [Article]. Catalan Journal of Communication & Cultural Studies, 2(2), 145-158. doi: 10.1386/cjcs.2.2.145_1

The talented California based animation studio Three Legged Legs created the commercial for Method & Virgin America

However you come out on the politics of the “to-fund or not-to-fund” ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) issue, the radical change in House and Senate’s support for funding of the organization (or defunding as the case may be) is an excellent example of the impact of new media technologies.  Information travels across new media distribution channels out of the control of mass media, and corporate and government agendas.  In this case, according to Michael Barone of the Washington Examiner, new media sources played a significant role in forcing Washington to address the ACORN issue.

He writes:

Democrats voted 172-75 to defund ACORN; Republicans voted 173-0 to do so. This would not have occurred but for http://biggovernment.com/ the Big Government videos of ACORN employees encouraging tax evasion and prostitution. “Mainstream media” studiously ignored this big, big story, because it put Obama’s political allies in ACORN in a bad light–such an egregious bit of biased coverage that it aroused derision and contempt from Jon Stewart on The Daily Show.

Whether or not you even agree with Barone’s interpretation, you have to admit that new media is making its mark on politics.  From text messages to encourage votes to viral videos that impact funding, if you ignore the power of an interconnected network to distribute information, you do so at your peril—or embarrassment.  Just as social media networks have tremendous power to support a cause; they can equally expose a transgression.

Nigeria has recently embarked on a rebranding effort to improve their image worldwide.  Global perceptions are important in attracting the kinds of things an emerging economy needs to improve the living standards and opportunities of its people: tourism, trade, foreign direct investment and foreign financial assistance, or even to meet the UN recommended Millennium Development goals. In the words of President Yar Adua, “we must readily put in place a positive perception of Nigeria.”   It has been interesting to watch the dialogue in the AllAfrica.com news.  In a recent article Nigeria: Re-Branding – Country May Be Worse If Credibility Gap is Created the National Institute of Marketing of Nigeria (NIMN) president Aimiuwu warned that things may get worse rather than better if Nigeria doesn’t do the rebranding effort right, noting that credibility is important, if “a product is not authentic and credible then our acceptability by other comity of nations will be difficult.” He also pointed out that corruption by Nigeria ‘s leaders presented a serious challenge in the selling of Nigeria as a brand.  Corruption is always a challenge to crediblity and transparency.

Whether it’s corruption, quality of workforce, infrastructure, tourist venues, or social stability and safety, credibility is key. Nigeria faces two big challenges: 1) brands are held in the brains of the tourists and investors, not the promoters, and 2) emerging social technologies have established new standards and expectations around the globe for authenticity and transparency.

Nigeria (and any nation) needs a new approach in the current environment. A new slogan, catchy song, and opulent video footage won’t do the trick in an age where regular people can talk to regular people without official intervention or institutional intermediaries. I know, easy for me to say, but Nigeria needs to identify the areas that are most detrimental to their goals and establish specific intervention strategies. The intervention strategies must address both the substance of the problem (i.e. improve something) and then the perception in the market. Holistic rebranding efforts sound fine, but the economic manifestation of positive perceptions often hinges on a short list of perceptions. No one can change everything, so it’s good to change the things that matter most.

–
Photo source: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/04/19/world/19nigeria-600.jpg

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2658127.stm

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/04/20/nigerias_election_may_move_a_continent/