When Satire Becomes Reality

December 28, 2009 by Tim Andrews

About two months ago, as a response to their lobbying for government regulation of the internet, I wrote a satire for ATR, on how we need to regulate “Big Google“:

The internet is under threat.

A multi-billion dollar multinational corporation is on the verge of strangling all competition, preventing upcoming start ups from growing, and stopping free speech. They even have their own carbon-spewing corporate jets. Their power is immense, and  it must be controlled. The future of free speech depends on it.
I am, of course, talking about Google. Through their search engine, google.com, Google has the power to make or break sites. Depending on how they write their algorithm, a business can receive millions of hits, or nothing. Google has the power to remove companies at whim from its search results
Why should Big Google have all this power? Isn’t it time that we started regulating such companies?
Don’t we need to ensure a level playing field? How about a “fair” search algorithm, which treats everyone equally? Every site has the right to appear at the top of a google search!
I propose a two-point plan to address this grave injustice. Firstly, the establishment of a National Board of Search Engine Commissars, to regulate Google search rankings. Secondly, the creation of a ‘public option’ search engine, that people can use if they are unhappy with Google. On this public list, in order to address past injustices, sites with the lowest hit counts shall be moved to the top of the rankig. After all, it is only when we take the power of the internet away from the network specialists and google, and give it to bureaucrats, that we will have a truly fair internet.  Together, we can save the internet.
Sound crazy? Of course it is. No rational person would ever agree to the kind of government takeover that I have just laid out. Yet this is exactly the thing that Google and its allies are pushing for in arguing for ‘net neutrality’ – except that they are targeting network providers, as opposed to content providers.  This is exactly what the FCC’s radical proposal  to replacing network administrators with bureaucrats wants to do. It is madness.
It is only common sense that the only way for the internet to continue to flourish and prosper is to keep the cold dead hand of government as far away from it as possible. Don’t buy into Google’s hypocrisy, and help save the internet from Big Government.
Unfortunately, it seems that what I took for a joke, others are now taken seriously. From yesterday’s New York Times:
Today, search engines like Google, Yahoo and Microsoft’s new Bing have become the Internet’s gatekeepers, and the crucial role they play in directing users to Web sites means they are now as essential a component of its infrastructure as the physical network itself. The F.C.C. needs to look beyond network neutrality and include “search neutrality”: the principle that search engines should have no editorial policies other than that their results be comprehensive, impartial and based solely on relevance.
Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

How To Defeat Labor’s Internet Censorship: A Liberal Hack’s Perspective

December 22, 2009 by Tim Andrews

As the campaign against Labor’s internet censorship plan gears up, some of the tactics (and indeed the overall strategy) of those opposed to this monstrosity troubles me somewhat, as I am unsure how effective it will be. By which I mean I think it’s been atrocious, and at this rate I think we will lose.

As such therefore, for what it’s worth, as someone who has spent a decade active in (Liberal) party politics, I thought I would offer my perspective on how to best defeat the Great Firewall of Australia for people’s consideration. Because I really, really do not want Australia joining North Korea, Cuba, China, and Iran!

Firstly, do not bother writing to Conroy or Labor party MP’s/Senators. It will not make one iota of difference. There is approximately 0% chance of Labor reversing course on this through writing to them. They have invested too much into it, and the loss of face would be something they would not be able to stomach. This is the tough realities. Sure, If you want to piss off some bureaucrats, and cause annoyance, you can follow Bernard Keane’s advice, but please note it will achieve nothing. There is only one way that targeting Labor will work, but more on that later.

This bill will pass or fail based on one thing and one thing only: whether the Coalition supports it or not. Whether you like the Coalition or not, this is the reality of the situation. As such, the only thing that supporters of an uncensored internet  should be focusing on is getting Coalition MP’s to vote to oppose it. There is no – I repeat – no other way it can be blocked. There are quite a few Coalition MP’s already publically very opposed to the filter, and it has been soundly condemned by the Australian Liberal Students’ Federation, and the Young Liberal Movement of Australia. Plus, the Coalition opposed it before the 2007 election – keep them to their promise!!! So we have a good base to start off with.

The question then is, how do you go about doing this. Members of Parliament act based upon two things. Firstly, ideology, and secondly, self-interest. Thus you need to tap into both these things successfully. And it is different things with different MP’s. Make sure you also contact Tony Smith, the Shadow Minister for Communications. Tony has always been a strong believer in freedom and sound policy, and is someone we have a real chance with. It is vital we get him onside, so contact him!

The obvious first thing to do is to write letters (emails also work, but snail mail generally carries far more weight, and the chance of response is considerably higher). Writing campaigns have limited uses. MP’s rarely read their own correspondence after all, and replies are written by staff (although signed off on by MP’s). Having said that however, MP’s are to some degree, quite sensitive to the quantity of correspondence they receive. Note that marginal seat MP’s are more interested in getting re-elected than ideology, so point out this is a vote-changing issue for you. Say you will come out and support them in the election on this issue. Make it clear it is in their self-interest to oppose the filter (this is particularly effective if you’re a Liberal Party member, and make preselection support conditional on this).

The ‘talking points’ to include are obvious and I think everyone knows the myriad of problems that this plan will create. I would note, however, that talking about censorship – and in particular porn –  probably isn’t the best line of attack. Whilst the government wants to paint us all as perverts, this is not about porn in the slightest. Many non-porn related sites will be covered by this, so do not at all focus on porn. It just makes you look bad.

Instead, I would focus more on the added regulatory cost this will impose, particularly on businesses (in these economic times, business can not afford etc etc) and how it will slow down the internet. If you want to talk about porn, and particularly this line will be more effective with conservatives, talk about how it will undermine parental values and the family unit, and create a false sense of security. We need to get across that the clean-feed is anti-family, as counter-intuitive as this may initially seem (because it is, after all, the fact).

The second thing to do – as much as many of us may cringe at the concept – is to use talkback radio. This is a forum which politicians, particularly conservative politicians, pay attention to. A lot. Talkback is often played in the background in parliamentary offices, and transcripts are made and sent around. People

With talkback being the genre it is, I would strongly recommend you remember your audience. Ie populist conservatives. Do not – under any circumstance – come across as pro porn etc. Talk about the importance of family values, talk about how you’re not-pro porn but this won’t work. How you’re mainstream Australia. Seriously,  remember your audience! Do not attack your opposition. Say you understand how porn for kids is bad, how we need to protect the children etc. But that this won’t work. I cringe considerably when I hear most supporters of internet censorship try to justify why this is bad, because they use inappropriate arguments, and get shot down.

I mentioned previously that there is one way that campaigning against Labor will be successful. And this is in marginal seats, and not through letter writing, but rather through local media and grassroots campaigning. Marginal MP’s are nervous people due to their vulnerability, but again, it’s a question of doing it effectively. As such, I would suggest publically campaigning in marginal ALP seats to call on the member to oppose it. I would go so far as to say start up a local “organisation” in your area “Croydon Residents against Internet censorship” or something – even if it’s just a few people, you can then get things into local media easily. Press releases etc. Do a few events locally and you will get significant coverage at the local level –  local media love that sort of thing so won’t be hard – and that is what will get Labor MP’s nervous. Say blatantly that we will oppose the MP actively at the next election if this is passed. And that will be the only way we will be able to get the issue to turn Labor to (quietly) drop it.

In conclusion – and I can not stress this enough – do NOT make this about porn, or even about censorship or freedom – I would not publicly use these words at all (despite using it in this post!). We have to recognise that is not a campaign that will be changed because of the viewpoint of net-savvy 20-somethings living in the inner city. Rather, it will be won in the marginals, where the demographics are different, and people have different values – polls demonstrate this. If we talk about freedom, we will be painted as pro-porn etc, and we will lose. Most Australians – rightly or wrongly – think that censorship violent or sexually graphic material is acceptable. So if we fight on those grounds, if we fight on the grounds of freedom of expression, we will lose. We need to fight this on our terms, not on theirs. And to do that requires a serious reevaluation of strategy.

We’re off to a strong start, but we really need to ensure we use messaging properly and effectively to get everyone on board.

Patriarch Bartholomew On 60 Minutes.

December 22, 2009 by Tim Andrews

Last week, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholemy was interviewed on 60 minutes.

I should begin by saying I have a few problems with the story. Firstly, like most people in the West, the role of the Ecumenical Patriarch is understood, and equated to that of the pope. In reality, he is not the leader or Patriarch of “300 million Orthodox”, rather the position is one of First Amongst Equals. In no way do is he viewed as our “pope”, and it is unfortunate that His All Holiness does not correct CBS on this.

Similarly I have to note that I do not like much of Patriarch Bartholomew’s politics (particularly regarding the environment), I do not like some of the ‘power-grabs’ by the EP and their self-proclaimed (and I would consider overarching) worldwide jurisdiction. I also do not like some of the modernisation that he has championed.

With that said however, this is a segment that is defiantly worth watching, particularly in regards to the current persecution of the Orthodox by the Turkish government, and some of the history of the Orthodox Church.

You can view the segment here.

Monday Morning Music

December 14, 2009 by Tim Andrews

(If anyone is interested, the Muppets version (which actually introduced me to this song) is here)

Apologies For Lack Of Postings

December 13, 2009 by Tim Andrews

Sorry everyone for the lack of substantive postings the last two weeks, a combination of personal and professional reasons have meant I simply haven’t had the time necessary to dedicate to this blog. Things should be back to normal soon.

In the meantime though, let me know if anyone has any interesting or challenging topics for me to think about. I tend to find writing about something helps clarify my thoughts on the matter, so if you have any questions you think I might find interesting, let me know! :)

In the meantime, you can always get your daily dose of Tim at www.atr.org

Peer Aggregation, Google Reader, & Why You Ought Take Advantage Of It

December 9, 2009 by Tim Andrews

In the last week or so, I have begun actively using some of the sharing features embedded in Google Reader.

GoogleReader is a great way to read blogs, and keep track of your daily reading list, which is what I’ve been using it for for most of this year. More recently however, my contacts on google reader both in Australia and in the US have reached the critical mass where it’s becoming useful for reasons other than that. Essentially I’m now getting a lot of very good pieces of writing shared from my peers (or, in many cases, my betters), rather than just from what I subscribe. Most of these are articles I would never find myself, they’re great, and have very much improved the quality of information I consume considerably.

The rational behind peer aggregation is simple. There is too much news and information out there for you to read everything, so the best filter for you are people you know, who know what you would like. This is why facebook and twitter are such good news services. But Google Reader really takes this to a whole new level. By being able to see what articles your friends/contacts ’share’, you can customise and personalise your information consumption in a much more precise manner. And it really is a much better way of sharing things than facebook/twitter.

On top of that, Google has become very good at creating algorithms suggesting what you would be interested in, and suggests things itself.

So. I know a few people silly enough to read this blog use Google Reader, so if you drop me a line, I would like to increase the number of people I follow.

Also, if anyone’s interested, you can see what I post at at http: www.google.com/reader/shared/TimInTheUS

Monday Morning Music

December 7, 2009 by Tim Andrews

Today, I present what I consider to be the two greatest songs of all time:

Cap-And-Trade Loss A Stunner In Aussie Vote: My First Published Op-Ed :)

December 2, 2009 by Tim Andrews

Thanks to Mr. Turnbull’s shenanigans, I have scored my first published op-ed, appearing in the pages of Investors Business Daily. Not my best work, but I was in a hurry. And do feel pretty good about myself for having it published :)

You can read it here.

Monkeys & Shakespeare

November 30, 2009 by Tim Andrews

As a brief diversion from Turnbull’s implosion, I just came accross the following story from the BBC:

The study: A single computer was placed in a monkey enclosure at Paignton Zoo to monitor the literary output of six primates.

Who and when: Students at University of Plymouth, 2003, paid for from a £2,000 Arts Council grant

The aim: To test the “infinite monkey theory”, which states that if a monkey hits keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time, it will almost surely type a given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare.

What was learnt: The theory is flawed. After one month – admittedly not an “infinite” amount of time – the monkeys had partially destroyed the machine, used it as a lavatory, and mostly typed the letter “s”.

Of course, the lesson learnt (according to  current public policy theory at least)  isn’t that the theory is flawed at all, rather, that we need to pump even more money into this research…

(H/T Barking Up The Wrong Tree)

Monday Morning Music

November 30, 2009 by Tim Andrews

Any political inferences you may draw from my choice this morning are purely coincidental :)