Some rad folks have been organizing, lobbying and generally raising a ruckus around the corporate-sponsored push to close down the internet, commodify internet travel (using surveillance and discriminatory practices) and generally mess with net neutrality. The work is largely volunteer-driven, natch, and donation-funded. That’s why the SaveOurNet cats are hosting a fundraiser – a film screening and dance party at the ever-cool Gallery Gachet in Gastown on Saturday June 20. It’s also the after-party for ChangeCampVancouver, an unconference to reimagine government and citizenship in the age of participation. There are some wicked DJs, including Quest Poetics, Mello Black, Mario Vaira and DJ Hayze, among others. There will also be a screening of RiP: A Remix Manifesto, from Web activist, filmmaker and Vancouver native Brett Gaylor, starting at 6pm. Ima be there… and if you wanna getcher groove on, you can reserve your ticket here.

I am a supporter and user of free software (though I admit I have not migrated entirely). I research and write about the social movement aspect of free software, and its potential as a model for alternative social organization beyond the realm of software development. I am inspired by the future envisioned by free software and take heart from its existence here and now.

All these things are true. Yet a faithful reader emailed me the other day to point out the inconsistency between my theoretical stance on free software, and my use of proprietary software. In my last post, I uploaded my conference presentation, Talking to Tech Activists: Another (Cyber)World is Possible, as a Word document, and the slides as PDF. I am well aware of this inconsistency – contradiction, really. In fact, I originally uploaded the presentation as an Open Office document. But then I recalled all the emails I get from folks who can’t open my OOo docs, and how I am constantly converting and resending these docs as proprietary files. It occurred to me that my readers – who knows how many – might not be able to open these files. I thought of those not savvy enough, or concerned enough to take the time to download Open Office (it’s free!) just to read something on my blog. So I weighed it in my mind: remain consistent and “true” to my work and beliefs; or, in the interest of broadly promoting free software and the various ideas contained in my work, upload the files in a format more likely to be more accessible to all.

I think I made a mistake.

It’s not the first time a free software advocate/user has pointed this inconsistency out to me. After my talk to the Vancouver Linux Users Group, I received another email, rather caustic, calling me on the carpet for presenting on free software using proprietary software. It was after that I switched to Open Office. Now I have the latest version of Ubuntu, ready to be installed (I just need to clear a day for technical maintenance and make the switch). It’s fair to say I have come a long way.

I have always liked and embraced Marx’s idea of praxis: the notion that theory without action is useless and action without theory even more ridiculous, and ultimately unsustainable. From the beginning of my academic career, I have criticized the academy for being out of touch with reality, for navel gazing and other forms of theoretical narcissism. I intended to be an activist, starting from the inside and working out, connecting ideas to action for social change “on the ground.” Not an academic content to warehouse my ideas securely within the ivory tower, speaking jargon to a select chosen few.

As I have traversed the long and twisty path to become a professor, I have tried to do this, to walk the walk, to be an authentic activist-scholar. And I thank my fellow activists, readers and practitioners for helping me in this. That is truly the wiki way. I cannot do my work without your help.

I told my faithful reader that I would write this post, putting up my presentation and slides as free software documents. And that I would encourage all my readers to download Open Office and give it a whirl. It’s like when you switched over to Firefox. Just as easy. Just as cool. And then you’ll be one little bit less a part of the Microsoft Evil Empire… But that’s another post…

My free software presentation is here.

My free software slides are here.

J’espère que vous appréciez et je fais bon accueil à vos commentaires!

I went to the Union for Democratic Communication conference last weekend, held at Buffalo State College. I had never been to Buffalo, which is what made me pick this conference over the annual meeting of the Canadian Communication Association. I’ve been to Ottawa before; heck, I used to live there. I hedged my bets a little, predicting (and rightly I think) UDC would be way more fun.

While lowlights of the conference included a website from 1996, sketchy wifi and uncomfortable dormitory beds, there were a number of cool panels. Far and away the best was the one made up entirely of SFU alum of one sort or another: Scott Uzelman, Fiona Jeffries, Enda Brophy and Dorothy Kidd. They discussed the “minor tradition” in communication, which draws on autonomous marxism and focuses on resistance to capitalism rather than its impenetrable dominance. And there were 20 minutes left for conversation, almost unheard of in the dry, monotonous, self-absorbed universe of academic conferences. Refreshing.

My presentation was titled Talking to tech activists: Another (cyber)world is possible. It was a summation of my “research findings” – the results of in-depth interviews with 22 tech activists. I was barely recovered from laryngitis but I was able to squeak my way through. It was still fun.

If you want to check it out, my talk is here. My slides are here.

Today there was a flurry of activity on the listserv for the Association of Internet Researchers around using Wikipedia as a source. Mostly the response was negative. A sampling of comments:

It’s not that I don’t like Wikipedia: it’s that I don’t find it appropriate to cite any dictionary and/or encyclopaedia at all in any kind of essay, including K-12.

and

…a reference to Wikipedia sounds to me like a footnote saying ‘hey dude, look at the dictionary’, if not just
‘rtfm.’

Here’s what I wrote in my first posting to the list:

I frequently use Wikipedia as a starting point and foundation for scantily researched (at least in the social sciences) technical subjects.

When nobody was writing on wikis, social software, copyleft, crowd sourcing or free software, Wikipedia had the most comprehensive definitions. Unlike an online dictionary reference, Wikipedia also contains history, controversies, (often academic) citations and links out to key people and websites. Researching the development and use of internet technology for social justice activism, I typically find that Wikipedia has the most useful, if not the only, information I’m looking for. While my research area has gained more attention from academe recently, this was not always the case.

Further, with “official” academic work, there is often a lag between time of writing and publication. When writing about “now” technology, this material is typically out of date, and perhaps useless to the discussion or question at hand.

There is a conflation in this discussion between researchers well versed in a subject using Wikipedia out of necessity (rather than laziness or poor research skills) and undergraduate students doing a Google search and clicking the top link – usually Wikipedia. In my classes, I discourage the use of Wikipedia, in order to foster “proper” research techniques. Students need to learn academic protocol in research, established and long used for excellent reasons, before they consciously veer from this.

I wonder how the “grown up” readers of our work can find more information on a topic when we, the folks who presumably dedicate our working lives to it, cannot do so easily. There is also a question of accessibility to knowledge that I think is important and has been glossed. Perhaps highly technical information could be found by scouring the computer science journals, although I have not found this process highly fruitful. In any case, the default to jargony, near-impenetrable information written by “authorized knowers” over collaboratively produced knowledge by Wikipedian experts written for a lay audience is not surprising, but it is a bit worn.

While there are certainly well-documented problems with Wikipedia, and I do think it should be used sparingly and critically, I think the quickness to offense by reviewers is unwarranted. Collaboratively produced, “un-peer reviewed” knowledge is as old as humanity and should not be so easily dismissed. The subject area should be considered, and if the reviewer is so sure this information is readily to be found, perhaps s/he should do a quick Google Scholar search herself.

Favianna moving the merchandise

Photo by Rodger Levesque
Radical poster artist and activist Favianna Rodriguez is in town from Oakland, CA this weekend for a series of supercool art/technology events. Last night she kicked off the 2009 Web of Change calendar with Designing for Democracy at District 319. Favi’s multi-media presentation, including live drawing dealt with the role of art and technology in social change.

I met Favianna at Web of Change 2007. We bonded over 80s dance music and our mutual interest in activism. When I needed a graphic for this blog, Favi came right to mind, and I was able to choose from a number of her works that were available for free download.

She gave me a t-shirt from Tumis, a rad design studio she founded. Located in East Oakland, Tumis develops communication strategies for community improvement; it is woman-owned and run by people of colour, in keeping with its explicit social justice mission. Tumis follows an ethical business model, guided by its Points of Unity. Beyond the hood, Tumis collaborates on progressive projects that challenge racism, classism, homophobia, sexism, and corporate irresponsibility. No wonder the Utne Reader  named her one of the 50 visionaries who are changing our world.

Favianna’s roadshow is part evangelizing, part art installation, part sales push (she has a new book out!) and always a party. Tonight she’s performing with Oakland filmmaker Reed Rickert at the Techforms pre-show, a W2 event; from 8-9pm they’ll be mixing Latino beats and live drawing with a mashup on the big screens.

On Sunday March 9 from 2-4pm, Favianna will be at W2 Launchpad for MUNCH! 14, a regular series of critical discussions on cultural planning and arts issues affecting the creative people living and working in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside. Favi will discuss Tumis, with its comibination of community centre, youth programs, media arts collective and social housing as an inspiring model for the DTES

Following this there will be an opening reception for A Woman’s Place is Everywhere! A Century of Women and Work, as part of International Women’s Day, also at Launchpad. The exhibit, which features a powerful national collection of visual art works by contemporary Canadian artists, including BC’s Tania Willard, runs through March 29.

For more info on IWD visit their site.

The second and latest issue of Stream: Culture/Politics/Technology is now online. This is an open access academic journal put out by  graduate caucus in the School of Communication at Simon Fraser University. The journal is a labour of love for the volunteers who have worked so hard on moving Stream from a concept to a quality peer-reviewed journal for grad students of Canadian communication studies. Big ups go especially to managing editor Danielle Deveau. general editor Rebecca Scott and production manager, Ben Woo.

The call for papers for the next issue, due out Fall 2009, is pasted below. Anyone looking to develop their publication record can find a gentler entry into the publish-or-perish world at Stream. So crack out last semester’s term paper and with a little effort, see if you can’t turn it into a submission…

Call for Papers and Digital Art for special issue:
Art, Culture and Everyday Life

During the recent Canadian federal election, much controversy arose over the Conservative government’s $45 million funding cuts to the arts and culture. Harper claimed that the arts did not concern “ordinary Canadians.” Appealing to the working class, Harper suggested that “when ordinary working people come home, turn on the TV and see … a bunch of people … at a rich gala all subsidized by taxpayers claiming their subsidies aren’t high enough when they know those subsidies have actually gone up, I’m not sure that’s something that resonates with ordinary people.” His statement drew censure from artists, politicians, academics and “ordinary Canadians,” notably Margaret Atwood in a Globe and Mail piece who cited rates of poverty among artists; the economic value of the cultural industries; the ordinariness of artists; DIY cultural production; the everyday impacts of culture; and the “universal” drive for creativity as counter examples to this conservative rhetoric. All of these perspectives seem to suggest that politics and class intersect at the juncture of culture in everyday life.

This special issue of Stream broadly considers debates like those raised by this case, as well as current issues in communication and culture. Possible topics include:

* everyday technologies
* public culture and the public sphere
* cultural industries or culture industry?
* the arts and the political imagination
* DIY culture and citizenship practices
* financial barriers to cultural participation
* popular taste and cultural capital
* intellectual property and independent cultural labour
* globalization and cultural sovereignty
* borders and digital technologies

We invite academic papers related to these topics. We also seek methodology papers with early research study findings and artistic projects developed as part of a graduate degree (these projects should include an academic paper component). For all submissions, we encourage authors to take advantage of the online capabilities of our journal by including links, images, sound or video files, etc. (it is the authors responsibility to obtain permission from the copyright holder). Deadline is July 1, 2009.

Saveournet.ca, a Canadian coalition working to defend our online freedoms, has launched a sweet campaign urging people to wear their hearts on their sleeve and tell the CRTC to keep the internet open, fast and accessible to all Canadians.

Bell and other corporate giants such as Rogers and Shaw currently have free reign to “throttle” service to their retail customers and those small companies that rent portions of Bell’s network to competitively provide internet service to Canadians. The CRTC is conducting a detailed investigation of the internet traffic management by the big telecoms. Submissions from the public and hearings later this year are part of that probe.

ISPs recently released crucial data, causing the CRTC to extend the submission closing date to February 26. As the CBC reports, “The figures form seven ISPs reveal that annual growth in total traffic volume declined for two consecutive years.” This revelation could be a major turning point in the debate as this data undermines the argument of the ISPs that they need to manage networks in order to prevent congestion.

Tell the CRTC to keep the internet a public utility, free of profit-driven policies, and open to all, by clicking here.

Visit http://www.saveournet.ca to find more ways to show the internet your love.

It is a well known fact that hackers – the original MIT hackers, anyhow – love Chinese food. In truth, I think it’s because the only restaurants open when they’d come to after 7, 13 or 24 hours of straight programming, only to find it was 4am and they were about to faint from hunger. I imagine this accounts for Richard Stallman’s request for dim sum during his whirlwind tour of Vancouver last weekend.

There were a variety of people at the lunch, including SFU’s Andrew Feenberg, Alexandra Samuel of Social Signal and Ifny Lachance, of Free Geek. It was great to get to see Stallman up close – I’d already checked out two of his talks the day before – the afternoon gig at UBC (Hummingbird 604 live blogged it) and the evening one at the Maritime Labour Centre (see Trophycase’s report here), where he joined the Creaking Planks for a rather muted rendition of the Free Software Song.

At the UBC talk, Stallman emphasized the four freedoms inherent in free software, and the societal constraints that prevent or inhibit these freedoms. He was lucid and compelling, as well as entertaining. He insisted he was not radical, and for a moment I almost believed him. He focused mainly on the ethical implications of computer technology and its use, noting that society encourages people to judge software programs based on superficial, practical characteristics – is the software  efficient, reliant, cost effective? But this mode of evaluation ignores a more important facet: how the software impacts the social solidarity of the community. He insisted on the primacy of freedom, even at the expense of superior software: on this point he was adamant and unapologetic.

“This is not a question for techies; its something citizens of every modern society should be concerned with.”

These are fighting words indeed. The kind that make the blood rush to my cheeks and my heart skip a beat. The kind that make me more confident in my belief that an ethical stance can take precedence over these other requirements of our technologically rational but morally depraved world. “It’s a question of ethics, not technology,” as Stallman bluntly put it.

“The aim of the free software movement” Stallman explained, “is to liberate cyberspace and all its inhabitants.” Software is free (as in liberated, not gratis) if it respects the users freedoms: “A social system of distribution and use is an ethical system that respects users freedoms. A free program is a contribution to society but the existence of proprietary program is a social problem,” Stallman said.

“I reject proprietary software and you should too. And you should reject propaganda terms used to demonize the act of cooperation in our society.” By this he meant the redefinition of the word “pirate” to mean somebody who shares software or other information on the internet.  This equates “helping your neighbour with attacking your ship. They sneak it in as an assumption and hope people will take over without critical thought.” Music or software “piracy” is a ridiculous concept: “Pirates don’t use instruments or computers to attack ships,” Stallman deadpanned. “I reject propagandistic meanings.

Stallman said he reached these ideas in 1983. “I wanted to use computers and live in freedom but how?” At the time, it was impossible as all operating systems – which computers require to run – were proprietary. Stallman was an o/s developer. “All I had to do was write another operating system: I’d be the author and  I could make it free. So I found a way to put an end to a social problem with technical work. It was an important social problem that affected narrow part of society, but that was growing. I had skills necessary to try to eliminate the problem. I had been elected by circumstance to do this job. I had a duty.”

Stallman went on to describe the development of what is today the GNU/Linux operating system. “I decided to develop a free software operating system or die trying. At the time the free software movement I was founding had no active opposition. The big obstacle was a pile of software we had to develop in order to have a complete free system.”

“I decided to make UNIX-like system so it would be portable. I decided to make upward compatible with Unix so users would find it easy to switch.” All Stallman needed was a name. It’s longstanding practice in the hacker community to give humourous names to their programs. He chose a recursive moniker: GNU, for Gnu’s Not Unix.

“In the 70s, system level programming was not portable. So it was common to see a useful program and want to run it, but was impossible. The only thing you could do was write a subprogram.” Thus “your program is not the other one.” Boasted Stallman, “GNU is the most humour-charged meaning in the English language. According to the dictionary, ‘g’ is silent. When it’s the name of our system, please don’t call it by the dictionary pronouncement: it’s not ‘new anymore.”

Stallman spent a good part of both talks, and the lunch, carping on the misrepresentation of the GNU o/s as Linux. Most people – even the programmers didn’t know the backstory. In 1991, Linus Torvalds created the kernel that would eventually complete the GNU o/s. It was packaged with the GNU system and released as Linux. From then on, what is almost wholly the GNU system became known as Linux, after the final piece that completed the puzzle. On the point that the o/s be called GNUslashLinux, Stallman is intractable. He won’t allow it in his presence or earshot.

There are two reasons for this. The first is that he wants credit given for credit due. This is another aspect of hacker culture: motivation for programming is not money but recognition and the status that accrues with meritorious work. Stallman said he worked tireless on the GNU project, at some personal cost. All he wants, he says, is to be treated fairly.

The second reason is more philosophical. “Getting credit is not most important ethical thing in life. There is a more important consideration: your freedom is at stake.” The name Linux has an indirect influence, because it represents a philosophy that opposes the free software movement. “For 25 years, GNU has been associated with freedoms and Linux associated with Torvald’s ideas. Stallman condemns our ideas of freedom; he says what matters is powerful, reliable software and he argues against our ideas.”

This is contravenes the raison d’etre of GNU and is obviously damaging to the cause of the free software movement. As Stallman warned, “Our freedom is frequently threatened. If we don’t defend it we will lose it.” This has already happened in the US in the wake of 9/11, he reminded. “We have to teach people to recognize what freedom is so they can value it and protect it.”

Two of the main obstacles for the free software movement, said Stallman, is that users of GNU have never heard of it and they haven’t heard of free software. They’ve only heard system described as “open source”. “So they never hear our ideas; and a different set of ideas is hiding us from public view even from people who use our work.” The term open source “enabled corporations to hush up questions about freedoms users deserve. We have to work very hard to get people to realize there is an ethical component.”

Responding to his erstwhile designation as the father of open source, Stallman said: “If I’m the father of open source it was done using purloined sperm through in vitro fertilization without my knowledge.”

His constant refrain was a request: that we all use “GNU/Linux”  instead of Linux. “If you care about freedom please show it by talking about freedoms. Call it “libre” software; you can’t confuse the meaning of free in French.”

Richard Stallman, otherwise known as rms or the founder of the free software movement, will be in town for a series of lectures at UBC and BCIT. I have been reading Stallman’s stuff since I wrote my master’s thesis in 2003. Although he has sometimes passed off as a crank, much of Stallman’s work has proven accurate, insightful and even prescient over the years. I particularly like his insistence on ethics and freedom as two essential aspects of computing. I have been rereading him lately as I get further into my disseration. So the timing is perfect: I will be there with bells on.

Stallman will deliver his talk “Free software in ethics and in practice” from 12:30-2pm on Feb. 6 at UBC (Room 101/102/201, George F. Curtis Law Building, 1822 East Mall). For more deets email communications@law.ubc.ca or phone 604-822-0846.

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications  Commission (CRTC) has finally decided to deal with the prickly subject of internet regulation in Canada. Until recently, Canada’s Internet was an open, neutral network – a level playing field for free speech and innovation. All that is now threatened by a handful of corporations that want to control a “gatekeeper network” in which they decide what content, services and users get the fastest access.

The federal telecoms regulator has decided now is the time to “gain a better understanding of broadcasting in the new media environment.” Ten years ago, the CRTC in all its wisdom decided to take a hands-off approach to the internet, effectively allowing corporations to self-regulate in cybersapce. This has resulted, no surprise, in anti-competitive practices by telcos and cablecos in their efforts to dominate the online “market.” Discriminatory actions such as blocking access, crippling consumer devices and applications, and slowing down service, or “throttling”, are becoming increasingly common. The result for users, besides lack of choice, has been unequal access to the interent, a historically neutral – and thus open – network.

The CRTC will hold a public hearing Februaray 17, 2009 in Gatineau, PQ. Members of the public (that’s us!) can submit comments to the CRTC until December 5  here. The decision the CRTC takes as a result of this proceeding and public consultation will determine the future of the internet in Canada. Will Bell and other big telecoms be allowed to control (and limit) our actions in cyberspace? Will corporations be permitted to rule the internet, taking over a once public space and charging pay-per-use fees as they please?

We need to take control of our communications media and the internet is an obvious place to start, because it has yet to be parceled off and sold to the highest bidders (never citizens, let me remind you). The CRTC has already twice delayed ruling on the fate of the internet (public communication medium or corporate playground?), suggesting that they are struggling to make a decision. We, as citizens and users, need to make it very clear which side the Canadian public is on. Take one minute to let the CRTC know you want Canada to protect an open, neutral internet.