The High Line Park

I wanted to do a very quick post to share a really interesting project that has been in the works for a very long time. It's called the High Line, and it's a park above New York City. The park has its origins in an abandoned section of overhead train tracks. The guys who developed the park got the idea from the little ecosystem that seemed to form itself over time in the abandoned space.

Now, the High Line has become something welcoming and engaging, a park for the public. Only one section is apparently open, but SBO friend Aviva paid this section a visit. The photo above is from her post about her visit. Read it here.

It's interesting to see how the remnants of a phase of societal development become the backbone for a later one. Off the top of my head, I can only think of a few other examples: the ritual center of a religious group becoming a pastoral must-see, an orchard becoming a loose collection of free fruit trees, or a prison becoming a tourist attraction. It also makes me wonder what of our current age will become the repurposed relics of the next generation.

Anonymous Revisited: Anonymity and Societal Norms

Patton Oswalt once said that the fuel of the nerd mafia is disappointment and exclusion. This isn’t only true of the nerd mafia: it’s true of any socially disaffected group that doesn’t have access to the well of societally granted superiority and therefore must fabricate their own. In any group that is mostly filled with nerds (or any other sort of socially less-accepted individuals), the people that craft the agendas and lead the pack are those that are best at fabricating superiority.

The most common method of fabricating superiority is to lambast anyone that doesn’t contribute in the desired way with personal attacks and derision. The nerd mafia don gets his power from being the meanest, most alienating member of the group, thus crafting his group only of people that will give in to his superiority.

But what happens when such a nerd society goes leaderless? What happens when, say, a group of anonymous individuals band together to have a laugh and pour out their derision on those less quick-witted than them?

If you are a regular reader of this blog (or if you are an informed Internet citizen), you have probably already pieced together that I am referring to the Internet’s most famous nerd mafia, Anonymous. In a previous post, I described some of the higher goals of this loose collective: the goals of free speech, of critical thinking, and of challenging social norms. All of these are noble goals, and Anoymous takes them seriously. But as a result of their structure as a largely unorganized group of aspiring nerd mafia dons, Anonymous is also a hotbed of bullying and hate.

Since every member of Anonymous is inherently anonymous themselves, each encounter they have with the group is a new chance to feel that surge of nerd power, to cut down another faceless individual with ridicule. The ridicule, then, is much more potent, vitriolic, and terrible than it would be if normal reputational factors were at work; people can say and do the most horrible things when neither they nor the objects of their ridicule are even clearly defined as actual people.

So any given thread on 4chan, Anonymous’s home base of a sort, is filled with faceless rage, meaningless hate, racism, sexism, cruelty of many kinds, and jostling competition for the reward of even one post declaring one nerd mafioso’s contribution “win.” This fleeting declaration of the worth of someone’s contribution is the only reward Anonymous offers.

Such fast-paced, quick-turnover work among tirelessly approval-seeking nerds breeds innovation, but of a certain kind. Rickrolling is the perennial perfect example: it’s clever, it’s hilarious for a while, and then, after what seems like mere weeks, it’s tired and played out. Anonymous is a breeding ground for this kind of viral content. Anonymous is innovative, but their innovation is fleeting, transitory.

Which brings us to today. Remember when Anonymous struck out against the actually quite harmful tactics of Scientology? They rallied around a cause, and their efforts were not unrewarded, since as a result of their protests, new documents came to light and new organizations jumped in to help those imprisoned by the more cult-like directives of Scientology. But in an organization that prizes quick-wits and competition for attention, a movement like Anonymous’s anti-Scientology campaign is bound to fizzle before it makes the desired impact. In fact, among the 4chan boards, those people who still protest at Scientology centers and still sport goofy costumes and pithy signs are considered the lowest of the low. They are slaves to the last big thing, and Anonymous only appreciates the next big thing. Within what passes for the social circles of Anonymous, these people are referred to as “the cancer that is killing” 4chan. Any progress this campaign was making is now halted by a wall of disapproval.

While I agree with the fundamental tenets of free speech and Internet anonymity, this factional split and continuous member alienation within Anonymous demonstrates what we lose when we do become entirely anonymous. What we lose is the benefit of societal organization. We lose social norms, the incentives to make a lasting change, and the deep rewards of long-term interpersonal relationships. While we don’t lose what it means to be human, we do lose what it means to be humanity.

Unfortunately, I am in no position to propose answers or clear solutions. For now, I merely seek to demonstrate the problem. Before any laws on privacy or anonymity are enacted or enforced, there must be a careful analysis of what we gain or lose when the Internet trends towards more (or less) anonymity. I value anonymity on the Internet, but such severe anonymity has its price. When society is a collection of flashes in the pan competing to see which can flash brightest, we’re just burning through useful social capital.

(image credit: cc licensed (by-nc-nd) image by JacobDavis)

Steroids and Lasik Eye Surgery

Bobby Baun.

I know that for Americans, there is little meaning to that name. Bring it up in Toronto though and people will immediately free associate words like "heroic" and "selfless." Bobby Baun had one of the most iconic moments in hockey history. In game 6 of the Stanley Cup final between his Toronto Maple Leafs and the Detroit Red Wings, the largely defensive defenseman broke his ankle in the first period. He went to the locker room, got taped up, took some painkillers, and returned to score the overtime winner to force a game 7, which the Leafs also won. He is in the pantheon of sports heroes (Canadian sports heroes, but still).

Barry Bonds.

Barry Bonds is one of the most reviled figures in sports history. Bring up his name and people will immediately free associate words like "cheater" and "disgrace." As his career began to take a back seat to the home run record chase between Sammy Sosa and Mark McGuire, he allegedly used steroids and put in some of the best numbers in the history of baseball. Books have been written about how he defiled the game along with every other person from the steroid era of baseball.

I am not entirely certain why, as sports fans, we worship the players who use pain killers to get the most out of their bodies, who enhance their physique through painful and unnaturally long hours of body building, who get corrective eye surgery so that they can see the pitch better, while cursing the players who use steroids to get the most out of their bodies.

The uproar surrounding HGH is even more confusing to me than decrying steroids. Malcolm Gladwell has already written a perfect post on this issue and I do not need to reiterate his points. I wonder if the real problem is that the public generally do not have any idea about what HGH is. They are just scary initials to most people and have been lumped with steroids in the minds of the people. HGH speeds recovery so that a player can get back on the field after an injury as quickly as possible. Why is that different than what Bobby Baun, the hero of the Toronto Maple Leafs, did?

I was reminded of the topic of steroid and HGH use after reading a recent excerpt in Sports Illustrated for a new book detailing Roger Clemens' alleged steroid use. I don't care to link to the article because I don't think Clemens did anything newsworthy. He used then legal means to improve his ability to play the game that he loved. At worst, we should be indifferent. At best, we should see him as heroic, like we do Bobby Baun and all the other players who showed “guts” and “heart” by “sacrificing their bodies” and “playing through the pain."

Ancient vs. Modern Cultism: Is That a Thing?

earlier today, i was reading a pile of interesting wikipedia articles about all of the "messiahs" that have cropped up over the existence of judaism, and i noticed that a few of them spurred their own sects of judaism that persist even until today.

shabtai tzvi is probably the best known (aside, possibly, from jesus) of the jewish messiah claimants. he started his little campaign in the 1600s. the wiki describes him as basically bipolar, possibly a sociopath. he was well-versed in jewish mysticism, and he used this knowledge to craft a set of practices and doctrines that appealed to a surprisingly large number of jews at that time. he was, it seems, a smart, talented young man who felt self-important enough to call himself the leader of a people, a religious figurehead.

but isn't that a fair assessment of any of the charismatic, messianic figures at the top of any religious sect?

like, is jesus a possible example of that model? muhammad? moses, even? any of those people? couldn't we just see ANY of them as people with some good ideas and the will to push those ideas?

and it seems the current distrust of these types of religious figures might be a difference between modern and ancient attitude, not modern and ancient religious figures. is it just a coincidence that religious figureheads and leaders slide down towards the "levelheaded patriarch" end of the scale the farther back in time they started their religious teaching, but closer to the "mentally unstable cult leader" end of that same scale the more modern they are? older religious leaders, in general, seem more reputable to us, but newer ones, in general, seem less so.

the problem is that we have no way to directly inspect or experience any of the revered ancient religious leaders under modern standards; all we get is the minimal inspection done by their credulous followers.

in other words, would a modern outlook on the religious figureheads of the past convince us they are just as much charismatic sociopaths or attention lovers as, say, j.z. knight's ramtha? would our society's distrust of modern religious figures maintain its potency when turned on the religious figures of antiquity?

i don't see why we can't look critically at the genesis of our deeply held ancient religious convictions using a similar standard that we use for "modern religions" but still see the value in those convictions. for instance, if we really think about the beginnings of judaism (or christianity or islam or any ancient religion), we might ask: was moses a revelator? an emissary of god? or was he just a man with a still relevant and fulfilling message, with the self-importance and will to push that message onto a group of followers?

that's not to say that religion doesn't offer us something fascinating, helpful, personal and deeply fulfilling. that's also not to say that moses wasn't, as depicted, an exceedingly humble voice of reason. that's not even to say that moses's message lacked any sort of divine inspiration or godly spirit (however we choose to define any of those terms). any of those things can still be true. we can still get a ton out of religion even if we are skeptical of the "cult of personality" aspects of our own personal religious affiliations.

unfortunately, this way of thinking about religion implies all sorts of value judgments. it implies dichotomies between "primitive" and "enlightened" thinking, between "religious fervor" and "skepticism," between "smart" and "not smart." that's not the point, though. the point is to remember that religion isn't a set of answers to questions, it's a framework to appreciate and think about those questions. religion can offer us a TON when examined and practiced critically. it's just our job to make sure we actually DO examine and practice our religions critically.

(i, of course, invite any comments anyone has. i don't realllllly know what i'm talking about, even moreso in this post than in a lot of my previous ones, so feedback, questions, and challenges would be awesome. remember, i'm not challenging the validity of any religion, i'm merely challenging the rigidity of thinking about religious leaders. also, that image: public domain. also, no caps: is it distracting?)

Selling Your Neighbor's Lawnmower: The CC and Personality Rights

An interesting situation resulting from creative commons licensure on Flickr has cropped up relatively recently. A church youth leader posted a picture of one of the kids in his group on his Flickr account, and he chose a CC license (specifically the one that requires mere attribution for commercial use) for the photos in his photostream.

Half way around the world, Virgin Mobile in New Zealand grabbed the photo and printed up (rather large) advertisements, insinuating that the girl pictured was a pen pal that someone would finally be able to "drop" once they got a Virgin Mobile phone. That's not a nice thing to say about a pen pal, and the girl, who's name is Alison Chang, was reasonably kind of upset about her depiction on these ads.

So, she sued. Or rather, someone sued on her behalf. The interesting thing about this case is that the guy who took the photo has no copyright infringement claim against Virgin. His license gave Virgin every right to use the photo in their ads. The theory in this suit isn't a copyright one; it's a "right to publicity" or "personality rights" case. It's more akin to a model who hasn't signed a release form than to a photographer who's work has been stolen.

But aside from the claims against Virgin, the suit also names the Creative Commons as a defendant. That makes no sense to me. The license worked exactly as it was supposed to: the photographer released any rights to the photo (conditioned on attribution) to anyone who wanted to use the work. The Creative Commons didn't make any mistakes here. The photographer, however, might have. He released a right to use Alison's likeness that he never had in the first place. It's similar to if I sell you, via eBay, my neighbor's lawn mower, and my neighbor gets mad at you for using it. If the photographer did anything wrong, it was that.

But he probably didn't do anything wrong. The issue has to be re-defined: a reasonable person knows they can't sell their neighbor's lawn mower to a third party without consent. Does a reasonable person know they can't give their neighbor's likeness to a third party without consent? In general, probably yes: anyone knows, for instance, that people in the background of a reality television shoot have to sign releases. So does a reasonable person know that posting a photo under a CC-atrib license is the same thing as giving it away to anyone who is willing to credit them, to use it however they like? Maybe not.

This is a failure of individuals to try to understand their licensing, not a failure of the license. Flickr, by default, puts all new uploads under a traditional "all rights reserved" license. An individual has to actively switch their photos from "all rights reserved" (what this photographer probably wanted) to "some rights reserved" (the license that allowed this supposed misappropriation). Things like this wouldn't happen if people took a moment to think about what switching their license gives up. Should courts protect people who don't understand what they are giving away? Or should they incentivise learning what they are giving away? Maybe some combination of the two?

This case will help define how "personality rights" and model releases work for alternative licenses like a CC license. Either way, as alternative licensing structures become more commonplace and are more fully understood by the public, cases like this will likely become a lot less frequent. And according to CC, education about these licenses is one of their main goals. That means, at least in regard to the Creative Commons, that as time goes by there will be less litigation and more education, with reasonably understood copyright policies and rules eventually taking shape.

(Note: the image at the top is from Joe Pemberton's photostream, used under a CC license. It's a clever little image, but unlike the guy who created it, I don't think any of this confusion is the CC's fault.)