the Armchair of El Diablo
Ideas that break loose & change stuff
Stuxnet… an open source game changer. This gives me the heebies. From the talented cats at Hungry Beast.
9 June 2011
I do advertising stuff. I enjoy it. But it really is just so very, very silly. Unnecessary.
Watching David Rowan, UK Wired editor, you realise what necessary is. And that if I was braver, smarter and stronger, I would’ve wanted to be a journalist who writes these types of stories.
As it is, I’m one of the fat, diffident millions who simply profit from not being one. But Rowan suggests a way I can be a little more than that.
Watch it if you can.
21 October 2010
My question got asked on Q&A the other night. Much obliged ABC! (I still think you’re communist hippies though.)
12 August 2010
Interesting presentation by Accessnow.org’s Brett Solomon at TEDx Sydney.
The filter’s detractors sometimes struggle to deepen arguments beyond: “it won’t work”, “it’s a waste of money”, “it’s not right”.
So Solomon’s argument is useful. He frames these points in a wider context: the importance of citizen journalism, digital grassroots action and how a filter hampers the interwebs’ social potential.
It would’ve been nice to hear more on education as a more effective alternative to the filter, though… this is where the anti-censorship argument generally runs out of puff.
Raging for abstract rights gets more attention (ok, Solomon doesn’t really ‘rage’). And I guess flying the flag of revolution is just more exciting for the chorus.
But the line that “Some internet content is wrong; but censorship is wrongerer” just polarises the argument. Makes it zero-sum. We need more airtime dedicated to these education approaches that are only ever touched on.
An opposition with considered alternatives is more credible. Its time to stop preaching to that chorus. It’s time for the debate to evolve.
3 June 2010
Really like this. CNN’s Go Beyond borders, cross-platform project to celebrate the fall of the Berlin Wall. (via @lyndonjhale)
31 May 2010
“That’s not leaking, that’s a pure editorial.”
So said Stephen Colbert when he interviewed Julian Assange, co-founder of Wikileaks, about the recently leaked video in which journalists and civilians appear to be killed by US military (see post below).
It was a sharp interview. Colbert’s position was that titling a leaked video “Collateral Murder”, prejudiced the viewing.
Assange’s response was that this guaranteed wider viewership, which was consistent with the Wikileaks mission.
That was news to me. My understanding was that Wikileaks was a tool for whistleblowers, and its mandate was simply to exist, and to be accessible to all.
As Gawker suggests, editorialising turns Wikileaks into an advocacy group.
Now, I’m a very big fan of Wikileaks, and Assange aquitted himself well … but I’m uneasy about the line he’s taken.
Taking a political view on the content that it leaks, raises questions about how material is being selected, and by whom.
Sure, true objectivity is a myth. And the financial realities are that Wikileaks need to establish a presence to be effective.
But Wikileak’s success as a whistleblowing tool is based on the credibility of its service. And that credibility must be based on impartiality.
Otherwise, Wikileaks may wind up as channel that only left-leaning, non-conservative whistleblowers will be comfortable using.
With investigative journalism whittled away by commercial pressures, Wikileaks could have a far more important role to play than simply being another advocacy group.
13 April 2010
What it's about...
Looking at the role of digital media in elections and riots; campaigns and chicanery; in the righteous and the underhand...
Shots
Oth'rs Tumbl'n
Theme created by 
