Internet

The Passion

150 150 eriks

I have gotten a lot of questions lately on my passion.

There are stories out there which deserve to get heard and moreover understood. These voices are all around the globe. Constantly present. These voices regardless of where they are from and in whatever form get lost in the incredible information noise of this modern world. If they despite this incredible noise make it, the context is usually lost or become too distorted in it’s delivered package to really make sense. These voices should get heard in the right context, so that people around the world can listen and understand them. This is the key: Most people don’t listen to the voices because they cannot interpret them. It is about simple communication and connection between people, or in more direct words, a way to create human respect between people.

These personal stories and accounts give perspectives on events around us. You see the context in which the events happen in, and see the relations between the stories and even between the events. The frustration among people in war zones is tremendous. People are tired of the fighting and the wars, especially in the Middle East. The attention the blog I put up during the conflict in Lebanon for people to share their experiences clearly points this out. People don’t feel they have a mean to tell their side of the story. The result is boiling pot of emotions, frustration, and desperation for ways to tell their side of the story. When you have seen your mother, brothers and sisters die in a carbomb or smart bomb, seen the enemy soldiers rape your mother and sister, the rational decisions seem very far away. The anger, frustration and helplessness are overwhelming to anyone, and can easily be directed in the wrong direction. I do not and will never accept violence and terror, yet the root of the problem can and must be understood. This is not a political statement. It is a human statement of freedom of speech and openness about opinions. You could even claim it as a human right of freedom of choice.

It is not about reading one story, getting the comfortable perspective on things. For sure it is easier that way. It is about listening to people, understanding the context of their experiences, seeing the real context of events around you if you so choose. Feeling their emotions, getting the colors of the story. Getting the true citizen media, the true user stories. Real people telling their unedited experiences. Most people however need help to see and grasp the context and it needs to be packaged so that it easy and quick to digest but they also need to feel part of that process regardless whether they are consumers or contributors.

The absolute right or wrong about any event doesn’t exist. It is easier and more comfortable looking at the world in black and white, and being in a mode of on or off. Seeing the real context is something necessary and essential for our future. That is why you will need user contributed media, and that is why I am passionate about inthefieldONLINE.net where we provide tools today and continue to further develop the concept and create the proper framework for it.

To provide make this seamless and easy for consumers as well as contributors you will need advanced technology. Yet technology is secondary (even though necessary for scalability) and secondary it will be for a long time. It is all about giving people a vehicle to tell their stories in the right context. Technology is the tool and framework, nothing else.

Necessary, yes. The driving force, certainly not.

… and now for the skeptics. Please explain me this to me. Why is there an enormous difference between feeling the closeness of another person and watching that same person on video? What will it take to change that? A lot right?

Let us put the human aspect of technology into the business again. It will be so much more fun.

Most of all: This is the path to the true citizen media.

YouTube does what?

150 150 eriks

I just read TechCrunch to get some updates on what’s going on around the valley and found this this pretty amazing post Huh? YouTube Sends TechCrunch A Cease & Desist. I actually laughed…

They have to be kidding. Regardless if this is part of a legal strategy, it really make no sense coming from an online video source who has enabled millions, and millions of users to upload copyrighted material. All of a sudden they now start to protect their own “copyrights” and claim this material should only be made available via their site.

I think this is pretty interesting. I can understand what they now would like to get control over the flow of the material but I am not sure send Cease & Desist is the right strategy, especially since the trackrecord of copyright violation via the YouTube users are not that short so to say. It makes perfect sense as they probably soon will end up with a lot of disputes regarding copyrights. Personally I think it is pretty naive not to understood it would end up on TechCrunch and later on spread like fire inside the blogosphere.

Personally I actually don’t like any violation of copyright issues, but do very much promote Creative Commons License for content and Open Source licences and even the Free Software License (GPL). I will leave that discussion for another occasion. Their intentions will be questioned regardess of what the reasons are.

Hmmm. Hypocracy or pretty ironic as Michael Arrington puts it.

Of course, the irony of YouTube accusing others of copyright infringement is delicious.

Building communities are hard, but they are easily destroyed. Keep your fingers crossed, YouTube! You are really walking a narrow path!

Are cellphones the thin client of the World Wide Web or a part of the World Wide Web?

150 150 eriks

I yesterday submitted a position paper to the W3c Workshop on the Mobile Web in Developing Countries even though the discussion is valid for the whole mobile web discussion. The main conclusion is that we should of policy and technology constraints discuss whether a mobile web really exist:

When these issues – both on the handset, but most of all on the network side – are resolved then we might start to think of “one web”, until then I think it is better to think of it as ‘different webs yet interacting’. Regardless, cellphones will play an essential part in the future, and especially the exploding use of cellphones in the developing world will force this to happen.

As for applications and generally speaking we will see a lot of social media cellphone applications emerge and cellphones will be used as interaction devices with the web, as well as, when the platform is ready, part of the World Wide Web.

You will find the full document here.

Some notes on Google

150 150 eriks

Just after the deal between Google and YouTube I wrote a short entry on why noone is discussing Google:s very impressive strategy to become the number one player on the whole internet market. It really surprises me is that the same people who blamed Microsoft now seemed completely blinded by the “vision” of Google. Wasn’t this exactly the same scenario Microsoft had to face when they had the same positioning on the PC market? Interesting enough I today read another entry on the same subject which you find here.

Considering Google:s strategy, I think their mission statement soon can be changed to “Google’s mission is to organize, own, and use in whatever way Google see fit the world’s information and make it universally accessible, useful and in as profitable way as possible.” Okay I put this intentionally on the extreme side. However Google has now grown up from this young fresh teenager rebel and now found out they want their own house, and they want it big, they want it all. They seem not to realize that however.

The word ‘own’ is here very interesting as they tend to disrespect copyrights if it doesn’t fit into their strategy. Their moves give a sense that they would like to put all intellectual property right issues as “Google concludes that the copyrights legislation should be interpreted as…” It gives a sense of arrogance which I don’t really see fit nor can understand. From a business perspective, I can understand it. Otherwise it just feels as they are behaving like an obnoxious teenager. Maybe they should listen to the Nobel Prize winner in Peace from the Supreme Court of Iran, who said something like: “You should obey the laws as long as they are there. You can question them and participate in the process to change them, but you should obey them. It is one of the prerequisites of democracy.”

Copyright issues are hard and delicate, but we still should discuss them in a democratic way!

Personally I don’t want company to make legislation decisions as they certainly shouldn’t. I think Google is pushing it in some aspects. For instance their decisions about China really don’t help them.

Doesn’t that feel and look like the same behavior everyone accused Microsoft about before? I definitely think so. Are they evil? Definitely not. They are as evil as Microsoft were or seemed like before they hired Rob Scoble. They are not angels, nor were Microsoft. On the other hand neither Google nor Microsoft is purely evil. Anyone who has thought so is just fooling themselves. In a way I think Google have too much money, too much success. Google has had a party for so long now that I think they have forgotten where they came from. They have lost touch with reality. They will stay big, but they need to realize that they are a big, huge company as so should everyone else.

I think the most important part is really that more people realize that they are a huge company and acting as such. They are not the cool little startup anymore. They are a huge player at the arena. Maybe they are starting to get too big…