In the enjoyable and easy to read Here Comes Everybody, Clay Shirky illustrates how the Internet has revolutionized the way people interact with each other. How we no longer need a hierarchical organization to organize us under the banner of a common goal; how common interest groups can be created and swiftly grown to become global with almost no effort; and how strangers can remain strangers and still collaborate with each other and for as long and as short a period of time as they wish.
Shirky grabs the reader’s attention in the first chapter of the book when he discusses the Sidekick incident. To summarize: a bride-to-be leaves her Sidekick smart phone in a taxi cab. The Sidekick contains much of her wedding plans and the bride-to-be wants her virtual filing cabinet back. She offers a reward that is texted to the lost Sidekick. The phone ends up in the hands of Sasha, a bad-mannered 16-year-old who has no intention of returning the phone to its rightful owner. The story unfolds with the bride-to-be’s techie friend Evan starting a webpage to document the Sidekick incident in a compelling manner that ends up being followed by thousands of international followers and covered in dozens of newspaper stories, including the New York Times. The story ends with the teenager, Sasha, being arrested and the bride-to-be dropping the charges against the teenager… and they all lived happily ever after. The End.
Shirky eludes to the tsunami wave of harassment that Sasha had to endure due to Evan’s documenting efforts. I’m sure that Sasha’s side of the story is a story in itself, and I may just research this a bit later if my school load permits. An entire ethics class could be spent discussing the Sidekick incident. Not only Sasha’s lack of integrity for not returning the Sidekick to its owner but more importantly the responsibility Evan had, if any, of filtering the tormenting verbal assaults spewed at the now regretful teenager. To filer or not to filter? that is the question.
But let’s move on to the rest of Shirky’s work.
Shirky points out Flickr and Wikipedia as two revolutionary collaborative platforms on the Internet. The success of these platforms is due mostly in part to the lack of interference by the platform “managers.” The users have the freedom to coordinate themselves as they wish. Both Flickr and Wikipedia are not only a place to share information but they have become a coordinating resource. For example, some of the first photos of the London Transport Bombing in 2005 were posted on Flickr. Photos of the terrorist attack’s aftermath were posted side by side to photos of official notices that helped keep the public informed. The Flickr page became a sort of virtual memorial of the infamous event and bloggers were able to use the uploaded pictures to add timely, first hand images to their narration.
Shirky also discusses the increase in power of Internet groups. The virtual groups have increased their might not due to a change in the participants’ degree of commitment to the cause but due to the increase in partially-committed members making a difference in the aggregate. Virtual groups are forming in a manner and swiftness not seen before, becoming a global force to be reckon with. These groups are exposing scandal in a quick and absolute manner, and are impacting corporate and public policy.
Here Comes Everybody brings up three intertwined concepts regarding the importance of freedom on the Internet and the prerogative to filter.
The first and big picture idea, is that the Internet is revolutionary because it is global and free. Free of interference, value judgment and most importantly free of gatekeepers. I’m surprised that Shirky doesn’t take the opportunity to explain the important abstruse public policy debate on Network Neutrality. A policy fight, for the last five years, represented on one side by corporate America making claim to the right to manage/control its hefty infrastructure investment on the Internet; and on the other side represented by public interest advocates clamoring for the right to keep the Internet open and free without regard to the market concept of return on investment.
The second idea is at the platform level. Wiki and virtual groups thrive in an ecosystem of little interference. Users are handed as much freedom as possible to create content by sharing ideas, solutions and resources. Users become the vigilantes, protecting the content from vandals. Shirky, nevertheless, does discuss the option to “publish then filter,” as a means to allow and tolerate failure and at the same time filter the good from the mediocre or bad. The distinction here is that the content is allowed to be published and then filtered, something that requires a shift from prevention to monitoring and reaction.
Finally, the idea of a need for communal standards on the Internet. Something I consider to be an urgent and timely policy issue that can no longer be ignored. Shirky writes about “a basic truth of social systems: no efforts at creating group value can be successful without some form of governance.” In my line of work, I bring light to hate speech in media and its dangerous consequences. I’m keenly aware of the frequent violation to people’s reputation and privacy by anonymous Internet hoodlums, and the tragic truth of the 7/24 virtual bullying revolution that sometimes result in children committing suicide. Why can’t we expect civility on the Internet as a norm and not a bargain? The pro-freedom argument that the value of freedom outweighs the problems doesn’t give us the luxury to ignore the responsibility to protect the most vulnerable in our society – our children.
ZezInez 