Slashdot Mirror
Lawrence Lessig Reviews The Social Network
Hugh Pickens writes "Lawrence Lessig — author, Harvard law professor, co-founder of Creative Commons — reviews The Social Network in The New Republic. Although Lessig says the movie is an 'intelligent, beautiful, and compelling film,' he adds that as a story about Facebook, it is deeply, deeply flawed because the movie fails to even mention the real magic behind the Facebook story, and while everyone walking out out of the movie will think they understand the genius of the internet, almost none of them will have seen the real ethic of internet creativity that makes success stories like Facebook possible. 'Because the platform of the Internet is open and free, or in the language of the day, because it is a "neutral network," a billion Mark Zuckerbergs have the opportunity to invent for the platform,' writes Lessig. 'And that is tragedy because just at the moment when we celebrate the product of these two wonders — Zuckerberg and the Internet — working together, policymakers are conspiring ferociously with old world powers to remove the conditions for this success. As "network neutrality" gets bargained away — to add insult to injury, by an administration that was elected with the promise to defend it — the opportunities for the Zuckerbergs of tomorrow will shrink.' Lessig laments that the creators of the movie didn't understand the ethic of Internet creativity and thought that the real story was the invention of Facebook not the platform that made such democratic innovation possible. 'Zuckerberg is a rightful hero of our time,' concludes Lessig. 'As I looked around at the packed theater of teens and twenty-somethings, there was no doubt who was in the right, however geeky and clumsy and sad. That generation will judge this new world. If, that is, we allow that new world to continue to flourish.'"
...is that anyone can write apps that will suck the remaining privacy we have out of us and sell it to the highest bidder.
that he stole this idea from people that hired him to develop it?
Of course! Every movie having anything to do with the internet should be an op-ed piece supporting net neutrality. That'll work.
Network neutrality isn't about unabated access to download copyrighted content, it's about keeping the Internet a level playing field. Without network neutrality, big companies like Microsoft, Google and Apple can pay ISPs to put their sites on the premium tier so that you get fast access to them, while poor startups and normal people with brilliant ideas will be relegated to the slower tier. I've even seen concern about ISPs one day offering packages a la cable TV - you can get Google, Yahoo and MSN with the basic package but then you'd have to add a sports/tech/music/etc. package to access those sites. It's not even limited to websites. ISPs could grant you HTTP access with the basic package and then you'd have to add FTP, NNTP, VOIP and other "value add" services". I realize that's hyperbole and possibly FUD but it's not the type of Internet I'd like to use. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality
This sig is in another castle.
Facebook may be the next Windows -- a dominant, proprietary platform on which everyone else's apps run. Add the absence of end-user control of the applications and data (including privacy), and it's antithetical to the free, open, and end-user controlled Internet on which it's built. How will the next Zuckerberg build his application? Not so easily, since he'll be dependent on the closed, proprietary systems and data of Facebook, doing only the things that they permit and only when, where, and how they want it.
Mozilla helped save us from a closed, proprietary web browser (one reason Facebook could blossom). With that battle won and a proliferation of browsers and Microsoft adopting open standards, they are struggling a bit to find a mission. I wish they would turn to their attention to the next issue of the open Internet, a free and open social network.
He used the open internet and tools to make a walled garden. Not exactly a triumph of openness.
No, this is part of the problem with the network neutrality debate. It actually got started after CEO of some big American telco whose name I forget said things like "Why should Google make money by using my pipes? I paid for those pipes, they should share the costs", ignoring the fact that he was already being paid by his customers. ISPs charging companies for priority access to customers purely on the basis of wanting more profit would clearly be both new and bad, thus network neutrality was born.
Somewhere along the way the debate seems to have got hijacked by those you describe, aka "people wanting free stuff", and somehow bandwidth shaping got lumped in too (sometimes). ISPs controlling how their customers use limited, overcommitted bandwidth isn't new nor particularly alarming, as you point out it can even be seen as a feature by others who aren't sitting on BitTorrent 24/7 and want fast access. Also, anyone can buy dedicated, non-overcommitted bandwidth if they want it by renting a leased line from various providers, so it's not even a matter of lacking choice.
The result is quite a mess. The original principles are sound but what the debate morphed into no longer bears much resemblence to them.
Zuckenberg was portrayed as a "hero" ?
When I left the movie, I had the impression that Zunkenberg was portrayed as a thieving, condescending, misogynistic, little twerp. He stole everybody else's ideas, idolized a child molesting drug abuser, and betrayed his best (only?) friend. His only redeeming value is that he was a talented programmer.
Not my idea of a hero, but then, I don't idolize Bill Gates either.
"In the U.S., morality is praised over quick wit."
You new here or something?
Good one, claim you are not a troll when trolling.
Guns are only wanted by criminals.
Cars are only wanted by speeders.
The article links net neutrality to Facebook. You link it to copyright infringement, completly ignoring the case of Lessig.
Net neutrality means ANYONE, no matter their status has the same access to the web. That means that if I start a website tomorrow, it will be transported around the web with the same speed as Facebook, the ISP's own home page, Apples iTunes, CNN or someone's homepage.
This means I get the same breaks. This is REVOLUTIONARY about the web. BEFORE the web, the only way to be published big was to publish big. ONLY the largest newspapers could afford to distribute cross country, nevermind distribute globally. With the internet, MY website can be accessed ANYWHERE!
This allows me to compete. Imagine if Myspace had simply been able to buy special access. If ISP's could demand of every website a fee to be distributed like with Cable TV. Can't pay the fee? Then you don't get on their network. How was Facebook to startup then? How can you start a new tv network without millions in backing and the lockin that brings?
How CAN I start a new news network that broadcasts to every home independent of the powers that be if I need the powers that be to pay for the access?
If you don't get this, if you think it is about copyright infringement then you are the person who wanted presses banned because it allowed books to be owned by poor people. Either you are too stupid to get freedom, or you hate freedom.
There is no middle ground in this. You can't put restrictions on who can access a media and expect everyone to be able to use it. Unless of course you think only those with enough money should have a voice.
What the press did for political freedom, the internet is doing a thousand times over. But then, if you take your freedom for granted, or worse are willing to sell it, then I suppose none of this means anything.
Perhaps you are not a troll after all. There are worse things then trolls. People who do not value freedom. A willing slave.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
We're talking about two different things here. You're talking about the end user's connection. Net Neutrality is about the content providers' connection.
I have no problem with tiered bandwidth plans. I play online games and stream movies and TV shows over Hulu and Netflix so I gladly pay for the top tier service to have the most available bandwidth. My parents check email and read the news online so they have the basic tier. There's no need for everyone to have a 30/10 Internet connection.
To quote SaveTheInternet.com
"Net Neutrality means no discrimination. Net Neutrality prevents Internet providers from blocking, speeding up or slowing down Web content based on its source, ownership or destination....The free and open Internet brings with it the revolutionary possibility that any Internet site could have the reach of a TV or radio station. The loss of Net Neutrality would end this unparalleled opportunity for freedom of expression."
Since you cite Comcast as the example, they just bought NBC. Without Network Neutrality, what's to stop Comcast from throttling the ABC and CBS websites unless they pay for top tier service? The lack of neutrality undermines competition and traps us in a system where a few powerful corporations control the content we see and hear. When was the last time you heard independent music on a radio station that wasn't in a college town? ClearChannel decides what music you want to hear and then puts it on repeat.
The success of the Internet itself and the countless success stories that have arisen from the Internet are because of the unfettered access it gives you to the rest of the world. Anyone can create something and share it with everyone without a corporation deciding to charge them or even prevent them from sharing because it doesn't agree with the corporation's viewpoint.
This sig is in another castle.