Anyhow - it's a tech column, and as all of us who work with him know, Wayne is always on top of whatever new doo-dads and gadgets and web 2.0 tools are coming out that people can use to do podcasts, web sites or other online interactive things. So, obviously if he's writing a tech column where he's telling us all about this new stuff, it's going to be made by some company or other, and if he likes whatever new gadget he finds (which would be the point of writing about it) then it might sound like an ad for the company that makes it. But really, it's just a review.

Anyway, as Michelle mentioned, there is a difference between promoting the fashionable product of a large corporation and say, the Linux distro I just installed last month (it's so easy to use! Where I used to wait hours for Windows to load up all the crap during startup before I could use it, now I just hurl my laptop across the room in frustration and write letters. Progress!). I think the journalist intended to demonstrate the massive impact technology has on culture, and was perhaps blinded by his own Apple bias. I guess I just thought that if I wanted to hear how great Apple was, or how imminent the death of desktop software was, I'd read Wired.

What I expect on a site like babble, however, is perhaps something along the lines of Merryblue's critique: that universality of technology is imaginary. According to this site, less than more than 30% of Canadians don't use the internet. Statscan reported that only 66% of Canadians use a cell phone, and it's safe to assume that PDA usage is significantly lower. Who are most likely to be on the wrong side of the technology gap and who are progressives trying to reach again?

I might also examine the contradiction underlying progressive aims promoted through dominant corporate infrastructure. It's not like activists should not be expected to make use of technology--of course they should--but often the promotion of consumer culture through hot items like the iPod Touch affirms the very values leftists should try to undermine. Perhaps a look at the disposable technology the iPod has traditionally enacted (we don't replace the battery, but we'll give you a discount on the next gen model), the "locking" of the iPhone so that you can only use a specific carrier, or the numerous open source jacks that have been developed to counter Apple's hegemony. To me, this seems more useful to the activist than casually mentioning RSS feeds.

This is way more criticism than I usually give rabble columns, but I guess I've been waiting for a tech column for a while, so these are somewhat canned ideas that have been set loose.

[ 05 November 2007: Message edited by: Catchfire ]

I'll also be writing about stuff with no brand names attached and about tech issues that I think matter to the left and the general public. Bell-Sympatico throttling bandwidth comes to mind.

I'm a fan of great industrial design, no matter who does it, and I'm very keen on user-centric online experiences - no matter who offers them. Not so keen on cornea gumbo and clunky menu junk (GIMP, I'm talking to you).

I like Apple products, but am less thrilled with their AT&T spawned crappy consumer behaviour regarding the iPhone (paid ringtones, late-to-the-party SDK, locked phone).

Hope you enjoy the column, thanks for reading so far.

[ 08 November 2007: Message edited by: Wayne MacPhail ]

quote:

---

Plus, I don't hold to the opinion that everything on rabble has to be political.

---

And I disagree that rabble content has always been 99.9% political. The RPN, for instance, has all sorts of progressive, but not necessarily political, podcasts. auntie.com isn't all political. And certainly babble has never been all political.

My vision of rabble is as an online meeting space for progressives. I personally have always thought we could use MORE content that is progressive but not necessarily completely political, especially judging from how many non-political babble threads generate so much interest. Furthermore, I think everything CAN be seen as political, in a way. The way we live our lives is profoundly political, from the food we cook and eat, to the stuff we consume (or don't consume), to the popular culture that interests us, etc.

Why do you think babble has been such a popular part of the site for so long? It's because we can talk about anything here, not just specifically politics, as long as we do it within progressive parameters.

I think there is a discussion to be had among progressives about new tech products out there that facilitate communications, especially ones that are accessible to individuals or small organizations who might want to do some DIY broadcasting or consciousness-raising. And lo and behold, we're having this discussion because Wayne wrote the column about the tools he uses and we're talking about what the politics is behind the decision to use or not use certain technologies or buy from certain companies.

I hadn't expected to be subject to those influences here.

Now I keep half-expecting tech banner ads, or contextual product placement in the other columns.

[ 22 November 2007: Message edited by: Wayne MacPhail ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wayne MacPhail:
Just don't tell me my column about net neutrality made you sign up for cable.

---

Didn't read it.

Why, were you enthusiastically boosting Rogers products as a means for readers to engage in political action?

[ 24 November 2007: Message edited by: triciamarie ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Maybe you should read it and then you'll know what he was talking about.

It's kind of rude to attack someone's column if you're not going to bother reading it first, don't you think?

---

Correction: Wayne MacPhail attacked ME in reference to that column.

My earlier comments to Wayne were in regard to the iTouch article. Based on his response to the concerns that have been raised, I see no reason to believe that readers will not be subject to the same openly pro-consumption message in future. I have explained my personal difficulty with this particularly when it is couched in terms of political activism.

So why would I continue to read this?

[ 24 November 2007: Message edited by: triciamarie ]

I think it's kind of unfair to judge someone who has written three columns on only one of them. Most columnists have written at least one column I've disagreed with. Why write someone off after just one column?

I think your questions (and others who have raised them) are good for discussion. That is, the question of how much to "buy in" to certain products in order to use them for activist purposes.

At what point do new gadgets go from being tools for change and become toys for overconsumption? Or are they both on some level?

I don't think that is a resolved debate on the left, and certainly there's no agreed-upon line.

I do apologize for the "rude" comment. I guess I just really liked his last two comments and was feeling protective as a result.

[ 24 November 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
[QB]...implying that a columnist would put paid product placement in his column as you did is also a pretty huge insult.

---

Actually, I didn't intend to imply that Wayne is bought. The joke was that the other Rabble columnists will start finding sneaky ways to introduce product placement in their columns, ie to support ad revenues from internet traffic -- not, obviously, a likely outcome for that bunch -- thus the (attempted) humour.

quote:

---

Why write someone off after just one column?

---

I'll probably get over it and go back to reading him in a while.

Some of my best friends are techies so it will actually be very helpful to be able to communicate about political issues with them in terms of their own area of interest.

And certainly Wayne will have my undying loyalty if there is ever a column on the features and capabilities of the federal Conservative party's CIMS constituent and supporter tracking system (aka CPC scary database, per a previous thread).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wayne MacPhail:
Hope you enjoy the column.

---

quote:

---

You can't argue, however, that a nation of knowledge workers with access to a high-speed wirelessly networked uber-smartphones isn't a bit of a global leg up.

...

So, it's important, when we see things like a lack of a Canadian iPhone or an e-book that doesn't work cross-border, to pay attention. They signal an important technological shift, disguised as something you might think only nerds with disposable income should care about. For now, it’s just a couple of expensive tech-baubles that are tantalizingly out of reach. In five years, a lot more may exceed our grasp.

---

I really didn't think it mattered too much whether we get the same tech toys as the US. But I can see how it DOES matter whether we are able to participate in the new communications systems being developed, especially for people who work in the field.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
First of all, if they try to keep it too much to themselves, then they won't be able to reach their markets around the world, and that would affect their bottom line. Secondly, countries like Canada have a ton of knowledge workers of our own who can also invent or copy technology. If google doesn't want Canada's UHF market, I'm sure that some other Canadian company will!

---

You're absolutely right. Canada has loads of under-utilized talent. Jim Stanford said in 2005 that that was the year Canada's exports shifted back to non value added raw materials and energy and mainly to the U.S.

[ 04 December 2007: Message edited by: Wayne MacPhail ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
I welcome Wayne's latest article on DRM, and rather enjoyed it. (This article that I read yesterday was popping to mind as I was reading.)

But I'm not looking forward to yet more reviews of hardware and software in this venue. There are lots of outlets for such opinions, and there's nothing particularly politically progressive about technology. I'd be afraid that such reviews would displace more pertinent content here.

---

[ 24 July 2008: Message edited by: Lard Tunderin' Jeezus ]

What I read was a column where he said he wants the open-source movement to succeed, compared the useability of an iPhone to the open-source NEO, found the NEO desperately lacking (poor design, not user-friendly), and analyzed why the corporations have been making better products than the open-source movement (because they're focused on excellent design and useability rather than geek-chic, ugly fixer-uppers that only a techie could figure out).

It's critical of the open-source movement, to be sure. But it's not critical from a pro-corporate point of view. It's critical from the perspective of wanting to see improvement.

Now, I can see going stateside and buying an iPhone and then bringing it here and unlocking it. (Yes, I know it's illegal, but I have no moral issue with people doing that.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wayne MacPhail:
I wish I'd never heard of Bill Gates. Seriously, though, it's also important that we think of technology beyond desktop computers. A lot of good work is being done in Africa by doing news coverage via cellphone. And, initiatives like the OLPC One Laptop Per Child project, promises to bring technology to children who would otherwise never be able to connect to the web or share their stories online. That's the stuff that really excites me.

---

20 Laws of the Telecosm George Gilder

[ 25 July 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Heh. Well, I think Wayne has joined what I like to call The Apple Cult.

---

What I want to know is, did the anti-Apple cult start before Apple did, or did it anticipate Apple's birth? There seems to be a segment of the population that barfs and spews invective every time Apple is mentioned. FOr the most part they are those who picture themselves as corporate right wingers. It's no accident that free thinkers prefer Apples. They just make your life easier.

But, on to organizing. WIthin the context of our campaign to save the Ogoki forest, the internet and message boards like this have made it possible for individuals like myself to make submissions to the MNR and others, that previously would have been possible for ENGO's with paid research staff. Not that I have had even one response from any of the politicians I've contacted.