Post Free Speech

Tiananmen photo mashup

Saturday, January 28th, 2006

This cries out for a photo mashup, so here it is:

tiananmen photo mash

That’s the first photo mashup I’ve ever done, so it’s very simple. I opened the photo in the , opened the photo in a second layer, then searched for filters that would allow me to combine them — Layer|Transparency|Color to Alpha accomplished exactly what I wanted.

tiananmen photo mash

I thought this JPEG export at zero quality looks kind of neat.

NB I don’t think has done anything wrong google.cn. The appropriate response is not anger with Google, but action to spread the information the Communist Party of China wants to suppress.

What’s your Freedom/China Ratio?

Thursday, January 26th, 2006

Fred Stutzman points out that for the query site:ibiblio.org google.com estimates 7,640,000 hits while google.cn estimates 1,610,000, perhaps explained in part by support of freedom in Tibet.

That’s an impressive ratio of 4.75 pages findable in the relatively free world to 1 page findable in , call it a domain FCR of 4.75.

The domain FCR of a few sites I’m involved with:

bitzi.com: 635,000/210,000 = 3.02
creativecommons.org: 213,000/112,000 = 1.90
gondwanaland.com: 514/540 = 0.95

Five other sites of interest:

archive.org: 5,900,000/427,000 = 13.82
blogspot.com: 24,300,000/15,400,000 = 1.58
ibiblio.org: 5,260,000/ 1,270,000 = 4.14
typepad.com: 13,100,000 /2,850,000 = 4.60
wikipedia.org: 156,000,000/17,000,000 = 9.18

If you are cool your FCR will be very high. The third site above is my personal domain. I am obviously very uncool and so loved by the that they have twisted Google’s arm to make more of my blog posts available in China than are available elsewhere.

The is obviously the coolest site by far amongst those surveyed above, followed by . Very curious that apparently blocks a far higher percentage of pages at the blog service than of those at Google property .

It must be noted that the number of hits any web scale search engine claims are only estimates and these can vary considerably. Presumably Stutzman and I were hitting different Google servers, or perhaps his preferences are set slightly differently (I do have “safe search” off and accept results in any language — the obvious variables). However, the FCR from our results for site:ibiblio.org roughly agree.

Here’s a feeble attempt to draw the ire of PRC censors and increase my FCR:

Bryan Caplan’s Museum of Communism
Human Rights in China
Tiananmen Square Massacre
Government of Tibet in Exile
Tibet Online
民主進步黨 (Taiwan )

Note that I don’t really care about which jurisdiction or jurisdictions , , the or elsewhere fall under. would be preferable to the current arrangement, if the former led to more freedom, which it plausibly could. I post some independence-oriented links simply because I know that questions of territorial control matter deeply to states and my goal here is to increase my FCR.

You should attempt to increase your FCR, too. No doubt you can find better links than I did. If enough people try, the Google.cn index will become less interesting, though by one global method of guestimation, it is already seriously lacking. Add claimed hits for queries for html and -html to get a total index size.

google.com: 4,290,000,000 + 6,010,000,000 = 10,300,000,000
google.cn: 2,370,000,000 + 3,540,000,000 = 5,910,000,000

So the global FCR is 10,300,000,000/5,910,000,000 = 1.74

Although my domain FCR is lame, my name FCR is not bad (query for linksvayer) — 98,200/21,500 = 4.57.

Give me ∞ or give me the death of censorship!

(I eagerly await evidence that my methodology and assumptions are completely wrong.)

EFF15

Monday, August 1st, 2005

The Electronic Frontient Foundation is 15 and wants “to hear about your ‘click moment’–the very first step you took to stand up for your digital rights.

I don’t remember. It musn’t have been a figurative “click moment.” Probably not a literal “click moment” either–I doubt I used a mouse.

A frequent theme of other EFF15 posts seems to be “how I become a copyfighter” or “how I became a digital freedom activist.” I’ve done embarrassingly little (the occasional letter to a government officeholder, Sklyarov protests, the odd mailing list or blog post, running non-infringing P2P nodes, a more often lapsed than not EFF membership), but that’s the tack I’ll take here.

As a free speech absolutist I’ve always found the concept of “digital rights” superfluous. Though knowledge of computers may have helped me understand “the issues,” I needed none to oppose crypto export laws, the clipper chip, CDA, DMCA, perpetual copyright extension and the like. Still, I hold “ditigal rights,” for lack of a better term, near and dear. So how I became a copyfighter of sorts: four “click themes,” one with a “click moment.” All coalesced around 1988-1992, happily matching my college years, which otherwise were a complete waste of time.

First, earliest, and most important, I’d had an ear for “experimental” music since before college. At college I scheduled and skipped classes and missed sleep around WEFT schedule. Nothing was better than great music, and from my perspective, big record companies provided none of it. There was and is more mind-blowingly escastic music made for peanuts than I could hope to experience in many lifetimes. I didn’t have the terms just yet, but it was intuitively obvious that there was no public goods provisioning problem for art, at least not for anything I appreciated, while there was a massive oversupply of abominable anti-art.

Second, somewhere between reading libertarian tracts and studying economics, I hit upon the idea that “intellectual property” may be neither. Those are likely sources anyway–I don’t remember where I first came across the idea. I kept an eye out for confirmation and somewhere, also forgotten, I found a reference to Tom Palmer‘s Intellectual Property: A Non-Posnerian Law and Economics Approach. Finding and reading the article, which describes intellectual property as a state-granted monopoly privilege developed through rent seeking by publishers and non-monopoly means of producing intangible goods, at my university’s law library was my “click moment.”

Third, I saw great promise in the nascent free software movement, and I wanted to run UNIX on my computer. I awaited 386BSD with baited breath and remember when Torvalds announced Linux on Usenet. I prematurely predicted world domination a few times, but regardless, free software was and is the most concrete, compelling and hopeful sign that large scale non-monopoly production of non-rivalrous goods is possible and good, and that the net facilitates such production, and that freedom on the net and free software together render each other more useful, imporant, and defensible.

Fourth, last, and least important, I followed the cypherpunks list for some time, where the ideas of crypto anarchy and BlackNet were developed. In the ten years or so since the net has not turned inside out nor overturned governments and corporations, yet we are very early in its history. Cypherpunk outcomes may remain vaporware indefinitely, but nonetheless are evocative of the transformational potential of the net. I do not know what ends will occur, but I’ll gladly place my bets on, and defend, the means of freedom and decentralization rather than control and protectionism.

The EFF has done an immense amount of great work over the past 15 years. You should join, and I will update my membership. However, my very favorite thing about the EFF is indirect–I’ve seen co-founder and board member John Gilmore at both drug war and DMCA protests. If you care about digital rights or any rights at all and do not understand descruction of individuals, rights, and societies wreaked by the drug war, there’s no time like the present to learn–the first step needed in order to stand up for your rights.


Blog-a-thon tag:

Infoanarchy, DRM and Celestial Jukebox

Monday, January 10th, 2005

On the brouhaha over Bill Gates’ interview with CNET at CES. The relevant bit:

[D]o you think intellectual-property laws need to be reformed?

No, I’d say that of the world’s economies, there’s more that believe in intellectual property today than ever. There are fewer communists in the world today than there were. There are some new modern-day sort of communists who want to get rid of the incentive for musicians and moviemakers and software makers under various guises. They don’t think that those incentives should exist.

And this debate will always be there. I’d be the first to say that the patent system can always be tuned–including the U.S. patent system. There are some goals to cap some reform elements. But the idea that the United States has led in creating companies, creating jobs, because we’ve had the best intellectual-property system–there’s no doubt about that in my mind, and when people say they want to be the most competitive economy, they’ve got to have the incentive system. Intellectual property is the incentive system for the products of the future.

The “communists” bit is the part that has gotten so many people worked up.

The Response. I enjoy calling out Gates’ idiocies as much as the next person, though much of the response I’ve seen has been a tad ebullient. Microsoft fans don’t create fascist art knockoffs when that company’s detractors incorrectly call it fascist. Glenn Otis Brown has the best response I’ve seen, posted on the Creative Commons weblog.

What Would Brezhnev Do? In a communist state would there be no financial incentives for artists? No, they’d simply be employed by the state. The Soviet Union took information control to extremes, including prohibiting use of photocopiers by scientists. I suspect that had the USSR survived to this day, the KGB would now be furiously trying to make Digital Restrictions Management work so as to gain access to a few of the wonders of computing without permitting open communication.

Advice to Gates. Call reformers anarchists rather than communists. For most people “anarchist” is derogatory and you wouldn’t be telling quite as much of a bald-faced lie.

The Real Issue. Forget labels. Gates’ substantial claim is that strong intellectual protectionism drives economic growth. Gates believes this. He isn’t simply shilling for MSFT’s latest strategy. It is on this point that Gates must be rebutted.

Apologies to you the reader and to Robert Nozick for this post’s overwrought title.

Brutally Bogus Link Policy Clearinghouse

Wednesday, October 13th, 2004

Linking policies are stupid, but Boing Boing’s hack (no site with a linking policy, other than this one, may link to BB) doesn’t seem like the right response, despite a similarity to the GPL hack.

Instead of demanding that do-not-link-to-me sites not link to anti-link-policy-folk, it makes sense to me to do what the former ask, as the policy in question is self-defeating — inbound links are all important, ask any SEO huckster. However, antis need to go further, as simply not doing what do-not-link-to-me sites stupidly do not want us to do isn’t exactly a roof raising call to action.

The next step is to create a links-that-don’t-want-to-be clearinghouse for the purpose of destroying whatever GoogleJuice the foolish sites may have. So imagine a site with a do-not-link-to-me policy, example.com. Sites that would otherwise link to a page on example.com should instead prefix their link with http://stupidlinkpolicy.net/, e.g., http://stupidlinkpolicy.net/http://example.com/foo/bar.html. The content at this last URL would include the title and a page rank boosting summary of the content at http://example.com/foo/bar.html and an explanation of why the user hasn’t landed at the site they probably expected. If example.com ever removes its stupid linking policy, stupidlinkpolicy.net would redirect requests for http://stupidlinkpolicy.net/http://example.com/foo/bar.html to http://example.com/foo/bar.html.

A stupid link policy clearinghouse of this sort would be very easy to create, lots of work to maintain. Someone should do it. :-)

I realize that this doesn’t affirm the right to link whatever stupid link policies may say. Perhaps in order to do this and as a convenience to hapless searchers the clearinghouse itself would link to the pages it discusses, though via redirects so as to still withold juice.