For a free country, the United States is a bigger fan of censorship than it likes to admit. Sure, the Constitution protects free speech. We have an independent judiciary, and we govern ourselves through elected representatives. But, Americans censor themselves everyday without realizing it. Most importantly, our ultimate fear of a strong and centralized power may not be worth the attention that we lavish on it.

There’s another threat out there, and we ignore it all of the time.

Big Brother, in our current situation, isn’t who we think he is. He can be an overly powerful person or group, but in America I’d argue that he doesn’t just take this form. He’s us. And we love him.

Take the Tea Party. Championing small government and free markets, this group of conservatives have hyperventilated over the past two years about an alleged infringement of our liberties by the bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. Conversely, liberals routinely are up in arms about powerful monied interests like the Koch brothers… who, they argue, wield a disproportionate amount of power.

In each case, there is a fear that “other” groups are trying to control what we see, know, and hear. Be it Rupert Murdoch or NPR, Americans distrust other people’s interpretation of fact. We’re vigilant for external censorship, but never seem to be when looking in the mirror.

Over the past few years, I’ve railed against what I see as technology-enhanced information biases. Among their problems and causes:

• The Internet makes it easy to produce, proliferate, and share information. So [...]
• [...] traditional news sources have segmented allowing people to pick among them. Moreover, [...]
• [...] our biases provide an incentive for us to read, watch, or listen to things that fit our world-view. Worse yet [...]
• [...] this is made worse by a saturated media market full of producers competing for our attention. Of these, those those who reinforce our world-view usually win out. [Also,]
• [...] many cost barriers to media production have disappeared, so professionalization has decreased. So, [...]
• [...] anyone can pretend to be an “expert” while [...]
• [...] it’s difficult to tell who creates what.

Yes. I know that this is an argument that I’ve repeated ad-naseum, but reading Wired today I came across another example that changed my perception of the problem.

In a TED presentation, Eli Pariser argued that the Internet has allowed us to encase ourselves in “information bubbles.” Taking my assessment of bias, he attacks it from another direction by highlighting  ”junk food algorithms.”  You see many web tools are behaviorally driven. Using Facebook as an example, if I click on links from liberal friends then it will eventually learn to show only links from my liberal friends.

Pariser argued, essentially, that we as a society have moved from an age were people acted as the gatekeepers of information to one where programs do. Next, he pointed out his desire for developers to make sure that their programs ensure diverse and representative information continues to be shared. A diversity of viewpoints is, after all, necessary to arrive at an informed conclusion.

While his point is interesting, I’d argue that he still opens himself to a dangerous counter-argument.

Algorithm driven or not, web search results are queried by people. Not programmers. Ultimately, people are responsible for the material they search for; both past and present. Since this is the case, doesn’t tinkering disregard their ability to choose? Doesn’t it amount to censorship? Here is where my perception shifted.

The answer, I would argue, depends on how “freely” you believe that people can choose to search for information, and how biased they can be.

On one hand, if people can independently and freely choose what they search for, then creating an algorithm which “learns” preferences isn’t a bad thing. Adjusting to ignore past choices must then amount to censorship. But, on the other hand if they are like I argued – they have biases and habits (exacerbated by new media) which create a self-reinforcing cycle – then the answer is no.

The answer is no because algorithm programmers aren’t choosing winners and losers. Instead, they are directly combating censorship. They’re targeting self-censoring behavior.

Sometimes, people get so caught up in the pursuit of personal liberty that they fail to realize it’s possible to censor oneself without consciously choosing to do so. In a way, then, we arrive at an instance of Big Brother not being an external person. It’s one where Big Brother is us.

It’s ironic then that the mirrors and televisions from 1984 were windows into people’s lives; a tool for direct censorship. In America today, the same is true but it just as quickly reveals a rarely noticed source. Oneself.

You can’t search for what you don’t know about or want to see. And if you can’t search for anything, then you aren’t truly free.

Yesterday, Google rolled out it’s latest in a string of improvements to their search functionality. Google Instant’s, “most obvious change is that you get to the right content much faster than before because you don’t have to finish typing your full search term, or even press “search.” [It...] helps you formulate a better search term by providing instant feedback.” At first I was impressed. Then, I realized this is nothing new.

To balance out the “feelings of euphoria and weightlessness,” here are some reasons why users should to come back to Earth:

All-in-all, I’m pleased with the changes they’ve made. Given some of the hype out there, though, these points sum up exactly what Google Instant is: a nice tweak. We aren’t seeing anything new, it’s not special, and it certainly isn’t a fundamental breakthrough.

Bricks in the Wall: 5.75/10.

I know I’ve posted quite a few websites lately, but the Federal Government came out with another site that I’ll be using quite a bit today. From the Data.gov “About” page:

As a priority Open Government Initiative for President Obama’s administration, Data.gov increases the ability of the public to easily find, download, and use datasets that are generated and held by the Federal Government. A primary goal is to improve access to Federal data and expand creative use of those data beyond the walls of government by encouraging innovative ideas (e.g., web applications). Data.gov strives to make government more transparent and is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. The openness derived from Data.gov will strengthen our Nation’s democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.

While I’m not sure about how open datasets will increase government transparency – the general public don’t know jack about analytics – it certainly seems to be a useful tool for researchers, web-developers, and anyone who needs raw data. What is going to be really interesting is how the internet community takes advantage of this it. The Federal Government is the largest statistics keeper in the country, and this certainly creates plenty of opportunities for the library world.

So get out there folks!

When my parents moved to rural Fordland, Missouri two years ago they expected to give up a few luxuries. First, they have to commute to town for work, food, and most of their basic needs. Sometimes this includes a thirty minute drive to Springfield. Second, they gave up local utilities, and at least in part thanks to my dad, are living on a home-brewed utility network (i.e. a well and several solar panels). But, they never realized how much of a pain it was to get access to external information.

The Webster County Library is twenty miles away and their only options for Internet access are dial-up and an expensive satellite Internet contract. A few months ago the local phone company provided DSL service to the rest of the people on their road, but because they live in a valley the company decided not to hook them up. Interestingly enough this presents a very unique situation. With the Internet out of reach and broadband necessary to access all but the most basic sites my parents are effectively being denied a link to the outside world. Given a recent NPR piece on rural Internet networks this is the case for about 10% of the United States.

Twenty years ago nobody would have considered the Internet and information access to be a utility. I’m not so sure this is the case anymore. With important Government information, forms, and other private sector data only accessible online those without access are left, well, disenfranchised. The children who group up in rural environments are notably at a disadvantage as well. Though I haven’t taken the time to lay out a strong argument for it my intuitions certainly seem to hint that the Internet is a utility that all Americans should have access to. After all, isn’t the cornerstone of Democracy an informed general populace?