The Internet in Society: Empowering or Censoring Citizens?

Reflections based on Eugeny Morozov’s / RSA Animate - 

The Internet in Society: Empowering or Censoring Citizens?

The main discussion point from this presentation comes from the following question:

Is internet promoting democracy?

Some evidence seems to support the hypothesis that internet promotes democracy, but Eugeny Morozov shows us other evidence which could be considered to support dictators.

Internet is a cheap, easy, fast way to add content. Therefore ideas and opinions can be easily shared and spread, thus promoting democracy.

This makes us think that dictators would not welcome the use of technology to promote democracy. But is it true that dictators fear internet? Or is it a myth? The truth is that they are very actively involved. There is much criticism in Chinese Blogs, for example.

Why do non-democratic governments tolerate blogs criticizing them? Because it provides them with important information without having to use their secret services. Dictatorships need this because they have created a vacuum of information by punishing certain “real world” information channels. This information can provide them with suggestions to improve their administration.

This, in my opinion, is a way to “soften” a dictatorship. Dictators use this technique to “listen” to their citizens, keeping an authoritarian-controlling reputation. In a way is also a way to promote democratic values.

However, this information can also provide dictators with trails leading to names of people promoting protests…. and a possibility of prosecuting them.

In Thailand citizens are encouraged to provide websites that are against the Thai monarchy. In Saudi Arabia citizens are encouraged to report youtube videos which are against “their” culture. The problem obviously is that anyone can block a website, and to unblock it is very difficult. Not great to make enemies if you have an online business in one of these countries.

We talk about digital immigrants and digital natives, but not about digital renegades and digital captives, which is more important. Sometimes we are “forced” to follow certain communication channels. And there are many “forces” in the new system.

The author notes that pornography is still the most powerful “dictator” in the internet wolrd. Could Mouslow pyramid of needs’ (Physiological, Safety, Belonging, Esteem, Self actualisations) be applied to internet? Do users move up the pyramid once the current level has been fulfilled? If pornography is still the dominant content of internet, is it because it is at the basic level (Physiological needs)? Do surfers move to more educational “needs” afterwards?

It would be very interesting to study statistics showing this trends. I am sure google has very useful data which could be used. What do they use this information for?

Since they seem to control what we see through their filter bubbles*, could we consider google and facebook the new technological dictators?

·      *  see Reflections based on Pariser's TEDtalk "Beware online filter bubbles".

http://leadership-technology.blogspot.ch/2013/02/reflections-based-on-video-beware.html

Organizational shrapnel

Reflections based on Article & Video

Organizational shrapnel

 By  John Mikton

Organizational Shrapnel is defined in this article as a state which generates a lot of inefficiencies, frustrations, errors, in-competencies, and slowdowns in accomplishing tasks in an organization.  

In this frustrating state people trend to find who is guilty…. but this only creates more confusion. People feel that there are things that they should not feel responsible to do, but if they do not do them there will be consequences.

It is in this state when most organizations break…and some succeed.

The key factor here is that all team members have to know (and or trust) that the other members are all going to succeed in their respective tasks. If, for example, a member does not play in the same direction, then everything else falls apart. People decide to do things on their own and there is no team work. Many roads are build leading to the same point, but they cannot be used.

Examples are:

·       A team works together and defines group agreements, but a member continually does not abide by these.

·       A decision is made and agreed upon, but there is no clear implementation plan, or process for feedback and evaluation.

·       A process or procedure is implemented within the organization, some stakeholder decide to follow it, others decide to not use it and use an alternative in isolation of the rest of the organization.

·       A collaborative group works together, but all the actions and follow through are continually done by a few, and others play lip service to the work but are not participating actively and tend to block movement in the meeting setting

·       An event, or task is organized and one of the stakeholders makes an error but does not report it, or share this out so others can support in correcting this.

Collaborating within a big institution can be quite complicated. If everyone understands what causes this organizational shrapnel. If there is a system that supports the team work, if there is an empathetic understanding of the situation, then the whole organization can work more efficiently.

It is very difficult to be innovative if every time there is a change the organization collapses and fails as a team.

Every organization has some degree of Organizational Shrapnel. The successful ones are the ones that create an environment where there is a high motivation of all participants about the situation and the flow of generating innovation continues.

Developing Effective Technology Plans

Reflections based on article: Developing Effective Technology Plans

by John See

Planning school technology is like planning the uncertain future, the unknown. However, we can use something we know very well: the past.

John See gives us a very good list of tips from past experiences.

In this post I will explore them, giving my own interpretations.

I>             Do not plan too far ahead and be flexible. Technology will change in a few years. Leave room for improvements not yet available.

II>         Plan for results not for intentions. It is not the number of machines or software that counts. It is how they are used to enhance student’s learning.

III>      Technology is there to help us get more done, not to make us work more.

IV>         Technology is not just computers. There are many other devices very useful in education. Video cameras, data loggers, etc.

V>            Professional development is very important. Teachers have to be aware that certain technology is available at the school, they have to be able to apply it, integrate it in their lessons and refine it to use it best.

VI>         Budgeting. There has to be enough money to support the project, but some of this money can come from other parts of the business. For example avoiding textbooks.

VII>     Architects have to come amongst builders. The plan has to be designed by people who are going to implement it.

VIII>  Plans have to focus on things that can be done. Otherwise we get stuck thinking about the many things, which we cannot do.

IX>          Use research to plan for success. This shows that schools need access to adequate hardware and software, staff development on-site support.