In the frame

Parallel sessions on “open” starting the day today; I’m at “The Language Of Openness“:

Nothing matters more than what the Net is. Yet when we call it a “space” or a “stage” or “pipes,” we frame it with metaphors that yield very different purposes, laws and business models—also different futures. What different laws and regulation do we get by framing the Net in terms of real estate (“domains,” “sites,” “commons”), transport (“packets,” “content,” “pipes”) or theater (“audience,” “experience”)? How do these different frames guide debate over net neutrality, open infrastructure, governance, regulation, public good and business opportunity? Are there other ways of framing the Net that are more useful?

Doc Searls introduces the session by talking about ‘framing’ and how this affects our debates, and David Weinberger mentioned George Lakoff (I’ve read Don’t Think Of An Elephant, one of the best books on politics in recent years, despite being very short). For the Internet, we talk about space and we talk about pages/publishing/etc.

A good concrete example is the difficulty in talking about net neutrality in the US Congress, where the language of telecommunications legislation is based around transportation. In general, the metaphors that we apply can have differing impacts, as they can make it easier to get support/buy-in but the choice of words can/may have an impact on what the end product is, as once you’ve adopted the frame, it’s hard to move away from it.

Provocative question from Judith Donath (who is the third panelist)- is contributing to open source a gift? This leads to an interesting exchange on the framing of open source itself (especially as compared with free software!). From the floor, Lewis Hyde wonders whether discussions of (re)enclosure (i.e. James Boyle) are helpful? He draws a distinction between commons and public domain; the former is a collectively managed resource while the latter is not collectively managed (and thus available for appropriation).

Towards the end, from someone I didn’t know – “what did we call an ecosystem before we had the word ecosystem”…this means that we need new words for the Internet and for the commons, we may not have that frame yet.

Advertisements

One thought on “In the frame

  1. It’s so interesting that there are whole institutions and studies dedicated to what I do on the internet everyday – which is interact with a community of peers that share similar interests, create safe havens to discuss said interests and the like.

    Sometimes I feel that such discussion is a bit far removed from the reality. Although one thing I do understand are trolls, and other phrases that have come into common usage through popular use of the internet.

    Here’s an interview with Judith Donath where she’s talking about internet neologisms:

    http://thoughtcast.org/casts/griefer-google-cooking-and-other-neologisms

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s