" That's how these disputes often work by design: the party whose conduct is in question (here, Wired ) attacks the critic in order to create the impression that it's all just some sort of screeching personality feud devoid of substance. That, in turn, causes some bystanders to cheer for whichever side they already like and boo the side they already dislike, as though it's some sort of entertaining wrestling match, while everyone else dismisses it all as some sort of trivial Internet catfight not worth sorting out. "
This is exactly the case, as I know from recent experience when Charles Johnson and his people began accusing me of criminal activity and being funded by the Russian mafia because I work with Anonymous figure Gregg Housh and have been raising money for and advocating Wikileaks since the beginning of the year. When I objected, Johnson banned me and began making additional false accusations (while his commenters openly discussed reporting me to the FBI), to which I responded in a short video in an attempt to protect myself and my organization from continued libel. Although a number of people did take my side and actually joined my group, others ridiculed me for caring about "the internet."
Good work on pointing out the dishonesty on the part of Wired while also maintaining the focus on the issue in question. It's a near-impossible juggling act that I can't imagine anyone else handling with the agility you have displayed.
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 9:23 PM, Barrett Brown <
barriticus@gmail.com > wrote:
Glenn-
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you.
The book should be released in the next few months; I was hearing August but I doubt that's possible now. I'll keep you updated.
The project I mentioned involves two networks: the blogger network described below, and another network that will operate in a similar fashion but which will include participants of differing skill sets and backgrounds while serving as a sort of distributed think-tank, but potentially more useful than the average think-tank, which you'd probably agree is not set up in such a way as to take anything close to maximum advantages of its human resources. Our overall intent has been to design a series of related schematics by which to improve upon communication and corroboration while also building up a new sort of entity that would operate under these schematics.
For our blogger network, we've recruited Michael Hastings as well as Juan Cole, Allison Kilkenny, the fellows at Instaputz, E.D. Kain, Charles Johnson, and a number of others, including those specializing in non-political topics such as science. For our other network, we have former Washington Post editorial board member Gina Acosta (who is now a critic of that institution), novelist and former CIA Directorate of Operations operative Barry Eisler (ditto), Case Western University Professor Mano Singham, and dozens of others, all of whom we are working to integrate into a single entity that will eventually be capable of growing perpetually and adding new capabilities while also maintaining operational coherence.
For now, I've pasted a basic description of how the blogger network will operate below; let me know if you'd like to see further materials or have any specific questions at this point.
***
Information flow is fundamental to the success of every manner of human collaboration. Nonetheless, the processes by which information is gathered, handled, transferred, and acted upon receive far less attention than is warranted. The purpose of Project PM is to change this dynamic by developing new techniques with which to more efficiently conduct information.
Because the great preponderance of information crucial to the success of a representative government is transferred through the media, Project PM focuses primarily on media reform. Our first and foremost effort has been to establish a distributed media cartel made up of bloggers as well as journalists who work at least in part through online media. Rather than simply assembling this group of exceptional media professionals into an online outlet similar to those currently in existence, we are instead organizing our participants into a network which itself operates under a unique schematic designed to take best advantage of the internet as a medium while simultaneously avoiding the drawbacks common to even the best online communities.
In order to seed the network, we have recruited around two dozen bloggers and journalists whom we have identified as particularly competent and intellectually honest. Each of these individuals is encouraged to bring other bloggers into the network based on their own judgment; these new participants are then connected to the blogger who has brought them in and may likewise bring others into the network,and so on . As such, the network grows perpetually while maintaining a high average quality in terms of its participants, as is explained further below.
Upon the launch of our network, each of the initial bloggers will be connected to each other via a widget which is embedded on their respective blogs, as well as connected to those whom theyve recruited. When a particular individual composes a piece of work that he considers to be of particular merit, the individual pushes a single button which causes the article in question to be sent to all of the bloggers to whom he is connected. Each of those bloggers in turn then decides whether or not they agree that the article is worthy of greater attention; if so, they push the button and thereby send it along to every blogger to whom they themselves are connected. Thus it is that information deemed worthy of attention by some great number of erudite and honest individuals from a variety of backgrounds will tend to perpetuate through the system and gain a larger audience than they might otherwise receive.
As the network expands by way of the process described above, it is inevitable that there will be failures of judgement on the part of participants when choosing additional bloggers to bring into the network. Let us say that Blogger X, who is rather competent, brings in Blogger Y, who is only moderately so, and who in turn brings in Blogger Z, who is a giant douchebag. Blogger Z begins composing and pushing forward posts to the effect that Barack Obama was born in Tehran or that ethanol subsidies are awesome or some such thing but these posts only initially go to Blogger Y and whatever horrid bloggers Blogger Z has brought in himself, assuming he has brough in any. Blogger Y may or may not be inclined to push forward these nonsense posts, but Blogger X will almost certainly delete them immediately and is quite likely to disolve his connection to Blogger Y for displaying such poor judgement. Thus it is that the system is defended from deterioration by the high competence of the initial round of bloggers and consequently comparable competence of those brought in gradually afterwards, coupled with the nature of the schematic itself. No supervision is necessary for the network to expand while maintaining a high level of quality.
A few other characteristics bear noting. Any participant may connect to any other participant who agrees to the connection, no matter where each participant resides in the network, and thus the network is likely to evolve from the shape of a pyramid to that of a web, which is advantageous in terms of ensuring that good information does not become overly regionalized. All participants are equal regardless of the order in which they joined. Participants are free to bring on as many other bloggers as they would like, although they will find that it is to their own advantage to be selective in this regard.
The system is capped off with another widget distinct from that used by the bloggers the reader widget, a downloadable application which displays those posts which have been pushed forward a certain number of times (as set by the individual reader). The end result should be the best system of news and information filtration that has ever existed.
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:20 AM, <
ggreenwald@salon.com > wrote:
Hi Barrett - Nice to hear from you. Michael emailed me a few weeks ago and we exchanged some thoughts about all of this.
Thanks for sending the transcript, which I will definitely take a look at. I actually thought about doing a book somewhat related awhile ago -- it was going to be America's 10 Worst Pundits, or something like that -- and then get sidetracked on a couple other book projects, so this sounds great. When will it be released? If you want to do something surrounding it like a podcast interview or something, let me know.
And I'd love to hear about the journalism project you're working on. I've actually been working on one myself with Dan Froomkin, Jay Rosen and a couple others about standards for newspapers to release all original source material online, so I'm interesting in hearing what you're doing.
Glenn Greenwald
----- Original Message -----
From: "Barrett Brown" <
barriticus@gmail.com >
To:
GGreenwald@salon.com
Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2010 8:40:16 PM (GMT-0300) Auto-Detected
Subject: Thanks for the link
Mr. Greenwald-
I'm gratified that you appreciated my Vanity Fair piece on Michael Hastings and felt inclined to link to it a few weeks back, most particularly since you happen to be the blogger whom I most often cite as indicative of how the blogosphere allows superior commentators who would otherwise be unlikely to reach a large audience to, uh, reach a large audience. In fact, I mention you twice in my upcoming book on the failed American punditry, along with Juan Cole, who has since joined up with the project that Hastings and I are spearheading in an effort to change the overriding media dynamic by way of a new methodology we have developed for the purpose. Incidentally, Hastings is also very grateful for the support shown by you, Sullivan, and others who have made the obvious case that "access" alone is useless to the body politic, and that the media at large is largely responsible for the events of the past decade.
In case you're interested, I have attached the latest draft of the manuscript, which includes chapters on Thomas Friedman, Charles Krauthammer, Richard Cohen, Martin Peretz, William Bennett, and Robert Stacy McCain, while also attempting to make the larger case that in a society marked by accelerating change, the U.S. cannot afford to continue on its present path in terms of information flow. And if you'd like to learn more about our project and its potential viability, feel free to e-mail or call at your convenience.
At any rate, thanks for the work you've been doing over the past several years.
--
Regards,
Barrett Brown
512-560-2302
--
Regards,
Barrett Brown
512-560-2302
--
Regards,
Barrett Brown
512-560-2302