Susan Crawford: To talk to us about the pow­er of net­works, we’re very for­tu­nate to have Yochai Benkler with us, who is a co-director of the Berkman Center, author of one of the best books about the Internet age, The Wealth of Networks, and a sought-after speak­er and opin­er on all things dig­i­tal. So please join me in wel­com­ing Yochai Benkler.

Yochai Benkler: Thanks, Susan. We’re extreme­ly lucky to have you. I think Jenny prob­a­bly want­ed about three slides. I fig­ured in my case that meant…not much more than three per minute. I want to tell you four sto­ries from my research and our research here in the last two years that exhib­it dif­fer­ent aspects of both the prob­lem and at least class­es of solu­tions that we see in the net.

So the first one is this one. The ques­tion of nation­al secu­ri­ty, and gov­ern­ment pro­pa­gan­da and mis­in­for­ma­tion. This hap­pens to— By the way, no earth­shak­ing rev­e­la­tions, but offer tex­ture, insight and con­text” is The New York Times ver­sus A Protocol of Barbarity” by Der Spiegel, and Huge WikiLeaks releas­es shows US ignored Iraq tor­ture.’ ” It’s just a ques­tion of fram­ing, really.

But let’s set that aside. The ques­tion of this, one of the major leaks and news sto­ries and how it was treat­ed by the admin­is­tra­tion. So Admiral Mike Mullen: WikiLeaks and Assange might already have on their hands the blood of some young sol­dier or that of an Afghan fam­i­ly.” Secretary Gates: The bat­tle­field con­se­quences are poten­tial­ly severe and dan­ger­ous for our troops,” etc. Intelligence sources and meth­ods,” etc.

When actu­al­ly required by the Senate to write down what the prob­lems were, the basic answer is, the review to date has not revealed any sen­si­tive intel­li­gence sources and meth­ods com­pro­mised.” We’ll see what comes out in Bradley Manning’s tri­al as they try to actu­al­ly make the dam­age case.

Secretary Clinton: Let’s be clear: This dis­clo­sure is not just an attack on America’s for­eign pol­i­cy, it’s an attack on the inter­na­tion­al community.

Vice President Biden: I would argue that it’s clos­er to being a high tech ter­ror­ist than the Pentagon Papers.”

And so on and so forth.

Well, at least we have the Fourth Estate. Two thirds of sto­ries in the first two weeks in nation­al secu­ri­ty from the Lexis data­base have some ver­sion of the sto­ry of WikiLeaks showed rel­a­tive­ly lit­tle dis­cre­tion in its online post­ing or more than 250,000 cables.” Only one sixth had rough­ly the shape of, WikiLeaks released 272 diplo­mat­ic cables from a trove of over 250,000. The remain­der to be drib­bled out for greater effect.”

Vastly dif­fer­ent affect. The dif­fer­ent affect allowed this to hap­pen, which is to say Senator Lieberman, with qui­et accep­tance from the gov­ern­ment, basi­cal­ly says to com­pa­nies, Stop serv­ing WikiLeaks.” And Amazon chucks them off, EveryDNS chucks them off. These are solu­tions, where the solu­tion is not infor­ma­tion­al, it’s sim­ply resis­tance. Making the infor­ma­tion per­sis­tent despite efforts to shut it down. That can’t work for every­thing; pay­ment sys­tems. It is still the case almost two years lat­er, no known effect and no mon­ey sent to WikiLeaks. Here the ques­tion is what forms of resis­tance to action are fea­si­ble in a con­text of a supine, tra­di­tion­al medi­um in the con­text of nation­al secu­ri­ty from state­ments from the state.

When I say supine sys­tem” we look at roles of media as well. So Bill Keller ends his sto­ry in the The New York Times Magazine as, If Assange were an under­stat­ed pro­fes­so­r­i­al type rather than a char­ac­ter from a miss­ing Stieg Larsson nov­el, and if WikiLeaks were not suf­fused with such glib antipa­thy toward the US, would the reac­tion to the leaks be quite so ferocious?”

Good ques­tion. Who’s respon­si­ble? Half an arti­cle before, Keller says, I came to think of Julian Assange as a char­ac­ter from a Stieg Larsson movie. 

So where do we look at the media? On the same day that [?] comes out, we have this front-page sto­ry of WikiLeaks Founder on the Run, Trailed by Notoriety.” If you look at fre­quen­cy of terms from our Media Cloud data­base of Iraq” and embassy” and rape” and molesta­tion,” you see a per­sis­tent inter­fer­ence pat­tern by look­ing for the sex and the vio­lence rather than the vio­lence and the tor­ture. Story One.

Story Two. A cou­ple of years ago the FCC asked us to help them with a nation­al broad­band plan, and the Ford Foundation fund­ed us to do this major report. One of the core prob­lems in under­stand­ing what’s going else­where and import­ing it here was the fact that for a decade, over half the econo­met­ric stud­ies about the effects of the most impor­tant pol­i­cy option that the US decid­ed not to take were fund­ed by indus­try and came 100% on the side of who­ev­er fund­ed them. This took the real­ly inter­est­ing pol­i­cy ques­tion and made it so that seri­ous peo­ple in the US could­n’t say it’s fea­si­ble, because all the evi­dence is against it.

This is work with Laura Miyakawa when she was still here. If you begin to map the papers and the fund­ing, what you see is a com­bi­na­tion of con­sul­tan­cies like Criterion Economics or the Analysis Group, togeth­er with accred­i­ta­tion of Brookings Institute or American Enterprise Institute, with authors who are both in the con­sult­ing world and in the think tanks as well as the uni­ver­si­ties. And you get the fund­ing and the accred­i­ta­tion com­ing out with a per­sis­tent set of answers that are always on the side of who­ev­er fund­ed them.

The answer to this, if we can devel­op some­thing on the net, has to be some form of peer review. Whether it’s a web site that gets grad­u­ate stu­dents to look at this data. Whether that’s the mod­el or some­thing along those lines.

Story Three. The sixth most-searched term which was fol­lowed by a click on the right wing blo­gos­phere in 2010 was a search for the cost of Obama’s trip to India. The major claim that the trip cost $200 mil­lion a day, it start­ed out… So this is a great can­di­date for the Web spreads fear. And indeed Tom Friedman writes to us Too Good to Check.” The sto­ry’s too good to check. Anderson Cooper did the coun­try a favor. He expert­ly decon­struct­ed on his CNN show a bogus rumor that President Obama’s trip… Where does the rumor come from? In case you missed it a sto­ry cir­cu­lat­ed around the Web, etc.”

Indeed, two blog posts on November 2 linked to one of India’s most respect­ed news sites claim­ing this sto­ry. These two top sites plus three small sites. Three hours lat­er, how­ev­er, it was Rush Limbaugh. And that night it was Mike Huckabee on elec­tion night report, who amped things up.

So then who decon­struct­ed it? Well, it was­n’t tra­di­tion­al media. This is the next day. A major piece on the new Obama roy­al­ty on Fox News. Hours after these had already come out on the Web. So FactCheck goes and does a very care­ful analysis— MediaMatters does. Snopes​.com does. So, academically-based, nonprofit-supported orga­ni­za­tions, as well as a com­mer­cial web site all debunked it such that by the mid­dle of the day on November 4, sev­en or eight hours before Cooper’s response, we already have a Wall Street Journal blog post that includes the debunk­ing and direct­ly cites both Snopes and FactCheck with links. One who did the research, as Tom Friedman says, too good to check” that the sto­ry is that the Web is non­sense and tra­di­tion­al media and report­ing is good.

So in fact Anderson Cooper sev­en hours lat­er has this sto­ry. As you see, he’s com­par­ing it to the Clinton trip in the late 90s, which is a great way of doing it, just like factcheck​.org did a day a half ear­li­er, just with­out citation.

The Web on the oth­er hand, hours before Cooper… In our set, at least half the blogs, includ­ing the top right wing, were already link­ing to the debunk­ing. It was only Glenn Beck who kept repeat­ing the lie. So whether lying is eas­i­er or hard­er is a dif­fer­ent question.

Story Four, and it’s a com­plete­ly dif­fer­ent sto­ry and a com­plete­ly dif­fer­ent under­stand­ing. And that’s the sto­ry of the SOPA/PIPA orga­ni­za­tion. And it goes not so much the fact-checking as to basic fram­ing of a core pol­i­cy ques­tion through a mobi­lized net­work of polit­i­cal and infor­ma­tion­al work.

So you start when the bill gets intro­duced in this sto­ry on The Hill in September of 2010. A bipar­ti­san bill unveiled Monday would make it eas­i­er for the Justice Department to shut down web sites that traf­fic pirat­ed music, movies, and coun­ter­feit goods. Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee includ­ing Chairman Patrick Leahy and Orrin Hatch, etc…introduced, etc.… Quote:

Each year, online pira­cy and the sale of coun­ter­feit goods costs American busi­ness­es bil­lions of dol­lars, and result in hun­dreds of thou­sands of lost jobs,” Leahy said in a state­ment. Protecting intel­lec­tu­al prop­er­ty is not unique­ly a Democratic or Republican priority—it is a bipar­ti­san priority.”
Bipartisan bill would ramp up anti-piracy enforce­ment online, Gautham Nagesh, The Hill, 09/20/2010 [since edit­ed]

Fourteen months lat­er, Wikipedia is shut down and its front page says Imagine a World Without Free Knowledge.” How did this piece of leg­is­la­tion move from being some­thing that is nei­ther a Democratic nor Republican sto­ry to imag­ine a world with­out free knowl­edge?” That’s a story.

One ver­sion of the sto­ry is a sim­ple debunk­ing sto­ry, and you can tell that. So for exam­ple, the $58 bil­lion that’s claimed that the indus­try is los­ing $58 bil­lion from pira­cy. That was debunked. It was stat­ed in The Hill in that par­tic­u­lar sto­ry. It’s lat­er repeat­ed in var­i­ous places, includ­ing The New York Times. It gets debunked online. So you’ve got this par­tic­u­lar sto­ry in Cato link­ing to The New York Times sto­ry and say­ing, here are the prob­lems.” Here’s the actu­al orig­i­nal arti­cle by the con­sul­tan­cy firm, as we saw in broad­band as well, mak­ing these bogus num­bers. Here are the links to all of the fig­ures, etc. that make it wrong. Here’s a link to the GAO report that a year and a half ago already debunked this. 

But Cato is not very well-known. However, there’s an atten­tion back­bone. Techdirt, which is very high­ly con­nect­ed in this net­work, links to Cato, and the sto­ry goes from there as does a debunk­ing of the same sto­ry on Reddit. So we see very high­ly con­nect­ed nodes pro­duc­ing the debunking.

But that’s the less inter­est­ing ver­sion of the sto­ry. The more inter­est­ing ver­sion of the sto­ry is the devel­op­ment of net­work orga­ni­za­tion. So this is a snap­shot out of about 13,000 sto­ries over the last year and a half, relat­ed to SOPA and PIPA. This is a snap­shot of how they’re con­nect­ed and cite each oth­er as of September/October 2010, when COICA comes out. What you see here is that it’s very much a tech media, a pro­fes­sion­al tech media sto­ry. Techdir, CNET, and EFF, as well as obvi­ous­ly a con­nec­tion to the actu­al source.

By the time PIPA comes out, by the time the Protect IP Act comes out in May of 2011, it shifts to being some­thing cen­tral in DC, with Senator Ron Wyden play­ing a real role in try­ing to push this as a prob­lem. I can’t hold on much longer. 

Some inter­est­ing things when you zoom in. So Wyden seems to be con­nect­ing very heav­i­ly to the New York VC com­mu­ni­ty: Union Square Ventures, Fred Wilson over there. As well as to the left. You’ve Democratic Underground. You’ve Demand Progress here. You also see Public Knowledge emerg­ing up there as a major site. And the begin­nings up there of dont​cen​sorthenet​.com, which is real­ly the approach that starts tak­ing over by the time you get to the intro­duc­tion of SOPA.

Something that was­n’t there before at all, amer​i​can​cen​sor​ship​.org, which is direct action, right. A site that calls peo­ple to write their sen­a­tors emerges out of noth­ing. The whole notion that we can’t have vis­i­bil­i­ty on the net emerges out of nothing.

And if we zoom in on this sort of cen­ter area, what we see is direct action on the Web to try to get peo­ple to write their sen­a­tors against these best-moneyed lob­bies sup­port­ed by both par­ties. So you see open​congress​.org, a project fund­ed by the Sunlight Foundation, and Participatory Politics Foundation. You see Fight for the Future, who are the peo­ple behind amer​i​can​cen​sor​ship​.org, and you see the emer­gence of a Wikipedia. 

As that intro­duc­tion and that par­tic­u­lar first set of mail­ings goes out and we move on to the next day, you notice that the dif­fer­ent sites have dif­fer­ent roles. So amer​i​can​cen​sor​ship​.org is just an action site. This reflects how many dis­creet pages or sto­ries each site has links to. We see all of the send­ing over here to one action site. This is to pri­ma­ry mate­ri­als, primarily.

What’s that site? Call Congress Right Away. Call my Representative.” A direct action site. This is what every­body is link­ing to. Let’s act. 

When you look at Wikipedia, you see a com­bi­na­tion of both information—a lot of the links are to just what on Earth is SOPA?” Here Wikipedia’s got its neu­tral hat. But you also see orga­niz­ing over here for polit­i­cal action. So this is Jimmy Wales’ user talk page where he sets up and says, Let’s do some­thing togeth­er. Let’s open up a poll,” and 1,800 peo­ple start debat­ing about what Wikipedia should do. 

Techdirt on the oth­er hand has lots and lots. Nine hun­dred thirty-seven dif­fer­ent fac­tu­al sto­ries. This major sto­ry from November that tells all the details…turns out truth is stranger than fiction. 

On January 20th, after the SOPA and PIPA failed, Google gets a DMCA take­down notice that says there’s copy­right infringe­ment in these hun­dreds of sites. And num­ber 253 on this list is this Techdirt sto­ry which was the most cited-to dur­ing this peri­od, which is a pure­ly fac­tu­al sto­ry. For a month you would­n’t get it from Google search results, until Mike Masnick hap­pened to notice by chance that this was the case and told Google, Stop block­ing me.” But for a month it was blocked.

By December, action sub­sided a lit­tle bit. Techdirt again became sto­ry peo­ple were look­ing for things. Reddit began to be more sig­nif­i­cant, and you had up more time for orga­niz­ing on Wikipedia. 

By January, action comes back to the cen­ter. We see Wikipedia. We see American Censorship com­ing up again. We see all sorts of par­tic­u­lar groups. The New York Tech Meetup, you see ProPublica set­ting up a site to show who’s on which side and what mon­ey they had. You see the right wing blo­gos­phere over here also con­nect­ing to this set of materials.

And by February look, it’s com­plete­ly changed. All of the action sites, par­tic­u­lar­ly American Censorship, are gone. We’ve won. And the action has shift­ed to Europe as the Europeans try to import the same mod­el into ACTA.

You’ve got street protests in Poland and you’ve got Polish leg­is­la­tors don­ning Anonymous masks to stop this inter­na­tion­al treaty—it’s worse than SOPA

What’s the sto­ry? To me the sto­ry is not main­stream media, which per­sist here but are rel­a­tive­ly small. And it’s not nec­es­sar­i­ly blogs, which are also per­va­sive and every­where. What’s inter­est­ing here is the par­tic­u­lar surg­ing role of tech­nol­o­gy media in feed­ing the story—online ded­i­cat­ed tech media. Of stand­ing, long-term orga­ni­za­tions ded­i­cat­ed to the area, which are much more effec­tive and impor­tant in this field. 

And a sur­pris­ing­ly large and impor­tant num­ber of action item-specific sites where peo­ple ramp up, have direct action with a web­site. These are all sites that are specif­i­cal­ly ded­i­cat­ed to this par­tic­u­lar battle.

And most inter­est­ing? It’s this crazy quilt. It’s the fact that you have all of these dif­fer­ent play­ers, all of these dif­fer­ent kinds of players—blogs and main­stream media organizations—all work­ing togeth­er to com­plete­ly shift the frame. This isn’t about fact-checking, it’s about frame-shifting through a com­bi­na­tion of infor­ma­tion, research, both neu­tral and activist as well as direct action.

So this was an amaz­ing team that pulled it togeth­er, and thank you to them here at Berkman. The four sto­ries to me cap­ture the prob­lem of the state and its infor­ma­tion, par­tic­u­lar­ly in the con­text of nation­al secu­ri­ty. The prob­lem of mon­ey in research about what the facts are. The prob­lem of a dis­crete mis­in­for­ma­tion cam­paign that Fox News rep­re­sents, and it’s not just a neu­tral thing it’s a par­tic­u­lar instance. And the impor­tance of non­prof­it, stand­ing pro­fes­sion­al fact-checking. And the pos­si­bil­i­ties for net­worked orga­ni­za­tion. And the abil­i­ty to actu­al­ly come togeth­er as a net­worked pub­lic sphere to shift the frame over a peri­od of over a year, in the teeth of mon­ey and accept­ed wis­dom, in the oppo­site direc­tion. Thank you.

Further Reference

Truthiness in Digital Media event site

Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Cash App, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.