Experience shows that the first wave of Internet-enabled change was tainted by irrational exuberance. A sober analysis of today's trends reveals that this new participation is both a blessing and a curse. Mass collaboration can empower a growing cohort of connected individuals and organizations to create extraordinary wealth and reach unprecedented heights in learning and scientific discovery... (but) the new participation will also cause great upheaval, dislocation, and danger for societies, corporations, and individuals that fail to keep up with the relentless change.
- Don Tapscott & Anthony Williams, Wikinomics, page 15.
Good article today in the Wall St. Journal about how the wisdom of the crowds is becoming more acceptable within the medical community as well as other professions.
From the article:
When radiation oncologist Michael Tomblyn recently saw a 21-year-old patient whose eye was protruding from its socket, he turned to his fellow physicians for help. Dozens of doctors offered suggestions, including fungal infection, HIV-associated lymphoma or a cocaine-associated sinus problem, eventually steering him toward the correct answer: rhabdomyosarcoma, a fast-growing cancer most often observed in young children.
The diagnosis didn’t take place in a doctor’s lounge. It happened on Sermo.com, a social-networking site for licensed physicians, which Dr. Tomblyn and 25,000 doctors like him visit regularly to consult with colleagues specializing in areas from dermatology to psychiatry.
Some good statistics as well:
Social networking is just one of many consumer technologies, including blogs, wikis and virtual worlds, to cross over into the corporate world. It is happening as social networking is moving more into the mainstream. Leading consumer social-networking sites attracted more than 110 million unique monthly U.S. visitors in July, up more than 40% from the previous July, according to comScore Inc.
It wasn’t too long ago that the term wikinomics didn’t pass the test for inclusion on wikipedia - a funny story that involves us posting a “stub” on wikipedia a few months before the book was published, only to have it quickly (and in truth, rightfully) squashed by the power of the wikipedia editorial process. Now not only does it have it’s own page (including links to presentations I have made about the topic), you get over 2,100,000 hits for a “wikinomics” search on Google.
But while I’m obviously happy about the traction we’re gaining, sometimes I find what’s most interesting is going through the Google blogsearch. These blogs are a great way to monitor the breadth of acceptance for the term and find news ideas tied to the concept - and it’s amazing to see the variety of contexts in which wikinomics is now being put to use.
If you go through even the first few pages posts range from book reviews to thoughts on chemical wikinomics to “using wikinomics to enliven your neighborhood“ to questions like “could wikinomics save Epic Athletic?”, open letters to the music industry quoting our book, questions like “back to school - will your classroom be Wiki’d?”, and and increasing number of posts in languages I don’t understand. As time goes on, we hope to see many more - especially of the latter variety.
George Hotz of Glen Rock, N.J., confirmed Friday that he had unlocked an iPhone and was using it on T-Mobile’s network, the only major U.S. carrier apart from AT&T that is compatible with the iPhone’s cellular technology. In a video posted to his blog, he holds an iPhone that displays “T-Mobile” as the carrier.
For educational purposes only, here is how to do it.
John Edwards uses Twitter. Obama’s the most widely viewed candidate on YouTube. Both the Yearly KOS, and the CNN/You Tube debates have happened, and now MySpace and MTV have announced a series of one-on-one candidate forums. The internet, and especially Web 2.0, has given candidates an extremely cost-effective way to reach millions of potential voters.
In an article by Josh Catone, he questions whether predicting the next US election based on Internet popularity might be a big mistake. Refer to the chart below.
According the data compiled here, it appears that the battle is between Barack Obama and Ron Paul for the Presidency. However, according to practically every poll conducted this past month, Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani have commanding leads. Catone’s reasoning for the disconnect? Age (younger people are more active online, but participate less in active voting), the ‘coolness’ factor (people socially connecting to politicians online but failing to follow through), and the possibility of errors in polling.
However, these descrepancies do not mean that the active engagement in politics online is without repercussion. In fact, inexpensive marketing as a result of the second wave of the web can actually aid a politician in fundraising, as well as building awareness. On the other hand, fundraising may not be as large of an issue as it has been in the past, given that the playing field is levelling out. How much did it cost Barack Obama to communicate to eleven million viewers? Nothing.
I think that Catone brings up some valuable insights. If age is a factor, then I would like to take this opportunity to encourage the youth of America to vote. If you claim to support someone online, then vote for them! The time invested to write a few messages on a candidates profile would be far better spent by going down to a booth and actually voting for the candidate you claim to support. Be consistent. If you are going to harness the democratic power of Web 2.0, then apply that belief to your own political system. It was implemented there first, was it not?
People spend over $1.5 billion on virtual items every year. Pets, coins, avatars, and bling: these virtual objects are nothing more than a series of digital 1s and 0s stored on a remote database somewhere in the ether. What could possibly possess people to spend real, hard earned cash on ‘objects’ that have no tangible substance?
This quote comes from Susan Wu’s article “Virtual Goods: the next big business model.” While $1.5 Billion is interesting in it’s own right, what’s more interesting is the list of companies she mentions that are making “meaningful amounts of money” in virtual goods - Tencent, Habbo Hotel, Gaia Online, Dogster, and several others. Not exactly the Google, Yahoo!, Facebook list everyone expects these days, is it?
Tencent - that’s in China, which is a market a few companies are interested in right now. Of note, 65% of their $100 M in revenue in Q1 from virtual goods. It’s been enough to attract the attention of Coca Cola, who has partnered with them. And my favorite tidbit - Gaia employs 3 people just to open envelopes of cash people send in to buy virtual goods.
The full article is well worth reading, including the four reasons she’s presents for why people spend real money on lines of 1s and 0s. It’s also worth reading the Julian Dibbell article from the NY Times on the life of Chinese Gold Farmers tied to this evolving virtual world…
Every year Ofcom, the British communications regulator, releases a snapshot of the UK media landscape. This year’s report contains a vast treasure trove of data and analysis on everything from media consumption to device usage to spending on online advertising to trends in user-generated media. There’s more than enough to keep media geeks and business analysts occupied for days on end.
With so much on offer in this 337 page report it’s hard to decide what to comment on, but some of the web 2.0 trends are notable given that this is the first year Ofcom has tracked the impact of web 2.0 on the changing media landscape.
In terms time spent online, eBay is the most popular website for Brits by a wide margin, with users spending over twice as much time on eBay UK website than its nearest rival, social networking site bebo.com. Out of the top twenty sites where Brits spend their time, the BBC (which comes in 3rd) is the lone representative from the old media world.
In terms of unique users, YouTube and Wikipedia remain the most popular web 2.0 destinations in the UK, while Facebook is growing sharply and flickr is leveling off. In the seven months to May 2007, the monthly UK unique user base of YouTube increased by nearly a half to 6.5 million users, while Wikipedia’s increased by 30% to 6.4 million. MySpace’s audience has increased by 25% since November 2006, and FaceBook’s user base has quadrupled since October 2006. The one exception to the pattern of rising popularity is Flickr, whose audience in the UK appears to have stabilized at just under a million unique users every month.
Putting the sheer scale of user-generated content in perspective, the report notes that in addition to the 1,845 new articles appearing daily on Wikipedia, 3,744,000 new photos are uploaded to Flickr and 65,000 new video clips are loaded onto YouTube. Assuming an average YouTube clip length of 30 seconds, 542 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every day – a year’s worth of new video appearing on the site every sixteen days.
The report also points out that large media properties are finally understanding the utility of YouTube as a promotional vehicle for their content. CBS is particularly notable for the 2,059 clips it has uploaded since it first launched a branded channel on the site in mid-2006. It currently enjoys first place in terms of channel popularity with 117m views since it first posted content. Next up is Universal Music which has uploaded more content (3,747 clips) but received less audience attention with some 87m views.
The Guardian added its own take on the Ofcom data, announcing that “the feminisation of the Net” has at last arrived. For the first time, women aged 25-49 in the UK now spend more time online than men in the same age group.
Some other trends picked out by Guardian reporter Katie Allen:
Britons are the most active web users in Europe and spend an average 36 minutes each online every day, up from 14 minutes in 2002.
Three-quarters of 11 year-olds have their own TV, games console and mobile.
Two-thirds of children do not believe they could easily live without a mobile and the internet.
Some 15% of UK households have a digital video recorder and 78% use it to fast-forward through adverts.
Some 16% of over-65s use the web. They surf for 42 hours every month, more than any other age group.
One quarter of UK web users are over 50.
Two-thirds of phone owners use its alarm function instead of a clock.
“Soon, the disease had spread to the densely populated capital cities of (——-), causing high rates of mortality and, much more importantly, the social chaos that comes from a large-scale outbreak of deadly disease” - Nina Fefferman and Eric Lofgren
So what is (——-)? Well that would be “the fantasy world”, as in World of WarCraft. Interestingly enough (as reported on MSNBC), a couple of years ago Blizzard Entertainment introduced a virus into the game, in order to make it more challenging for high level players - but just like that it upped and got itself out of the virtual containment area it was supposed to stay in.
Next thing you know, the disease was spreading like wildfire, and Fefferman and Lofgren started studying it to see what they could learn about how real world diseases spread. Among other things, Fefferman figured out she should build in a “stupid factor” for simulating disease breaks - i.e. people stupid enough to go have a quick look thinking they won’t be contaminated.
Anyways, the idea of learning about how epidemics might spread through analysis of virtual worlds seems kind of interesting… but actually I’m more interested in this stupid factor.
It seems everywhere I look our “models” assume rational behavoir on behalf of participants - from rational investment decisions leading to efficient markets, to not poking the virtual dude with the pulsating red spots, to politicians having war-time exit strategies. Inevitably, it turns out people always do stupid things and our rational models look foolish… could a common stupid factor help all disciplines?
Brad Fitzpatrick, creator of LiveJournal and OpenID, has written a blog posting on his thoughts on the social graph and how it should be decentralized. According to Fitzgerald, we should be making the social graph a community asset, ensuring to utilize the data from different sites, but without depending on any individual company or organization as a centralized owner. Open source software could collect, merge, and redistribute the graphs from all other social network sites into one global aggregated graph.
Fitzpatrick believes that a user should be able to log into a social application and be presented with the option of prompting you to become friends with others, based on a previously declared relationship elsewhere. Fitzpatrick’s goal is to build the guts that can allow a thousand new social applications to bloom.
Sounds pretty good doesn’t it? Users wouldn’t have to re-enter their personal profile information each time they signed into a new social application, nor would they have to re-add all of their friends, thus avoiding the ‘social network fatigue problem.’
However, it is recognized that users don’t always wish to ‘auto-sync’ their social networks. People use different social networking sites in different ways. For example, a friend on Facebook may very well not be the same type of friend that one would have on LinkedIn. Do you really want everyone to know what you’re up to at all times?
There’s a really interesting article on Computer World about a wiki effectively being used as a textbook. As the professor says:
“My wiki is my textbook now,” he said. “This platform is infinitely better and gets better information from a variety of sources. It takes a year and half for a textbook to get published, and by the time that happens it is outdated. [The use of] textbooks will begin to fade … and these more collaborative-based, environment will probably rise to the surface.”
It’s quite an interesting idea - though I wonder what the publishers of $120 textbooks that are forced upon captive audiences think about it?
One of the cardinal rules of Wikipedia is that employees of companies/organizations should not edit entries about their employers, just as individuals shouldn’t edit their own biographies. The temptation is hard to resist for organizations seeking to bolster their public image, but the prospect of getting caught doctoring one’s Wikipedia entry is an embarrassment that most companies would rather not endure. Just ask Microsoft who recently got caught paying experts to “correct” entries about it on the site.
The risk that anonymous spin doctors will be spotted is now higher thanks to new software built by Virgil Griffith, a researcher at the California Institute of Technology. The software, called the The Wikipedia Scanner, works by comparing 5.3m edits made on the encyclopedia against the IP addresses of more than 2m companies or individuals. Smart companies will find ways to circumvent the scanner - perhaps by having employees edit entries from their home computers.
Apparently replaced the term “occupying forces” with “liberating” in an article referring to the Iraq war. Somewhat less controversially, a Republican staffer also rewrote a biography of American revolutionary leader George Rogers Clark.
Democrat party
Somebody using a computer inside Democrat HQ edited a page on conservative American radio host Rush Limbaugh, calling him “idiotic”, “ridiculous” and labelling his 20 million listeners as “legally retarded”.
Fox News
Users traced back to the rightwing TV station have edited a number of pages about its presenters, including excising information about reporter Shepard Smith, who became infamous after saying “blowjob” on air.
CIA
Alongside numerous revisions about America’s national security and geography, a surfer using a CIA address also took the time to add extensive sections on lightsabre combat in the Star Wars movies.
Labour party
A section on Labour Students was edited to remove a section on the rise of the career politician. “It is sometimes claimed that Labour Students has helped the rise of careerists within the party at the expense of more radical leftwingers,” said the deleted text.
Two prisoners are offered the same deal - if one of them testifies and the other doesn’t talk, the talker will go free and the holdout will go to jail for 10 years. If both refuse to talk, the prosecutor will only be able to put them in jail for six months. If each prisoner rats out the other, they will both get five-year sentences. Not knowing what the other prisoner will do, how should each one act?
This is the classic prisoners dilemma, which provides an important lesson for many budding young economists everywhere. If you (assuming you are the prisoner) talk, you either end up going free or getting a five year sentence. If you don’t talk, you either go to jail for six months or ten years.
From an individual standpoint, this makes it very tempting to talk, even though the best thing for the prisoners is if both keep their mouths shut - hence the dilemma, as the the optimal individual decisions do not lead to the optimal group outcome. To get to the optimal group decision, the prisoners must work together - which in this case means having a strong, established trust.
Which takes us to cooperation, and in a roundabout way to Dr. Nowak. As covered in this NY Times article (free registration required), Dr. Nowak has been using the principles of the prisoner’s dilemma to study cooperation, which he argues is one of the three basic principles of evolution (the others being mutation and selection).
It appears to be a fascinating bit of research he is doing, and the implications of it are great - while enabling and benefiting from cooperation is a key element of wikinomics, Nowak is also using the same principles to do things like seek out a cure for cancer, and wade knee deep into the study of evolution and altruistic behavior.
According to Dr. Nowak, the conditions in which cooperation can arise can be shown in a simple equation: B/C>K. That is, cooperation will emerge if the benefit-to-cost (B/C) ratio of cooperation is greater than the average number of neighbors (K).
Not surprisingly, the real juice for cooperation comes when reputations come into play. By pioneering a version of PD in which players acquire reputations, They found that if reputations spread quickly enough, they could increase the chances of cooperation taking hold. Players were less likely to be fooled by defectors and more likely to benefit from cooperation.
Further… Reputation has a powerful effect on how people play games. People who gain a reputation for not cooperating tend to be shunned or punished by other players. Cooperative players get rewarded.
Do you think there might be some implications from this relevent to the role of reputation profiles in sites like Facebook, Digg, YouTube, etc… and could this type of research help formalize/ structure and analysis for optimizing relationships within an ever evolving peer production community?
WSJ journal reporter Alexandra Alter broached a very interesting subject in her article today. The case she talks about is a man with two wives, one in the physical world and one in the virtual world (Second Life). The picture below provides will help you sort out this mixed of love triangle. The question that remains to be answered is whether Richard, the husband, is being unfaithful to Sue, his wife in the real world?
Thing gets invented, and invented thing gets rapidly copied in China at a fraction of the cost - and often a fraction of the performance. For many years, this has been the pattern - but Dan Koeppel (writing for Popular Science) wonders if the latter part is going to be changing soon, based on what he’s seen and heard while seeking out a rumoured iPhone “clone”:
… the miniOne represents the vanguard of this cloning revolution. Meizu isn’t aspiring merely to copy the designs of a Western manufacturer on the cheap. The company plans to give the miniOne capabilities beyond the original. Does this signal the start of something bigger in China—the years of reverse engineering serving as a de facto education for the engineers who will soon transform China into a design and engineering powerhouse? Is China on the cusp of going legit?
It better be - as the article references, there’s growing push back against inferior copies coming out of China from consumers and companies alike. At the same time, the Chinese government has become more actively involved, with punishments for various infractions ranging from $75,000 fines to execution. Yes, execution.
Announced on its blog, Google News will be taking it’s News 2.0 to an even higher level by trying out a new feature on their website that allows individuals involved in news stories to post their view points next to the published news item. However, in order to send comments to Google, those parties involved will have to email Google with a link to the story that they are commenting on, as well as a way for Google to authenticate their identity. All appropriate information must be included in the email, and no attachments are allowed. For more information, click for help here.
This new feature raises some important points:
Unique comments made could result in the exclusivity of information for Google. Viewers would have to go specifically to Google News, as opposed to the original news source from which the feed was aggregated from in order to obtain additional insight from involved parties. This would attract a huge amount of attention to Google, which would probably fuel the fire that already exists between Google and disgruntled news sources.
This new feature has potentially severe ramifications for journalists. With the uprise in blogging, journalists have come under fire. Now that all of these comments will be posted in one place next to a story published by a journalist, their credibility will once again be scruitinized.
Although I think it’s a great idea, how exactly, beyond taking someone’s email at face value, is Google going to verify the validity of their involvement in the news story? Google, being rather adept with algorithmic-driven solutions, is not exactly experienced with human interaction. It will be interesting to see how Google will deal with an influx of new data of a different kind.
Google is currently only testing its comment feature in the United States, but may release this feature beyond these borders if interest peaks.
And knowing how popular Google is, this is very likely. Watch out newspapers. They way we read the news could change dramatically… and quickly.
“Well, the Web 2.0 is a marketing term, and I think you’ve just invented Web 3.0″ - Eric Schmidt
At the Seoul Digital Forum recently, Google’s CEO Eric Schmidt was challenged to define the term Web 3.0, “given” everyone knew what the Web 2.0 is. While he got a few laughs for the initial response he provided (quoted above), he actually went on to present a very interesting and thoughtful description of what he sees it to be.
The short (2 minute) video can be found here. His prediction for how the Web 3.0 might play out focuses on a “different way to build applications”… and it sounds a lot like the next evolution of the mash ups concept Don and Anthony wrote about in the book. Key sound bites include “applications that are pieced together”… “applications that are relatively small”… “applications can run on any device”…”applications are distributed virally” (social networks, email)… and perhaps most interestingly:
“That’s a very different application model than we’ve ever seen in computing. Very different from the mainframe era, very different from the PC industry, and likely to be very, very large. There are low barriers to entry, the new generation of tools… make it relatively easy to do, solve a lot of problems, and work everywhere.”
Its not just tech-savvy computer addicts who are spending hours of their time a day on Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games (MMORPG) like Second Life and World of Warcraft. Researchers and scholars around the world are turning to online venues to garner new insights on issues ranging from economic development, monetary policy, human behaviour, and philanthropy. To this group of interested academics, online virtual worlds are more than just fun and games.
At Cornell University – Professor Robert Bloomfield is using Second Life to teach students about regulatory policy, based on the principle that the lack of such policy in the virtual world makes it somewhat similar to the U.S. economy of 100 years ago. As he explains in a recent Business Week article, “Virtual worlds like Second Life give students an opportunity to understand what the purpose of regulation is, why it arises, what forces drive it to look ultimately the way it does.” And we can expect this sort of research to only increase in the future, as new programs continue to emerge that evaluate and study the role of such virtual worlds in society, and vice versa. According to Business Week, Bloomfield is also working on “Worlds for Study [whose wiki you can check out here], a project he initiated that will bring together professors and tech experts to develop a virtual world platform just for teaching and researching business.”
The basic premise behind this research is the belief that people in a virtual world will act much like those in the real world – motivated by incentives and deterrents, be they economic or social. That said, you have to wonder, when your forty year old neighbor is donning the avatar of a 20 year old to peruse his second youth Second Life in, how much of a replica of real world behaviors can these venues truly offer? From an academic standpoint at least, Bloomfield and others seem to believe the macro similarities will outweigh the micro differences.
Interesting blog posting today from wired.com about whether Facebook and it’s ilk are moving the Internet in the right way? Or is it setting up more walled gardens.
From the article:
Damn the Facebooks and the MySpaces. The last time we checked, there was this thing called the internet that had 6 billion users. It’s time to take our personal data out of Mr. McGregor’s little gardens and put it back where it belongs — free and open on the open web.
Social networks like Facebook and MySpace are taking the web by storm because they make it easy to manage your personal data and keep in touch with people you know. But to get value out, you have to put something in — photos, contacts, appointments, lists of your interests and your blog musings.
Therein lies the rub. When entering data into Facebook, you’re sending it on a one-way trip. Want to show somebody a video or a picture you posted to your profile? Unless they also have an account, they can’t see it. Your pictures, videos and everything else is stranded in a walled garden, cut off from the rest of the web.
Like locked cell phones and copy-protected music, Facebook is on the wrong side of the open-network debate. Facebook is a sealed bubble. Facebook users are locked into Facebook, just as iTunes locks music fans to Apple’s iPod.
This serves companies’ business interests, but not the wider interests of consumers. AOL, Yahoo and Microsoft have their own, proprietary instant-messaging systems. They’re all good, but they’d be better if they worked together. The iPhone would be better if it could also be used on Verizon’s and Sprint’s networks, and Facebook would be better if you could link to friends’ pages on MySpace and Bebo. Social networking should be based on open standards, just like e-mail.
Upon viewing Henry Rollins’ unabashed rant posted by Anthony, I couldn’t help but think of the future of the internet when faced with Google’s recent statement that it will bid at least $4.6 billion in the auction to obtain the 700 MHz Band spectrum. This spectrum, which runs from 698-806 MHz, is currently occupied by television broadcasters and will be reallocated for other wireless services due to television broadcasters vacating the bandwidth to move to digital television. This leaves, quite possibly, the most valuable available slice of radio-frequency spectrum up for grabs in America.
Google’s prospective bid on the spectrum, however, is contingent on open access requirements. Google said it would participate in the auction only if the FCC adopted conditions ensuring that consumers could use any applications or devices and that third-party providers could freely buy spectrum and interconnect with the network at any technically feasible point.
The question is why would Google impose such a stipulation when it could simply implement these restrictions once it won the auction?
Google wanted the FCC to impose these requirements so that, regardless of who wins in the auction, Google will get what it wants. Open access. This would allow new market entrants to compete against incumbent cell phone carriers like AT&T and Verizon Wireless. To go out on a limb, let’s say that maybe Google would want to get in on the wireless game. But that doesn’t sound like Google at all, does it? Whatever Google’s exact motives are, head of special initiatives at Google, Chris Sacca states,
“We’re putting consumers’ interests first and putting our money where our principles are — to the tune of $4.6 billion.”
AT&T isn’t so hot on the idea, as executive VP of external and legislative affairs, Jim Cicconi has stated,
“We would repeat that Google should put up or shut up — they can bid and enter the wireless market with any business model they prefer, then let consumers decide which model they like best.”
Verizon, on the other hand, grudgingly shifted its position in a defensive reaction once it recognized a consensus was emerging at the FCC in the direction of open access, stating that if the FCC persisted in imposing such rules, it should preserve customers’ ability to choose to have the same kind of relationship with a carrier that the customer enjoys today.
Regardless of the their stances on the issue, Verizon and AT&T will have to rethink their plans, as democratic members of the FCC have shown support for the open access initiative. FCC Chair Kevin Martin compromised by proposing approximately one-third of the airwaves sold would require buyers to offer open network access.
In a Press Statement released by the FCC on July 21, 2007 here, the FCC ruled:
“The licensees of the Upper 700 MHz Band C Block of spectrum will be required to provide a platform that is more open to devices and applications. This would allow consumers to use the handset of their choice and download and use the applications of their choice in this spectrum block, subject to certain reasonable network management conditions that allow the licensee to protect the network from harm.”
Although Google did not receive the exact ruling it was looking for, it is still interested in bidding. It won’t be too long before we will find out who comes out on top, as the FCC is required to commence the auction by January 28, 2008. Despite Google receiving the majority of media coverage on this issue in the United States due to its bold move, the same issue is currently being debated here in Canada as well with the oligopoly between Rogers, Bell, and Telus.
This is a great idea… making it ever-easier for innovative people to launch a web business by simplifying the payment process. Should PayPal (and/or Google checkout) be worried?
Today we are rolling out the Amazon Flexible Payments Service (or Amazon FPS) in beta form. The “good idea” has become a reality and developers now have yet another way to build scalable, profitable online businesses.
We’ve taken all that we know about dealing with credit cards, bank accounts, fraud checking and customer service and wrapped it all up into one convenient package.
In much the same way that S3 and EC2 allow developers to forget about leasing space in data centers, buying servers and negotiating for bandwidth, FPS shields developers from many of the messy and complex issues which arise when dealing with money. Once again, we take care of the “muck” and developers get to focus on being innovative and creative.
Designed specifically for developers, the “F” in FPS shouldn’t be taken lightly. This is a very rich service — the API document is over 250 pages long.
Boing Boing picked up on this irreverant Henry Rollins rant on Internet freedom. I thought it was worth reposting here. Rollins was a teenager hero for me. He clearly hasn’t lost his edge. Not for the faint-hearted.
del.icio.us
Digg it
Furl
reddit
