2012 is the year that the internet became a political force. What took so long? Well, the majority of us have surely been distracted by LOLcats and pr0nz.

Full disclosure: I work on issues at the intersection of technology, copyright and policy. In recent months, I’ve been able to observe firsthand the impact of internet-powered social movements. To wit: the unprecedented outrage around the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and PROTECT-IP (PIPA) stopped either bill from becoming law — something many in Congress assumed was a fait accompli.

Then there’s the immense pressure brought on Susan G. Komen for the Cure after the organization pulled funding to Planned Parenthood. The swift disapproval — again, largely web-driven — was so intense that Komen’s VP is now stepping down.

The “bitroots” blowback is hardly limited to the US. Public demonstrations are currently taking place in the EU over ACTA, an international intellectual property agreement that some think goes too far. Protests have spilled into the streets, with more than 20,000 people participating in Poland alone. But the real engine of dissent is online.

Powerful as this new form of protest is, it’s hardly perfect. Oversimplifications are common, which is to be expected when complex policy matters are condensed into viral action items. Still, there is one clear takeaway: the world’s netizens will no longer lay back while decisions are made that impact their lives, online and otherwise.

From my experience, I can say that the anti-SOPA/PIPA movement was broad and remarkably diffuse. Internet users are now stakeholders, and they have countless ways to share information and amplify their voices. And, although it would be incorrect to call them a monolithic group, they are perfectly capable of representing their own self-interests when push comes to shove.

It’s unfair to characterize the SOPA/PIPA skirmish as one between Hollywood and Silicon Valley (read: Google). While some major tech companies were certainly involved, most of the push happened at the netroots level. I’d say it went down something like this:

1. Tumblr saw the liabilities they’d face under this overly-broad legislation and independently decided to black out their pages in protest. This woke a lot of folks up right quick.
2. The Reddit community started paying attention, and more people became very well-informed on the issue (and got pretty pissed off).
3. Wikipedia joined the loosely-organized “blackout,” and in the process inspired millions more people to call their representatives. (I think Google put a widget next to the search field on their home page, but they didn’t go dark.)
4. Some of us goobers in Washington — completely outnumbered by the well-heeled entertainment industry goons — pointed out that a lot of constituents (including tens of thousands of copyright holders) weren’t comfortable with this legislation as drafted.

The true action came from internet users who found themselves in a position to push back against a fairly draconian set of proposals. The technology itself amplified their message to the extent that a bill that had already passed out of full committee in the US Senate was put on ice, and the House companion never even made it past markup. You can believe me when I tell you that this is a new dynamic in Washington. I’m not sure anyone has fully wrapped their heads around what it means.

So, are these movements merely lighting in a bottle, or the foundations of a new and lasting form of advocacy? Can these spontaneous yet incredibly potent movements be transitioned from something reactive to something proactive? We may have to wait a while to find out. For now, if I was the MPAA or the RIAA, I might consider internalizing the lesson, instead of blithely dismissing the movement as ill-informed, or worse, driven by tech companies.

What do you bet they won’t?

Dear Big Content,

I love your movies. Especially the ones that are all s’plodey and where stuff flies off the screen. And I love your records, the Led Zeppelin catalog in particular. I’ve always been a good customer: I don’t infringe, and I’m loyal to a fault. But I do have a few questions for you.

First, why do you treat me and my friends like punks? We buy your stuff. But you make it really hard to do it in a way that fits with our digital reality. I’m looking at you, movie and TV peeps. You really want me to accept the violation of a decades-old consumer compact whereby we could rent a movie on the same day it was available to purchase? Do you really think that making me wait TWO MONTHS to be able to rent Mars Needs Moms on DVD (I’m not even talking streaming) is going to drive me into Best Buy to plunk down for the petrochemical disc? Do you secretly like piracy? Because that’s exactly what you’re encouraging.

And music guys: how come you create the conditions where there are only three companies that can afford to offer your wares? Do you know how much fucking money you’re leaving on the table by clinging to your prehistoric licensing terms? Once upon a time there was this disruptive, infringing technology called radio. Completely freaked song publishers out. They wanted to force every broadcaster to pay an individually negotiated amount for every spin. In hindsight, that seems not only inefficient but imbecilic. Maybe the government needs to step up and prod you goofballs towards more internet-friendly terms. I bet you could even keep your car service! Now, I know that you fought the phonograph. And the CD. And the MP3. But you don’t have much fight left in you. So the time to get your shit together is probably now. And yes, me and my friends will be paying VERY close attention to make sure that the artist splits are fair. Because frankly, I’m not all that convinced that you’re providing much value anymore. Consider this your opportunity to be cut into the future while you still have a chance.

And would you please get a basic grasp of how the internet works? Why are you so keen to demonize an entire class of technology? Let’s take search for example. I can look up a recipe to make hash brownies. Or I can look up a recipe to make regular brownies. Now, we all know that those criminal scumbags offering the former must be dealt with in the severest possible manner. But what you’re proposing is like blowing up the entire library because you don’t like that the card catalog system tells you which shelf has the book on hash brownies. Are you really this boneheaded? I get that you’re jealous about Google making bajillions from search. But is that a reason to compromise a mechanism upon which millions of global internet users rely? I guess it’s true what they say: the entertainment industry isn’t all about the money — it’s about ALL the money.

Also, could you please stop pretending that the SOPA/PIPA debacle was about Silicon Valley vs. Hollywood? (Or, as you prefer to characterize it, homespun creators vs. Google.) Literally millions of internet users — many of them copyright holders — had issues with your overreaching bills. They didn’t jump into a controversial intellectual property debate because they wanted to. They felt compelled to, due to the fact that big-money industry lobbying groups like yours were attempting to speak for them.

So kindly cut it out.

I want to be your friend. But you don’t make it easy. The arrogance, belligerence and outright bullying that you employ is hardly endearing yourselves to an entire new generation of creators and rightsholders. If I wasn’t so goddamn genteel, I’d go ahead and list some of that stuff. But unlike you, I have a modicum of class.

Consider this a friendly bit of advice from someone who cares. The road you’re going down leads to disaster and heartbreak. But it’s not too late to turn around.

Your pal,
Casey

I live in Washington, DC and work in tech policy (as it relates to creative content). This means I have the dubious privilege of seeing how the sausage is made when it comes to the laws that shape our digital future. Increasingly, I’m witnessing a convergence of some pretty hairy issues that previously had limited public impact. And, for better or worse, policymakers — domestic and international — have started to pay attention.

There are three core concerns that will have an outsized effect on how we all experience technology. The first one encompasses the other two, which are of nearly equal importance. Bookmark this page, and we can talk about it in 10 years (provided we’re all still here).

1. Internet freedom
2. Intellectual Property Enforcement
3. Data Privacy/Security

Before I explain how these issues are converging, let’s look at what each means individually.

Internet Freedom
This is the mother of all tech-policy debates, and the one with the most potential to impact every facet of your online experience. The internet is essentially a packet-switching information exchange network that uses a simple protocol to allow all these interconnected machines to “talk” to each other. Its process is, by and large, neutral with regard to content. This is what has allowed it to become the most powerful engine for democratic speech in the history of humanity. That speech may very well be 90 percent LOLcats, but it also includes political speech and practically every other flavor of expression. In the United States, this means that our First Amendment rights are automatically ported over to this digital conduit. That may not be the case with other countries, which is why you see a lot of high-falutin’ talk from the State Department about the importance of maintaining global networks where free expression can flourish.

Unfortunately, recent American trends giving corporate speech unparalleled weight means that your own online speech could depend on how deep your pockets are. This is the crux of the so-called “net neutrality” debate, in which the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) want to charge a premium for the faster delivery of content, sites and services. Without clear rules of the road, speech that does not benefit the ISP’s bottom lines — or those of their corporate partners — may be delayed, or worse still, blocked. There has been progress in achieving at least some protections here. But these rules — promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission — are currently in danger of being stripped away by Congress.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the FCC established separate rules for the “wired” web vs. internet accessed on mobile devices. This distinction, to me, is arbitrary and pointless. There is ONE internet, regardless of how you connect to it. Having a tiered internet for wireless may end up impacting those whose speech has historically been at the greatest disadvantage, as underprivileged and minority communities are more likely to access the internet via mobile devices.

It will be very interesting to see how the American virtue of free expression plays out on our domestic networks, especially as we promote open technology platforms as a means of democratic participation overseas.

2. Intellectual Property Enforcement
Wikipedia defines Intellectual Property (IP) as “a term referring to a number of distinct types of creations of the mind for which a set of exclusive rights are recognized… common types of intellectual property rights include copyrights, trademarks, patents, industrial design rights and trade secrets in some jurisdictions.”

IP is big business. REALLY big business here in America. Which is why there are so many large stakeholders pushing for stronger intellectual property laws on the internet. I have no problem with this in theory, as I am a copyright holder myself, and believe that I should have exclusive rights over how my expression is capitalized upon in the marketplace – that is, for a limited term, which was the balance struck by Congress when it devised our laws governing this part of IP. There are different rules for trademarks and patents, on which I am no expert. So I’ll stick with what I know.

Increasingly, copyright law is coming to loggerheads with the consumptive behaviors of internet users. This is something I’ve written about and spoken on extensively in my professional life. In the interest of space, and without picking sides, I can say this: rightsholders are currently pushing hard on Congress to pass laws that, to my reading, look like blunt instruments when it comes to protecting IP online. And by this I mean legislation currently proposed could, at worst, restrict legitimate speech and compromise the underlying security of the internet. For further details, I point you to my DC colleagues, Public Knowledge. (Full disclosure: my wife works for them.)

3. Data Privacy/Security
Which brings me to my final issue, data privacy/security. Again, I can’t claim to be an expert here, but on the other hand, not many can. Here, we have everything from domestic defense to corporate espionage to individual rights and even First Amendment concerns. Some may have heard Eric Schmidt of Google‘s statement on total data transparency being the key to informational security. I’m sure the NSA would agree, so long as they are the ones with “total” access to the data. I bring this up because at no other point in history has informational privacy been of such import — perceived and actual. I can remember people on the street where I grew up being hesitant about having their name listed in the phone book. Now, everything we do and say online leaves a digital trace. Before you get yourself in some Philip K. Dick psychological tailspin, keep in mind that there’s a big difference between personally-identifying data and non-personally-identifying data. The former can be used to target, track and harass individuals; the latter is basically why Amazon knows what books you might be interested in reading next. Still, there is a lot of grey area with regard to how this information is collected, shared and exploited. And, at the moment, US privacy law is a patchwork of state-by-state regulations and jurisprudence. That might not be the case forever, as Congress has shown interest in establishing a federal privacy standard. Obviously, that could cut both ways.

Data security is the other side of the coin. Here, we reach the queasy intersection of defense, espionage — corporate and state — and hackerdom. Much of what occurs in the world of data security happens privately, or though private-public contracts between government and IT wizards. Obviously, any breach of US information security comes with pretty severe (domestic) penalties, but that doesn’t mean that hackers here and abroad aren’t trying to break into our informational infrastructure every second of every day. A serious breach is practically guaranteed, as is the subsequent crackdown. I believe this is what is referred to as the “Internet 9/11.”

The US isn’t just playing defense here. I’ve followed closely reports of how the administration very seriously considered a cyberattack on Libya’s air defense network in the lead-up to the NATO engagement. We ultimately decided against it, likely for a combination of reasons: one, we may not have wanted to be the first country to open the Pandora’s Box of cyberwar; two, we didn’t have enough time to pinpoint and exploit weaknesses in the Libyan network before airstrikes were scheduled to commence; and three, there were lingering legal questions about whether cyberattacks are considered “hostilities” subject to Congressional oversight within the War Powers Act. I guarantee these questions will soon be answered one way or another. And this will undoubtedly impact the evolution of global information networks.

All three of these issues intersect in myriad ways. The economics of digital entertainment is related to open networks vs. walled gardens, and also bumps up against data privacy/security on both the consumer and corporate end of the spectrum. Participatory democracy depends on open tech platforms and access to robust data pipelines and mobile spectrum. Overly-broad IP enforcement has the potential to limit exactly that openness while sending the signal to other nations that censorship is OK. Digital networks can also be exploited by despots (and even less-nefarious governments) to monitor the speech and movement of a populace. And around and around we go.

Taken together, as they are destined to be, these three issues represent the last tech-policy debate. How we respond will shape human interaction for decades, if not centuries to come.

So stop asking, dammit!

• Serial killer of the week. The Zodiac Killer! “Oh, yawn,” you say, “I already know ALL about that old thing.” Oh really, smartass? Well did you know that this dude thinks he cracked another cipher letter which reveals the killer’s name? And this lady says it was someone else — her dad. (However, she also thinks she is the biological daughter of JFK.) But wait, there’s yet another suspect fingered in this guy’s autobiography!
• Religion of the week. You’ve all eaten with Oneida silverware, right? Well now you can think about this wacky cougar sex and eugenics religion every time you see the Oneida logo. I don’t envy the person who had to write this carefully worded company history on their website. I want to visit the old homestead and ask the staff about every aspect of the sexcapades.
• Fetish of the week. Speaking of cougars, I guess the contemporary celebration of cougarism is probably good because it might break down some of the culturally enforced ideas about womanly beauty being the sole province of the young. My problem is when the cougar scenario becomes uneasily Freudian and just makes me think of mommy fetishists. I know I wrote about infantalists once before, but that was the non-sexual kind. Remember Stanley? Well, Senator Tom Coburn thinks he smells disability fraud. Apparently Senator Coburn is able to do full medical and psychiatric assessments based on a few minutes of television programming.
• Links!

Another diapered man in the news.

I love the show “Deadliest Warrior.” Yeah, I know it’s silly, but I frankly can’t get enough of weapons and fighting and watching things go smash and boom. I love mayhem, duh! This show is like an organized, televised, somewhat scientific version of the drunken conversation tradition of debating who would win in a fight between X and Y. Spetsnaz vs. Special Forces? Waffen-SS vs. Viet Cong? Shaka Zulu vs. William Wallace? Ninja vs. Spartan? Craziness! God bless television!

Looking back at Alien while looking forward to Prometheus.

Miscellaneous nasty facts with pictures.

What is the hum?

He boiled for your sins.

Drunkeys!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSm7BcQHWXk

Did you know that you can die from having sex with time-traveling sea monkeys? Well now you do. You’re welcome.

Hi! My name is Sheela!

Watching the “Hail to the V” commercials leaves me feeling conflicted.

They are certainly:

• Idiotic and annoying. But hey, what advertising isn’t?
• Considered racist by many people.
• Offensive to all women, everywhere, forever.

Why offensive? Well, their marketing has created and then preyed upon the idea that all women’s vaginal areas are inherently so dirty, stinky, icky and unsanitary that they require special products just to make the natural stench of women tolerable to the general public. One might hope we’d left that kind of misogynistic bullshit advertising back in the Women’s Day magazines of the 1950s, but sadly no. Just last fall, Summer’s Eve published ads for their feminine wash stating that douching is #1 thing every woman should do before asking for a raise. Le Wow.

Not only are these companies unethical for exploiting a fear that they created, their products are actually bad for women’s gynocological and general health. The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology recommend against douching and using heavily scented chemical products in your vagina and on external genitalia. Using that garbage increases your risks of developing vaginal irritation, vaginitis, pelvic inflammatory disease, ectopic pregnancy, bacterial vaginal infections and certain STDs.

Now these adds are taking their nefarious campaign to the next level. Now they are groveling priests of the Cult of Vag offering gifts to your glorious vagina! It’s not about men or jobs anymore, it’s about what’s best for you. Only a company that advocates such overt worship of all that is the Sacred Feminine could produce a gift worthy of laying on the Alter of Vagina! Right? Except the gift is a toxic smoke bomb that kills everything inside the temple and corrodes the walls.

So why am I conflicted? They’re all bad, right? Well… I feel like I can take away at least one good aspect. In the past most feminine hygiene products were pure vague innuendo, euphemism, and metaphor. Unless you had pre-existing knowledge of the products and their uses you would have no idea what the ads were for. Here are some examples:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ro2mKtw77Sc

www.youtube.com/watch?v=potXaDoFZHQ

www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvD0X-mFk4U

www.youtube.com/watch?v=BR8fyh7QgPM

So I can’t help but think it’s ultimately a good thing that these ads are actually saying the word vagina and even using a quasi-realistic portrayal of a talking vulva. What I wish they would have gone with instead is this covert ad campaign they’ve started online, which I think is much funnier and more assertive. While I still find their marketing to be inherently offensive, I actually like this ad a lot compared to everything that’s come before it.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ss8uUbvprk

That kitty puppet sounds sincere, and I believe he would strongly condemn Summer’s Eve if he knew how bad their products are for vaginas. What do you think?

This is essentially a feminist site, but as its male proprietor, I confess to being utterly out of my depths when it comes to stuff like this new ad campaign for Summer’s Eve.

Hail to the V:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_zJwLZ49zM

And look, they made some for different races!

White:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKvLd_XxFuw

Black:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DcFjbELeW0

Latino:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=szausZLMZuY

Readers (and contributors) please help me out here. Are these sexist, racist, ridiculous or some kind of hitherto unexplored combination?

[My amazing intern at Future of Music Coalition, Scott Oranburg, wrote this overview of Spotify, which I thought was too cool not to also post here.]

OK, we can admit it: we’ve been pretty pumped about Spotify for a while now. The mega-hyped European music service has been been making tracks across the pond for a couple of years, but it was beginning to seem like a US launch would never happen. Now, after securing license agreements with Warner Music Group — the lone major label holdout —  Spotify finally has the greenlight to open shop in America. For US listeners, Spotify offers a 3-tiered payment plan: Listen for free with advertisements (limitations, like listening hour caps will be introduced in six months); get unlimited ad-free music on your computer for $5/month; or get unlimited ad-free music on any computer and mobile device for $10/month.

We decided that it was well worth plunking down the ten bucks and taking the unlimited service for a ride. Why not? We’ve been waiting a while. In fact, when Casey Rae-Hunter interviewed Spotify founder/CEO Dan Ek live at the 2009 Future of Music Policy Summit, the Swedish entrepreneur said the service would launch later that year. Better late than never! (Casey also just spoke to American Public Media’s “Marketplace” about the US launch; check that out here.)

First Impressions
It’s really fast. And it works really well. And it sounds really, really good.

Although subscription on-demand music services have been around for a while now, none have managed to capture the same buzz as Spotify. We’re not naming names, but some initially struggled with clunky interfaces, iffy catalogs or weak marketing (or a combination). Meanwhile, Spotify seems to have been running on all cylinders in Europe right out of the gate. Our feeling about the American version is that it’s the real deal.

The entire interface feels incredibly familiar from the moment you login. The program itself looks a lot like iTunes, which many users have navigated for years. Playlists are stored to the left. Libraries are shown in the middle. Search bars are up top. Volume and playback controls are at the bottom. You can star songs or albums you like, and you can look back into your play history. And, Spotify’s unique caching and piecemeal streaming system makes everything play instantly, as if it were actually stored on your hard drive. Actually, the loading time was noticeably faster than our external harddrive on USB 2.0, and the quality on par with — or superior to — most of the tracks on iTunes or floating around cyberspace.

But the real “aha” moment comes when you realize just how expansive the Spotify catalog is. Search almost anything, and it’s right there for immediate playback. Choose entire albums or single tracks. Check out artists’ “top hits” before delving deeper into their catalog. And you can browse related artists’ discographies while you’re at it. It’s pretty much all the music you can imagine, immediately accessible and totally legal. The interface is fast and easy. Almost everything can be dragged-and-dropped, while playlists, libraries and even local files on your hard drive are immediately accessible with a single click.

Mobile Access
The iPhone app is pretty killer (Android is on the way). Over WiFi, Spotify feels just as good and plays just as quickly as it does on a laptop. The interface still isn’t quite as intuitive as that of an iPod Touch, but it’s pretty close. But more importantly, the 3G streaming is unbelievably fast compared to similar subscription services like MOG or Rdio. Spotify’s caching system is very robust, so much so that playback is totally consistent if you start an album and let it play straight through. There’s no telling exactly how long the cache will run (for example, imagine losing service on the subway for a few stops), but from our initial use, it seems very rugged. Of course, the caching has to restart when skipping between songs, so 3G definitely has some limitations when compared with an MP3 player with local files. (Local device downloads, which last as long as you subscribe, pretty much solve this issue.)

Deeper into the Interface
OK, so maybe we’re just a bit giddy, but Spotify seems to actually change the music-listening experience, too. Think back to when you first got an iPod: all the music you owned was on one device, and it synced with your computer pretty seamlessly. Suddenly, everyone had their music with them at the gym, in the car, on flights, etc. Music became further entrenched into all of our lives, and that was in pretty much everyone’s best interest (unless that music wasn’t paid for). It seems that Spotify is now offering a similar evolution in the listening experience.This isn’t just because Spotify eliminates frustrating load times, duplicated files, missing cover art, corruption errors, shoddy external harddrive connections, over-capacity listening devices, or waiting for downloads to finish. Rather, Spotify’s real impact may extend beyond the polish of the interface; it may come from the way we can share music with each other.

The potential here seems unprecedented. Because all of this music is in the “cloud,” Spotify users can subscribe to others’ playlists, email songs, share tracks on Facebook or integrate with other third-party products like Turntable.fm. A decade after the MP3 revolution, Spotify has now made legal and streamlined the music-sharing process. While writing this, we literally asked around the office and on Facebook about new music suggestions. All was immediately searchable and streamable. From there, we could post favorite tracks to Facebook or throw ‘em into our Turntable.fm queue for more people to discover. We even sent recently played songs to Mom, who is still listening to music suggestions from Mother’s Day 2009.

Spotify is well-integrated with Facebook, too. And, while previous social music offerings haven’t really taken off (like Apple’s Ping), Spotify’s social features have tons of potential. Went to your friend’s dance party last night? Great, check out her Spotify playlists, and grab the tracks immediately and legally. Share them with more of your friends following your playlists, throw them on your queue to listen to on the way to work, and then pick up where you left off once you sit down at your computer. From top to bottom, Spotify works really well and really quickly, and it creates a fluid music-listening experience that for many, may even trump Apple.

Impact on Artists
Of course, our primary concerns are about working musicians. We love to see new technology improve our experience with music, but we don’t want it to be at the expense of songwriters or performers. Fortunately, Spotify is completely legal, and pays rights holders (including musicians). Right now, the money coming to artists from such services is nothing like selling merch at shows, but it is a revenue stream. (In fact, independent musicians may fare better than major label artists due to contracts and “recoupables.”) There’s no way to predict whether subscriptions will eventually displace album sales — download or physical — and it’s also unclear how that shift would affect the music community as a whole. Still, it’s nice to see something that we think can legitimately “compete with free.” The rest comes down to user adoption of the premium service, licensing issues and contracts. We’ll be keeping an eye on all of these developments (and both ears on our Spotify).

TOT TRIAL TAKES TOPSY TURN!

Did you hear? Casey Anthony has been found NOT GUILTY of killing her two year-old daughter, Caylee. The internets are aflame with outrage! Nancy Grace‘s head ACTUALLY EXPLODED on TV! Forget the Tea Party, this decision is the real spur to revolution!

I didn’t follow the case closely, but after the verdict, I did a little bit of research into the evidence and arguments. While I understand the jury’s decision, I will cop to being a bit troubled by the fact that our justice system is seemingly content with letting the death of a toddler go unsolved. It just doesn’t sit right on a fundamental human level.

The jury’s decision is fun to parse for a legal nerd like me. But that’s not what I’m really fascinated by. I’m more interested in how the proceedings played out in both the mainstream media and social networks. Recent history is peppered with highly controversial cases — from OJ to MJ to JonBenét — which have provoked strong reactions in observers. But the Casey Anthony trial was different. This isn’t because of the stomach-turning particulars, but rather the confluence of old-school media and user-powered platforms like Facebook and Twitter. It makes you wonder what the Rodney King aftermath might have looked like if it had happened yesterday.

People like to talk about “old” media vs. “new” media, as if one didn’t influence the other. But surely, the nation’s interest in the Anthony case was encouraged by TV pundits like the relentlessly shrill Nancy Grace, a woman who deserves an award for hyperbole. (Note to self: launch the Annual Contrarian Media Hyperbole Awards).

Now I know it is our duty as American citizens to respect the jury system. But I know one thing: as the defense sits by and has their champagne toast after that not-guilty verdict, somewhere out there, the devil is dancing tonight.

Isn’t that something? Such sustained, sensational coverage no doubt contributed to the way people perceived the case. A quick scan of related Twitter hashtags reveals multiple death wishes to Casey Anthony. This isn’t to say that she’s not potentially guilty, but it does hint at how strong emotions can be shaped by mass media reporting.

What might have been an opportunity to examine how our legal system functions instead became a powerful demonstration of mob mentality. One can be skeptical about whether justice was served and still be disturbed at the bloodlust just beneath the surface of our supposedly civil society.

And that bloodlust isn’t limited to the Great Unwashed. Corporate media feeds on it, opportunistically repackaging our obsessions as easy fodder for ratings. This creates a worrisome feedback loop that plays to our basest collective instincts.

I’m not a believer in a “fixed” human nature, but rather a spectrum of potential behaviors that are rooted in any number of factors. These phenomena are not limited to individual expression. As Carl Jung observed of the rising specter of Nazism, groups of people, too, possess a “shadow” personality that is subject to collective agitation. Here is the seed of the so-called “mob mentality” (or “participation mystique,” in Jungian terms). This phenomenon often presents itself as chaotic, but can be harnessed and directed to very destructive ends (as borne out by the Third Reich).

I’m not suggesting that the reaction to Casey Anthony verdict bears any direct relationship to Nazi brownshirts. Yet as the linkages between German propaganda and mass behavior were once poorly understood, much remains unclear about the interaction of traditional and networked media. At the right time and under the right conditions, the combo could produce calamitous results. This is the flipside to the “Twitter revolution” that  tech evangelists point to as driving democratic change in the Middle East. (The fact of the matter is that little actual organizing happens on these networks; most of it is Western echo chamber.)

At the dawn of the Internet Age, many of us overestimated the power the new platforms would have in remaking our media landscape. Certainly, they have upended business models and created an unprecedented environment for individual expression. But they have yet to replace traditional media. This could be due to the relative influence these corporations have over public policy, but I think it also has to do with ingrained consumer behavior and expectation. And by the time that a critical mass of the populace is fully acclimated to the new channels, old media will have figured out a way to control the underlying architecture — through law or corporate collusion. (For those playing along at home, this battle is raging as I type, and is the main reason for my existence in Washington.)

What I’m getting at is this: the continued strength of traditional media, coupled with the unique contours of the social web, creates an entirely new world for information. Like anything, there’s bound to be a good and not-so-good side.

To truly address the feedback loop described above would require a more open and participatory media environment, and not just in the realm of social networks. Whether this is possible or not, given marketplace and political pressures, remains an unanswered question. How that question is answered will determine nothing less than the future of information exchange.

Take that, Nancy Grace.

I have invites to the new social Google thingamabob, but I can’t use them because, once again, the company launched a highly-anticipated beta and couldn’t manage demand.

The following are my favorite features in Google+, with the caveat that I still haven’t gotten a chance to use it.

• Huddles — where you play fantasy football while betting on how long it’ll take for Google+ to go the way of Wave and Buzz
• Circles is an accurate digital representation of Dante’s Inferno
• That little button that gives Mark Zuckerberg direct access to your bank account
• Image widget turns Lady Gaga into a normal human being
  
• You get a ten percent share of MySpace just by joining!
  
• Automatically syncs with Baidu in China
• The only social network allowed in Supermax prisons
  
• Cawker: Celebrity penis pic section powered by Gawker
• New Prince album available exclusively on Google+
  
• Unpopular? Biomechanical algorithms “grow” friends for you
• RFID chip knows where you are at all times
  
• Pays third world children to do your homework for you
  
• Girls worldwide enter contract to ONLY go wild on Google+
  
• Free pet sitting
  
• Sparks: Google Alerts for caffeinated alcoholic beverage discounts

Titor claimed that in the year 2038, a computer-based mainframe error called the UNIX 2038 problem would wreak havoc upon the world and only an original 1975 IBM 5100 computer could solve the problem. Titor claimed that the 5100’s BASIC and APL programming languages held the key to future salvation and he was a soldier sent back in time to retrieve one in working condition.

Think of it as an uber-geeky Terminator, with Titor as the Michael Biehn character.

When asked about his year-2000 pit stop, Titor said that he dropped in to pick up some family photos lost during the “second Civil War” and to warn us of a cattle-based disease outbreak that would kill millions of people.  He also hinted at future historic events, scientific laws yet to be discovered and breakthroughs that would change human life as we know it — including time travel technology (his machine was nestled in the trunk of a 1975 Chevette). Like some Nostradamus firing off prophecies from a local Starbucks, Titor lit up scientific message boards for months with vague announcements hinting at the world to come.

Titor offered to answer any direct questions asked of him but refused to repeat himself. He confirmed the Everett-Wheeler Model of Quantum Physics and claimed that this discredited the Grandfather Paradox. The enigmatic man from the future kindly responded to most queries with a keen sense of duty and patience, but occasionally got peeved at naysayers. Eventually, the fatigue from being called crazy and the repeated denial of his warnings made Titor bow out of the message boards in March of 2001 — leaving us to the mercy of fate (or destiny).

Since his disappearance, John Titor’s predictions toppled one at a time — each failing to come true even as his legend continues to grow. His forecast of the 2004 Civil War never materialized; its escalation to near-apocalypse status in 2008 also proved false. Although some suggest Titor did hint at such events as September 11 and Hurricane Katrina, his failures overshadow any authentic augury. And now we wait for the 2015 Russian nuclear attack that destroys all major US cities, leaving Omaha, Nebraska as our nation’s capital. Why should we believe this prediction? Well, Titor’s followers — and he does have them — claim that his arrival in our time changed the path of history and steered us away from these horrific events.

Like another enigmatic modern-day folk hero, DB Cooper, who became a symbol of his time, John Titor holds a place in our own culture. Titor reflects our desire for online anonymity coupled with an urge to berate and harass from behind the impersonal architecture of message boards. When Titor reached out to our imperiled society with a desire to help — or maybe just to get some attention — we, in typical fashion, mocked and drove away.

According to his own posts, in 2011, the 13-year-old John Titor lives in Florida and is training with the “Fighting Diamondbacks” in preparation for the upcoming Russian conflict. Perhaps we should track him down and apologize before we run out of time…