The video:

The article: Scatological attack on Stephen Harper’s record goes viral

The awesome website that, believe it or not, doesn’t even scratch the surface: ShitHarperDid.com.

Beware of a public with tools to create its own media.

Quick summary:

A guy buys a Playstation 3. He then plays with the internal workings of the machine in order to get it to do even more stuff than it could before. Sony sues him for it… an action that, frankly, is hard to morally justify even if you can show paperwork that makes it legal to do so. Anonymous attacks Sony websites and starts harassing Sony executives.

In case you missed it: Sony is suing him for modifying a product that he owns. He didn’t “license” or “lease” or “rent” that product. He owns it. Apparently, that doesn’t mean what it used to, because even though he owns that product he isn’t allowed to do with it as he pleases. That’s like a food manufacturer suing you for distributing a unique recipe, or an auto part manufacturer suing you for using car parts in a different brand car.

That’s it in a nutshell.

Ars Technica recently covered the story with a focus on how people have been able to get information on these executives. To me, this focus is completely uninteresting. Detectives have been able to get personal information on other people since before electricity was discovered, and always will.

Others have focused on the specific actions of Anonymous, and whether “they” went “too far”. That’s a fun philosophical debate if you really want to kill a few hours, but doesn’t actually have anything to do with what happens next.

That’s the key: what happens next?

This latest round of attacks by “Anonymous”, the general banner for “whatever random people got ticked off enough to target Sony executives for being a bunch of jackasses”, is becoming par for the course. You can’t stop it. Anonymous isn’t an organization. It’s just the phenomena of a bunch of people acting out. They don’t know each other, they don’t “keep in touch”, and there is no leader. YOU are Anonymous.

So, if a corporation tries to hurt random people, the members of that corporation can expect backlash. This is the world we live in.

While I’m not crazy about “mob mentality” or “mob rule”, I understand why it’s starting to happen. After Enron demonstrated to the world that corporate executives are above the law even when they seriously harm people, the notion of random people being sued for doing things that hurt people only in the vaguest and most esoteric sense is more than the average Netizen is ready to handle. People who do real harm are immune to punishment, and people who do largely theorhetical harm are lynched by the system.

Since there is no government mechanism for maintaining the balance, mob rule rises.

I don’t have a solution to the problem, but I do know that we’ll see more and more of this. It will go a bit further every time. Executives responsible for random smack-downs on the public can expect more and more backlash.

For those of us that have nothing to do with this conflict on either side, expect to be caught in the crossfire. You will be able to do less on the Internet tomorrow than you can today in order to keep executives safe from being held accountable by Anonymous. Corporate services you wanted to use will go down occasionally due to Anonymous attacks. The trend will continue.

The solution? Maybe more transparency in the corporate structure, more accountability… or maybe a completely new model under which to build a business. Ah, but this is my stop folks… I’m not really the “ingenious solutions” guy, just the “understanding what the hell is going on” guy.

The TED Talk:

Eric Whitacre’s Virtual Choir – ‘Lux Aurumque’:

UPDATE: Eric Whitacre — Sleep (Virtual Choir 2.0):

When I blogged about Spiral Moon Media Inc.’s recent viral attempt, I left it about as ambiguous as the company itself left things. Is this for real, or is this a prank? What’s going on here?

The difficulty is that people are going to get angry. If a person sees the video, spends time thinking about how stupid this whole thing is, and then discovers that it was just an ad for Spiral Moon Media, there’s a reaction at that moment. What you WANT is: “Gee, that’s great! I’ll hire them!”

In the case of the “Share The Air” viral campaign, I don’t think that’s the reaction being generated. I try not too swear too much on this blog so I won’t type out what people’s reactions are.

Take, by way of contrast, Opulence, I has it:

Dogs playing poker. Gold grapes. A miniature giraffe. Plus, as an added bonus, an entire hoax website for Sokoblovsky Farms, “Russia’s finest purveyors of petite lap giraffes.”

The website itself has gone viral, and people find it completely awesome whether or not they think it’s real. But… why?

When you “peek behind the curtain” and see the wizard back there, you smile and laugh along with him. He wasn’t trying to trick you. Rather, he was putting on a show for your benefit. This was about you, not him. More to the point:

• If you call people stupid, they’ll hate you.
• If you call people smart, they’ll love you.

This is true whether they are, in fact, smart or stupid. It’s also true if they actually believed the deception or not.

Also see The North American House Hippo:

Respect the audience at all costs folks.

Hmm. This has to be the cutest blog post I’ve ever done.

To me, that’s not the real question. The character of “Rachel Sequoia” is obviously not genuine and neither is the presentation. The real issue is whether:

1. This is an activist prank to comment on the constant quest of capitalism to make us pay for what we once got for free. (See The Yes Men for a good example.)
2. OR… is this some marketing group trying to create a viral video business?
3. OR… is it just some wacky kids having some fun?

I wonder… does it matter?

If so, why? How does that knowledge actually change the content?

Dubstep + Sheen’s megalomania + instant remix culture + celebrity culture = it must be 2011

To find anything close to Sheen’s recent antics you COULD refer to Tom Cruise’s couch-jumping on Oprah, but I think we’ve gone further then that. I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, 25 seconds of Charles Manson.

See something familiar?

http://www.ted.com Technology is evolving us, says Amber Case, as we become a screen-staring, button-clicking new version of homo sapiens. We now rely on “external brains” (cell phones and computers) to communicate, remember, even live out secondary lives. But will these machines ultimately connect or conquer us? Case offers surprising insight into our cyborg selves.

All hail the new flesh! Woot!

It certainly isn’t my place to argue with her and really, what’s a plebe like me going to add here? She nailed it. Or rather, she nailed us.

The only thing I suppose I could nit-pick is this notion of “slowing down”, which I hear echoed in everything from New Age and Zen to bleeding-edge technology conferences. People are spending an awful lot of time worrying about us becoming creatures that operate on a pure stimulus-response level, rather than thinking and creating ourselves.

This, I would argue, has nothing to do with technology. TV was demonized along the same lines. No, the problem isn’t the tech.

It’s the culture.

We live in a world where the wealthiest nations on the planet can’t be bothered to raise their own kids, or question the veracity of the nonsense that passes for news these days, or wonder if maybe there’s something to be concerned about when animals and insects are spontaneously dropping dead all over the globe. As long as we’re fed and entertained, we’re happy and content to take whatever we’re spoon-fed.

That’s not technology. That’s the sleep we’ve been slipping into as a people since my grandparents were born.

Then:

Hmm. RE: TSA – People are being sexually assaulted in public, its been institutionalized, but they’re “a little bit safer” and you don’t mind.

Unsubscribed. Cripes…

More in the new year.

We Live in Public – 2008, 18A, 88 minutes

Ondi Timoner’s documentary chronicles a decade in the life of Internet pioneer Josh Harris, who instigated an “artificial society” experiment in which more than 100 artists lived under 24-hour surveillance in an underground compound in New York City. After FEMA broke up the project, Harris turned the cameras on himself and his girlfriend. Timoner’s provocative film (winner of the Grand Jury Prize: Documentary at Sundance) includes clips from Harris’s projects as well as her own original footage.

Keep it digital and catch it on Netflix. It’s scary and awesome, although the ending is a little weak. The point, through, is this notion that we are all encouraged to make our lives public. It is the way forward. “Web 2.0″, “User-created content”, “Social media”, assorted buzzwords yadda yadda…

Now that we’ve lived with these ideas for a few years, the hipster movement makes sense. After all, you can’t be cool all the time, and in an age of constant surveillance and recording you’re bound to do something stupid that people will take notice of. As a result, people claim it was “supposed to be ironic”.

That, or your idiotic status update was “just trolling lololollol”… sure, we believe you. No, really, I’m not typing sarcastically or anything.

The older generation got flinchy about public perception by doing what they always do: hiding behind “professionalism”. The number of dry, sterile public profiles that tell you nothing about the person in question is staggering. People have thrown themselves into mediocrity enthusiastically in order to keep the all-seeing eye of the Internet from making them look like an ass. So, instead, they look ignorable.

Now, if “ignorable” is part of the job description, then your resume is perfect. For the rest of us, its time to just be guileless and let the chips fall where they may. Either you’ll run your business yourself, or you’ll let the world run it for you.

Which one has your best interests at heart?

The Social Network is a movie based on the construction of Facebook.com. Its another story about a quirky genius who lives for his art, doesn’t care about money, and just wants to be loved. Just take that, mix in a bunch of standard “going into business movie” tropes, and you have this. In a sense the only thing that makes it unique is that most scenes are filmed in David Fincher’s preferred “dark-green-o-vision” to indicate the murky and manly depths of introspective turmoil, and lots of low-angled shots to force us to be impressed by everyone’s godliness.

It’s fine. A fair rating gives it 3 stars (of 5), or 4 stars if you really love this genre.

Most people don’t want to give it a fair rating though. They’re screaming “5 stars!” as loudly as they can with fingers in their ears to block out any dissenters, and telling everyone who will listen to get in to see this thing. The buzz has been unbelievable. People are even talking about Academy Awards for the leading actors, despite the lack of any moments in the movie dramatic enough to justify this.

Why?

1. People hope that this makes it cool to spend too much time on Facebook.
2. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs fanboys want another hero, and hope that could be Zuckerberg.
3. Dreamers hope its true that if your girlfriend dumps you, you could get drunk, write some code, and make a billion dollars.

As of October 31st the movie had grossed $132.9 million at the box office. So, what have we learned? The same thing that we learned when those horrid Twilight movies hit it big: insecure people love to spend money. Pander to them.