Comments for KerryJ's blog http://blogs.educationau.edu.au/kjohnson Podcasting, vodcasting, digital storytelling and online worlds Sun, 05 Jul 2009 02:44:16 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4 Comment on Second Life to be banned in Australia? Let’s get to the source. by KerryJ http://blogs.educationau.edu.au/kjohnson/2009/07/02/second-life-to-be-banned-in-australia-lets-get-to-the-source/#comment-11490 Thu, 02 Jul 2009 05:36:56 +0000 http://blogs.educationau.edu.au/kjohnson/2009/07/02/second-life-to-be-banned-in-australia-lets-get-to-the-source/#comment-11490 Hi Davionous - thanks so much for taking the time to comment. The purpose of this post is quite clearly stated: to suggest that going to the source to find answers makes more sense than visceral reactions to one article in a mainstream newspaper that seems to be the only source commented in the dozens of blog posts and other newspaper articles on the topic (sloppy journalism people!). I agree it is highly unlikely that the government keeps Linden Labs abreast of their every intent. However, I thought it both interesting and relevant that Linden Labs felt it necessary to respond in this way. Clearly they have a vested interest in the matter. The end of the article does not reach a definite conclusion because the final source needs to make a definitive statement about this issue. I cannot reach a conclusion about what the Minister's or ACMA's intent is (and the results of that intent) and neither can anyone else until this happens. Why accept the SMH article as gospel when you as a citizen can contact Mr. Conroy's office and ask them yourself? Plus, I would strongly urge you to take a look at Laurel Papworth's blog post (thanks so much for commenting Laurel) on the topic. What is going on is multi-layered. And Mike, that was my take too. I suppose it comes from having a background in media - but when only one outlet comes out with a story like that and I can't find any follow up from any other outlet -- I do my own homework. That said -- come on professional journos out there -- let's get this out in the open. SBS - perhaps it's time for an Insight into this? Hi Davionous - thanks so much for taking the time to comment.

The purpose of this post is quite clearly stated: to suggest that going to the source to find answers makes more sense than visceral reactions to one article in a mainstream newspaper that seems to be the only source commented in the dozens of blog posts and other newspaper articles on the topic (sloppy journalism people!).

I agree it is highly unlikely that the government keeps Linden Labs abreast of their every intent. However, I thought it both interesting and relevant that Linden Labs felt it necessary to respond in this way. Clearly they have a vested interest in the matter.

The end of the article does not reach a definite conclusion because the final source needs to make a definitive statement about this issue. I cannot reach a conclusion about what the Minister’s or ACMA’s intent is (and the results of that intent) and neither can anyone else until this happens.

Why accept the SMH article as gospel when you as a citizen can contact Mr. Conroy’s office and ask them yourself?

Plus, I would strongly urge you to take a look at Laurel Papworth’s blog post (thanks so much for commenting Laurel) on the topic. What is going on is multi-layered.

And Mike, that was my take too. I suppose it comes from having a background in media - but when only one outlet comes out with a story like that and I can’t find any follow up from any other outlet — I do my own homework. That said — come on professional journos out there — let’s get this out in the open.

SBS - perhaps it’s time for an Insight into this?

]]> Comment on Second Life to be banned in Australia? Let’s get to the source. by Davionious http://blogs.educationau.edu.au/kjohnson/2009/07/02/second-life-to-be-banned-in-australia-lets-get-to-the-source/#comment-11488 Thu, 02 Jul 2009 02:48:11 +0000 http://blogs.educationau.edu.au/kjohnson/2009/07/02/second-life-to-be-banned-in-australia-lets-get-to-the-source/#comment-11488 I note that you carefully avoided calling the SMH liars or claiming they got the story wrong. Based on what I know from other public sources about the behaviour of Conroy c.f. Michael "Conroy is the worst minister in the history of the internet" Malone CEO of iiNet, et.al. The claims are entirely valid and are not invalidated by anything in your current article. Chiefly, Second Life / Linden Lab (being based overseas) would not be on Conroy's mailing list to receive automatic updates about internet developments in Australia- especially those that have not been formally announced. Given the secretive nature of his department we know for a fact that key stakeholders are not being informed of developments and that "changing it all" is not confined to Peter Garratt’s office- Given the pre-election promises of an opt in filter run over a $4.7bn government funded FTTN network were replaced by a post election proposal of a mandatory filter run on a $43bn FTTP network. [As an aside I note even the Chinese are backing off aspects of their mandatory filter- see Page 1 (above the fold banner headline) of the 2nd July 2009 edition of the Wall Street Journal] I can also assume that you did not intentionally attempt to mislead your readers by making the implication that since Linden Lab had not received a notification from Conroy then Conroy must have no plans to implement the filter.... because the way the article was left hanging without conclusion seemed to support that illogical inductive leap. Meanwhile ask water, electricity, rail ports, roads, and other utility companies if they received any notification from Conroy that he was going to force them to provide their infrastructure information on demand - because they did not get any at all even when the bill requiring them to do so was presented to Parliament. So in conclusion: The Linden Lab quote is not conclusive of any plan- just the fact that there has been a lack of communication of a plan (if the plan did in fact exist); you did not rebut the original SMH article claiming one does exist; (i.e. the source in Conroy's office has not had his credibility reduced by any concrete definitive counter claim from the minister himself- so its a leak- which are made incredible by the quality of their denial); and Conroy has prior form in secretly planning policies radically different from those advertised and ambushing stakeholders with his changes. Therefore I am inclined to believe the SMH article as being true on its face- but can be persuaded (by logical argument) to do otherwise. I note that you carefully avoided calling the SMH liars or claiming they got the story wrong.
Based on what I know from other public sources about the behaviour of Conroy c.f. Michael “Conroy is the worst minister in the history of the internet” Malone CEO of iiNet, et.al. The claims are entirely valid and are not invalidated by anything in your current article.
Chiefly, Second Life / Linden Lab (being based overseas) would not be on Conroy’s mailing list to receive automatic updates about internet developments in Australia- especially those that have not been formally announced. Given the secretive nature of his department we know for a fact that key stakeholders are not being informed of developments and that “changing it all” is not confined to Peter Garratt’s office- Given the pre-election promises of an opt in filter run over a $4.7bn government funded FTTN network were replaced by a post election proposal of a mandatory filter run on a $43bn FTTP network. [As an aside I note even the Chinese are backing off aspects of their mandatory filter- see Page 1 (above the fold banner headline) of the 2nd July 2009 edition of the Wall Street Journal]
I can also assume that you did not intentionally attempt to mislead your readers by making the implication that since Linden Lab had not received a notification from Conroy then Conroy must have no plans to implement the filter…. because the way the article was left hanging without conclusion seemed to support that illogical inductive leap.
Meanwhile ask water, electricity, rail ports, roads, and other utility companies if they received any notification from Conroy that he was going to force them to provide their infrastructure information on demand - because they did not get any at all even when the bill requiring them to do so was presented to Parliament.
So in conclusion: The Linden Lab quote is not conclusive of any plan- just the fact that there has been a lack of communication of a plan (if the plan did in fact exist); you did not rebut the original SMH article claiming one does exist; (i.e. the source in Conroy’s office has not had his credibility reduced by any concrete definitive counter claim from the minister himself- so its a leak- which are made incredible by the quality of their denial); and Conroy has prior form in secretly planning policies radically different from those advertised and ambushing stakeholders with his changes. Therefore I am inclined to believe the SMH article as being true on its face- but can be persuaded (by logical argument) to do otherwise.

]]> Comment on Second Life to be banned in Australia? Let’s get to the source. by Mike Bogle http://blogs.educationau.edu.au/kjohnson/2009/07/02/second-life-to-be-banned-in-australia-lets-get-to-the-source/#comment-11486 Thu, 02 Jul 2009 00:23:45 +0000 http://blogs.educationau.edu.au/kjohnson/2009/07/02/second-life-to-be-banned-in-australia-lets-get-to-the-source/#comment-11486 @Laurel, when you say "they will be blocked at the domain level until they have." Have you received confirmation of this - e.g. has it been stated anywhere and/or otherwise based on a standing precedent? That said I haven't read your post yet - so you may address these questions there (that's where I'm headed next). As far as the SMH article goes, my reading of their interpretation is that it's purely speculative of one potential worst case scenario. Based on the lack of an 18+ category in Australia I can certainly see this as a potential outcome, however I've also not seen any indication of this from anywhere else besides the SMH. So I don't see how we can take this as the gospel truth at this stage. Cross your fingers everyone :) Cheers, Mike @Laurel, when you say “they will be blocked at the domain level until they have.” Have you received confirmation of this - e.g. has it been stated anywhere and/or otherwise based on a standing precedent?

That said I haven’t read your post yet - so you may address these questions there (that’s where I’m headed next).

As far as the SMH article goes, my reading of their interpretation is that it’s purely speculative of one potential worst case scenario. Based on the lack of an 18+ category in Australia I can certainly see this as a potential outcome, however I’ve also not seen any indication of this from anywhere else besides the SMH. So I don’t see how we can take this as the gospel truth at this stage.

Cross your fingers everyone :)

Cheers,

Mike

]]> Comment on Second Life to be banned in Australia? Let’s get to the source. by Laurel Papworth http://blogs.educationau.edu.au/kjohnson/2009/07/02/second-life-to-be-banned-in-australia-lets-get-to-the-source/#comment-11484 Wed, 01 Jul 2009 23:18:31 +0000 http://blogs.educationau.edu.au/kjohnson/2009/07/02/second-life-to-be-banned-in-australia-lets-get-to-the-source/#comment-11484 Actually I've emailed classification.gov.au - to see if they will insist on Second Life submitting the "game" to their classification system, paying a licence. Otherwise they will be blocked at the domain level until they have. Then once they are classified, if they are MA15+ there will be an "opt out" filter at the ISP. You have to call the ISP and say you want the filter removed. If below MA15 (unlikely) there will be no filter. I doubt they will try to classify virtual worlds - they've already said in the past they don't touch "open ended" games - only boxed "finished" games. We'll see :) Actually I’ve emailed classification.gov.au - to see if they will insist on Second Life submitting the “game” to their classification system, paying a licence. Otherwise they will be blocked at the domain level until they have. Then once they are classified, if they are MA15+ there will be an “opt out” filter at the ISP. You have to call the ISP and say you want the filter removed. If below MA15 (unlikely) there will be no filter.
I doubt they will try to classify virtual worlds - they’ve already said in the past they don’t touch “open ended” games - only boxed “finished” games. We’ll see :)

]]> Comment on Dis-connection by KerryJ http://blogs.educationau.edu.au/kjohnson/2009/06/23/dis-connection/#comment-11361 Tue, 23 Jun 2009 05:07:47 +0000 http://blogs.educationau.edu.au/kjohnson/2009/06/23/dis-connection/#comment-11361 Thanks for commenting - yes, it's been bubbling away for a while. I feel that as long as those attitudes hold we're never going to fully crack effective learning using online tools and environments because people will continue to look at it as a poor substitute for face to face. As well, until you are immersed in a way of communicating - you cannot fully understand how to take full advantage. Imagine a pilot where for 6 months all your day to day interactions with colleagues and peers was online. Your perceptions of online communications tools and how to use them effectively would change dramatically. Thanks for commenting - yes, it’s been bubbling away for a while. I feel that as long as those attitudes hold we’re never going to fully crack effective learning using online tools and environments because people will continue to look at it as a poor substitute for face to face. As well, until you are immersed in a way of communicating - you cannot fully understand how to take full advantage.

Imagine a pilot where for 6 months all your day to day interactions with colleagues and peers was online. Your perceptions of online communications tools and how to use them effectively would change dramatically.

]]> Comment on Dis-connection by Deanne Bullen http://blogs.educationau.edu.au/kjohnson/2009/06/23/dis-connection/#comment-11360 Tue, 23 Jun 2009 04:40:19 +0000 http://blogs.educationau.edu.au/kjohnson/2009/06/23/dis-connection/#comment-11360 Connections, communities and friends. For me the more I get to know the people I interact with online and discover connections and interact in many and differing ways the more I grow to understand and value this online environment where I spend a lot of my time. While a number of these friendships and connections move fluidly between online to offline many, because of geographic location, stay in the online sphere but are just as valuable as the f2f connections. I also agree with you that if we are going to work smarter and greener that we need to re-evaluate the commonly accepted idea of the place of production of work. Useful and valuable collaboration and learning is definitely very much alive and well online. Thank you for your post Kerry - I know exactly what you mean + have just been thinking the same thing. Connections, communities and friends.
For me the more I get to know the people I interact with online and discover connections and interact in many and differing ways the more I grow to understand and value this online environment where I spend a lot of my time. While a number of these friendships and connections move fluidly between online to offline many, because of geographic location, stay in the online sphere but are just as valuable as the f2f connections.
I also agree with you that if we are going to work smarter and greener that we need to re-evaluate the commonly accepted idea of the place of production of work. Useful and valuable collaboration and learning is definitely very much alive and well online.
Thank you for your post Kerry - I know exactly what you mean + have just been thinking the same thing.

]]> Comment on Demystifying copyright for educators by Friends or FoE? » Finding and using Creative Commons material http://blogs.educationau.edu.au/kjohnson/2009/04/14/de-mystifying-copyright-for-educators/#comment-10321 Mon, 20 Apr 2009 05:27:13 +0000 http://blogs.educationau.edu.au/kjohnson/2009/04/14/de-mystifying-copyright-for-educators/#comment-10321 [...] A recent post from KerryJ in the education.au blog, titled Demystifying copyright for educators, had a link to a Creative Commons Information Pack prepared by a group under MCEETYA sponsorship. [...] […] A recent post from KerryJ in the education.au blog, titled Demystifying copyright for educators, had a link to a Creative Commons Information Pack prepared by a group under MCEETYA sponsorship. […]

]]> Comment on Freedom of speech vs. safety - what a week! by Time to Shine http://blogs.educationau.edu.au/kjohnson/2009/03/21/freedomvsafety/#comment-9934 Mon, 30 Mar 2009 03:53:44 +0000 http://blogs.educationau.edu.au/kjohnson/2009/03/21/freedomvsafety/#comment-9934 I'm for freedom of speech, so I am for no censorship on the internet. But Austrailia is blocking a list of child porn sites, which in theory, I don't have any problem with it. But if you can block a list of something as universally hated as child porn, what about something with more evenly split camps? I’m for freedom of speech, so I am for no censorship on the internet. But Austrailia is blocking a list of child porn sites, which in theory, I don’t have any problem with it. But if you can block a list of something as universally hated as child porn, what about something with more evenly split camps?

]]> Comment on Freedom of speech vs. safety - what a week! by time to Shine http://blogs.educationau.edu.au/kjohnson/2009/03/21/freedomvsafety/#comment-9933 Mon, 30 Mar 2009 03:52:24 +0000 http://blogs.educationau.edu.au/kjohnson/2009/03/21/freedomvsafety/#comment-9933 I'm for freedom of speec, so I am for no censorship on the internet. But Austrailia is blocking a list of child porn sites, which in theory, I don't have any problem with it. But if you can block a list of something as universally hated as child porn, what about something with more evenly split camps? I’m for freedom of speec, so I am for no censorship on the internet. But Austrailia is blocking a list of child porn sites, which in theory, I don’t have any problem with it. But if you can block a list of something as universally hated as child porn, what about something with more evenly split camps?

]]> Comment on Freedom of speech vs. safety - what a week! by Time to Shine http://blogs.educationau.edu.au/kjohnson/2009/03/21/freedomvsafety/#comment-9932 Mon, 30 Mar 2009 03:46:17 +0000 http://blogs.educationau.edu.au/kjohnson/2009/03/21/freedomvsafety/#comment-9932 There's no denying that the Internet contains a lot of material that most parents wouldn't want their children to see. Whether it's pornography, hate speech, chat rooms or gambling sites, many parents worry that their children will be exposed to negative or even dangerous content. While some opponents of censorship may feel that parental supervision is the best way to keep kids safe online, many parents point out that it's difficult -- if not impossible -- to oversee a child's access to the Internet all the time. There’s no denying that the Internet contains a lot of material that most parents wouldn’t want their children to see. Whether it’s pornography, hate speech, chat rooms or gambling sites, many parents worry that their children will be exposed to negative or even dangerous content. While some opponents of censorship may feel that parental supervision is the best way to keep kids safe online, many parents point out that it’s difficult — if not impossible — to oversee a child’s access to the Internet all the time.

]]>