Arrest of Korean Blogger Rekindles Debates of Freedom of Speech on Web

January 10th, 2009

His screen name was Minerva, and he wrote on Agora, an online forum hosted by Daum, one of Korea’s top Internet portals. In September last year, he predicted that the investment bank Lehman Brothers would collapse. When it did, five days later, he became a cyber prophet, an Internet Nostradamus. Minerva then predicted that the Korean won would fall against the dollar by 50 won a day in the week of Oct. 6. He was right. Of course, not all of his predictions proved to be correct, but the few that were were enough to create a fanbase.

With rumors of his “predictions” circulating the web like wildfire, netizens looked for all of his posts, searching for clues about his identity. Many of his posts criticized the Korean government and the economy. People speculated that he was a learned man- at least in his 50s- perhaps a government official with inside information or a retired person who used to work in the finance industry. Mainstream media dubbed him the “Economic President of the Internet.”

His critique of the government annoyed authorities, and when he wrote on Dec. 29 that the government forced financial companies to stop buying dollars in order to boost the value of the won, the government issued a denial and went into investigation who this mysterious figure was. In Korea, spreading false information on the Internet can result in a prison sentence of up to five years or a 50 million won fine (about $37,000). These regulations are relatively new and are seeking to be updated, especially after a number of recent cases involving false rumors on the Internet led to suicides (example: suicide of actress Choi Jin-sil.)

The authorities got a warrant and tracked him down with his IP address, arrested him, and while not disclosing his entire name, informed the public of his status. Being a country obsessed with higher education and academic credentials, Koreans were shocked to find that Minerva, with all his knowledge of the economy, was an unemployed 31-year old man who had graduated from a two-year community college situated in a rural area of Korea. Prosecutors said that he obtained all his financial knowledge from the web and that they were not original. They pointed out that he was the “king of cut-and-paste” and that his posts were word-by-word compilations of information from financial blogs and less-known news sites. They admitted however, that while none of his posts were original, he had done a very nice job of editing the information in a logical manner.

Upset over credentials more than arrest

Foreign media is reporting more about Minerva’s rights and freedom of speech on the Web, but locals seem to be more upset about being lied to. This may be somewhat hard to understand for those who don’t know Korean culture, but the general public’s response over Minerva’s arrest is focusing more on disbelief of his credentials rather than worries of speech opression.

Many were upset that Minerva had lied about his identity–he had described himself as a former securities firm employee with a master’s degree from the US. After learning that he was not the person they thought him to be, some people started questioning whether or not it was the same person who had posted under the name Minerva– pointing out that the style and content quality of his later posts were not consistant with those of his earlier ones. He had also recently been featured in a monthly news magazine but he claimed that he had never given the interview, arousing suspicions of possible imposers.

Freedom of Speech and Anonymity on the Web

Many academics, lawyers, and human rights groups in Korea are concerned that the arrest of Minerva will empower the government to enforce stronger laws regarding content posted on the web. (Korea does not ensure freedom of speech in its constitution and has a history of struggle between media and government.) In addition to a pending amendment on punishment regarding defamatory and false speech on the Web, there are also legislative motions that would require all websites to “register” writers and authenticate personal information so that anything that is posted can ultimately be traced back to its origin.

Some scholars, however, said that this incident reflects a challenge that we all face and that perhaps Korea’s debates on regulating speech on the Web are happening earlier than other countries because of its high broadband penetration. (Most homes in Korea have a 100mbps Internet connection in the city, 10mbps for extremely rural areas; compare this with 8 to 16 mbps offered by Verizon and Comcast in the US) In an interview with the Yonhap News Agency, Sung Dong-gyu, a journalism professor at ChungAng Univ. said,

Internet culture has developed on the prerequisite of anonymity, but now that it has ripened, it is only natural that the question of responsibility arise. If Minerva’s [web] activities began to have social influence, then he must be responsible for his words.

No one is sure, however, where to draw the line.

———————————————————————————————-

Update: the Korean-language Seoul News reports that Minerva had been employed twice before and was scheduled to work for another company but was currently restin in-between jobs, and that he was indignant that prosecutors portrayed him as a bum.

Music without intermediaries

January 9th, 2009

Did “video kill the radio star“? Record labels may be dying, but music is thriving. People have easier access to more music– more than they can listen to in a lifetime. More artists are making themselves heard, and are communicating directly with their listeners.

“We may be coming to a world of entertainment where we don’t need intermediaries,” says Ken Ledeen, co-author of Blown to Bits. In a recent private discussion, he said, “What you see is dying gasp. They are trying to hold on to something that won’t exist in 30 years.”

For the majority of musicians, making money was never in selling albums. Think beyond pop music- how many classical musicians make money from their recordings? Except for a small number of international stars, most musicians don’t even get a deal with record label. Their livelihood until now has been based in people’s appreciation for music in the offline world.

Of course, it has never been easy for musicians- after all, they are artists and the monetary compensation for art is on more of a subjective scale than any other industry. But the Internet is not to be blamed. If anything, it should be lauded for making it easier for musicians to find gigs and be able to promote themselves on the web without an agency. Musicians should be making more active use of the Internet- perhaps integrating webcasting to conduct remote lessons, or sharing interpretations of songs.

The Death of TV (as we know it)

January 8th, 2009

What is TV? Or rather, what is watching TV? One thing for certain is that TV– while it is still a media, is no longer a medium. I watch all of my TV on the Internet; in Korea, many people watch TV through DMB service or satellite service on their cell phones. (DMB is like network TV for mobile devices while satellite is like cable for mobile devices) Videogame consoles like Xbox360 now include TV-like functions.

Now that more homes are being hooked up with broadband in the U.S. and connection speeds are getting faster, American media companies are just starting to accept the fact that TV isn’t what it used to be. It is somewhat amusing that network companies had to compete with YouTube in the first place because their content was not available online. The success of Hulu over YouTube really has me rolling my eyes, because duh, if the entire content is available on Hulu, why would you want to watch 10-min. clips on YouTube? Obviously, American media companies didn’t even bother to look at case studies of other countries that already had their online businesses up and running several years ago.

I feel restless about why ABC, FOX, CBS and other guys are using the business models they are currently operating. Basically, all of the networks use the same strategy: only recent episodes are available online and the episodes are sprinkled with 15-second ads. ABC has an annoying thing where you have to “click to continue” after each of those ads. (That click feature doesn’t help my memory of the particular ad, so I don’t see the point)

It’s great that there is all this free content, but I don’t understand why they don’t have a parallel paid service, where entire episodes (not just the recent ones) are available for a small price (maybe a dollar an episode; $.50 for sitcoms) with no ads. I know you’re thinking that it costs just as much as a DVD, but the matter of the fact is that sometimes, you don’t want to get an entire DVD; sometimes you want to watch things out of the blue and would not watch it if it were not available immediately. It also helps to have a free/paid mix because you may watch a free episode and decide to watch the entire season (which is what happened to me with the Sarah Conner Chronicles and Fringe). By selling content directly to the end user, they can cut out middleman costs, control copyright, know more about their audience, and create a loyal fanbase. I find myself watching more of Fox and ABC over NBC not just because of the shows, but because I find the interface and video-watching more accessible (and the streaming is better). For instance, I would never have watched Pushing Daisies if I hadn’t already been on the ABC site for Eli Stone. (To be continued…)

I also think ISPs are stupid for not have gotten into IPTV earlier. hanaTV, for instance, is sort of like TiVo and has a huge movie database- only it’s run by an ISP. Of course, for streaming to work, bandwidth would have to be high, and the US, being the big country it is, may have to decide whether or not government should support connection in rural areas. My friend, for instance, lives in a place where the only Internet service she can get is through satellite, and because the connection is so bad, she usually gets up at 4 in the morning to check her email!

The Future of Media?

January 6th, 2009

For the new year I feel obliged to write about something semi-serious, or rather something professional, something other than superficial things like astrology or shopping, both of which have important meaning for me at the start of the year. Being a media pioneer in some sense (I directed a cell phone-exclusive movie six years ago and founded a SN site/alternative news portal in Korea eight years ago) and a journalist, I decided to write about my take on the future of media. As I’m making this up as I go along, please forgive me if my thoughts aren’t organized.

Facing a decade of degrading media content

I understand that many people are concerned about preserving the quality elements of legacy media amidst this evolution. (Tim Wu talks about TV shows and good reporting; Chris Baker talks about big-budget games.) I am also concerned. Not because I think legacy media will die, but because I’m afraid we will have to wait too long before people realize that they need quality information. I think it will take at least 10 years… maybe up to 30 years (based on the demographics of digital natives and their media usage trend) for people to realize what they’re missing, be willing to pay for that information, for industries to translate that cash into investing in quality data, then of course, the production of that content itself.

We are in the Warring States Period of media- a decentralization; support of bottom-up development of content, so forth. Not only is this content abundant, it is free. I love free content as much as anyone else and so much of it free (I recently discovered that even porn- something I thought people pay for- is free). It’s almost a shame that the low price of storage allows so much cr** to be published on the Web. People are having so much fun with all these freebies that they were watching 10-minute clips of TV episodes on YouTube before network companies decided that they too, had to make their content available on their websites.

But everyone knows there is no such thing as a free lunch. While I believe that the Internet has made a huge contribution to news reporting, it is creating less room for investigative reporting. Investigative reporting is more often stumbling upon information on your beat and going on a path that you don’t know where its headed. A story could be anywhere; it takes time and continuous effort to find one.

Unfortunately, news companies now don’t have the luxury to allow reporters to pursue subjects that could “potentially” be a story– unless it’s breaking news, even the NYT and Washington Post won’t send a reporter to another city (I have a first-hand experience with this.) It’s the same in TV. We see more reality shows because they cost less and take less effort to produce.

I notice already that the online magazines I write for have very different standards about writing and reporting, and more and more, people are opting to do the easy task of compiling information instead of field reporting. Interviewing, for example, is being conducted more and more through email, but there’s only so much that can derived from asynchronous dialog. Also, catering to people’s short interest span in reading online material, articles are being divided up more and more under subtitles, with shorter sentences and more wire-like reporting, encouraged by new forms of media such as Twitter. It is a shame that beauty of language and thought be lost because unlike paper, the Internet can support any length of writing, and yet, writing on the web is becoming shorter and shorter.

But in time, people will start wanting more quality content. If my dark predictions come true (10 years), most of the people who know what quality journalism is will be long gone and we will have to go through a period in rebuilding that expertise. I’m not saying that quality content will be unavailable– it will always be available to a certain extent for people with the money, but the standard for those not able to pay for it will drop.

Wake up, idealists

We have to face the reality that as more and more people use the Internet, it’s no longer a secret garden where technology optimists can prance around in a pseudo socialist environment, believing that everyone will do good. That fantasy may have worked before, but it doesn’t now, and we have to quickly accept the fact that socialism isn’t going work–not only in the sense that one ill doer could easily wreck havoc in that garden, but also the fact that we need money to tend the garden. It was okay when the garden was in your backyard and every member of the family contributed to the seeding, watering, weeding, and kept basic rules about not squashing the flowers or eating all the tomatoes. But that garden is now bigger than your backyard and you have to acknowledge the fact that if you still want nice flowers, you have to adopt new rules.

You would think that infinite freedom would give people the incentive to be infinitely creative and productive, but unfortunately that is not the case. It is not about whether people are born good or born bad, but the fact that there are bad people and one person can ruin everything for the rest. In Second Life, for example, where anarchy is the default, the most flourishing communities are those that have adopted extremely strict rules.

I’m not saying we should make the Internet a highly-regulated place, but that we should stop it seeing as a utopia. The Internet does help grassroot developments and in some societies, does boost democracy and civic participation. Yet in other societies, it only gives more power to specific groups. The Internet is unlike any media we have had; its integration with our lives is greater than that of TV or newspapers. It is not just a media, it is also a paradigm, and we need to be looking more at the impact it has on our lives and society in an interdisciplinary manner.