When will New Media be old?

I often wonder at what point New Media will become old? A quick glance at communications technologies from the time of the telegraph to telephone, television and radio reveals long periods of stability punctuated by rapid change as each new technology was adopted by consumers.

However, New Media never seems to settle down. I have been using the net since 1994. I cannot recall a single period of stability in 15 years. At an IBM presentation for the Queensland Industry Development Corporation in 1999, the presenter mentioned how software updates were being released every 6 months. This was likely to be reduced to 3 months (during 1999) with industry commentators suggesting the release time would be reduced to just 6 weeks by 2000. I remember being impressed at the time.

Now, software updates occur in real-time and download automatically without us really noticing. But the 'killer app' remains elusive. Over the last two years, I have noticed how discrete communities developed around particular applications. For example, MySpace was more popular for musicians and in certain parts of Sydney, whereas Canberrans tended to be more active on Facebook. But this stability has remained short-lived.

Twitter and other networking sites have brought about a truly global reach (at least to those who have broadband access). The change in terminology from 'Friend' to 'Follower' is significant: psychologically, it is easier to 'follow' someone you don't really know rather than be their 'friend'.

Since the Internet became available for public use, not only has the timeframe for software upgrades become irrelevant, but the number of applications available for communicating is increasing so rapidly it is difficult to keep up. A few weeks ago, a student suggested that a site which links all the different applications would be a useful tool. Tonight, I stumbled upon unhub which claims to do just that.

The point is that New Media (as we know it now) is disrupting what seemed to be the period of stability promised by broadband networks. The time taken for technological advances to be adopted by consumers is decreasing, while the availability of applications is increasing. Industry structures and the delivery of services by businesses and governments throughout the world is changing rapidly.

This brings me to the original question: when will New Media be old? It seems that the term is useful for now, as each application becomes, in turn, a new medium. It will take a significant paradigm shift for the current period of instability to end. With businesses, governments and even individuals entering the flurry of Net activity, there seems to be no end in sight. 'Change' has taken a place beside 'death' and 'taxes' as the major constants. And how we should deal with these changes has become one of the most pressing questions of our time.

Telstra & Twitter: Embarrassed or Innovative?

Journalists are having a field day with Telstra's new social media policy. But some of the traditional media reporting on Telstra's new policy has been overly conservative.

While the Fake Stephen Conroy episode on Twitter provides an interesting example of the difficulties for corporate governance in the New Media era, reporting on Telstra's policy is simply more Telstra-bashing:

AFTER being embarrassed by one of its employees on micro-blogging site Twitter, Telstra will today release a new policy governing how staff can talk about the company online, even in private conversations.

I am sick of Telstra-bashing. Telstra is what it is because the previous federal government made it so. Nothing more, nothing less. Yet in the absence of any leadership from the federal government on New Media technologies, which have unlimited potential to improve democracy through citizen engagement and participation in policy development, Telstra leads again.

Telstra's handling of 'Twittergate' has been exemplary. It indicates that the company is serious about using New Media as part of its operations. No employer allows staff to 'go public' without consequences. I don't see the new policy as mitigating 'embarrassment' at all. This is simply a case of the company experimenting and developing policies as new issues arise. The so-called 'guardrails' Telstra has developed are a step in the right direction.

Australia is already stuck in the innovation mud with conservative mindsets. No matter how many reports on innovation the government drums up, unless the collectively conservative mindset is changed, we will continue to be at the wrong end of the innovation spectrum.

Journalists really need to get with the program. Innovation is essential if we are to get out of the GFC hole. But the collectively conservative mindset is a hindrance to innovation and such conservative reporting doesn't help at all.

Maybe the traditional custodians of free speech are feeling a bit threatened by New Media? Some advice I have received in the past is relevant here: When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

Telstra should not be embarrassed, it should be applauded.

read more | digg story

Obama names first US chief technology officer

US President Barack Obama has named a Harvard-educated Indian-American to the newly created post of chief technology officer in an appointment much-awaited by Silicon Valley.

read more | digg story

The move to an e-White House has inched closer with the appointment of a Chief Technology Officer in the US. However, one of the major hindrances for Obama's vision of an open democracy using new media technologies is the barriers created by antiquated practices:

But hopes that the president can unleash a technology revolution and create a new e-White House in government have come up against antiquated government technology and privacy and security restrictions.

The implementation of new media technologies is essentially contested. Privacy represents individual liberties whereas security represents the collective good. It is difficult to improve one without impinging upon the other.

There are no quick solutions to the individual liberties/public good dilemma, but there are ramifications for getting it wrong. At least in the US, some steps are being taken toward overcoming the traditional barriers to new media use. However, Australia is nowhere near this level of consideration in the policy process. While it may be happening in-house, the public are simply left out.

What must happen is an open, public debate to determine the public interest. There are some specific questions which must be addressed: What is more important, individual privacy or national security? Are issues concerning individual privacy and national security more important than a technologically-driven and open democracy? How important are social media to the economy and standards of living?

Australia tends to adopt a wait-and-see approach which has advantages and disadvantages. The major advantage is that resources are not wasted on dead-end approaches. The major disadvantage is that developing a national culture of innovation remains a pipe dream.

The promise of the digital revolution is on our doorstep now. It remains to be seen whether the federal government will open the door or wait to see what the neighbours do before acting. The trouble with the latter approach is that we are always one step behind.

Given our small population and vast resources, we have the capacity to take the lead in the use of new media as the NBN is rolled out. However, as the US is discovering, antiquated practices are a major hindrance.

Ordinary citizens have few options unless the federal government takes the lead. But the first step is to have the public debate, and new media are the vehicles which will enable the debate to happen.

We are all waiting. Your move, Mr Rudd.