My students Erhardt Graeff, Matt Stempeck and I have a new paper in First Monday, titled “The Battle for ‘Trayvon Martin’: Mapping a Media Controversy On- and Offline”. In it, we examine how the shooting of Trayvon Martin turned into a dominant story in the news media by examining blogs, newspapers, Twitter, television broadcasts, online petition signatures and other media. The paper is here, but Erhardt’s summary of the paper may be a helpful introduction (as the paper itself is pretty long.)
We had three goals in writing the paper: to understand how the tragic, but initially unheralded death of Trayvon Martin became a national debate on race; to document how different actors frame and reframe stories when they receive media attention; and to show the value of analyzing a single news story in a variety of different mediums. It follows on Benkler et. al.’s paper analyzing online conversations about SOPA/PIPA, using many of the same tools, but adding some new data sources, like Archive.org’s collection of closed captions of broadcast television.
This paper is an outgrowth of the work we’ve been doing on Media Cloud for several years, supported by the Ford Foundation, the Open Society Foundation and the Knight Foundation. There’s a pile of Media Cloud-related research coming out soon. The SOPA/PIPA and Trayvon papers show the utility of the tools we call “Controversy Mapper” for analyzing a specific issue or set of stories, while another set of tools (related to the Mapping the Globe and World According To projects from Catherine d’Ignazio and Rahul Bhargava) are launching later this spring. We owe huge thanks to Hal Roberts, David LaRochelle and the team at Harvard and MIT that has been building the infrastructure to make this work possible.
It’s really been a pleasure working with students who’ve been willing to put hundreds of hours into untangling a complex and important story. Hope what we’ve learned is useful to you.
It’s not obvious from looking at me, but while I’m American, I’m deeply partisan towards the nation of Ghana. I moved to Accra, Ghana in 1993 to study xylophone music, and I’ve traveled back to the country almost every year since 2000. I ran a nonprofit organization in Ghana from 1999-2004 and I now work closely with a Ghanaian journalism nonprofit. This dual allegiance is a good thing: I have two teams to root for in the upcoming World Cup (unfortunately, they’ll see each other in the first round), and I take disproportionate pride in Ghana’s economic and political success over the past two decades.
Ghana has a lot to be proud of, in political terms. After almost twenty years of rule by a man who took power through a coup, Ghana democratically elected a President from the opposition NPP party in 2000. After eight years of his rule, they elected a President from the NDC, which had ruled for the previous decades. Political scientists call this a “double alternation”, and it’s considered the gold standard for stability in a democracy, evidence that an electoral system is free and fair enough that either of two major parties can win an election. Due to its clean elections and history of stability, demonstrated when the death of President Atta Mills in office led to a seamless transition to his vice-president John Mahama, Ghana has become the exemplar for democratic transition in West Africa. Ghanaian politicians and NGOs are now working to export models and best practices from Ghana to the region and the continent.
But there’s something uncomfortable about Ghana’s elections. Many of the politicians from the NPP party come from a single ethnic group, the Akan or Ashanti, and their close allies. The NDC has a broader ethnic base of support, but the Ewe are particularly powerful within the party. You can see these alliances in a map of electoral results – the NPP candidate won in the Ashanti and Eastern regions, the home of the Akan, while the NDC won elsewhere, but dominated in the Volta region, where the Ewe hail from. Some critics worry that Ghana’s free and fair elections may be masking elections that are less about political issues and more about ethnic allegiances.
Economist Paul Collier warns of this problem in his book “Wars, Guns and Votes”, He warns that we may be seeing a lot of elections in the developing world that are free, fair and bad. They are free and fair because we’ve gotten very good at monitoring elections for obvious signs of rigging and fraud, but they’re bad because they are decided for reasons other than political issues. In bad elections, Collier argues, people vote for a candidate because they expect some personal financial gain (a job, a handout) or because they see an electoral victory as a victory for their tribe or group. A good election is one in which people vote for a candidate because they expect he or she will make positive policy changes, benefiting a broader community and the nation as a whole.
Free, fair and bad elections happen because it’s hard to hold politicians accountable. We elect politicians because we share their aspirations and visions, but we also elect them because we hope they will ensure that tax dollars are distributed fairly and ensure that our communities benefit from those investments in schools, hospitals, roads and other essential infrastructures. But in many countries, it’s very hard to find out whether our politicians are doing a good or poor job.
Sometimes politicians don’t do a good job because they are corrupt, more interested in their personal gain than serving their communities. In most cases, politicians work hard and their shortcomings are the result of being constrained by finances, thwarted by bureaucracy or otherwise held in check. If we had better ways of tracking what governments do in their communities and documenting the progress of taxpayer-funded projects, we would have far more information we could use to hold our politicians accountable, to re-elect the best and oust the worst. This means a strong, free press is important, as are efforts at government transparency, and systems to ensure access to government information, like freedom of information laws.
In other words, if we want strong, responsive democracies, we can’t just fix electoral systems – we have to fix monitorial systems. And we can’t just establish a culture of clean elections, as Ghana has done – we need a culture of monitorial citizenship.
The idea of monitorial citizenship is one I’ve borrowed from journalism scholar Michael Schudson. Schudson argues that we often understand democracy in terms of “informed citizenship” – our job as citizens is to be informed about the issues and to vote, then let our elected representatives do their jobs. This model became popular in the United States during the progressive era of the early 20th century, and Schudson worries that the model may be out of date, not accurately representing how most people participate in democracies today. One of the models Schudson suggests to describe our current reality is monitorial democracy, where a responsibility as citizens is to monitor what powerful institutions do (governments, corporations, universities and other large organizations) and demand change when they misbehave. The press is a powerful actor in monitorial democracies, as demonstrated during the Watergate scandal and the end of the Nixon presidency in the US. And new media may broaden the potential for monitorial democracy, allowing vastly more citizens to watch, document and share their reports.
This year, my students and I have been experimenting with projects that connect monitorial democracy with the mobile phone. We’ve conducted small experiments locally, monitoring the on-time performance of subway trains and wait times in post offices, and examined what sorts of infrastructures in our local community are built and maintained by different government and private sector actors. And now we’re heading to Belo Horizonte and São Paulo, Brazil for the next round of our experiments.
We’ll work with community organizations in neighborhoods in both cities to identify promises local governments have made that citizens see as high importance. We’ll work with these volunteers to map a few, carefully chosen, infrastructures in their communities and to track the status of those infrastructures over time. And we’ll work with the community to figure out how we should reward governments that live up to their promises and challenge governments that fall short… all within the course of two three-day, student led workshops. (!?!)
Our core insight – that citizens can use mobile phones to document infrastructure and monitor government performance – is not a new one. We are inspired by a number of exciting projects that have demonstrated the potential and pitfalls of citizen monitoring and documentation, notably:
– Map Kibera, which has demonstrated the importance of mapping squatter cities and informal settlements to show both the deficiencies and the vitality of infrastructure in those communities
– Ushahidi, which shows that mobile phones combined with mapping can help individuals work together to map crises and opportunities with little central planning
– Fix My Street and related projects, which have helped citizens see governments as service providers, responsible for maintaining infrastructures, and capable of providing customer service to citizens
– Safecast, which has encouraged Japanese citizens to monitor radiation levels in the wake of the Fukushima disaster, helping create data sets citizens can use to lobby the government for better cleanup plans and responses
– The Earth Institute’s collaboration with the Government of Nigeria, to use citizen enumerators, armed with mobile phones, to monitor schools, hospitals and other government-procured infrastructure to establish the country’s progress towards meeting Millenium Development goals
We hope to learn from these projects and push our work in a slightly different direction. Our system, Promise Tracker, starts from promises government officials (local, state and federal) have made to a community, and then helps communities track progress made on those promises by monitoring infrastructures like power grids, roads, schools and hospitals. The use case for Promise Tracker is simple: if the mayor of a city makes an electoral promise that roads in a neighborhood will be paved during her time in office, Promise Tracker helps the local community collect data on the condition of the roads and monitor progress made on the promise over time. If the mayor meets her goal, Promise Tracker offers proof generated by the community that’s benefitted. If the government is in danger of falling short, Promise Tracker offers an open, freely shared data set that citizens and officials can use to consult on solving the problem.
It’s this idea of tracking promises that has led us to Brazil. I spoke about the Promise Tracker idea at the Media Lab’s fall sponsors meeting and had two transformative conversations with Brazilians who heard me speak. One conversation was with Oded Grajew, a celebrated Brazilian social entrepreneur and innovator, one of the founders of the World Social Forum, and founder of Rede Nossa Sao Paulo, “Our Sao Paulo Network”, a network of community organizations dedicated to transforming and improving that remarkable city. One of Grajew’s many achievements is a successful campaign to get the city of São Paulo to change its constitution and require the mayor to publish campaign promises, allowing citizens to monitor the government’s progress. Grajew invited my students to São Paulo to meet with his organization and see whether the tools we’re building could help his organization keep a close eye on the government’s performance.
The second conversation was more surprising: it was with the government of the state of Minas Gerais, specifically from Andre Barrence, CEO at the Office for Strategic Priorities, who is in charge of innovation in government and the private sector. Minas Gerais is a sponsor of the Media Lab and has been looking for partnerships where Media Lab students and faculty can work with residents of Belo Horizonte and other Minas Gerais communities. It’s not easy for a government to volunteer to open itself to citizen monitoring, and it’s a great credit to the innovative leaders in the Minas Gerais government that they’ve been working hard to find community organizations we can partner with to monitor the government’s progress and enter into a partnership to celebrate successes and work to fix potential failures.
In our workshops in Belo Horizonte and São Paulo, my students – Jude Mwenda, Alexis Hope, Chelsea Barbaras, Heather Craig and Alex Gonçalves – will work with community leaders to understand what promises politicians have made to the community, to identify promises the community is most concerned about, and to identify promises we can evaluate my monitoring infrastructure over time. We’re using codesign methods promoted by our friend and colleague Sasha Costanza-Chock, trying to ensure that what we monitor is what the community cares about, and that we build the tools with the community, who will be responsible for using them over the next few months or years. Our short-term goal is to collect data on a couple of infrastructures in a community, leverage some of Rahul Bhargava’s work on community data visualization to help our partners present data, and to open a conversation with local authorities about tracking an infrastructure over time.
Our long-term ambitions are broader. We hope to build a tool that communities can customize to their own needs and campaigns, but which centers on the idea that mobile phones can collect photographic data, cryptographically stamp it with location information and a timestamp, and release it to public repositories under a CC0 license. We hope we’ll see groups around the world use the tool to track everything from road and power grid condition to air and water quality, integrating low-cost sensors into the system and asking citizens to engage in environmental data collection as well as civic monitoring.
The key idea behind the project is a simple one: civic engagement is too important to be something we do only at elections.
I’ve been writing and speaking about the recognition that many people feel alienated from existing political processes and like there’s no good path for them to engage in decisionmaking about their communities. This alienation leads to disengagement, and can lead to more dramatic forms of dissent, including public protest. The work I’m trying to do on effective citizenship focuses on the idea that we need to engage in citizenship more than once every four years… and also more often than we take to the streets in protest. It’s my hope that helping people monitor powerful institutions and evaluate the successes and setbacks of their elected representatives will be a way people can engage in citizenship every day.
I’m writing this post while enroute to Belo Horizonte, and I’ll share a report on what happened in our workshops and how this idea has changed as I fly home. I’ll also add more links once I have better connectivity. The really good stuff will likely come from the trip report my students put together – I’ll share that as soon as they share it with me.
The Media Lab’s conversation series today features Pakistani social entrepreneur Khalida Brohi, founder and executive director of the Sughar Empowerment Society. She’s a director’s fellow at the Media Lab, resident at the Center for Civic Media for the next year.
Khalida offers the theme of “building bridges between the indigenous and modern world” as the theme of her talk, and of her life the last few years. She recently attended Google’s Zeitgeist conference and was totally overwhelmed by the experience of being fitted for Google Glass by Eric Schmidt. She realized that, twenty days before, she was sitting in her rural village in the mountains of Pakistan, with her grandfather and uncle. How does one resolve these two worlds?
Khalida’s mother was married at age nine, and left her home to live with Khalida’s father as a small girl. Before her marriage, her mother had never seen a school building. She lived her entire life in a single village. She explains that it wasn’t just that her mother was forced into a marriage – her father was as well, when his older brothers refused to be married to Khalida’s mother.
By being forced into a marriage, Khalida’s father felt like his manhood was threatened and left the village. By leaving, he was able to go to a boarding school and then to university. At university, he experienced something remarkable: girls who could read! Girls who could talk about politics! Her father considered taking another wife, marrying a college girl. But he realized he could educate the girl who became his wife at age nine, who was home crying for her mother. So “he held her hand” and taught her to read and to write.
“My mother thought the world ended at the borders of the village – it doesn’t end there!” Through reading, her mother ended up with a much broader view of the world than most women in tribal areas. Ultimately, her mother demanded that her family leave the village so the children could be educated, and her father had to obey, because he was in love. Other villagers protested: “What kind of a man are you, listening to your wife?”
Khalida was born in a city and lived in the city until she was five years old. But her father worried that his children were being spoiled. “I saw your brother wearing his shoes, I saw you with books in your hands – I’m spoiling you kids.” Her father remembered the hardships of his past: sharing a bus with goats that defecated on him as he travelled to school, completing his homework by kerosene lamps. Her father moved the family home, but helped Khalida split her time between the village and Karachi.
Living in the village, Khalida revelled in the beauty of cultures and traditions. But she also found herself wrestling with the uncomfortable aspects of her culture: child marriage, exchange marriages, vanni and honor killings. “Apart from the beauty, there are other things in the culture that are very dark.” Khalida understood the darkness on a very personal level when she returned from pre-medical classes to the village at age 16, and discovered that one of her friends had been killed in the name of honor, because she had wanted to marry someone she liked.
Khalida realized how different her experience was from that of other women in her village, and realized that part of her obligations to her family were to come home to her community and address these issues. She launched a campaign: the WAKE UP campaign against Honor Killings. The major manifestation of the campaign was a Facebook group, which she managed from the single PC shared by the ten kids in her family’s house. “If I washed dishes and made dinner, I could have 10 minutes on the computer.” The campaign she led called attention to the government policies that made honor killings and exchange marriages possible. (Author’s note: I’m quoting Khalida directly as much as possible, and linking to resources I’m able to find online to provide context for practices like honor killings. These may or may not be the links Khalida would choose to explain these practices, and I will hope to work with her to link to the resources she thinks are most appropriate in the future.)
At age 18, Khalida’s campaign gained international attention, in part through support from Amnesty International. She received calls from local and international press and found herself flying to cities to give talks about her work and the movement. But the media exposure had an unintended effect: it made it impossible for her to return to her village, where people in her community accused her of being un-Islamic and banned her from the village. Living in Karachi, unable to return to Balochistan, she realized the errors she’d made:
“We were standing against values that were really meaningful to people – we didn’t listen to people’s solutions because we thought our solutions were so important. And we weren’t including the women whose fight we were fighting.” This second point was critical to Khalida – she tells us, “I’d see women with the same scars on their faces each time I came back to the village. We were trying to change policies that could take decades to change, but we needed something that was helping women instantly.”
The new plan Khalida and her team came up with started with a surprising step: “the apology project”. She met with tribal leaders and apologized for her behavior, for standing against tribal values. (Speaking after the talk, Khalida told me that this was one of the hardest things she’d ever done: sitting at a tribal council next to a man who had killed her friend and apologizing to him, and looking for a way to genuinely forgive him.) She and her team agreed to a project to benefit the community, to promote the music, language and embroidery of the community.
This proposal was quickly accepted, and Khalida paints us a picture of tribal leaders, sitting under trees, recording each other singing to retain the language and culture of the community. The projects to document music through CDs and local stories in books were successful, but the really subversive project was the embroidery project.
To promote local embroidery, Khalida and her team built a center inside the village. Women from every house came to the center for three hours each day. In Balochistan, women are generally kept in seclusion within their houses, so creating a women’s space was a radical step. And Khalida went further, using the assembly of women to teach not only embroidery, but life skills, enterprise development, what Islam says about women’s rights and how they could advocate for rights within their marriages. “Within two weeks, women who were not allowed to laugh in their houses were laughing, and laughing too much!”
The sudden change revealed too much about what was happening in the Center. Women who had never been alone together, allowed to socialize without their husbands, were gossiping, talking about their husbands, talking about women’s rights, learning to read and write. It was deeply threatening to the husbands, and three men stopped their wives from coming to the Center.
As Khalida worried that the whole thing would crash, she decided to add a market element to her work. If women participated in the training for six months, they would receive small loans to start their own embroidery businesses. Given the extreme poverty in the region, the added income was hard for husbands to refuse. To ensure a market for the embroidery, Khalida began researching the Pakistani fashion industry, and realized she could create a tribal women’s fashion brand. With press releases to Al Jazeera, BBC and others, they launched “Sughar” as a tribal fashion brand, bringing women from the villages into fashion shows in Pakistan’s biggest cities. And because fashion brought money into the villages, husbands tolerated their wives involvement in fashion.
The project has now scaled up to 23 villages. In each center, roughly 30 women come to learn from 3 trainers. TripAdvisor has just signed on to sponsor 2 new centers, and 800 women are currently involved with the program. But Khalida’s ambitions are much broader – she wants to reach a million women in 10 years, and her work at MIT as part of that ambition.
She closes her talk by showing an image of her MIT ID. “The day I received it, I spent two hours admiring how shiny the ID was.” She sent a picture of the ID to her father, and received an avalanche of text messages in response: 16 text messages about his journeys to school, in the dust, clinging to the outside of buses, walking miles at a time.
“For a second, I thought I didn’t deserve to be here. But then I thought again. I think I deserve it. I think my dad deserves it.”
When the lab tries to work on social impact projects, we have another problem, Joi notes – we often don’t understand the needs of these communities. A project to help Detroit, one of Joi’s home towns, led to strong pushback from Detroiters that the solutions Lab students and faculty were proposing were locally inappropriate. Working with people like Khalida broadens our understanding of how different communities work and encourages us to think differently about how we work with culturally distant communities, moving towards models of closer collaboration.
We’ll be posting the video from Khalida and Joi’s talk soon and I will update this post with a link to the video, including the question and answer session with the audience that followed.
Kate Darling (@grok_) offers a talk to the Berkman Center that’s so popular, the talk needs to be moved from Berkman to Wasserstein Hall, where almost a hundred people come for lunch and her ideas on robot ethics. Kate is a legal scholar completing her PhD during a Berkman fellowship (and a residence in my lab at the Media Lab), but tells us that these ideas are pretty disconnected from the doctoral dissertation she’s about to defend on copyright. She’s often asked why she’s chosen to work on these issues – the simple answer is “Nobody else is”. There’s a small handful of “experts” working on robots and ethics, and she feels an obligation to step up to the plate and become genuinely knowledgeable about these issues.
Robots are moving into transportation, education, care for the elderly and medicine, beyond manufacturing where they have been for years. She is concerned that our law may not yet have a space for the issues raised by the spread of robots, and hopes that we can participate in the construction of a space of robotics law, following on the healthy and creative space of cyberlaw.
She begins with a general overview of robot ethics. One key area is safety and liability – who is responsible for dysfunction and damage in these complex systems where there’s a long chain from coder to the execution of the system. It sounds fanciful, but people are now trying to figure out how to program ethics into these systems, particularly around autonomous weapons like drones.
Privacy is an area that creates visceral responses in the robotics space – Kate suggests that talking about robots and privacy may be a way to open some of the discussions about the hard issues raised by NSA surveillance. But Kate’s current focus is on social robots, and specifically on the tendency to project human qualities on robots. She references Sherry Turkle‘s observation that people bond with objects in a surprisingly strong way. There are perhaps three reasons for this: physicality (we bond more strongly with the real world than with the screen), perceived autonomous action (we see the Roomba moving around on its own, and we tend to name it and feel bad when it gets stuck in the curtains), anthropomorphism (robots targeted to mimic expressions we associate with states of minds and feelings.)
Humans bond with robots in surprising ways – soldiers honor robots with medals, demand that robots be repaired instead of being replaced, and demand funerals when they are destroyed. She tells us about a mine-defusing robot that looked like a stick insect. It lost one of six legs each time it exploded a mine. The colonel in charge of the exercise called it off on the grounds that a robot reduced to two or three legs was “inhumane”.
Kate shows her Pleo dinosaur, named for Yochai Benkler. The robot was inspiration from an experiment she ran at a workshop with legal scholars where she encouraged participants to bond with these robots, then to destroy one. Participants were horrified, and it took threats to destroy all robots to get the group to destroy one of the six. She observes that we respond to social cues from lifelike machines, even if we know they are not real.
Kate encourages workshop participants to kill a robot. Murderer.
So why does this matter? People are going to keep creating these sorts of robots, if only because toy companies like to make money. And if we have a deep tendency to bond with these robots, we may need to discuss the idea of instituting protections for social robots. We protect animals, Kate explains. We argue that it’s because they feel pain and have rights. But it’s also because we bond with them and we see an attack on an animal as an attack on the people who are bonded with and value that animal.
Kate notes that we have complicated social rules for how we treat animals. We eat cows, but not horses, because they’re horses. But Europeans (though not the British) are happy to eat horses. Perhaps the uncertainty about rights for robots suggests a similar cultural challenge: are there cultures that care for robots and cultures that don’t. This may change, Kate argues, as we have more lifelike robots in our lives. Parts of society – children, the elderly, may have difficulty distinguishing between live and lifelike. In cases where people have bonded with lifelike robots, are we comfortable with people abusing these robots? Is abusing a robot someone cares about, and may not be able to distinguish from a living creature, a form of abuse if it hurts the human emotionally?
She notes that Kant offered a reason to be concerned about animal abuse: “We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals for he who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men.” Some states look at reports of animal abuse and conduct investigations of child abuse when there’s been a report of animal abuse in a household because they worry that the issues are correlated. Is robot abuse something we should consider as evidence of more serious underlying social or psychological issues?
Kate closes by suggesting that we need more experimental work on how human/robot bonding takes place. She suggests that this work is almost necessarily interdisciplinary, bringing together legal scholars, ethicists and roboticists. And she hopes that Cambridge, a space that brings these fields together in physical space, could be a space where these conversations take place.
Jessa Lingel of MSR asks whether an argument for protecting robots might extend to labor protections for robots. “I’m not sure I buy your arguments, but if so, perhaps we should also unionize robots?” Kate argues that we should grant rights according to needs and that there’s no evidence that robots mind working long hours. Jessa suggests that the argument for labor rights might parallel the Kantian argument – if we want people to treat laborers well, maybe we need to treat our laboring robots well.
There’s a long thread on intellectual property and robots. One question asks whether we can demand open source robots to ask for local control rather than centralizing control. Another asks about the implications of self-driving cars and the ability to review algorithms for responsibility in the case of an accident. I ask a pointed question about whether, if the Pentagon begins advertising ethical drones that check to see whether there’s a child nearby before we bomb a suspected terrorist, will we be able to review the ethics code? Kate notes that a lot of her answers to these questions are, “Yes, that’s a good question – someone should be working on this!”
Andy Sellars of Digital Media Law Project asks Kate to confront her roboexceptionalism. He admits that he can’t make the leap from the Pleo to his dog, and can’t see any technology on the horizon that would really blur that line for him. Her Pleo experiment could be replicated with stuffed animals – would we worry as much about people torturing stuffed animals? Kate cites Sherry Turkle, who has found evidence that children do distinguish between robots and stuffed animals. More personally, she tells a story about a woman who told her, “I wouldn’t have any problem torturing a robot – does that make me a bad person?” Kate’s answer, for better or for worse, is yes.
Tim Davies of the Berkman Center offers the idea that Kate’s arguments for robot ethics is virtue ethics: ethics is the character we have as people. Law generally operates in the space of consequentialist ethics: it’s illegal because of the consequences of behavior, not its reflection on your calendar. He wonders whether we can move from language of anthropomorphism around robots and talk about simulation. There are legal cases where simulation of harm is something we consider to be problematic, for instance, simulated images of child abuse.
Boris Anthony of Nokia and Ivan Sigal of Global Voices (okay, let’s be honest – they’re both from Global Voices) both ask about cultural conceptions of robots through science fiction – Boris references Japanese anime and suggests that Japanese notions of privacy may be very different from American notions; Ivan references Philip K. Dick. Kate notes that, in scifi, lots of questions focus on the inherent qualities of robots. “Almost Human”, a near-future show that posits robots that have near-human emotions, is interesting, but not very practical – we’re not going to have those robots any time soon. Issues of projection are going to happen far sooner. In the story that becomes Blade Runner, the hero falls in love with a robot who can’t love him back, and he loves her despite that reality – that’s a narrative that had to be blurred out in the Hollywood version because it’s a very complex question for a mainstream movie.
Chris Peterson opens his remarks by noting that he spent most of his teenage years blowing up furbies in the woods. “Was I a sociopath, a teenager in New Hampshire, or are the two indistinguishable?” Kate, whose Center for Civic Media portrait, features her holding a flayed Furby shell absolves Chris: “Furbies are fucking annoying.” Chris’s actual question focuses on the historical example of European courts putting inanimate objects on trial, citing a case where a Brazilian colonial court put a termite colony on trial for destroying a church (and the judge awarded wood to the termites who had been wronged in the construction.) Should emergent, autonomous actors that have potentials not intended by designers have legal responsibilities. “Should the high frequency trading algorithm that causes harm be put to death? Do we distinguish between authors and their systems in the legal system?” Kate suggests that we may have a social contract that allows the vengeance of destroying a robot that we think has wronged people, but notes that we also try to protect very young people from legal consequences.
Paul Salopek is a journalist, a storyteller and an explorer. As a foreign correspondent, he covered stories in fifty countries and won two Pulitzer prizes, one for his reporting on conflicts on the African continent, one for explanatory reporting on the Human Genome Diversity Project, which seeks to explain the history and the diversity of the human species.
Paul’s reporting has often placed him in difficult and dangerous circumstances. In 2006, while reporting on the unfolding crisis in Darfur, he was held for a month in a prison cell in El Fasher, Sudan, accused of espionage and writing “false news”. (He was released thanks to interventions by The Chicago Tribune, National Geographic, New Mexico governor Bill Richardson and members of Congress.)
While Paul has done extraordinary work giving readers access to the challenges, struggles and triumphs of people around the globe, he often felt that his journalism was proceeding at too fast a pace to understand what life was really like in the places he visited. Paul first explored the idea of “slow journalism”, journalism at a walking pace, in a 2012 article on famine — walking with nomads in Kenya’s Turkana Basin to understand the experience of deprivation in the horn of Africa.
This year, Paul started walking one of the greatest stories imaginable: the spread of the human race from the Rift Valley of east Africa across the globe.
Paul will walk from Ethiopia to Patagonia, his journey paralleling human migration from Africa, through the Middle East, through Asia, across a land bridge to North America and eventually to South America. This journey took humankind about 45,000 years. Paul’s walk will take seven years. He started this January, and November finds him on the shores of the Red Sea, walking through Saudi Arabia to the Jordanian border.
In the spring of 2012, Paul came to Cambridge, MA for a fellowship at the Nieman Foundation at Harvard to prepare for his trip. He became a regular at MIT’s Center for Civic Media, sitting in on my class on News and Participatory Media and spending time with me and my students to brainstorm ways he could share his journey with an internet audience without losing the meditative, contemplative nature of the trip.
Our team at Center for Civic Media has become part of Paul’s global pit crew. Nathan Matias helped Paul debug his power problems, matching Paul with Richard Smith, a power expert with the One Laptop Per Child project. Richard discovered that Paul was using a power inverter suited for use with a car battery, not Paul’s lightweight solar panels. A “solar camel” named Fares now powers Paul’s laptop and cellphone, with only the minor inconvenience that the shiny panels sometimes scare other camels at oases.
Most of our consulting has been more mundane, helping Paul and his team think about how they could use social media. In following our friend’s journey, Nathan, Matt and I have become Salopek superfans, awaiting his dispatches and exploring the leads, references and ideas Paul shares.
Tomorrow, Paul’s journey is on the cover of National Geographic. To celebrate that launch, Center for Civic Media is guest curating the Out of Eden twitter feed for the next two weeks. We will share some of the highlights of the journey Paul has taken thus far, previews on what is to come, and details about what Paul is reading, thinking about and referencing. While we are in touch with Paul periodically, we are mostly exploring ideas he has put forward in his dispatches, tracking down references and following links, engaging in a digital exploration in parallel to Paul’s physical travels.
We see Paul’s trip as a vast, spreading tree – Paul’s steps form the trunk, and we are exploring some of the more distant spreading branches. Inspired by Maria Popova’s Brainpickings, Jorn Barger’s Robot Wisdom, and the rambling curiosity of early visions for the web, Nathan, Matt and I will be taking turns monitoring the Out of Eden feed and exploring the topics we’ve found most interesting in Paul’s journey. Please feel free to ask us questions, suggest topics we should explore, and point us to local voices we should feature. We are watching Paul’s journey with admiration and fascination and look forward to walking a few miles with you.