PHILANTHROPY 2173: commons

Showing newest posts with label commons. Show older posts

Why not a "Giving Commons?"

Both videos are by Jesse Dylan, who made the Will.i.am "Yes we can" video. These are from the blogs of Creative Commons and Larry Lessig.

I'm on my way to a discussion with Majora Carter, creator of Sustainable South Bronx and the woman who taught my seven year old how to take action against environmental racism. Here's a clip of Carter speaking at the New School:

I also just found this essay by Marcellus Andrews, an economist, on being Black and Green.
The comment that really caught my eye was this -

"As you can see, I am struggling with the uneasy relationship between sustainability and equality in a market and technology driven world economy, where economic and social innovation must now redesign capitalism to make it cleaner and ecologically viable, yet where the mechanisms of social/racial inheritance threaten to reinforce bio-political and social power in unacceptable ways."

It is the essence of thinking across systems that raises both the inherent incompatabilities between environmentalism and economic justice, and the opportunities for bringing them together that Carter demonstrates.

There is also a noteworthy piece in the October issue of Scientific American on this topic - Conservation for the People (Subscription req'd)

I believe that working on sustainability without including economic justice issues will damn the movement to the same short-sighted, resource extractive/destructive fate that our historical environmental/energy/economic systems are destined to meet. It is reductionist and short-termism to do so. Sustainable resources and justice are inextricable. To address them separately, or focus on one without the other - environment and not people, sustainable jobs and not inequality, poverty but not renewability - is to design an effort for failure.

Why foundations should care about an open internet

As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. I've easily posted 1000 words about internet access, the media, and patents as philanthropic issues. So here is the photo that better states the case:

If those in philanthropy care about job creation, education, health, children's rights, elderly involvement, civic engagement, environmental awareness, sustainable communities, economic development, or anything else that involves issues of equity and access to information then "Net Neutrality" matters. Take action here.

Shout out to GOOD Magazine for the photo.

Vermont leads the nation...

...in plans for universal cell and broadband coverage. The state Senate voted 132-2 to provide always on, everywhere coverage within the state's borders by 2010. Despite the immediate and inevitable application of the ubiquitous (e) moniker (e-state), the initiative is quite interesting. It led to an op-ed in the Washington Post that the state secede from the nation. This movement, it turns out, is led by several in-staters, who publish an online paper, the Vermont Commons. They want to return the state to its late 18th Century status as an independent republic.

Vermont - a state that values equal rights, provides free, universal wifi, maintains a focus on sustainability, and that brought the world Ben and Jerry's. The e-state initiative - A blend of citizen activism, new technologies, digital media, and state government. I don't know where all this is leading, (although it sounds distinctly and wonderfully more Canadian than American). I'm also not yet sure where the philanthropic angle is on this story - other than in the grassroots organizing. Maybe the story is in the ABSENCE of institutional philanthropy? I'll keep looking and get back to you.

FULL DISCLOSURE: While my real roots are in NY and I now live in CA, I spent much of my childhood - nearly every weekend from October to April, from ~ 1966 - 1981, in VT. I pay (minuscule) property taxes in Vermont. I hope to be in VT again, soon. And, if the state secedes, I will certainly apply for citizenship.

What about social TV

When we think about television we tend to focus on the cost of Super Bowl ads and upcoming seasons of Survivor or American Idol.

But social media is not just limited to Internet or mobile phone enabled technologies. It has in fact moved in on American’s television watching habits. Part of this is simple math – 300 million minds divided by 800 cable or satellite TV channels, 200 satellite radio stations, another several hundred broadcast AM and FM stations and countless video games, web sites, blogs, and recorded audio/visual options means that we now have almost one medium per mind at any given point in time. So television can move in on social, community and cultural niches that would never have been possible when mass audiences mattered most.

Social media may have originated with the rise of literacy rates and cheap printing presses in the 19th century. By the mid 1980s social media was defined by the masses watching to see who killed JR on Dallas, legions of trekkies gathered around Star Trek, or the cultural commons created by the last episode of M*A*S*H.

Now? Social TV is being created by things like Current TV and the soon to launch,
Fora.TV. Current TV – fronted by Al Gore – uses content produced by users, integrates communications technology into the viewing options, and relies on watchers being able to email favorite segments to their friends. Fora.TV takes these capabilities to new audiences – namely folks who would normally go to a local bookstore to hear an author reading, subscribe to an independent lecture series, and join nonprofit or college-based literary salons. Fora will allow these kinds of presenting organizations to get their program offerings to subscribers via televisions, cell phones, and laptops. Subscribers will be able to comment, recommend, and send materials to others.

I have no inside information but might there also be philanthropic investments behind this commercial enterprise? Fora.Tv is still raising operating capital - perhaps a foundation interested in media is looking to make a PRI?

So what for philanthropy? Think about where you get your news from. How do you know what is going on in your community? What is going on around the globe? Does TV fit into any of your answers? Now think about nonprofit activists or community organizations you support, volunteer with, or fund. How do they get their message out? How sophisticated are they about communications? How are they going to get heard in this increasingly multi-platform mix of content? How can philanthropy help with these challenges?

I've just arrived in Washington DC for a series of meetings and has a chance to read the Washington Post on the way into town. The version of the TV/ community story that plays in this town has to do with two of my other favorite issues - the public commons and intellectual property rights. Smithsonian Networks - an odd deal struck by the venerable Smithsonian Institution and the not-so-venerable Showtime Network just announced its first line up of shows. The issue here - the Smithsonian is owned by the American people. Most of those Americans don't subscribe to Showtime - so these shows, built around public goods are for sale on-demand to certain gold-plated cable or satellite TV customers. Here is what David Bollier had to say about this back in April 2006.

And now for something totally different

Introducing Prospero. Prospero is going to launch a visual commons. As I understand it, the idea is common space is now filled with other people's stuff - mostly advertising. The project folks behind Prospero want to create public displays that will show what the community wants. Or, as they put it:

"In much of modern life, public spaces, public media and public art are designed to send us messages that we passively receive, process and absorb. However, we believe that in a democracy, citizens must actively shape the public sphere. This necessitates "talking back" to the elements that constitute the public sphere. Public displays, that is, displays located in public spaces and accessible to a public, constitute an increasingly important element of the public sphere. We will develop an infrastructure for community-aware public displays that are controlled by users' expressed needs and preferences; we see our endeavor as part of an ongoing, democratic reclaiming, by citizens, of control over an increasing number of aspects of the public sphere in general."

What is the visual commons? "More than just billboards," they will be public displays informed by and reacting to, the community.

So what for philanthropy? The folks* behind Prospero are many of the people doing really important work on the commons. The commons is critical to philanthropy, if in fact, philanthropy is to function for the public good. What is public? What is common?

Oh, and another first for philanthropy. Here, unlike anything else you might find on the web, is the successful grant proposal that was submitted to get this project off the ground.

*Paul Hartzog is leading the work out of the U of Michigan. Full Project team is in the posted proposal. He's being linked to by Howard Rheingold, David Bollier and others at Onthecommons.