Some high-tech watchdogs are worried about a relationship unveiled this week between popular video-sharing site YouTube.com and Congress. The Google-owned site launched two new platforms where people can watch videos uploaded by members of the House and Senate. The pairing was endorsed in a welcome message by *House Speaker Pelosi*, *House Minority Leader Boehner*, *Senate Majority Leader Reid** *and *Senate Minority Leader McConnell** *that has been viewed more than 230,000 times since Monday. The announcement, however, is prompting questions about the propriety of lawmakers singling out a commercial Web tool. Critics also cite privacy concerns -- namely, what happens to data collected about users who view lawmakers' videos.
The project was made possible by changes to outdated House and Senate rules last year that clarified the circumstances under which members are allowed to place content on external Web sites. Steve Grove, head of YouTube's news and political content, said in a blog post that the service has "the potential to make Congress more transparent and accessible than ever before." But the Center for Digital Democracy's Jeff Chester warned Google is "taking a lobbying tactic developed in part by C-SPAN years ago -- offer members of Congress a free service so they can be seen by the public." On his Web site, he warned that such an "electronic or digital campaign contribution helps insure that Congress will think twice about biting -- or regulating -- the video hand that feeds [it]."
Chester and other critics are asking whether Google will be able to incorporate data gathered about those who watch the videos for its growing political online advertising business -- and whether Congress should be endorsing a for-profit enterprise as a principal access point for official government content. Chester also suggested the YouTube union might create a conflict of interest for those charged with regulating Google and other Internet firms. The company came under fire on Capitol Hill in 2008 for its plan to partner with rival Yahoo on an advertising venture. The proposal, which was also the subject of a Justice Department probe, was eventually shelved. Google executives have been grilled by lawmakers on other topics, including behavioral targeting and consumer privacy, and have lobbied on issues like what should be done with spectrum freed up by the upcoming nationwide digital television transition.
Congressional aides familiar with the deal said there was no monetary agreement involved and there is strict separation between official and campaign content on the YouTube channels, just like there is between member's official and campaign Web sites. The rule of thumb, one aide said, is members can use YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services as long as they think of them as extensions of their official Senate sites and not post materials deemed inappropriate for government Web sites. YouTube's arrangement was "an extraordinary accomplishment" because it managed to make a platform that generates money for Google and advertisers but seem like a "free, public utility," an official with another major high-tech company said.
Why doesn't the feds pay Google for its services? If it's treated like a
government contract, it will be an arms-length relationship. Should I rent
my garage for free to the city police department, then make money selling
police-related novelties? Why not keep an inventory of motor oil in case
the police want to buy any while they're at my house's garage?
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Rob Bluey <rbl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> *TECHNOLOGY* *New Congress-YouTube Partnership Raises Questions*
> *Friday, Jan. 16, 2009***
> Some high-tech watchdogs are worried about a relationship unveiled this
> week between popular video-sharing site YouTube.com and Congress. The
> Google-owned site launched two new platforms where people can watch videos
> uploaded by members of the House and Senate. The pairing was endorsed in a
> welcome message by *House Speaker Pelosi*, *House Minority Leader Boehner*
> , *Senate Majority Leader Reid** *and *Senate Minority Leader McConnell**
> *that has been viewed more than 230,000 times since Monday. The
> announcement, however, is prompting questions about the propriety of
> lawmakers singling out a commercial Web tool. Critics also cite privacy
> concerns -- namely, what happens to data collected about users who view
> lawmakers' videos.
> The project was made possible by changes to outdated House and Senate rules
> last year that clarified the circumstances under which members are allowed
> to place content on external Web sites. Steve Grove, head of YouTube's news
> and political content, said in a blog post that the service has "the
> potential to make Congress more transparent and accessible than ever
> before." But the Center for Digital Democracy's Jeff Chester warned Google
> is "taking a lobbying tactic developed in part by C-SPAN years ago -- offer
> members of Congress a free service so they can be seen by the public." On
> his Web site, he warned that such an "electronic or digital campaign
> contribution helps insure that Congress will think twice about biting -- or
> regulating -- the video hand that feeds [it]."
> Chester and other critics are asking whether Google will be able to
> incorporate data gathered about those who watch the videos for its growing
> political online advertising business -- and whether Congress should be
> endorsing a for-profit enterprise as a principal access point for official
> government content. Chester also suggested the YouTube union might create a
> conflict of interest for those charged with regulating Google and other
> Internet firms. The company came under fire on Capitol Hill in 2008 for its
> plan to partner with rival Yahoo on an advertising venture. The proposal,
> which was also the subject of a Justice Department probe, was eventually
> shelved. Google executives have been grilled by lawmakers on other topics,
> including behavioral targeting and consumer privacy, and have lobbied on
> issues like what should be done with spectrum freed up by the upcoming
> nationwide digital television transition.
> Congressional aides familiar with the deal said there was no monetary
> agreement involved and there is strict separation between official and
> campaign content on the YouTube channels, just like there is between
> member's official and campaign Web sites. The rule of thumb, one aide said,
> is members can use YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services as long as
> they think of them as extensions of their official Senate sites and not post
> materials deemed inappropriate for government Web sites. YouTube's
> arrangement was "an extraordinary accomplishment" because it managed to make
> a platform that generates money for Google and advertisers but seem like a
> "free, public utility," an official with another major high-tech company
> said.
"taking a lobbying tactic developed in part by C-SPAN years ago -- offer members of Congress a free service so they can be seen by the public." --- Yeah and we all know what kind of damage C-SPAN has done to democracy.
This nugget is a personal favorite: "That kind of electronic or digital campaign contribution helps insure (sic) that Congress will think twice about biting (or regulating) the video hand that feeds."
Yeah - a member's really going to kowtow to Google because they're worried about getting their videos taken off of YouTube. Ignoring the fact that there are a fairly large number of members who disagree with Google -- on say net neutrality -- and have huge YouTube channels, it would be a public relations DISASTER for Google if it started censoring content on YouTube. 1) its customers would revolt - 2) we'd move to another site - it's not like video hosting sites are hard to find.
But no-good deed goes unpunished.
From: openhouseproject@googlegroups.com [mailto:openhouseproject@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Rob Bluey
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 3:51 PM
To: openhouseproject@googlegroups.com
Subject: [openhouseproject] CongressDaily: New Congress-YouTube Partnership Raises Questions
TECHNOLOGY
New Congress-YouTube Partnership Raises Questions
Friday, Jan. 16, 2009
Some high-tech watchdogs are worried about a relationship unveiled this week between popular video-sharing site YouTube.com and Congress. The Google-owned site launched two new platforms where people can watch videos uploaded by members of the House and Senate. The pairing was endorsed in a welcome message by House Speaker Pelosi, House Minority Leader Boehner, Senate Majority Leader Reid and Senate Minority Leader McConnell that has been viewed more than 230,000 times since Monday. The announcement, however, is prompting questions about the propriety of lawmakers singling out a commercial Web tool. Critics also cite privacy concerns -- namely, what happens to data collected about users who view lawmakers' videos.
The project was made possible by changes to outdated House and Senate rules last year that clarified the circumstances under which members are allowed to place content on external Web sites. Steve Grove, head of YouTube's news and political content, said in a blog post that the service has "the potential to make Congress more transparent and accessible than ever before." But the Center for Digital Democracy's Jeff Chester warned Google is "taking a lobbying tactic developed in part by C-SPAN years ago -- offer members of Congress a free service so they can be seen by the public." On his Web site, he warned that such an "electronic or digital campaign contribution helps insure that Congress will think twice about biting -- or regulating -- the video hand that feeds [it]."
Chester and other critics are asking whether Google will be able to incorporate data gathered about those who watch the videos for its growing political online advertising business -- and whether Congress should be endorsing a for-profit enterprise as a principal access point for official government content. Chester also suggested the YouTube union might create a conflict of interest for those charged with regulating Google and other Internet firms. The company came under fire on Capitol Hill in 2008 for its plan to partner with rival Yahoo on an advertising venture. The proposal, which was also the subject of a Justice Department probe, was eventually shelved. Google executives have been grilled by lawmakers on other topics, including behavioral targeting and consumer privacy, and have lobbied on issues like what should be done with spectrum freed up by the upcoming nationwide digital television transition.
Congressional aides familiar with the deal said there was no monetary agreement involved and there is strict separation between official and campaign content on the YouTube channels, just like there is between member's official and campaign Web sites. The rule of thumb, one aide said, is members can use YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services as long as they think of them as extensions of their official Senate sites and not post materials deemed inappropriate for government Web sites. YouTube's arrangement was "an extraordinary accomplishment" because it managed to make a platform that generates money for Google and advertisers but seem like a "free, public utility," an official with another major high-tech company said.
by Andrew Noyes<mailto:ano...@nationaljournal.com>
I think the feds are paying Google the same amount we are paying to use this list-serve and about the same amount as you pay for your gmail.
From: openhouseproject@googlegroups.com [mailto:openhouseproject@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of David Weller
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 4:14 PM
To: openhouseproject@googlegroups.com
Subject: [openhouseproject] Re: CongressDaily: New Congress-YouTube Partnership Raises Questions
Why doesn't the feds pay Google for its services? If it's treated like a government contract, it will be an arms-length relationship. Should I rent my garage for free to the city police department, then make money selling police-related novelties? Why not keep an inventory of motor oil in case the police want to buy any while they're at my house's garage?
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Rob Bluey <rbl...@gmail.com<mailto:rbl...@gmail.com>> wrote:
TECHNOLOGY
New Congress-YouTube Partnership Raises Questions
Friday, Jan. 16, 2009
Some high-tech watchdogs are worried about a relationship unveiled this week between popular video-sharing site YouTube.com and Congress. The Google-owned site launched two new platforms where people can watch videos uploaded by members of the House and Senate. The pairing was endorsed in a welcome message by House Speaker Pelosi, House Minority Leader Boehner, Senate Majority Leader Reid and Senate Minority Leader McConnell that has been viewed more than 230,000 times since Monday. The announcement, however, is prompting questions about the propriety of lawmakers singling out a commercial Web tool. Critics also cite privacy concerns -- namely, what happens to data collected about users who view lawmakers' videos.
The project was made possible by changes to outdated House and Senate rules last year that clarified the circumstances under which members are allowed to place content on external Web sites. Steve Grove, head of YouTube's news and political content, said in a blog post that the service has "the potential to make Congress more transparent and accessible than ever before." But the Center for Digital Democracy's Jeff Chester warned Google is "taking a lobbying tactic developed in part by C-SPAN years ago -- offer members of Congress a free service so they can be seen by the public." On his Web site, he warned that such an "electronic or digital campaign contribution helps insure that Congress will think twice about biting -- or regulating -- the video hand that feeds [it]."
Chester and other critics are asking whether Google will be able to incorporate data gathered about those who watch the videos for its growing political online advertising business -- and whether Congress should be endorsing a for-profit enterprise as a principal access point for official government content. Chester also suggested the YouTube union might create a conflict of interest for those charged with regulating Google and other Internet firms. The company came under fire on Capitol Hill in 2008 for its plan to partner with rival Yahoo on an advertising venture. The proposal, which was also the subject of a Justice Department probe, was eventually shelved. Google executives have been grilled by lawmakers on other topics, including behavioral targeting and consumer privacy, and have lobbied on issues like what should be done with spectrum freed up by the upcoming nationwide digital television transition.
Congressional aides familiar with the deal said there was no monetary agreement involved and there is strict separation between official and campaign content on the YouTube channels, just like there is between member's official and campaign Web sites. The rule of thumb, one aide said, is members can use YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services as long as they think of them as extensions of their official Senate sites and not post materials deemed inappropriate for government Web sites. YouTube's arrangement was "an extraordinary accomplishment" because it managed to make a platform that generates money for Google and advertisers but seem like a "free, public utility," an official with another major high-tech company said.
by Andrew Noyes<mailto:ano...@nationaljournal.com>
Tom Jones said,
I think the feds are paying Google the same amount we are paying to use
this list-serve and about the same amount as you pay for your gmail.
Who said that my using Gmail for free was right? The federal government is
a much larger order.
David
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Jones, Tom (Commerce) <
Tom_Jo...@commerce.senate.gov> wrote:
> I think the feds are paying Google the same amount we are paying to use
> this list-serve and about the same amount as you pay for your gmail.
> Why doesn't the feds pay Google for its services? If it's treated like a
> government contract, it will be an arms-length relationship. Should I rent
> my garage for free to the city police department, then make money selling
> police-related novelties? Why not keep an inventory of motor oil in case
> the police want to buy any while they're at my house's garage?
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Rob Bluey <rbl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> TECHNOLOGY New Congress-YouTube Partnership Raises Questions
> *Friday, Jan. 16, 2009*
> Some high-tech watchdogs are worried about a relationship unveiled this
> week between popular video-sharing site YouTube.com and Congress. The
> Google-owned site launched two new platforms where people can watch videos
> uploaded by members of the House and Senate. The pairing was endorsed in a
> welcome message by *House Speaker Pelosi*, *House Minority Leader Boehner*
> , *Senate Majority Leader Reid *and *Senate Minority Leader McConnell *that
> has been viewed more than 230,000 times since Monday. The announcement,
> however, is prompting questions about the propriety of lawmakers singling
> out a commercial Web tool. Critics also cite privacy concerns -- namely,
> what happens to data collected about users who view lawmakers' videos.
> The project was made possible by changes to outdated House and Senate rules
> last year that clarified the circumstances under which members are allowed
> to place content on external Web sites. Steve Grove, head of YouTube's news
> and political content, said in a blog post that the service has "the
> potential to make Congress more transparent and accessible than ever
> before." But the Center for Digital Democracy's Jeff Chester warned Google
> is "taking a lobbying tactic developed in part by C-SPAN years ago -- offer
> members of Congress a free service so they can be seen by the public." On
> his Web site, he warned that such an "electronic or digital campaign
> contribution helps insure that Congress will think twice about biting -- or
> regulating -- the video hand that feeds [it]."
> Chester and other critics are asking whether Google will be able to
> incorporate data gathered about those who watch the videos for its growing
> political online advertising business -- and whether Congress should be
> endorsing a for-profit enterprise as a principal access point for official
> government content. Chester also suggested the YouTube union might create a
> conflict of interest for those charged with regulating Google and other
> Internet firms. The company came under fire on Capitol Hill in 2008 for its
> plan to partner with rival Yahoo on an advertising venture. The proposal,
> which was also the subject of a Justice Department probe, was eventually
> shelved. Google executives have been grilled by lawmakers on other topics,
> including behavioral targeting and consumer privacy, and have lobbied on
> issues like what should be done with spectrum freed up by the upcoming
> nationwide digital television transition.
> Congressional aides familiar with the deal said there was no monetary
> agreement involved and there is strict separation between official and
> campaign content on the YouTube channels, just like there is between
> member's official and campaign Web sites. The rule of thumb, one aide said,
> is members can use YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services as long as
> they think of them as extensions of their official Senate sites and not post
> materials deemed inappropriate for government Web sites. YouTube's
> arrangement was "an extraordinary accomplishment" because it managed to make
> a platform that generates money for Google and advertisers but seem like a
> "free, public utility," an official with another major high-tech company
> said.
> I think the feds are paying Google the same amount we are paying to use this > list-serve and about the same amount as you pay for your gmail.
> From: openhouseproject@googlegroups.com > [mailto:openhouseproject@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of David Weller > Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 4:14 PM > To: openhouseproject@googlegroups.com > Subject: [openhouseproject] Re: CongressDaily: New Congress-YouTube > Partnership Raises Questions
> Why doesn't the feds pay Google for its services? If it's treated like a > government contract, it will be an arms-length relationship. Should I rent my > garage for free to the city police department, then make money selling > police-related novelties? Why not keep an inventory of motor oil in case the > police want to buy any while they're at my house's garage?
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Rob Bluey <rbl...@gmail.com> wrote: > TECHNOLOGY > New Congress-YouTube Partnership Raises Questions > Friday, Jan. 16, 2009
> Some high-tech watchdogs are worried about a relationship unveiled this week > between popular video-sharing site YouTube.com and Congress. The Google-owned > site launched two new platforms where people can watch videos uploaded by > members of the House and Senate. The pairing was endorsed in a welcome message > by House Speaker Pelosi, House Minority Leader Boehner, Senate Majority Leader > Reid and Senate Minority Leader McConnell that has been viewed more than > 230,000 times since Monday. The announcement, however, is prompting questions > about the propriety of lawmakers singling out a commercial Web tool. Critics > also cite privacy concerns -- namely, what happens to data collected about > users who view lawmakers' videos.
> The project was made possible by changes to outdated House and Senate rules > last year that clarified the circumstances under which members are allowed to > place content on external Web sites. Steve Grove, head of YouTube's news and > political content, said in a blog post that the service has "the potential to > make Congress more transparent and accessible than ever before." But the > Center for Digital Democracy's Jeff Chester warned Google is "taking a > lobbying tactic developed in part by C-SPAN years ago -- offer members of > Congress a free service so they can be seen by the public." On his Web site, > he warned that such an "electronic or digital campaign contribution helps > insure that Congress will think twice about biting -- or regulating -- the > video hand that feeds [it]."
> Chester and other critics are asking whether Google will be able to > incorporate data gathered about those who watch the videos for its growing > political online advertising business -- and whether Congress should be > endorsing a for-profit enterprise as a principal access point for official > government content. Chester also suggested the YouTube union might create a > conflict of interest for those charged with regulating Google and other > Internet firms. The company came under fire on Capitol Hill in 2008 for its > plan to partner with rival Yahoo on an advertising venture. The proposal, > which was also the subject of a Justice Department probe, was eventually > shelved. Google executives have been grilled by lawmakers on other topics, > including behavioral targeting and consumer privacy, and have lobbied on > issues like what should be done with spectrum freed up by the upcoming > nationwide digital television transition.
> Congressional aides familiar with the deal said there was no monetary > agreement involved and there is strict separation between official and > campaign content on the YouTube channels, just like there is between member's > official and campaign Web sites. The rule of thumb, one aide said, is members > can use YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services as long as they think of > them as extensions of their official Senate sites and not post materials > deemed inappropriate for government Web sites. YouTube's arrangement was "an > extraordinary accomplishment" because it managed to make a platform that > generates money for Google and advertisers but seem like a "free, public > utility," an official with another major high-tech company said.
> by Andrew Noyes <mailto:ano...@nationaljournal.com>
1) The post wasn't about the federal government it was about the leg. Branch. regardless.
2) This is a portal to distribute information to the public. People watch YouTube. I suspect it's because they have a saturation of the market, they made a good product or they have a catchy name. Who knows, but they're the way to get information out. More information to more people is good. When YouTube ceases being the way to get the word out, we'll go somewhere else. Politicians like having people listen to them.
3) If the idea of Google finding out that you watch videos of Jim DeMint, often search for the term "freedom", have bought 5 guns and prefer boxers over briefs and therefore serves you an ad for the latest camouflaged underpants emblazoned with elephants on it gives you the oogly-booglies I suggest you do the following:
a. Download AdBlocker, block cookies, anonomize (I know its spelled wrong I'm too lazy to look up the correct spelling) your IP address, and maybe work from a library
what I don't suggest you don't do is:
b. Advocate mandating that Congress post video content in some format and on some website that no-one accesses so that the citizenry ends up being less well informed.
We use YouTube for a reason - same reason bank robbers rob banks. YouTube is where the eyeballs are. Members of Congress could attempt to get word out about their policy positions with a town crier in the city square, but we've generally found that radio and TV are better.
From: openhouseproject@googlegroups.com [mailto:openhouseproject@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of David Weller
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 4:27 PM
To: openhouseproject@googlegroups.com
Subject: [openhouseproject] Re: CongressDaily: New Congress-YouTube Partnership Raises Questions
Tom Jones said,
I think the feds are paying Google the same amount we are paying to use this list-serve and about the same amount as you pay for your gmail.
Who said that my using Gmail for free was right? The federal government is a much larger order.
David
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Jones, Tom (Commerce) <Tom_Jo...@commerce.senate.gov<mailto:Tom_Jo...@commerce.senate.gov>> wrote:
I think the feds are paying Google the same amount we are paying to use this list-serve and about the same amount as you pay for your gmail.
From: openhouseproject@googlegroups.com<mailto:openhouseproject@googlegroups.com> [mailto:openhouseproject@googlegroups.com<mailto:openhouseproject@googlegro ups.com>] On Behalf Of David Weller
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 4:14 PM
To: openhouseproject@googlegroups.com<mailto:openhouseproject@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [openhouseproject] Re: CongressDaily: New Congress-YouTube Partnership Raises Questions
Why doesn't the feds pay Google for its services? If it's treated like a government contract, it will be an arms-length relationship. Should I rent my garage for free to the city police department, then make money selling police-related novelties? Why not keep an inventory of motor oil in case the police want to buy any while they're at my house's garage?
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Rob Bluey <rbl...@gmail.com<mailto:rbl...@gmail.com>> wrote:
TECHNOLOGY
New Congress-YouTube Partnership Raises Questions
Friday, Jan. 16, 2009
Some high-tech watchdogs are worried about a relationship unveiled this week between popular video-sharing site YouTube.com and Congress. The Google-owned site launched two new platforms where people can watch videos uploaded by members of the House and Senate. The pairing was endorsed in a welcome message by House Speaker Pelosi, House Minority Leader Boehner, Senate Majority Leader Reid and Senate Minority Leader McConnell that has been viewed more than 230,000 times since Monday. The announcement, however, is prompting questions about the propriety of lawmakers singling out a commercial Web tool. Critics also cite privacy concerns -- namely, what happens to data collected about users who view lawmakers' videos.
The project was made possible by changes to outdated House and Senate rules last year that clarified the circumstances under which members are allowed to place content on external Web sites. Steve Grove, head of YouTube's news and political content, said in a blog post that the service has "the potential to make Congress more transparent and accessible than ever before." But the Center for Digital Democracy's Jeff Chester warned Google is "taking a lobbying tactic developed in part by C-SPAN years ago -- offer members of Congress a free service so they can be seen by the public." On his Web site, he warned that such an "electronic or digital campaign contribution helps insure that Congress will think twice about biting -- or regulating -- the video hand that feeds [it]."
Chester and other critics are asking whether Google will be able to incorporate data gathered about those who watch the videos for its growing political online advertising business -- and whether Congress should be endorsing a for-profit enterprise as a principal access point for official government content. Chester also suggested the YouTube union might create a conflict of interest for those charged with regulating Google and other Internet firms. The company came under fire on Capitol Hill in 2008 for its plan to partner with rival Yahoo on an advertising venture. The proposal, which was also the subject of a Justice Department probe, was eventually shelved. Google executives have been grilled by lawmakers on other topics, including behavioral targeting and consumer privacy, and have lobbied on issues like what should be done with spectrum freed up by the upcoming nationwide digital television transition.
Congressional aides familiar with the deal said there was no monetary agreement involved and there is strict separation between official and campaign content on the YouTube channels, just like there is between member's official and campaign Web sites. The rule of thumb, one aide said, is members can use YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services as long as they think of them as extensions of their official Senate sites and not post materials deemed inappropriate for government Web sites. YouTube's arrangement was "an extraordinary accomplishment" because it managed to make a platform that generates money for Google and advertisers but seem like a "free, public utility," an official with another major high-tech company said.
by Andrew Noyes<mailto:ano...@nationaljournal.com>
Unfortunately, I have to disagree with Tom Jones's ridicule of Jeff
Chester's comment. In particular, Mr. Chester's comment about the
relationship between C-SPAN and Congress is 100% accurate. The cable
industry funded C-SPAN to curry favor with Congress and better compete with
the local broadcast industry which uses its airwaves in a similar way to
curry favor with members of Congress (for details on how this works, see my
book: Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick: How Local TV Broadcasters Exert
Political Power).
To be sure, C-SPAN provides a wonderful information service. But it is not
at all the vehicle for democratic accountability that Brian Lamb often likes
to make it out to be. The deal Congress made with C-SPAN was that
Congress would let C-SPAN tape its proceedings if C-SPAN ensured that no
opposition candidate would be able to use any of the footage against an
incumbent member of Congress. This was a very clever arrangement because
under the Copyright Act of 1976 Congress was not allowed to restrict access
to government records in this way. By giving C-SPAN the copyright, C-SPAN
would be able to enact and enforce all the undemocratic rules that Congress
couldn't do itself.
If you chart the growth of C-SPAN since the 1980s and the declining
competitiveness of Congressional elections, you'll see a remarkable
correlation. I don't think there is a significant causal connection because
C-SPAN just isn't that important. But I'm quite certain that Brian Lamb's
cable bosses would have fired him if they thought C-SPAN would damage rather
than strengthen their relationships with the incumbent members of Congress
whose favor they seek to curry.
As for the relevance of the Comcast analogy to Google, I'm not in a position
to say. The details will matter a lot. I would agree that control of
YouTube per se doesn't give Google much leverage with members of
Congress-certainly not in comparison to the leverage the broadcasting and
cable industries have been able to exert on Congress. But I can imagine
that Google could use the YouTube relationship to do a lot of little favors
for members of Congress that won't show up in any financial disclosure form.
Moreover, I know from personal experience that Google, like any highly
skilled lobbyist, can be quite adept at exercising influence below the
public radar.
Mr. Jones is 100% right that Google wouldn't blatantly censor a member of
Congress. But that's a straw man argument. That type of blatant quid pro
quo isn't the way anyone competent in Washington works. To find the
potential problems, it is necessary to investigate much more carefully.
J.H. Snider, MBA, Ph.D.
President
iSolon.org
From: openhouseproject@googlegroups.com
[mailto:openhouseproject@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jones, Tom
(Commerce)
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 4:09 PM
To: openhouseproject@googlegroups.com
Subject: [openhouseproject] Re: CongressDaily: New Congress-YouTube
Partnership Raises Questions
"taking a lobbying tactic developed in part by C-SPAN years ago -- offer
members of Congress a free service so they can be seen by the public." ---
Yeah and we all know what kind of damage C-SPAN has done to democracy.
This nugget is a personal favorite: "That kind of electronic or digital
campaign contribution helps insure (sic) that Congress will think twice
about biting (or regulating) the video hand that feeds."
Yeah - a member's really going to kowtow to Google because they're worried
about getting their videos taken off of YouTube. Ignoring the fact that
there are a fairly large number of members who disagree with Google -- on
say net neutrality -- and have huge YouTube channels, it would be a public
relations DISASTER for Google if it started censoring content on YouTube.
1) its customers would revolt - 2) we'd move to another site - it's not like
video hosting sites are hard to find.
But no-good deed goes unpunished.
From: openhouseproject@googlegroups.com
[mailto:openhouseproject@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Rob Bluey
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 3:51 PM
To: openhouseproject@googlegroups.com
Subject: [openhouseproject] CongressDaily: New Congress-YouTube Partnership
Raises Questions
TECHNOLOGY
New Congress-YouTube Partnership Raises Questions
Friday, Jan. 16, 2009
Some high-tech watchdogs are worried about a relationship unveiled this week
between popular video-sharing site YouTube.com and Congress. The
Google-owned site launched two new platforms where people can watch videos
uploaded by members of the House and Senate. The pairing was endorsed in a
welcome message by House Speaker Pelosi, House Minority Leader Boehner,
Senate Majority Leader Reid and Senate Minority Leader McConnell that has
been viewed more than 230,000 times since Monday. The announcement, however,
is prompting questions about the propriety of lawmakers singling out a
commercial Web tool. Critics also cite privacy concerns -- namely, what
happens to data collected about users who view lawmakers' videos.
The project was made possible by changes to outdated House and Senate rules
last year that clarified the circumstances under which members are allowed
to place content on external Web sites. Steve Grove, head of YouTube's news
and political content, said in a blog post that the service has "the
potential to make Congress more transparent and accessible than ever
before." But the Center for Digital Democracy's Jeff Chester warned Google
is "taking a lobbying tactic developed in part by C-SPAN years ago -- offer
members of Congress a free service so they can be seen by the public." On
his Web site, he warned that such an "electronic or digital campaign
contribution helps insure that Congress will think twice about biting -- or
regulating -- the video hand that feeds [it]."
Chester and other critics are asking whether Google will be able to
incorporate data gathered about those who watch the videos for its growing
political online advertising business -- and whether Congress should be
endorsing a for-profit enterprise as a principal access point for official
government content. Chester also suggested the YouTube union might create a
conflict of interest for those charged with regulating Google and other
Internet firms. The company came under fire on Capitol Hill in 2008 for its
plan to partner with rival Yahoo on an advertising venture. The proposal,
which was also the subject of a Justice Department probe, was eventually
shelved. Google executives have been grilled by lawmakers on other topics,
including behavioral targeting and consumer privacy, and have lobbied on
issues like what should be done with spectrum freed up by the upcoming
nationwide digital television transition.
Congressional aides familiar with the deal said there was no monetary
agreement involved and there is strict separation between official and
campaign content on the YouTube channels, just like there is between
member's official and campaign Web sites. The rule of thumb, one aide said,
is members can use YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services as long as
they think of them as extensions of their official Senate sites and not post
materials deemed inappropriate for government Web sites. YouTube's
arrangement was "an extraordinary accomplishment" because it managed to make
a platform that generates money for Google and advertisers but seem like a
"free, public utility," an official with another major high-tech company
said.
by <mailto:ano...@nationaljournal.com> Andrew Noyes
I'm going to weigh in reluctantly. Apologies if this has been covered before. I haven't followed all this very carefully.
First, I think the move to use YouTube is, on balance, *great*.
But it would be nice to see a plan that considers ramifications of making YouTube the only access point for these videos, which include:
* Archival access issues. Because YouTube is the only access point, access to footage is at their discretion. It would be very unlikely that they would hinder access to the latest videos, but what about archival videos 2 or 10 years down the road? Will it still be available? Will we be able to find it? I can tell you that this may be actually an issue already. GovTrack pulls in the latest videos using a YouTube RSS feed. However, my impression is that once Member's channels have more than, say, 20 videos, the feeds will only have the latest postings and it may become impossible to get a complete index of a Member's videos in a structured data format that makes reuse and dissemination at a large scale possible.
* Copyright/trademark/TOS issues. Because YouTube is the only access point, they are in a position in the future to alter the footage so that they can assert IP rights over it, or to modify their Terms of Service so as to prevent certain uses of the footage. This is what has happened with C-SPAN --- they overlay their trademark on their broadcasts, which poses problems for sites like Metavid (or research institutions which capture the video) which must figure out how to block out their trademark in order to disseminate the remaining public-domain part to the public. (I'm assuming I don't need to justify why a site like Metavid is useful and important.) There is no public outcry over CSPAN's bug because it doesn't affect normal people directly --- but normal people also don't know what they're missing by sites like Metavid being difficult to create.
* Remixing-access issues. The decisions YouTube makes at a technical level for how to distribute the videos may impact whether the footage is available in such a way that remixing is technically possible. Remixing is an important part of journalism --- broadly speaking, including clips in a newscast is remixing. Currently (or last I checked) there was no sanctioned way to download the raw footage of these videos from YouTube. That is, you can only watch the video *on* YouTube. You can't get it so that you could broadcast it on TV, or combine it with other video, or simply make it available unaltered but on a site that does not track users' comings and goings. (There are technical means around this, but it may violate YouTube's terms of service -- I haven't checked.) Now, I think I read earlier today that YouTube is making downloads of raw footage available for some videos, which might address this problem. But if this issue wasn't on the radar when the decision was made to go with YouTube, we shouldn't think that if YouTube changed their mind that there would be much of an outrage. I should note that their technical choices may also invoke software patent issues, which could lead to other legal restrictions on distribution.
* And the privacy concerns, which have been raised.
All of this isn't to say that YouTube was in any way a bad decision. But it should be the first of several innovations to go about this the best way. I am sure many people on this list can offer cheap/efficient ways to address the problems if they were asked.
"Yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation! Yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation!" Achilles to Tortoise (in "Godel, Escher, Bach" by Douglas Hofstadter)
Why not use a free service that also uploads to YouTube? For instance,
CapitolHub.com. Any professional user can upload to YouTube using the
Capitol Hub system and the content will go to both a focused, non- partisan political content site as well as the more popular YouTube.
It still takes just one upload.
> I'm going to weigh in reluctantly. Apologies if this has been covered
> before. I haven't followed all this very carefully.
> First, I think the move to use YouTube is, on balance, *great*.
> But it would be nice to see a plan that considers ramifications of
> making YouTube the only access point for these videos, which include:
> * Archival access issues. Because YouTube is the only access point,
> access to footage is at their discretion. It would be very unlikely
> that
> they would hinder access to the latest videos, but what about archival
> videos 2 or 10 years down the road? Will it still be available? Will
> we
> be able to find it? I can tell you that this may be actually an issue
> already. GovTrack pulls in the latest videos using a YouTube RSS feed.
> However, my impression is that once Member's channels have more than,
> say, 20 videos, the feeds will only have the latest postings and it
> may
> become impossible to get a complete index of a Member's videos in a
> structured data format that makes reuse and dissemination at a large
> scale possible.
> * Copyright/trademark/TOS issues. Because YouTube is the only access
> point, they are in a position in the future to alter the footage so
> that
> they can assert IP rights over it, or to modify their Terms of Service
> so as to prevent certain uses of the footage. This is what has
> happened
> with C-SPAN --- they overlay their trademark on their broadcasts,
> which
> poses problems for sites like Metavid (or research institutions which
> capture the video) which must figure out how to block out their
> trademark in order to disseminate the remaining public-domain part to
> the public. (I'm assuming I don't need to justify why a site like
> Metavid is useful and important.) There is no public outcry over
> CSPAN's
> bug because it doesn't affect normal people directly --- but normal
> people also don't know what they're missing by sites like Metavid
> being
> difficult to create.
> * Remixing-access issues. The decisions YouTube makes at a technical
> level for how to distribute the videos may impact whether the
> footage is
> available in such a way that remixing is technically possible.
> Remixing
> is an important part of journalism --- broadly speaking, including
> clips
> in a newscast is remixing. Currently (or last I checked) there was no
> sanctioned way to download the raw footage of these videos from
> YouTube.
> That is, you can only watch the video *on* YouTube. You can't get it
> so
> that you could broadcast it on TV, or combine it with other video, or
> simply make it available unaltered but on a site that does not track
> users' comings and goings. (There are technical means around this, but
> it may violate YouTube's terms of service -- I haven't checked.)
> Now, I
> think I read earlier today that YouTube is making downloads of raw
> footage available for some videos, which might address this problem.
> But
> if this issue wasn't on the radar when the decision was made to go
> with
> YouTube, we shouldn't think that if YouTube changed their mind that
> there would be much of an outrage. I should note that their technical
> choices may also invoke software patent issues, which could lead to
> other legal restrictions on distribution.
> * And the privacy concerns, which have been raised.
> All of this isn't to say that YouTube was in any way a bad decision.
> But
> it should be the first of several innovations to go about this the
> best
> way. I am sure many people on this list can offer cheap/efficient ways
> to address the problems if they were asked.
> "Yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation! Yields
> falsehood when preceded by its quotation!" Achilles to
> Tortoise (in "Godel, Escher, Bach" by Douglas Hofstadter)
Great thread. Everyone rapidly identifying the positive and the risks.
I'm with Josh T (overall this is good) and J.H. Snider (there are influence
issues/risk...they are plain yet subtle).
On the whole, the web has a given all of us a model and a mean for
exchanging information and innovating far greater than previous gatekeepers.
Youtube is what, 3+ years old? Psshaw...let's figure out how to fix this.
This is a great time for change and this group can move forward to address
the challenges.
Is this agreement even exclusive? Maybe John Wonder-Finder can get us info?
(I, er, "googled" a bit for the agreement and just got news articles. Which
itself is pretty interesting: (a) no Google press release shows up on first
page of results—is that good (no bias) or bad (hiding)? (b) none of the
people writing describe the basic terms of document or give a good link—in a
world of infinite page length and iPaper embeds.)
Since 2007 this very *very* crowd—a unique mix of tech practitioners,
Congressional staffers, and engaged citizens—has helped changed
rules/practices in Congress, C-SPAN's copyright policy, and gov't websites.
Furthermore, we are doing this against a background of emerging but tested
social contracts of open source, open standards, and creative commons. We
have unbelievably powerful search tools, organizing tools, and new
peer-to-peer means for bubbling up information that route around the
previous gatekeepers of advertisers or government or editorial boards. We
are in a great position to *continue* innovating and changing and improving.
Thank goodness Congress is starting to use these tools. We have new
institutions like the Internet Archive. And most importantly, we have the
increasing value of *this* network that we are weaving. We have a
vocabularly of practices now. We have public testbeds. And we even have
lessons learned from other media/technology revolutions.
We are still in transition. We are not *done* with our work, merely better
positioned for next steps. YouTube has no requirement for disability access
as federal websites do. Flash video has shortcomings. There are legitimate
issues around who gets access to usage logs.
I'm looking forward to the next two years as I think they will be great ones
for implementing and innovating on the technology and policy fronts
simultaneously.
I remember *very* clearly in 1980s, in college, going to downtown
Philadephia to flip through three-ring binders of franchise proposal from
cable companies, the *huge* promises they made of wiring classrooms and
e-democracy if they were the ones to receive the exclusive geographic cable
monopoly. J.H. is right, but the nature of the Internet makes exclusive
elusive and creates a better (not perfect) relationship between popularity
and merit. Just as people moved from AOL to the web, and from MySpace to
Facebook, videos could migrate from YouTube to something else *much* easier
than a city can migrate between cable company franchises.
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 11:12 PM, J.H. Snider <sni...@isolon.org> wrote:
> Unfortunately, I have to disagree with Tom Jones's ridicule of Jeff
> Chester's comment. In particular, Mr. Chester's comment about the
> relationship between C-SPAN and Congress is 100% accurate. The cable
> industry funded C-SPAN to curry favor with Congress and better compete with
> the local broadcast industry which uses its airwaves in a similar way to
> curry favor with members of Congress (for details on how this works, see my
> book: *Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick: How Local TV Broadcasters Exert
> Political Power*).
> To be sure, C-SPAN provides a wonderful information service. But it is not
> at all the vehicle for democratic accountability that Brian Lamb often likes
> to make it out to be. The deal Congress made with C-SPAN was that
> Congress would let C-SPAN tape its proceedings if C-SPAN ensured that no
> opposition candidate would be able to use any of the footage against an
> incumbent member of Congress. This was a very clever arrangement because
> under the Copyright Act of 1976 Congress was not allowed to restrict access
> to government records in this way. By giving C-SPAN the copyright, C-SPAN
> would be able to enact and enforce all the undemocratic rules that Congress
> couldn't do itself.
> If you chart the growth of C-SPAN since the 1980s and the declining
> competitiveness of Congressional elections, you'll see a remarkable
> correlation. I don't think there is a significant causal connection because
> C-SPAN just isn't that important. But I'm quite certain that Brian Lamb's
> cable bosses would have fired him if they thought C-SPAN would damage rather
> than strengthen their relationships with the incumbent members of Congress
> whose favor they seek to curry.
> As for the relevance of the Comcast analogy to Google, I'm not in a
> position to say. The details will matter a lot. I would agree that
> control of YouTube per se doesn't give Google much leverage with members of
> Congress—certainly not in comparison to the leverage the broadcasting and
> cable industries have been able to exert on Congress. But I can imagine
> that Google could use the YouTube relationship to do a lot of little favors
> for members of Congress that won't show up in any financial disclosure
> form. Moreover, I know from personal experience that Google, like any
> highly skilled lobbyist, can be quite adept at exercising influence below
> the public radar.
> Mr. Jones is 100% right that Google wouldn't blatantly censor a member of
> Congress. But that's a straw man argument. That type of blatant quid pro
> quo isn't the way anyone competent in Washington works. To find the
> potential problems, it is necessary to investigate much more carefully.
> J.H. Snider, MBA, Ph.D.
> President
> iSolon.org
> *From:* openhouseproject@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> openhouseproject@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Jones, Tom (Commerce)
> *Sent:* Friday, January 16, 2009 4:09 PM
> *To:* openhouseproject@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* [openhouseproject] Re: CongressDaily: New Congress-YouTube
> Partnership Raises Questions
> "taking a lobbying tactic developed in part by C-SPAN years ago -- offer
> members of Congress a free service so they can be seen by the public." ---
> Yeah and we all know what kind of damage C-SPAN has done to democracy.
> This nugget is a personal favorite: "That kind of electronic or digital
> campaign contribution helps insure (sic) that Congress will think twice
> about biting (or regulating) the video hand that feeds."
> Yeah – a member's really going to kowtow to Google because they're worried
> about getting their videos taken off of YouTube. Ignoring the fact that
> there are a fairly large number of members who disagree with Google -- on
> say net neutrality -- and have huge YouTube channels, it would be a public
> relations DISASTER for Google if it started censoring content on YouTube.
> 1) its customers would revolt – 2) we'd move to another site – it's not like
> video hosting sites are hard to find.
> TECHNOLOGY New Congress-YouTube Partnership Raises Questions
> *Friday, Jan. 16, 2009*
> Some high-tech watchdogs are worried about a relationship unveiled this
> week between popular video-sharing site YouTube.com and Congress. The
> Google-owned site launched two new platforms where people can watch videos
> uploaded by members of the House and Senate. The pairing was endorsed in a
> welcome message by *House Speaker Pelosi*, *House Minority Leader Boehner*
> , *Senate Majority Leader Reid** *and *Senate Minority Leader McConnell**
> *that has been viewed more than 230,000 times since Monday. The
> announcement, however, is prompting questions about the propriety of
> lawmakers singling out a commercial Web tool. Critics also cite privacy
> concerns -- namely, what happens to data collected about users who view
> lawmakers' videos.
> The project was made possible by changes to outdated House and Senate rules
> last year that clarified the circumstances under which members are allowed
> to place content on external Web sites. Steve Grove, head of YouTube's news
> and political content, said in a blog post that the service has "the
> potential to make Congress more transparent and accessible than ever
> before." But the Center for Digital Democracy's Jeff Chester warned Google
> is "taking a lobbying tactic developed in part by C-SPAN years ago -- offer
> members of Congress a free service so they can be seen by the public." On
> his Web site, he warned that such an "electronic or digital campaign
> contribution helps insure that Congress will think twice about biting -- or
> regulating -- the video hand that feeds [it]."
> Chester and other critics are asking whether Google will be able to
> incorporate data gathered about those who watch the videos for its growing
> political online advertising business -- and whether Congress should be
> endorsing a for-profit enterprise as a principal access point for official
> government content. Chester also suggested the YouTube union might create a
> conflict of interest for those charged with regulating Google and
Interesting article on history of the mythology around "lock-in" and QWERTY
keyboard...and if QWERTY really was all that inferior or if Dvorak
manipulated test data. <http://www.reason.com/news/show/29944.html>
After reading the article which takes a long time to say things but has
interesting facts in the second half,I think there's still something to
"path dependence" though it might better be described as "preferential
attachment" found in scale-free networks.
Further makes me think Google or YouTube is not *real* issue, but how we
bake-in a path dependency of easily adopted innovation so we continuously
address shortcomings.
Greg
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Greg Elin <ge...@sunlightfoundation.com>wrote:
> Great thread. Everyone rapidly identifying the positive and the risks.
> I'm with Josh T (overall this is good) and J.H. Snider (there are influence
> issues/risk...they are plain yet subtle).
> On the whole, the web has a given all of us a model and a mean for
> exchanging information and innovating far greater than previous gatekeepers.
> Youtube is what, 3+ years old? Psshaw...let's figure out how to fix this.
> This is a great time for change and this group can move forward to address
> the challenges.
> Is this agreement even exclusive? Maybe John Wonder-Finder can get us info?
> (I, er, "googled" a bit for the agreement and just got news articles. Which
> itself is pretty interesting: (a) no Google press release shows up on first
> page of results—is that good (no bias) or bad (hiding)? (b) none of the
> people writing describe the basic terms of document or give a good link—in a
> world of infinite page length and iPaper embeds.)
> Since 2007 this very *very* crowd—a unique mix of tech practitioners,
> Congressional staffers, and engaged citizens—has helped changed
> rules/practices in Congress, C-SPAN's copyright policy, and gov't websites.
> Furthermore, we are doing this against a background of emerging but tested
> social contracts of open source, open standards, and creative commons. We
> have unbelievably powerful search tools, organizing tools, and new
> peer-to-peer means for bubbling up information that route around the
> previous gatekeepers of advertisers or government or editorial boards. We
> are in a great position to *continue* innovating and changing and improving.
> Thank goodness Congress is starting to use these tools. We have new
> institutions like the Internet Archive. And most importantly, we have the
> increasing value of *this* network that we are weaving. We have a
> vocabularly of practices now. We have public testbeds. And we even have
> lessons learned from other media/technology revolutions.
> We are still in transition. We are not *done* with our work, merely better
> positioned for next steps. YouTube has no requirement for disability access
> as federal websites do. Flash video has shortcomings. There are legitimate
> issues around who gets access to usage logs.
> I'm looking forward to the next two years as I think they will be great
> ones for implementing and innovating on the technology and policy fronts
> simultaneously.
> I remember *very* clearly in 1980s, in college, going to downtown
> Philadephia to flip through three-ring binders of franchise proposal from
> cable companies, the *huge* promises they made of wiring classrooms and
> e-democracy if they were the ones to receive the exclusive geographic cable
> monopoly. J.H. is right, but the nature of the Internet makes exclusive
> elusive and creates a better (not perfect) relationship between popularity
> and merit. Just as people moved from AOL to the web, and from MySpace to
> Facebook, videos could migrate from YouTube to something else *much* easier
> than a city can migrate between cable company franchises.
> Greg
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 11:12 PM, J.H. Snider <sni...@isolon.org> wrote:
>> Unfortunately, I have to disagree with Tom Jones's ridicule of Jeff
>> Chester's comment. In particular, Mr. Chester's comment about the
>> relationship between C-SPAN and Congress is 100% accurate. The cable
>> industry funded C-SPAN to curry favor with Congress and better compete with
>> the local broadcast industry which uses its airwaves in a similar way to
>> curry favor with members of Congress (for details on how this works, see my
>> book: *Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick: How Local TV Broadcasters
>> Exert Political Power*).
>> To be sure, C-SPAN provides a wonderful information service. But it is
>> not at all the vehicle for democratic accountability that Brian Lamb often
>> likes to make it out to be. The deal Congress made with C-SPAN was that
>> Congress would let C-SPAN tape its proceedings if C-SPAN ensured that no
>> opposition candidate would be able to use any of the footage against an
>> incumbent member of Congress. This was a very clever arrangement because
>> under the Copyright Act of 1976 Congress was not allowed to restrict access
>> to government records in this way. By giving C-SPAN the copyright, C-SPAN
>> would be able to enact and enforce all the undemocratic rules that Congress
>> couldn't do itself.
>> If you chart the growth of C-SPAN since the 1980s and the declining
>> competitiveness of Congressional elections, you'll see a remarkable
>> correlation. I don't think there is a significant causal connection because
>> C-SPAN just isn't that important. But I'm quite certain that Brian Lamb's
>> cable bosses would have fired him if they thought C-SPAN would damage rather
>> than strengthen their relationships with the incumbent members of Congress
>> whose favor they seek to curry.
>> As for the relevance of the Comcast analogy to Google, I'm not in a
>> position to say. The details will matter a lot. I would agree that
>> control of YouTube per se doesn't give Google much leverage with members of
>> Congress—certainly not in comparison to the leverage the broadcasting and
>> cable industries have been able to exert on Congress. But I can imagine
>> that Google could use the YouTube relationship to do a lot of little favors
>> for members of Congress that won't show up in any financial disclosure
>> form. Moreover, I know from personal experience that Google, like any
>> highly skilled lobbyist, can be quite adept at exercising influence below
>> the public radar.
>> Mr. Jones is 100% right that Google wouldn't blatantly censor a member of
>> Congress. But that's a straw man argument. That type of blatant quid pro
>> quo isn't the way anyone competent in Washington works. To find the
>> potential problems, it is necessary to investigate much more carefully.
>> J.H. Snider, MBA, Ph.D.
>> President
>> iSolon.org
>> *From:* openhouseproject@googlegroups.com [mailto:
>> openhouseproject@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Jones, Tom (Commerce)
>> *Sent:* Friday, January 16, 2009 4:09 PM
>> *To:* openhouseproject@googlegroups.com
>> *Subject:* [openhouseproject] Re: CongressDaily: New Congress-YouTube
>> Partnership Raises Questions
>> "taking a lobbying tactic developed in part by C-SPAN years ago -- offer
>> members of Congress a free service so they can be seen by the public." ---
>> Yeah and we all know what kind of damage C-SPAN has done to democracy.
>> This nugget is a personal favorite: "That kind of electronic or digital
>> campaign contribution helps insure (sic) that Congress will think twice
>> about biting (or regulating) the video hand that feeds."
>> Yeah – a member's really going to kowtow to Google because they're worried
>> about getting their videos taken off of YouTube. Ignoring the fact that
>> there are a fairly large number of members who disagree with Google -- on
>> say net neutrality -- and have huge YouTube channels, it would be a public
>> relations DISASTER for Google if it started censoring content on YouTube.
>> 1) its customers would revolt – 2) we'd move to another site – it's not like
>> video hosting sites are hard to find.
>> TECHNOLOGY New Congress-YouTube Partnership Raises Questions
>> *Friday, Jan. 16, 2009*
>> Some high-tech watchdogs are worried about a relationship unveiled this
>> week between popular video-sharing site YouTube.com and Congress. The
>> Google-owned site launched two new platforms where people can watch videos
>> uploaded by members of the House and Senate. The pairing was endorsed in a
>> welcome message by *House Speaker Pelosi*, *House Minority Leader Boehner
>> *, *Senate Majority Leader Reid** *and *Senate Minority Leader McConnell*
>> * *that has been viewed more than 230,000 times since Monday. The
>> announcement, however, is prompting questions about the propriety of
>> lawmakers singling out a commercial Web tool. Critics also cite privacy
>> concerns -- namely, what happens to data collected about users who view
>> lawmakers' videos.
>> The project was made possible by changes to outdated House and Senate
>> rules last year that clarified the circumstances under which members are
>> allowed to place content on external Web sites. Steve Grove, head of
>> YouTube's news and political content, said in a blog post that
Oh, don't pshaw YT -- network effects of adoption mean that there is incredible path dependency set up early on, path dependency that will be incredibly hard to alter.
I love the idea of releasing .gov videos in open formats from .gov sites -- let Google, and whoever else wants them, write the spider to get them, which would I think create all the current value, but at arm's length. The larger point, though, is that recency of invention doesn't mean flexibility -- YT's forward momentum is extraordinary, and will be hard to alter without fixing it at the source of the videos themselves, the only real control point in the system.
-clay
PS> Greg, you were terrific this morning on "On the Media" -- congrats!
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Clay Shirky <c...@shirky.com> wrote:
> > Youtube is what, 3+ years old? Psshaw...
> Oh, don't pshaw YT -- network effects of adoption mean that there is
> incredible path dependency set up early on, path dependency that will
> be incredibly hard to alter.
Definitely. But at least it's not a path that has been pre-selected by
politicians via a lobbied process. That's something new IMHO compared to
giving out broadcasting licenses and cable franchises on promises from the
company of what they will do in the future.
So, I'm pshawing in terms of the path is already fixed with this
announcement. This group, via policy and technology, can pursue exactly the
idea you like below of a publishing video via a .gov and YouTube picking
them up along with others. Can't we help show MoC how to do what you are
suggesting? How can we be the people to make that happen?
> I love the idea of releasing .gov videos in open formats from .gov
> sites -- let Google, and whoever else wants them, write the spider to
> get them, which would I think create all the current value, but at
> arm's length. The larger point, though, is that recency of invention
> doesn't mean flexibility -- YT's forward momentum is extraordinary,
> and will be hard to alter without fixing it at the source of the
> videos themselves, the only real control point in the system.
Or spider YouTube. High speed modems and PPPOE hacked digital computer
communications on top of instransient analog phone system. Creative Commons
is hacking remix culture on top of instransient copyright culture. Josh is
hacking much needed functionality for reading bills on top of existing
Thomas and GAO systems.<http://blog.sunlightfoundation.com/2008/12/22/govtrack-upgrades/>
As identities get more portable driven by competitors (currently)
wanting/needing to make sure others can't use a login/identity as a lock-in,
a person's content is likely to get more portable as part of person's
identity/content cloud. Apple made it easier to migrate content to a new
computer (even from a PC). What can we do -- technology-wise and
policy-wise -- to make sure government/reps can migrate their content
(including links)? This I think is the real challenge.
> -clay
> PS> Greg, you were terrific this morning on "On the Media" -- congrats!
> I love the idea of releasing .gov videos in open formats from .gov > sites -- let Google, and whoever else wants them, write the spider to > get them, which would I think create all the current value, but at > arm's length.
To me, this is the solution,. Though, I don't see any nefarious conspiracy....Why should Congress just publish on Youtube? Seems kind of lame considering the scope of the web.
Congress should publish all these videos to a .gov site....and then create an API so any site (youtube, Internet Archive,"myblog", etc) can suck in those videos to be displayed anyway we want. I really like how Josh pulls in Youtube videos on Govtrack....but it is concerning that Youtube is the only source for these videos.
I think CSPAN has done great things by broadcasting congressional meetings on radio/cable. BUT it is a bitch to try to get access to the archives and get the video in a format where I can manipulate. http://metavid.ucsc.edu/ is doing a good job scraping CSPAN...but this functionality shouldn't be a hack.
If Congressional staff are now able to produce the videos, then creating a hosting/transcoding system is a breeze. You cant tell me that the US govt cant hire a development team. This would take what a month or two to build from scratch?
I think this announcement still doesn't address the issue of availability of
committee hearing content in their full, non-edited form. Right now, the
videos being uploaded by Pelosi and other members are edited videos -
usually of just that member speaking. It is a snippet of what goes on and
edited to put that member in the best light.
CSPAN at least is in a position and has the mission to film entire committee
hearings and make them available in their whole. CSPAN is being limited by
their budget to film and make all these available. By our surveys, they
only film about 25% of committee hearings. However, their copyright on
committee hearings video are loosening and they have made it affordable to
sites like ours to re-distribute their video.
The Library of Congress is also supposed to making available congressional
videos. We spoke with them last year and they were waiting on the
audio/video departments of the Senate and House to start providing those
videos to them digitally.
We can be supportive of these multiple sources for congressional video.
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 7:40 AM, Jay dedman <jay.ded...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I love the idea of releasing .gov videos in open formats from .gov
> > sites -- let Google, and whoever else wants them, write the spider to
> > get them, which would I think create all the current value, but at
> > arm's length.
> To me, this is the solution,.
> Though, I don't see any nefarious conspiracy....Why should Congress
> just publish on Youtube?
> Seems kind of lame considering the scope of the web.
> Congress should publish all these videos to a .gov site....and then
> create an API so any site (youtube, Internet Archive,"myblog", etc)
> can suck in those videos to be displayed anyway we want. I really like
> how Josh pulls in Youtube videos on Govtrack....but it is concerning
> that Youtube is the only source for these videos.
> I think CSPAN has done great things by broadcasting congressional
> meetings on radio/cable.
> BUT it is a bitch to try to get access to the archives and get the
> video in a format where I can manipulate.
> http://metavid.ucsc.edu/ is doing a good job scraping CSPAN...but this
> functionality shouldn't be a hack.
> If Congressional staff are now able to produce the videos, then
> creating a hosting/transcoding system is a breeze.
> You cant tell me that the US govt cant hire a development team. This
> would take what a month or two to build from scratch?
The various comments on the need for open video standards and how to reduce Google's market power are excellent and go to the heart of the problem. Nevertheless, they miss important ways that Google could secure political advantage from its position as a way for members of Congress to get their message out to constituents.
My questions here are old-tech; they relate very much to the tried and true practices old media have used to leverage for political gain their position as a Congressional message outlet.
1) Google will acquire valuable political knowledge and access as a result of this relationship. One source of local broadcasters' power, for example, is that the local TV sales manager knows opponents' attack ads and media plans hours or days before they run on TV. Those sales managers are often very involved in various candidates' campaigns and on some occasions even serve as media managers for the campaigns. Google has started to develop a database of extraordinary value to campaigns about web usage of their opponents and constituents. A close, legally sanctioned relationship between Google and members of Congress will facilitate Google trading this information with key members of Congress in a very convenient and subtle way that existing campaign disclosure systems cannot possibly track.
2) A major reason people are posting videos on YouTube is because that is where they can maximize their online audience. Similarly, members of Congress find YouTube appealing partly for its audience. Getting full access to this audience, however, is not a simple matter of posting a video. The interface Google sets up to access those videos can make a big difference. This sets up Google to have gatekeeper power like the old media. In many local (mostly rural) congressional districts, members of Congress will practically kill to get a regular spot on their local TV public affairs programs. It's free media, not subject to campaign finance disclosure, and places them in a position of authority. This, in turn, gives the local TV broadcast lobbyist (often the station general or sales manager) a lot of political leverage. I don't expect Google to be able to acquire this same degree of leverage but even if it acquires a small fraction of it the result would be harmful for our democracy.
None of this comes even close to exhausting the ways Google could leverage its new position as Congressional message outlet for political gain. What I'd like to see in the new rules, at a minimum, is that all contractual agreements and contacts between members of Congress and Google must be online and in the public domain, even if there is nothing obviously political about the contracts and contacts. With today's online world and Google's normally online way of doing business, such a rule should be easy to implement. There also needs to be an absolute firewall between Google's lobbying apparatus and its YouTube service support staff (roughly equivalent to the old firewall that was supposed to exist but often didn't between the news and general management/sales/lobbying staff at local broadcast TV outlets).
If all the video is fed through an open, .Gov website, many (but not all) of these issues will go away. This is all the more reason for preferring a .gov-based solution to the YouTube-based solution Congress seems to be pursuing.
I'm not sure how the concept of exclusivity has come up here.
It *is* extraordinary that the party leaders from Congress have been
featured in the introductory youtube for the Congress portal, but this seems
entirely proportional to the extraordinary service that youtube has
provided. Remember, many people refer to *all* online videos as "youtubes".
The video, and the portal, however, need to be understood for what they
are. I think the criticisms overblow the sense in which this portal creates
"exclusivity" or a "unique access point". The development of this portal
doesn't restrict *anything*, unlike the agreements and procedures
surrounding access to raw video feeds that have empowered network TV and
C-SPAN.
In this discussion, Congress has been repeatedly treated as a single
entity. For Congress to act, qua Congress, they would have to pass a sense
of the Congress resolution (which they haven't, and wouldn't be binding
anyway), or pass a rules change (which they did, but only
*opening*possibilities, without even whitelisting anything).
Remember, that's why
the franking rules were so good -- they're agnostic to the *context*, and
focused solely on *content*, as they should be, in the same manner as
traditional media communications have been for a long time.
"Congress" hasn't acted here. Members of party leadership have acted, to
make it easier for Members of Congress to do whatever they want. It so
happens that the "whatever they want", in this case, is to post youtube
videos. This isn't being done instead of many other things -- planning for
raw public access to video, opening access to ALL online interactions
through franking reform in both chambers, wiring committee rooms for video,
etc.
There are legitimate concerns about Google's growing market share of our
vital public information. I don't see them here. Congress hasn't made
youtube the official anything, in fact, they probably couldn't if they
tried.
It sure seems that way, given the promotional video, but again, I see that
video as proportional to the popular praise given to youtube. Party leaders
acted to fulfill a clear need that has been repeatedly expressed by their
Members, and haven't restricted anything.
If we're going to be concerned about what "Congress" is doing, we should act
with a full understanding of what they've done. In this case, what have
they done? Individual party leaders have worked with the single biggest
video provider to make it easier for their members (Members of Congress) to
post videos online, which they've been asking to do for a long time. The
work they've done doesn't restrict *anything at all*, and should, in fact,
make it easier for other similar services to create TOS or pages that are
appropriate for government employees or representatives. Google has even
repeatedly hosted public conversations about this adaptation.
If we're going to fear their influence, we need to be very clear about what
it is we're fearing.
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Perla Ni <ni.pe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Great thread, folks.
> I think this announcement still doesn't address the issue of availability
> of committee hearing content in their full, non-edited form. Right now, the
> videos being uploaded by Pelosi and other members are edited videos -
> usually of just that member speaking. It is a snippet of what goes on and
> edited to put that member in the best light.
> CSPAN at least is in a position and has the mission to film entire
> committee hearings and make them available in their whole. CSPAN is being
> limited by their budget to film and make all these available. By our
> surveys, they only film about 25% of committee hearings. However, their
> copyright on committee hearings video are loosening and they have made it
> affordable to sites like ours to re-distribute their video.
> The Library of Congress is also supposed to making available congressional
> videos. We spoke with them last year and they were waiting on the
> audio/video departments of the Senate and House to start providing those
> videos to them digitally.
> We can be supportive of these multiple sources for congressional video.
> Perla Ni
> VoterWatch
> On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 7:40 AM, Jay dedman <jay.ded...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I love the idea of releasing .gov videos in open formats from .gov
>> > sites -- let Google, and whoever else wants them, write the spider to
>> > get them, which would I think create all the current value, but at
>> > arm's length.
>> To me, this is the solution,.
>> Though, I don't see any nefarious conspiracy....Why should Congress
>> just publish on Youtube?
>> Seems kind of lame considering the scope of the web.
>> Congress should publish all these videos to a .gov site....and then
>> create an API so any site (youtube, Internet Archive,"myblog", etc)
>> can suck in those videos to be displayed anyway we want. I really like
>> how Josh pulls in Youtube videos on Govtrack....but it is concerning
>> that Youtube is the only source for these videos.
>> I think CSPAN has done great things by broadcasting congressional
>> meetings on radio/cable.
>> BUT it is a bitch to try to get access to the archives and get the
>> video in a format where I can manipulate.
>> http://metavid.ucsc.edu/ is doing a good job scraping CSPAN...but this
>> functionality shouldn't be a hack.
>> If Congressional staff are now able to produce the videos, then
>> creating a hosting/transcoding system is a breeze.
>> You cant tell me that the US govt cant hire a development team. This
>> would take what a month or two to build from scratch?
Very helpful, John. And do we have a link to specifics of what has been
done? (Seems to me it is all our responsibility to communicate on our blogs
and to other sources accurately what has happened. Clearly the article that
started this thread missed these points.)
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 11:33 AM, John Wonderlich
<johnwonderl...@gmail.com>wrote:
> I'm not sure how the concept of exclusivity has come up here.
> It *is* extraordinary that the party leaders from Congress have been
> featured in the introductory youtube for the Congress portal, but this seems
> entirely proportional to the extraordinary service that youtube has
> provided. Remember, many people refer to *all* online videos as
> "youtubes".
> The video, and the portal, however, need to be understood for what they
> are. I think the criticisms overblow the sense in which this portal creates
> "exclusivity" or a "unique access point". The development of this portal
> doesn't restrict *anything*, unlike the agreements and procedures
> surrounding access to raw video feeds that have empowered network TV and
> C-SPAN.
> In this discussion, Congress has been repeatedly treated as a single
> entity. For Congress to act, qua Congress, they would have to pass a sense
> of the Congress resolution (which they haven't, and wouldn't be binding
> anyway), or pass a rules change (which they did, but only *opening*possibilities, without even whitelisting anything). Remember, that's why
> the franking rules were so good -- they're agnostic to the *context*, and
> focused solely on *content*, as they should be, in the same manner as
> traditional media communications have been for a long time.
> "Congress" hasn't acted here. Members of party leadership have acted, to
> make it easier for Members of Congress to do whatever they want. It so
> happens that the "whatever they want", in this case, is to post youtube
> videos. This isn't being done instead of many other things -- planning for
> raw public access to video, opening access to ALL online interactions
> through franking reform in both chambers, wiring committee rooms for video,
> etc.
> There are legitimate concerns about Google's growing market share of our
> vital public information. I don't see them here. Congress hasn't made
> youtube the official anything, in fact, they probably couldn't if they
> tried.
> It sure seems that way, given the promotional video, but again, I see that
> video as proportional to the popular praise given to youtube. Party leaders
> acted to fulfill a clear need that has been repeatedly expressed by their
> Members, and haven't restricted anything.
> If we're going to be concerned about what "Congress" is doing, we should
> act with a full understanding of what they've done. In this case, what have
> they done? Individual party leaders have worked with the single biggest
> video provider to make it easier for their members (Members of Congress) to
> post videos online, which they've been asking to do for a long time. The
> work they've done doesn't restrict *anything at all*, and should, in fact,
> make it easier for other similar services to create TOS or pages that are
> appropriate for government employees or representatives. Google has even
> repeatedly hosted public conversations about this adaptation.
> If we're going to fear their influence, we need to be very clear about what
> it is we're fearing.
> On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Perla Ni <ni.pe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Great thread, folks.
>> I think this announcement still doesn't address the issue of availability
>> of committee hearing content in their full, non-edited form. Right now, the
>> videos being uploaded by Pelosi and other members are edited videos -
>> usually of just that member speaking. It is a snippet of what goes on and
>> edited to put that member in the best light.
>> CSPAN at least is in a position and has the mission to film entire
>> committee hearings and make them available in their whole. CSPAN is being
>> limited by their budget to film and make all these available. By our
>> surveys, they only film about 25% of committee hearings. However, their
>> copyright on committee hearings video are loosening and they have made it
>> affordable to sites like ours to re-distribute their video.
>> The Library of Congress is also supposed to making available congressional
>> videos. We spoke with them last year and they were waiting on the
>> audio/video departments of the Senate and House to start providing those
>> videos to them digitally.
>> We can be supportive of these multiple sources for congressional video.
>> Perla Ni
>> VoterWatch
>> On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 7:40 AM, Jay dedman <jay.ded...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > I love the idea of releasing .gov videos in open formats from .gov
>>> > sites -- let Google, and whoever else wants them, write the spider to
>>> > get them, which would I think create all the current value, but at
>>> > arm's length.
>>> To me, this is the solution,.
>>> Though, I don't see any nefarious conspiracy....Why should Congress
>>> just publish on Youtube?
>>> Seems kind of lame considering the scope of the web.
>>> Congress should publish all these videos to a .gov site....and then
>>> create an API so any site (youtube, Internet Archive,"myblog", etc)
>>> can suck in those videos to be displayed anyway we want. I really like
>>> how Josh pulls in Youtube videos on Govtrack....but it is concerning
>>> that Youtube is the only source for these videos.
>>> I think CSPAN has done great things by broadcasting congressional
>>> meetings on radio/cable.
>>> BUT it is a bitch to try to get access to the archives and get the
>>> video in a format where I can manipulate.
>>> http://metavid.ucsc.edu/ is doing a good job scraping CSPAN...but this
>>> functionality shouldn't be a hack.
>>> If Congressional staff are now able to produce the videos, then
>>> creating a hosting/transcoding system is a breeze.
>>> You cant tell me that the US govt cant hire a development team. This
>>> would take what a month or two to build from scratch?
If I interview a Member of Congress, and both parties know that I won't
release their quotes until I'm payed to do so (as, say, an article writer),
is that wrong? Clearly, no one objects to that. (As long as no similar
condition applies to the speech of the Member.)
If a media outlet makes some change, perhaps announcing a new
Congress-themed show, or announcing a new moderator (Meet the Press?), and
Members of Congress wholeheartedly congratulate them, that's ok too.
If the House stationery office buys mostly UniBall pens, because they're the
most requested, and because they've got limited space, that's ok too,
right?
Well, as long as no one's telling Members what kind of service they can use,
pays them for an endorsement, or tries to limit their speech, then how is
this different than any other kind of enabling activity that Congressional
leadership or institutions perform for Members?
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 11:41 AM, Greg Elin <ge...@sunlightfoundation.com>wrote:
> Very helpful, John. And do we have a link to specifics of what has been
> done? (Seems to me it is all our responsibility to communicate on our blogs
> and to other sources accurately what has happened. Clearly the article that
> started this thread missed these points.)
> On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 11:33 AM, John Wonderlich <
> johnwonderl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Agreed, great thread.
>> I'm not sure how the concept of exclusivity has come up here.
>> It *is* extraordinary that the party leaders from Congress have been
>> featured in the introductory youtube for the Congress portal, but this seems
>> entirely proportional to the extraordinary service that youtube has
>> provided. Remember, many people refer to *all* online videos as
>> "youtubes".
>> The video, and the portal, however, need to be understood for what they
>> are. I think the criticisms overblow the sense in which this portal creates
>> "exclusivity" or a "unique access point". The development of this portal
>> doesn't restrict *anything*, unlike the agreements and procedures
>> surrounding access to raw video feeds that have empowered network TV and
>> C-SPAN.
>> In this discussion, Congress has been repeatedly treated as a single
>> entity. For Congress to act, qua Congress, they would have to pass a sense
>> of the Congress resolution (which they haven't, and wouldn't be binding
>> anyway), or pass a rules change (which they did, but only *opening*possibilities, without even whitelisting anything). Remember, that's why
>> the franking rules were so good -- they're agnostic to the *context*, and
>> focused solely on *content*, as they should be, in the same manner as
>> traditional media communications have been for a long time.
>> "Congress" hasn't acted here. Members of party leadership have acted, to
>> make it easier for Members of Congress to do whatever they want. It so
>> happens that the "whatever they want", in this case, is to post youtube
>> videos. This isn't being done instead of many other things -- planning for
>> raw public access to video, opening access to ALL online interactions
>> through franking reform in both chambers, wiring committee rooms for video,
>> etc.
>> There are legitimate concerns about Google's growing market share of our
>> vital public information. I don't see them here. Congress hasn't made
>> youtube the official anything, in fact, they probably couldn't if they
>> tried.
>> It sure seems that way, given the promotional video, but again, I see that
>> video as proportional to the popular praise given to youtube. Party leaders
>> acted to fulfill a clear need that has been repeatedly expressed by their
>> Members, and haven't restricted anything.
>> If we're going to be concerned about what "Congress" is doing, we should
>> act with a full understanding of what they've done. In this case, what have
>> they done? Individual party leaders have worked with the single biggest
>> video provider to make it easier for their members (Members of Congress) to
>> post videos online, which they've been asking to do for a long time. The
>> work they've done doesn't restrict *anything at all*, and should, in
>> fact, make it easier for other similar services to create TOS or pages that
>> are appropriate for government employees or representatives. Google has
>> even repeatedly hosted public conversations about this adaptation.
>> If we're going to fear their influence, we need to be very clear about
>> what it is we're fearing.
>> On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Perla Ni <ni.pe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Great thread, folks.
>>> I think this announcement still doesn't address the issue of availability
>>> of committee hearing content in their full, non-edited form. Right now, the
>>> videos being uploaded by Pelosi and other members are edited videos -
>>> usually of just that member speaking. It is a snippet of what goes on and
>>> edited to put that member in the best light.
>>> CSPAN at least is in a position and has the mission to film entire
>>> committee hearings and make them available in their whole. CSPAN is being
>>> limited by their budget to film and make all these available. By our
>>> surveys, they only film about 25% of committee hearings. However, their
>>> copyright on committee hearings video are loosening and they have made it
>>> affordable to sites like ours to re-distribute their video.
>>> The Library of Congress is also supposed to making available
>>> congressional videos. We spoke with them last year and they were waiting on
>>> the audio/video departments of the Senate and House to start providing those
>>> videos to them digitally.
>>> We can be supportive of these multiple sources for congressional video.
>>> Perla Ni
>>> VoterWatch
>>> On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 7:40 AM, Jay dedman <jay.ded...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>> > I love the idea of releasing .gov videos in open formats from .gov
>>>> > sites -- let Google, and whoever else wants them, write the spider to
>>>> > get them, which would I think create all the current value, but at
>>>> > arm's length.
>>>> To me, this is the solution,.
>>>> Though, I don't see any nefarious conspiracy....Why should Congress
>>>> just publish on Youtube?
>>>> Seems kind of lame considering the scope of the web.
>>>> Congress should publish all these videos to a .gov site....and then
>>>> create an API so any site (youtube, Internet Archive,"myblog", etc)
>>>> can suck in those videos to be displayed anyway we want. I really like
>>>> how Josh pulls in Youtube videos on Govtrack....but it is concerning
>>>> that Youtube is the only source for these videos.
>>>> I think CSPAN has done great things by broadcasting congressional
>>>> meetings on radio/cable.
>>>> BUT it is a bitch to try to get access to the archives and get the
>>>> video in a format where I can manipulate.
>>>> http://metavid.ucsc.edu/ is doing a good job scraping CSPAN...but this
>>>> functionality shouldn't be a hack.
>>>> If Congressional staff are now able to produce the videos, then
>>>> creating a hosting/transcoding system is a breeze.
>>>> You cant tell me that the US govt cant hire a development team. This
>>>> would take what a month or two to build from scratch?
As far as searching for a TOS agreement: what could be in it that matters at
all?
Think of the terms negotiated for an interview that a Member might do with
some journalist. They might agree to do the interview only if all questions
are submitted beforehand, only if it's aired commercial-free, or whatever.
Conditions are normal for these appearances. If the agreement has poor
terms, then that's the Member's fault for signing it.
As long as entry into the agreement is voluntary, then who cares what
members are agreeing to? It can (obviously) only apply to videos that are
voluntarily posted on youtube, and if it is poor, then Members can use
Vimeo, Hulu, or whatever.
If, however, there's a MOU between youtube and HIR or the Seargant at Arms
saying that IF youtube makes a channel, then HIR/SAA will create some inside
uploading tool, then that's a bit more interesting. But I still fail to see
how that's any different from setting up an interview room on taxpayer
dollars to be used only by credentialed media, something that we're
apparently all fine with.
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 12:27 PM, John Wonderlich
<johnwonderl...@gmail.com>wrote:
> If I interview a Member of Congress, and both parties know that I won't
> release their quotes until I'm payed to do so (as, say, an article writer),
> is that wrong? Clearly, no one objects to that. (As long as no similar
> condition applies to the speech of the Member.)
> If a media outlet makes some change, perhaps announcing a new
> Congress-themed show, or announcing a new moderator (Meet the Press?), and
> Members of Congress wholeheartedly congratulate them, that's ok too.
> If the House stationery office buys mostly UniBall pens, because they're
> the most requested, and because they've got limited space, that's ok too,
> right?
> Well, as long as no one's telling Members what kind of service they can
> use, pays them for an endorsement, or tries to limit their speech, then how
> is this different than any other kind of enabling activity that
> Congressional leadership or institutions perform for Members?
> On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 11:41 AM, Greg Elin <ge...@sunlightfoundation.com>wrote:
>> Very helpful, John. And do we have a link to specifics of what has been
>> done? (Seems to me it is all our responsibility to communicate on our blogs
>> and to other sources accurately what has happened. Clearly the article that
>> started this thread missed these points.)
>> On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 11:33 AM, John Wonderlich <
>> johnwonderl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Agreed, great thread.
>>> I'm not sure how the concept of exclusivity has come up here.
>>> It *is* extraordinary that the party leaders from Congress have been
>>> featured in the introductory youtube for the Congress portal, but this seems
>>> entirely proportional to the extraordinary service that youtube has
>>> provided. Remember, many people refer to *all* online videos as
>>> "youtubes".
>>> The video, and the portal, however, need to be understood for what they
>>> are. I think the criticisms overblow the sense in which this portal creates
>>> "exclusivity" or a "unique access point". The development of this portal
>>> doesn't restrict *anything*, unlike the agreements and procedures
>>> surrounding access to raw video feeds that have empowered network TV and
>>> C-SPAN.
>>> In this discussion, Congress has been repeatedly treated as a single
>>> entity. For Congress to act, qua Congress, they would have to pass a sense
>>> of the Congress resolution (which they haven't, and wouldn't be binding
>>> anyway), or pass a rules change (which they did, but only *opening*possibilities, without even whitelisting anything). Remember, that's why
>>> the franking rules were so good -- they're agnostic to the *context*,
>>> and focused solely on *content*, as they should be, in the same manner
>>> as traditional media communications have been for a long time.
>>> "Congress" hasn't acted here. Members of party leadership have acted, to
>>> make it easier for Members of Congress to do whatever they want. It so
>>> happens that the "whatever they want", in this case, is to post youtube
>>> videos. This isn't being done instead of many other things -- planning for
>>> raw public access to video, opening access to ALL online interactions
>>> through franking reform in both chambers, wiring committee rooms for video,
>>> etc.
>>> There are legitimate concerns about Google's growing market share of our
>>> vital public information. I don't see them here. Congress hasn't made
>>> youtube the official anything, in fact, they probably couldn't if they
>>> tried.
>>> It sure seems that way, given the promotional video, but again, I see
>>> that video as proportional to the popular praise given to youtube. Party
>>> leaders acted to fulfill a clear need that has been repeatedly expressed by
>>> their Members, and haven't restricted anything.
>>> If we're going to be concerned about what "Congress" is doing, we should
>>> act with a full understanding of what they've done. In this case, what have
>>> they done? Individual party leaders have worked with the single biggest
>>> video provider to make it easier for their members (Members of Congress) to
>>> post videos online, which they've been asking to do for a long time. The
>>> work they've done doesn't restrict *anything at all*, and should, in
>>> fact, make it easier for other similar services to create TOS or pages that
>>> are appropriate for government employees or representatives. Google has
>>> even repeatedly hosted public conversations about this adaptation.
>>> If we're going to fear their influence, we need to be very clear about
>>> what it is we're fearing.
>>> On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Perla Ni <ni.pe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Great thread, folks.
>>>> I think this announcement still doesn't address the issue of
>>>> availability of committee hearing content in their full, non-edited form.
>>>> Right now, the videos being uploaded by Pelosi and other members are edited
>>>> videos - usually of just that member speaking. It is a snippet of what goes
>>>> on and edited to put that member in the best light.
>>>> CSPAN at least is in a position and has the mission to film entire
>>>> committee hearings and make them available in their whole. CSPAN is being
>>>> limited by their budget to film and make all these available. By our
>>>> surveys, they only film about 25% of committee hearings. However, their
>>>> copyright on committee hearings video are loosening and they have made it
>>>> affordable to sites like ours to re-distribute their video.
>>>> The Library of Congress is also supposed to making available
>>>> congressional videos. We spoke with them last year and they were waiting on
>>>> the audio/video departments of the Senate and House to start providing those
>>>> videos to them digitally.
>>>> We can be supportive of these multiple sources for congressional video.
>>>> Perla Ni
>>>> VoterWatch
>>>> On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 7:40 AM, Jay dedman <jay.ded...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>> > I love the idea of releasing .gov videos in open formats from .gov
>>>>> > sites -- let Google, and whoever else wants them, write the spider to
>>>>> > get them, which would I think create all the current value, but at
>>>>> > arm's length.
>>>>> To me, this is the solution,.
>>>>> Though, I don't see any nefarious conspiracy....Why should Congress
>>>>> just publish on Youtube?
>>>>> Seems kind of lame considering the scope of the web.
>>>>> Congress should publish all these videos to a .gov site....and then
>>>>> create an API so any site (youtube, Internet Archive,"myblog", etc)
>>>>> can suck in those videos to be displayed anyway we want. I really like
>>>>> how Josh pulls in Youtube videos on Govtrack....but it is concerning
>>>>> that Youtube is the only source for these videos.
>>>>> I think CSPAN has done great things by broadcasting congressional
>>>>> meetings on radio/cable.
>>>>> BUT it is a bitch to try to get access to the archives and get the
>>>>> video in a format where I can manipulate.
>>>>> http://metavid.ucsc.edu/ is doing a good job scraping CSPAN...but this
>>>>> functionality shouldn't be a hack.
>>>>> If Congressional staff are now able to produce the videos, then
>>>>> creating a hosting/transcoding system is a breeze.
>>>>> You cant tell me that the US govt cant hire a development team. This
>>>>> would take what a month or two to build from scratch?
> As far as searching for a TOS agreement: what could be in it that matters
> at all?
> Think of the terms negotiated for an interview that a Member might do with
> some journalist. They might agree to do the interview only if all questions
> are submitted beforehand, only if it's aired commercial-free, or whatever.
> Conditions are normal for these appearances. If the agreement has poor
> terms, then that's the Member's fault for signing it.
> As long as entry into the agreement is voluntary, then who cares what
> members are agreeing to? It can (obviously) only apply to videos that are
> voluntarily posted on youtube, and if it is poor, then Members can use
> Vimeo, Hulu, or whatever.
> If, however, there's a MOU between youtube and HIR or the Seargant at Arms
> saying that IF youtube makes a channel, then HIR/SAA will create some inside
> uploading tool, then that's a bit more interesting. But I still fail to see
> how that's any different from setting up an interview room on taxpayer
> dollars to be used only by credentialed media, something that we're
> apparently all fine with.
> On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 12:27 PM, John Wonderlich <
> johnwonderl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> If I interview a Member of Congress, and both parties know that I won't
>> release their quotes until I'm payed to do so (as, say, an article writer),
>> is that wrong? Clearly, no one objects to that. (As long as no similar
>> condition applies to the speech of the Member.)
>> If a media outlet makes some change, perhaps announcing a new
>> Congress-themed show, or announcing a new moderator (Meet the Press?), and
>> Members of Congress wholeheartedly congratulate them, that's ok too.
>> If the House stationery office buys mostly UniBall pens, because they're
>> the most requested, and because they've got limited space, that's ok too,
>> right?
>> Well, as long as no one's telling Members what kind of service they can
>> use, pays them for an endorsement, or tries to limit their speech, then how
>> is this different than any other kind of enabling activity that
>> Congressional leadership or institutions perform for Members?
>> On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 11:41 AM, Greg Elin <ge...@sunlightfoundation.com
>> > wrote:
>>> Very helpful, John. And do we have a link to specifics of what has been
>>> done? (Seems to me it is all our responsibility to communicate on our blogs
>>> and to other sources accurately what has happened. Clearly the article that
>>> started this thread missed these points.)
>>> On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 11:33 AM, John Wonderlich <
>>> johnwonderl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Agreed, great thread.
>>>> I'm not sure how the concept of exclusivity has come up here.
>>>> It *is* extraordinary that the party leaders from Congress have been
>>>> featured in the introductory youtube for the Congress portal, but this seems
>>>> entirely proportional to the extraordinary service that youtube has
>>>> provided. Remember, many people refer to *all* online videos as
>>>> "youtubes".
>>>> The video, and the portal, however, need to be understood for what they
>>>> are. I think the criticisms overblow the sense in which this portal creates
>>>> "exclusivity" or a "unique access point". The development of this portal
>>>> doesn't restrict *anything*, unlike the agreements and procedures
>>>> surrounding access to raw video feeds that have empowered network TV and
>>>> C-SPAN.
>>>> In this discussion, Congress has been repeatedly treated as a single
>>>> entity. For Congress to act, qua Congress, they would have to pass a sense
>>>> of the Congress resolution (which they haven't, and wouldn't be binding
>>>> anyway), or pass a rules change (which they did, but only *opening*possibilities, without even whitelisting anything). Remember, that's why
>>>> the franking rules were so good -- they're agnostic to the *context*,
>>>> and focused solely on *content*, as they should be, in the same manner
>>>> as traditional media communications have been for a long time.
>>>> "Congress" hasn't acted here. Members of party leadership have acted,
>>>> to make it easier for Members of Congress to do whatever they want. It so
>>>> happens that the "whatever they want", in this case, is to post youtube
>>>> videos. This isn't being done instead of many other things -- planning for
>>>> raw public access to video, opening access to ALL online interactions
>>>> through franking reform in both chambers, wiring committee rooms for video,
>>>> etc.
>>>> There are legitimate concerns about Google's growing market share of our
>>>> vital public information. I don't see them here. Congress hasn't made
>>>> youtube the official anything, in fact, they probably couldn't if they
>>>> tried.
>>>> It sure seems that way, given the promotional video, but again, I see
>>>> that video as proportional to the popular praise given to youtube. Party
>>>> leaders acted to fulfill a clear need that has been repeatedly expressed by
>>>> their Members, and haven't restricted anything.
>>>> If we're going to be concerned about what "Congress" is doing, we should
>>>> act with a full understanding of what they've done. In this case, what have
>>>> they done? Individual party leaders have worked with the single biggest
>>>> video provider to make it easier for their members (Members of Congress) to
>>>> post videos online, which they've been asking to do for a long time. The
>>>> work they've done doesn't restrict *anything at all*, and should, in
>>>> fact, make it easier for other similar services to create TOS or pages that
>>>> are appropriate for government employees or representatives. Google has
>>>> even repeatedly hosted public conversations about this adaptation.
>>>> If we're going to fear their influence, we need to be very clear about
>>>> what it is we're fearing.
>>>> On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Perla Ni <ni.pe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Great thread, folks.
>>>>> I think this announcement still doesn't address the issue of
>>>>> availability of committee hearing content in their full, non-edited form.
>>>>> Right now, the videos being uploaded by Pelosi and other members are edited
>>>>> videos - usually of just that member speaking. It is a snippet of what goes
>>>>> on and edited to put that member in the best light.
>>>>> CSPAN at least is in a position and has the mission to film entire
>>>>> committee hearings and make them available in their whole. CSPAN is being
>>>>> limited by their budget to film and make all these available. By our
>>>>> surveys, they only film about 25% of committee hearings. However, their
>>>>> copyright on committee hearings video are loosening and they have made it
>>>>> affordable to sites like ours to re-distribute their video.
>>>>> The Library of Congress is also supposed to making available
>>>>> congressional videos. We spoke with them last year and they were waiting on
>>>>> the audio/video departments of the Senate and House to start providing those
>>>>> videos to them digitally.
>>>>> We can be supportive of these multiple sources for congressional video.
>>>>> Perla Ni
>>>>> VoterWatch
>>>>> On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 7:40 AM, Jay dedman <jay.ded...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>> > I love the idea of releasing .gov videos in open formats from .gov
>>>>>> > sites -- let Google, and whoever else wants them, write the spider
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> > get them, which would I think create all the current value, but at
>>>>>> > arm's length.
>>>>>> To me, this is the solution,.
>>>>>> Though, I don't see any nefarious conspiracy....Why should Congress
>>>>>> just publish on Youtube?
>>>>>> Seems kind of lame considering the scope of the web.
>>>>>> Congress should publish all these videos to a .gov site....and then
>>>>>> create an API so any site (youtube, Internet Archive,"myblog", etc)
>>>>>> can suck in those videos to be displayed anyway we want. I really like
>>>>>> how Josh pulls in Youtube videos on Govtrack....but it is concerning
>>>>>> that Youtube is the only source for these videos.
>>>>>> I think CSPAN has done great things by broadcasting congressional
>>>>>> meetings on radio/cable.
>>>>>> BUT it is a bitch to try to get access to the archives and get the
>>>>>> video in a format where I can manipulate.
>>>>>> http://metavid.ucsc.edu/ is doing a good job scraping CSPAN...but
>>>>>> this
>>>>>> functionality shouldn't be a hack.
>>>>>> If Congressional staff are now able to produce the
In terms of point number one, local media broadcasters are required by the FCC to make political ad buys public in a daily political book. This is usually kept on a notebook and you can go to stations and request photocopies of it. I don't know why the FCC didn't change the requirement to put the political books online.
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 11:16:26 To: openhouseproject@googlegroups.com<openhouseproject@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [openhouseproject] Re: CongressDaily: New Congress-YouTube
Partnership Raises Questions
The various comments on the need for open video standards and how to reduce Google's market power are excellent and go to the heart of the problem. Nevertheless, they miss important ways that Google could secure political advantage from its position as a way for members of Congress to get their message out to constituents.
My questions here are old-tech; they relate very much to the tried and true practices old media have used to leverage for political gain their position as a Congressional message outlet.
1) Google will acquire valuable political knowledge and access as a result of this relationship. One source of local broadcasters' power, for example, is that the local TV sales manager knows opponents' attack ads and media plans hours or days before they run on TV. Those sales managers are often very involved in various candidates' campaigns and on some occasions even serve as media managers for the campaigns. Google has started to develop a database of extraordinary value to campaigns about web usage of their opponents and constituents. A close, legally sanctioned relationship between Google and members of Congress will facilitate Google trading this information with key members of Congress in a very convenient and subtle way that existing campaign disclosure systems cannot possibly track.
2) A major reason people are posting videos on YouTube is because that is where they can maximize their online audience. Similarly, members of Congress find YouTube appealing partly for its audience. Getting full access to this audience, however, is not a simple matter of posting a video. The interface Google sets up to access those videos can make a big difference. This sets up Google to have gatekeeper power like the old media. In many local (mostly rural) congressional districts, members of Congress will practically kill to get a regular spot on their local TV public affairs programs. It's free media, not subject to campaign finance disclosure, and places them in a position of authority. This, in turn, gives the local TV broadcast lobbyist (often the station general or sales manager) a lot of political leverage. I don't expect Google to be able to acquire this same degree of leverage but even if it acquires a small fraction of it the result would be harmful for our democracy.
None of this comes even close to exhausting the ways Google could leverage its new position as Congressional message outlet for political gain. What I'd like to see in the new rules, at a minimum, is that all contractual agreements and contacts between members of Congress and Google must be online and in the public domain, even if there is nothing obviously political about the contracts and contacts. With today's online world and Google's normally online way of doing business, such a rule should be easy to implement. There also needs to be an absolute firewall between Google's lobbying apparatus and its YouTube service support staff (roughly equivalent to the old firewall that was supposed to exist but often didn't between the news and general management/sales/lobbying staff at local broadcast TV outlets).
If all the video is fed through an open, .Gov website, many (but not all) of these issues will go away. This is all the more reason for preferring a .gov-based solution to the YouTube-based solution Congress seems to be pursuing.
> Well, as long as no one's telling Members what kind of service they can use, > pays them for an endorsement, or tries to limit their speech, then how is > this different than any other kind of enabling activity that Congressional > leadership or institutions perform for Members?
John, Im glad you're putting this in the proper perspective. Only two years ago, it would have been inconceivable to me that members of Congress would be embracing online video so readily. If we see Youtube as just another outlet like the NYTimes, Washington Times, NBC...then you are totally correct.
BUT since we're here to push the edges, what if I own Republicanhosting.com and ask Pelosi if she will put her videos on my site. If she says "no"...then I guess we'll start having video hosting wars. Similar to how Bush/Cheney mainly appreared on FOX for much of their administration since they knew they could trust Fox's framing. Youtube will have to deal with any issues of allowing this or not allowing that. Members of Congress will make friends/enemies based on who they choose to host them...though it seems dumb to not out your propaganda everywhere.
Now we're just talking a matter of access, not Transparency. Congressional members should be able to put their edited videos anywhere they want. I guess this group will much more concerned about getting unedited coverage of hearings in the most open format possible.
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Jay dedman <jay.ded...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Well, as long as no one's telling Members what kind of service they can
> use,
> > pays them for an endorsement, or tries to limit their speech, then how is
> > this different than any other kind of enabling activity that
> Congressional
> > leadership or institutions perform for Members?
> John, Im glad you're putting this in the proper perspective.
> Only two years ago, it would have been inconceivable to me that
> members of Congress would be embracing online video so readily.
> If we see Youtube as just another outlet like the NYTimes, Washington
> Times, NBC...then you are totally correct.
> BUT since we're here to push the edges, what if I own
> Republicanhosting.com and ask Pelosi if she will put her videos on my
> site.
> If she says "no"...then I guess we'll start having video hosting wars.
> Similar to how Bush/Cheney mainly appreared on FOX for much of their
> administration since they knew they could trust Fox's framing. Youtube
> will have to deal with any issues of allowing this or not allowing
> that. Members of Congress will make friends/enemies based on who they
> choose to host them...though it seems dumb to not out your propaganda
> everywhere.
> Now we're just talking a matter of access, not Transparency.
> Congressional members should be able to put their edited videos
> anywhere they want.
> I guess this group will much more concerned about getting unedited
> coverage of hearings in the most open format possible.
|
