Comments on: A Must-Read for Gov 2.0 & Digital Democracy Gurus http://www.blog.govtwit.com/2010/02/22/a-must-read-for-gov-2-0-digital-democracy-gurus/ The Government Twitter Directory Tue, 31 Aug 2010 13:51:11 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: John McCrory http://www.blog.govtwit.com/2010/02/22/a-must-read-for-gov-2-0-digital-democracy-gurus/comment-page-1/#comment-69 John McCrory Tue, 23 Feb 2010 16:41:58 +0000 http://www.blog.govtwit.com/?p=297#comment-69 This reminds me of something Jay Rosen recently said in reference to what has been happening in Iran: “Open systems released into societies that are not open can be a disaster. When transparency meets fixed ideas, fixed narratives, you don’t get the benefits of transparency, you just get more material for these fixed ideas to work with. In many ways, open systems are more chaotic. They can be more violent, more dangerous. We shouldn’t look at them just as benificent gifts.” Rosen pointed to Larry Lessig's piece in The New Republic last October, "Against Transparency," http://j.mp/9o1u26 which you may be familiar with and is relevant to the discussion here. Lessig discusses the sometimes unintended consequences of what he calls "naked transparency": most citizens are not activists. They have busy lives and may not have the time to sort out the subtleties from the "obvious" (cynical) conclusions broadly suggested by tools that allow this naked transparency. Lessig believes techno-driven naked transparency will encourage even more cynicism about government. I'm swayed by his argument to an extent and wonder about the ways technology might instead create trust. I suspect those ways will involve making the individuals in government visible to citizens, instead of masking them behind the impersona of an agency. This reminds me of something Jay Rosen recently said in reference to what has been happening in Iran:

“Open systems released into societies that are not open can be a disaster. When transparency meets fixed ideas, fixed narratives, you don’t get the benefits of transparency, you just get more material for these fixed ideas to work with. In many ways, open systems are more chaotic. They can be more violent, more dangerous. We shouldn’t look at them just as benificent gifts.”

Rosen pointed to Larry Lessig’s piece in The New Republic last October, “Against Transparency,” http://j.mp/9o1u26 which you may be familiar with and is relevant to the discussion here. Lessig discusses the sometimes unintended consequences of what he calls “naked transparency”: most citizens are not activists. They have busy lives and may not have the time to sort out the subtleties from the “obvious” (cynical) conclusions broadly suggested by tools that allow this naked transparency.

Lessig believes techno-driven naked transparency will encourage even more cynicism about government. I’m swayed by his argument to an extent and wonder about the ways technology might instead create trust. I suspect those ways will involve making the individuals in government visible to citizens, instead of masking them behind the impersona of an agency.

]]> By: Steve Lunceford http://www.blog.govtwit.com/2010/02/22/a-must-read-for-gov-2-0-digital-democracy-gurus/comment-page-1/#comment-68 Steve Lunceford Tue, 23 Feb 2010 15:53:29 +0000 http://www.blog.govtwit.com/?p=297#comment-68 Heh, point taken Stephen but stick by my opinion that a lot of today's efforts are aimed at too few/the technical elite. As we open gov up, largely on the back of new technologies, we need to figure out how we get "typical" citizens to engage with these new channels. Heh, point taken Stephen but stick by my opinion that a lot of today’s efforts are aimed at too few/the technical elite. As we open gov up, largely on the back of new technologies, we need to figure out how we get “typical” citizens to engage with these new channels.

]]> By: Stephen Buckley http://www.blog.govtwit.com/2010/02/22/a-must-read-for-gov-2-0-digital-democracy-gurus/comment-page-1/#comment-66 Stephen Buckley Tue, 23 Feb 2010 02:27:38 +0000 http://www.blog.govtwit.com/?p=297#comment-66 If we are trying to "engage the citizenry", then perhaps John and Joan Q. Citizen will not appreciate being told that they need to be upgraded (to a Version "2.0"). IMHO, people will tire of "2.0" being used as a all-purpose descriptor for anything new or different. Ten years from now, we will say "that is sooo 2009". If we are trying to “engage the citizenry”, then perhaps John and Joan Q. Citizen will not appreciate being told that they need to be upgraded (to a Version “2.0″).

IMHO, people will tire of “2.0″ being used as a all-purpose descriptor for anything new or different. Ten years from now, we will say “that is sooo 2009″.

]]> By: Wayne Moses Burke http://www.blog.govtwit.com/2010/02/22/a-must-read-for-gov-2-0-digital-democracy-gurus/comment-page-1/#comment-65 Wayne Moses Burke Mon, 22 Feb 2010 22:02:48 +0000 http://www.blog.govtwit.com/?p=297#comment-65 Thanks for pointing this out, Steve. Good additional perspective and one that deserves more attention in our community. Thanks for pointing this out, Steve. Good additional perspective and one that deserves more attention in our community.

]]>