60 Minutes/Vanity Fair poll on WikiLeaks

60 Minutes/Vanity Fair Poll Finds Americans Don’t Like WikiLeaks, If They Know What It Is

A new poll by 60 Minutes and Vanity Fair finds that few Americans like WikiLeaks. Only 9 percent view it as a good thing, while 22 percent view it as a treasonous website. 23 percent see the website as destructive, but still legal.

The most surprising thing is perhaps that a whopping 42 percent of Americans don't know what WikiLeaks is.

I have a serious problem with this poll. Tons of research has shown just how easily affected people are when they are asked to respond to a question by a polling agency. Reseach by John Zaller, for example, has argued that what we answer in polls is often the result of the last tidbit of information we receive to sway our views in a given way. When 60 Minutes and Vanity Fair thus decides that they are to include two potential negative responses and only one positive, they may therefore be affecting the result of the poll. The two negative responses may simply reinforce one another and lead towards people picking that answer. This effect may be added to by the fact that the positive answer is relatively "neutral" whereas the negative ones are highly negative.

This is a small issue, but looking at polls over the last month, the same seems to be happening over and over again. There is one positive answer and then there's two negative ones.

Why can't these polling organizations not just ask people what they think of WikLeaks and give them the alternatives "a good thing" and "a bad thing"? That would ensure a scientifically easier data to interpret. Only the headlines would get worse...

Google rejects censorship of WikiLeaks in China

In a recent interview with BBC, Eric Schmidt, Google’s outgoing chief executive, recently declared that the search giant will deny Chinese attempts to censor WikiLeaks documents.

This is relatively encouraging given other recent developments with Google, but it could prove to become a block to the company's business opportunities in the country. Twitter is blocked in China and on the Chinese equivalents of Twitter, sina.com and sohu.com, a query with the word "Egypt" returned the response: "According to the laws in force, the results of your search cannot be given."

Google: Quick searches censored

Google has recently introduced its much touted "autocomplete" and "instant search" functions, but with their introduction, it has become apparent that these functions do not complete terms relating to online piracy. Terms like "BitTorrent" and "Vodo" will therefore not show up automatically in your search bar.

This is in no way a major censorship issue, and Google's likely argument that it cannot promote illegal content since it is illegal, certainly holds some merits. It is, however, noteworthy that not every website that uses the torrent technology is actually illegal. There are websites, for example, that provides legal music and legal movies solely.

TheAtlantic.com raises an interesting question about Google's willingness to censor information:

"Even if we were to pretend that all torrent downloads were illegal, Google's blocking has raised some interesting questions about its relationship with potentially criminal activities. Last I checked, making an explosive is a pretty serious crime; but when we type 'how to make a bomb' in the search bar, Google suggests 'out of household items' to complete the phrase. Write 'where to buy drugs' and 'where to buy crack in D.C.' is the instant result. Enter 'how to kill a person' and 'and get away with it' is what Google recommends. Gosh, it's really swell of Google to do its part to shut down all of the menacing downloading out there! I'm all for the freedom of potentially scandalous, even illegal information, but shouldn't it be consistent? Autocomplete has even blocked the phrase 'Google and crime.'

Or what about autocomplete's questionable assistance with what may be legal, but still offensive terms? Type in 'Asians have' and autocomplete is right there with 'no souls.' Try 'Jews have' instead and 'horns' is the result that the search giant recommends. Enter 'Black people are' and Google spits out 'lazy.' And why do we get help with 'sexual predators' but not 'sexual positions'? There are no obvious answers."

The reality here is that Google's decisions are probably affected by industry pressure. It is understandable that the company does not want to end up having to fight these companies in law suits, and that they thus back off. Still, the argument that Google is a company that should actually be able to take the fight, is a compelling one.

Egypt censors Al Jazeera

Al Jazeera on Sunday denounced the shutdown of its operations in Egypt by the Cairo authorities. "Al Jazeera sees this as an act designed to stifle and repress the freedom of reporting by the network and its journalists," the Qatar-based satellite channel said in a statement.

Al Jazeera said: "In this time of deep turmoil and unrest in Egyptian society, it is imperative that voices from all sides be heard."

"The closing of our bureau by the Egyptian government is aimed at censoring and silencing the voices of the Egyptian people," it added.

As someone who has followed Al Jazeera's coverage of the current affairs in Egypt the latest days, I can testify that their coverage of the ongoing protests down there must be quite revolutionary itself. The channel upholds feeds of live images from the different cities in Egypt and constantly show live images of the latest, while also noting what they don't know, introducing views from people in the region, foreigners and political analysts.

The English version of Al Jazeera appears to be running as well as it has the last few days. You can watch the channel for free here.

Former WikiLeaks spokeswoman Birgitta Jonsdottir speaks

The former WikiLeaks spokeswoman and now an Icelandic parliamentarian, Birgitta Jonsdottir, recently spoke to the National Post about her time working with WikiLeaks, threats made to her and Julian Assange, as well as her recent decision to change her flight plans so that she avoided landing in the United States on her recent trip to Canada.

On the question of why she changed her travel itinerary to avoid going through the U.S. to get to Toronto, Jonsdottir said:

"I was advised by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Iceland and lawyers in the United States right now that while this is not clear about how the U.S. authorities would respond to the complaints from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, that it would be better to avoid going through the United States."

About threats made by Sarah Palin, among others, she said:

"You don’t put out empty threats like this. This is a very serious threat. Here is a person that was running as a vice-president of the United States saying things like this. How can you possibly take the United States seriously if this is the quality of the dialogue of the people that are running for the highest offices in this country?"

Profile: Alexander Meiklejohn

I thought I'd deviate a little from the norm and start adding some thoughts on the philosophical views that basically shape the views that I present on this blog. I may start in the wrong place, but the first one I want to discuss is Alexander Meiklejohn.

Meiklejohn is known as one of the most important American advocates of first-amendment freedoms, and he is also one of the country's most notable proponents of the link between freedom of speech and democracy. Meiklejohn argues that the concept of democracy is that of self-government by the people. For such a system to work an informed electorate is necessary. In order to be appropriately knowledgeable, there must be no constraints on the free flow of information and ideas. According to Meiklejohn, democracy will not be true to its essential ideal if those in power are able to manipulate the electorate by withholding information and stifling criticism. Meiklejohn acknowledges that the desire to manipulate opinion can stem from the motive of seeking to benefit society. However, he argues, choosing manipulation negates, in its means, the democratic ideal. Eric Barendt has called the defence of free speech on the grounds of democracy "probably the most attractive and certainly the most fashionable free speech theory in modern Western democracies".

Note: Meiklejohn's views and opinions are highly relevant today. A number of the threats he identifies are present in today's American society:
* The governmental trend of withholding information ensures that Americans make decisions in elections based on incomplete knowledge.
* The governmental trend of influencing media coverage to ensure that people support governmental policies. These policies are made with the aim of benefiting society.

Never put your trust in things prefixed ‘Wiki’

David Porter, who works for the Illinois Press Association, makes a few interesting observations in an opinion piece published today.

Highly regarded reporters don’t trust anything that has “wiki” in front of it. To be taken seriously, wiki information must be independently verified. “Wiki,” by definition, is something that is edited by virtually anyone. It’s a Swahili word that means, literally, “not to be trusted,” which you can verify on Wikipedia.

I’ve heard complaints that the “mainstream” media hasn’t taken Wikileaks seriously. That’s because they used the prefix “wiki” in their name. If you want people to take notice, you have to use a different phrase, like “naked pictures of Paris Hilton.”

There's not much to say about this claim other than to conclude that Porter may have a point. The name of the organization may simply harm it. WikiLeaks is taken much more seriously in other parts of the world than in the United States, so it could, of course, be that there's other reasons too.