TEDGlobal 2012
Clay Shirky: How the Internet will (one day) transform government
Filmed:
Readability: 4.4
1,294,633 views
The open-source world has learned to deal with a flood of new, oftentimes divergent, ideas using hosting services like GitHub -- so why can’t governments? In this rousing talk Clay Shirky shows how democracies can take a lesson from the Internet, to be not just transparent but also to draw on the knowledge of all their citizens.
Clay Shirky - Social Media Theorist
Clay Shirky argues that the history of the modern world could be rendered as the history of ways of arguing, where changes in media change what sort of arguments are possible -- with deep social and political implications. Full bio
Clay Shirky argues that the history of the modern world could be rendered as the history of ways of arguing, where changes in media change what sort of arguments are possible -- with deep social and political implications. Full bio
Double-click the English transcript below to play the video.
00:16
I want to talk to you today about something
0
276
1945
00:18
the open-source programming world can teach democracy,
1
2221
3015
00:21
but before that, a little preamble.
2
5236
1635
00:22
Let's start here.
3
6871
1820
00:24
This is Martha Payne. Martha's a 9-year-old Scot
4
8691
3395
00:27
who lives in the Council of Argyll and Bute.
5
12086
2021
00:30
A couple months ago, Payne started a food blog
6
14107
2693
00:32
called NeverSeconds, and she would take her camera
7
16800
2873
00:35
with her every day to school to document
8
19673
2280
00:37
her school lunches.
9
21953
2014
00:39
Can you spot the vegetable? (Laughter)
10
23967
1889
00:41
And, as sometimes happens,
11
25856
3754
00:45
this blog acquired first dozens of readers,
12
29610
2590
00:48
and then hundreds of readers,
13
32200
1680
00:49
and then thousands of readers, as people tuned in
14
33880
2586
00:52
to watch her rate her school lunches,
15
36466
1668
00:54
including on my favorite category,
16
38134
1525
00:55
"Pieces of hair found in food." (Laughter)
17
39659
3592
00:59
This was a zero day. That's good.
18
43251
3471
01:02
And then two weeks ago yesterday, she posted this.
19
46722
3194
01:05
A post that read: "Goodbye."
20
49916
1911
01:07
And she said, "I'm very sorry to tell you this, but
21
51827
3214
01:10
my head teacher pulled me out of class today and told me
22
55041
2744
01:13
I'm not allowed to take pictures in the lunch room anymore.
23
57785
2996
01:16
I really enjoyed doing this.
24
60781
1726
01:18
Thank you for reading. Goodbye."
25
62507
3230
01:21
You can guess what happened next, right? (Laughter)
26
65737
5178
01:26
The outrage was so swift, so voluminous, so unanimous,
27
70915
5918
01:32
that the Council of Argyll and Bute reversed themselves
28
76833
2931
01:35
the same day and said, "We would,
29
79779
1286
01:36
we would never censor a nine-year-old." (Laughter)
30
81065
2166
01:39
Except, of course, this morning. (Laughter)
31
83231
2477
01:41
And this brings up the question,
32
85708
4413
01:46
what made them think they could get away
33
90121
2214
01:48
with something like that? (Laughter)
34
92335
2050
01:50
And the answer is, all of human history prior to now.
35
94385
4717
01:55
(Laughter) So,
36
99102
3548
01:58
what happens when a medium suddenly puts
37
102650
3925
02:02
a lot of new ideas into circulation?
38
106575
3704
02:06
Now, this isn't just a contemporaneous question.
39
110279
2105
02:08
This is something we've faced several times
40
112384
2000
02:10
over the last few centuries.
41
114384
1356
02:11
When the telegraph came along, it was clear
42
115740
1985
02:13
that it was going to globalize the news industry.
43
117725
2218
02:15
What would this lead to?
44
119943
1489
02:17
Well, obviously, it would lead to world peace.
45
121432
3564
02:20
The television, a medium that allowed us not just to hear
46
124996
2810
02:23
but see, literally see, what was going on
47
127806
2767
02:26
elsewhere in the world, what would this lead to?
48
130573
2317
02:28
World peace. (Laughter)
49
132890
2240
02:31
The telephone?
50
135130
957
02:31
You guessed it: world peace.
51
136087
2595
02:34
Sorry for the spoiler alert, but no world peace. Not yet.
52
138682
4974
02:39
Even the printing press, even the printing press
53
143656
2479
02:42
was assumed to be a tool that was going to enforce
54
146135
3129
02:45
Catholic intellectual hegemony across Europe.
55
149264
3653
02:48
Instead, what we got was Martin Luther's 95 Theses,
56
152917
2484
02:51
the Protestant Reformation, and, you know,
57
155401
2020
02:53
the Thirty Years' War. All right,
58
157421
2358
02:55
so what all of these predictions of world peace got right
59
159779
4231
02:59
is that when a lot of new ideas suddenly
60
164010
2531
03:02
come into circulation, it changes society.
61
166541
2926
03:05
What they got exactly wrong was what happens next.
62
169467
3532
03:08
The more ideas there are in circulation,
63
172999
2549
03:11
the more ideas there are for any individual to disagree with.
64
175548
4708
03:16
More media always means more arguing.
65
180256
4773
03:20
That's what happens when the media's space expands.
66
185029
2920
03:23
And yet, when we look back on the printing press
67
187949
2903
03:26
in the early years, we like what happened.
68
190852
3379
03:30
We are a pro-printing press society.
69
194231
3244
03:33
So how do we square those two things,
70
197475
1970
03:35
that it leads to more arguing, but we think it was good?
71
199445
2756
03:38
And the answer, I think, can be found in things like this.
72
202201
2599
03:40
This is the cover of "Philosophical Transactions,"
73
204800
3285
03:43
the first scientific journal ever published in English
74
208085
2622
03:46
in the middle of the 1600s,
75
210707
1882
03:48
and it was created by a group of people who had been
76
212589
1827
03:50
calling themselves "The Invisible College,"
77
214416
1637
03:51
a group of natural philosophers who only later
78
216053
2204
03:54
would call themselves scientists,
79
218257
2605
03:56
and they wanted to improve the way
80
220862
3544
04:00
natural philosophers argued with each other,
81
224406
2657
04:02
and they needed to do two things for this.
82
227063
1990
04:04
They needed openness. They needed to create a norm
83
229053
2484
04:07
which said, when you do an experiment,
84
231537
1859
04:09
you have to publish not just your claims,
85
233396
2685
04:11
but how you did the experiment.
86
236081
1426
04:13
If you don't tell us how you did it, we won't trust you.
87
237507
2797
04:16
But the other thing they needed was speed.
88
240304
2360
04:18
They had to quickly synchronize what
89
242664
2305
04:20
other natural philosophers knew. Otherwise,
90
244969
2454
04:23
you couldn't get the right kind of argument going.
91
247423
2857
04:26
The printing press was clearly the right medium for this,
92
250280
2950
04:29
but the book was the wrong tool. It was too slow.
93
253230
2586
04:31
And so they invented the scientific journal
94
255816
2862
04:34
as a way of synchronizing the argument
95
258678
2786
04:37
across the community of natural scientists.
96
261464
2554
04:39
The scientific revolution wasn't created by the printing press.
97
264018
3498
04:43
It was created by scientists,
98
267516
2146
04:45
but it couldn't have been created if they didn't have
99
269662
1859
04:47
a printing press as a tool.
100
271521
2170
04:49
So what about us? What about our generation,
101
273691
2240
04:51
and our media revolution, the Internet?
102
275931
2003
04:53
Well, predictions of world peace? Check. (Laughter)
103
277934
4119
04:57
More arguing? Gold star on that one. (Laughter)
104
282053
8583
05:06
(Laughter)
105
290636
1311
05:07
I mean, YouTube is just a gold mine. (Laughter)
106
291947
4347
05:12
Better arguing? That's the question.
107
296294
4095
05:16
So I study social media, which means,
108
300389
2044
05:18
to a first approximation, I watch people argue.
109
302433
2611
05:20
And if I had to pick a group that I think is
110
305044
4107
05:25
our Invisible College, is our generation's collection of people
111
309151
3793
05:28
trying to take these tools and to press it into service,
112
312944
3159
05:32
not for more arguments, but for better arguments,
113
316103
2781
05:34
I'd pick the open-source programmers.
114
318884
2395
05:37
Programming is a three-way relationship
115
321279
2262
05:39
between a programmer, some source code,
116
323541
2284
05:41
and the computer it's meant to run on, but computers
117
325825
2614
05:44
are such famously inflexible interpreters of instructions
118
328439
4702
05:49
that it's extraordinarily difficult to write out a set
119
333141
4023
05:53
of instructions that the computer knows how to execute,
120
337164
3038
05:56
and that's if one person is writing it.
121
340202
1866
05:57
Once you get more than one person writing it,
122
342068
2099
06:00
it's very easy for any two programmers to overwrite
123
344167
3084
06:03
each other's work if they're working on the same file,
124
347251
2661
06:05
or to send incompatible instructions
125
349912
2182
06:07
that simply causes the computer to choke,
126
352094
2441
06:10
and this problem grows larger
127
354535
2959
06:13
the more programmers are involved.
128
357494
2769
06:16
To a first approximation, the problem of managing
129
360263
3347
06:19
a large software project is the problem
130
363610
2726
06:22
of keeping this social chaos at bay.
131
366336
3656
06:25
Now, for decades there has been a canonical solution
132
369992
2475
06:28
to this problem, which is to use something called
133
372467
1654
06:30
a "version control system,"
134
374121
1980
06:32
and a version control system does what is says on the tin.
135
376101
2209
06:34
It provides a canonical copy of the software
136
378310
3394
06:37
on a server somewhere.
137
381704
1552
06:39
The only programmers who can change it are people
138
383256
2906
06:42
who've specifically been given permission to access it,
139
386162
3531
06:45
and they're only allowed to access the sub-section of it
140
389693
3767
06:49
that they have permission to change.
141
393460
2430
06:51
And when people draw diagrams of version control systems,
142
395890
3185
06:54
the diagrams always look something like this.
143
399075
2365
06:57
All right. They look like org charts.
144
401440
2878
07:00
And you don't have to squint very hard
145
404318
1407
07:01
to see the political ramifications of a system like this.
146
405725
3465
07:05
This is feudalism: one owner, many workers.
147
409190
4476
07:09
Now, that's fine for the commercial software industry.
148
413666
3324
07:12
It really is Microsoft's Office. It's Adobe's Photoshop.
149
416990
5390
07:18
The corporation owns the software.
150
422380
2832
07:21
The programmers come and go.
151
425212
2314
07:23
But there was one programmer who decided
152
427526
3373
07:26
that this wasn't the way to work.
153
430899
2988
07:29
This is Linus Torvalds.
154
433887
1262
07:31
Torvalds is the most famous open-source programmer,
155
435149
2152
07:33
created Linux, obviously, and Torvalds looked at the way
156
437301
5301
07:38
the open-source movement had been dealing with this problem.
157
442602
3512
07:42
Open-source software, the core promise of the open-source license,
158
446114
4624
07:46
is that everybody should have access to all the source code
159
450738
3746
07:50
all the time, but of course, this creates
160
454484
3253
07:53
the very threat of chaos you have to forestall
161
457737
3307
07:56
in order to get anything working.
162
461044
1578
07:58
So most open-source projects just held their noses
163
462622
2482
08:01
and adopted the feudal management systems.
164
465104
2680
08:03
But Torvalds said, "No, I'm not going to do that."
165
467784
2508
08:06
His point of view on this was very clear.
166
470292
3565
08:09
When you adopt a tool, you also adopt
167
473857
2533
08:12
the management philosophy embedded in that tool,
168
476390
3589
08:15
and he wasn't going to adopt anything that didn't work
169
479979
3136
08:19
the way the Linux community worked.
170
483115
2309
08:21
And to give you a sense of how enormous
171
485424
2532
08:23
a decision like this was, this is a map
172
487956
3668
08:27
of the internal dependencies within Linux,
173
491624
3489
08:31
within the Linux operating system, which sub-parts
174
495113
2607
08:33
of the program rely on which other sub-parts to get going.
175
497720
4445
08:38
This is a tremendously complicated process.
176
502165
3578
08:41
This is a tremendously complicated program,
177
505743
2792
08:44
and yet, for years, Torvalds ran this
178
508535
2665
08:47
not with automated tools but out of his email box.
179
511200
3904
08:51
People would literally mail him changes
180
515104
2473
08:53
that they'd agreed on, and he would merge them by hand.
181
517577
4119
08:57
And then, 15 years after looking at Linux and figuring out
182
521696
4746
09:02
how the community worked, he said, "I think I know
183
526442
2810
09:05
how to write a version control system for free people."
184
529252
4167
09:09
And he called it "Git." Git is distributed version control.
185
533419
5895
09:15
It has two big differences
186
539314
3024
09:18
with traditional version control systems.
187
542338
2063
09:20
The first is that it lives up to the philosophical promise
188
544401
3147
09:23
of open-source. Everybody who works on a project
189
547548
3286
09:26
has access to all of the source code all of the time.
190
550834
3671
09:30
And when people draw diagrams of Git workflow,
191
554505
2674
09:33
they use drawings that look like this.
192
557179
2937
09:36
And you don't have to understand what the circles
193
560116
2318
09:38
and boxes and arrows mean to see that this is a far more
194
562434
3679
09:42
complicated way of working than is supported
195
566113
3095
09:45
by ordinary version control systems.
196
569208
2721
09:47
But this is also the thing that brings the chaos back,
197
571929
4309
09:52
and this is Git's second big innovation.
198
576238
3050
09:55
This is a screenshot from GitHub, the premier Git hosting service,
199
579288
3996
09:59
and every time a programmer uses Git
200
583284
3350
10:02
to make any important change at all,
201
586634
3161
10:05
creating a new file, modifying an existing one,
202
589795
3309
10:09
merging two files, Git creates this kind of signature.
203
593104
4674
10:13
This long string of numbers and letters here
204
597778
3143
10:16
is a unique identifier tied to every single change,
205
600921
5075
10:21
but without any central coordination.
206
605996
2857
10:24
Every Git system generates this number the same way,
207
608853
4489
10:29
which means this is a signature tied directly
208
613342
3342
10:32
and unforgeably to a particular change.
209
616684
3150
10:35
This has the following effect:
210
619834
1936
10:37
A programmer in Edinburgh and a programmer in Entebbe
211
621770
3678
10:41
can both get the same -- a copy of the same piece of software.
212
625448
3702
10:45
Each of them can make changes and they can merge them
213
629150
3826
10:48
after the fact even if they didn't know
214
632976
2935
10:51
of each other's existence beforehand.
215
635911
2959
10:54
This is cooperation without coordination.
216
638870
3499
10:58
This is the big change.
217
642369
2936
11:01
Now, I tell you all of this not to convince you that it's great
218
645305
5210
11:06
that open-source programmers now have a tool
219
650515
3697
11:10
that supports their philosophical way of working,
220
654212
3093
11:13
although I think that is great.
221
657305
2104
11:15
I tell you all of this because of what I think it means
222
659409
2768
11:18
for the way communities come together.
223
662177
2194
11:20
Once Git allowed for cooperation without coordination,
224
664371
6319
11:26
you start to see communities form
225
670690
2940
11:29
that are enormously large and complex.
226
673630
4252
11:33
This is a graph of the Ruby community.
227
677882
2279
11:36
It's an open-source programming language,
228
680161
1529
11:37
and all of the interconnections between the people --
229
681690
2998
11:40
this is now not a software graph, but a people graph,
230
684688
2399
11:42
all of the interconnections among the people
231
687087
2102
11:45
working on that project —
232
689189
2343
11:47
and this doesn't look like an org chart.
233
691532
2990
11:50
This looks like a dis-org chart, and yet,
234
694522
3420
11:53
out of this community, but using these tools,
235
697942
2608
11:56
they can now create something together.
236
700550
2286
11:58
So there are two good reasons to think that
237
702836
4365
12:03
this kind of technique can be applied
238
707201
4173
12:07
to democracies in general and in particular to the law.
239
711374
4533
12:11
When you make the claim, in fact,
240
715907
1858
12:13
that something on the Internet is going to be good
241
717765
2958
12:16
for democracy, you often get this reaction.
242
720723
2441
12:19
(Music) (Laughter)
243
723164
5924
12:24
Which is, are you talking about the thing
244
729088
2526
12:27
with the singing cats? Like, is that the thing
245
731614
2411
12:29
you think is going to be good for society?
246
734025
2629
12:32
To which I have to say, here's the thing
247
736654
2135
12:34
with the singing cats. That always happens.
248
738789
3361
12:38
And I don't just mean that always happens with the Internet,
249
742150
1733
12:39
I mean that always happens with media, full stop.
250
743883
2580
12:42
It did not take long after the rise
251
746463
2040
12:44
of the commercial printing press before someone
252
748503
2676
12:47
figured out that erotic novels were a good idea. (Laughter)
253
751179
3313
12:50
You don't have to have an economic incentive to sell books
254
754492
3042
12:53
very long before someone says, "Hey, you know what I bet
255
757534
3021
12:56
people would pay for?" (Laughter)
256
760555
2168
12:58
It took people another 150 years to even think
257
762723
3550
13:02
of the scientific journal, right? So -- (Laughter) (Applause)
258
766273
6760
13:08
So the harnessing by the Invisible College
259
773033
3038
13:11
of the printing press to create the scientific journal
260
776071
2385
13:14
was phenomenally important, but it didn't happen big,
261
778456
2911
13:17
and it didn't happen quick, and it didn't happen fast, so
262
781367
2759
13:20
if you're going to look for where the change is happening,
263
784126
3298
13:23
you have to look on the margins.
264
787424
2016
13:25
So, the law is also dependency-related.
265
789440
5464
13:30
This is a graph of the U.S. Tax Code,
266
794904
3409
13:34
and the dependencies of one law on other laws
267
798313
3080
13:37
for the overall effect.
268
801393
2398
13:39
So there's that as a site for source code management.
269
803791
3432
13:43
But there's also the fact that law is another place
270
807223
1902
13:45
where there are many opinions in circulation,
271
809125
2274
13:47
but they need to be resolved to one canonical copy,
272
811399
3508
13:50
and when you go onto GitHub, and you look around,
273
814907
2577
13:53
there are millions and millions of projects,
274
817484
2069
13:55
almost all of which are source code,
275
819553
1354
13:56
but if you look around the edges, you can see people
276
820907
2685
13:59
experimenting with the political ramifications
277
823592
2209
14:01
of a system like that.
278
825801
1613
14:03
Someone put up all the Wikileaked cables
279
827414
1810
14:05
from the State Department, along with software used
280
829224
2265
14:07
to interpret them, including my favorite use ever
281
831489
3189
14:10
of the Cablegate cables, which is a tool for detecting
282
834678
2371
14:12
naturally occurring haiku in State Department prose.
283
837049
3015
14:15
(Laughter)
284
840064
5896
14:21
Right. (Laughter)
285
845960
3072
14:24
The New York Senate has put up something called
286
849032
2799
14:27
Open Legislation, also hosting it on GitHub,
287
851831
2407
14:30
again for all of the reasons of updating and fluidity.
288
854238
2386
14:32
You can go and pick your Senator and then you can see
289
856624
2666
14:35
a list of bills they have sponsored.
290
859290
2035
14:37
Someone going by Divegeek has put up the Utah code,
291
861325
3632
14:40
the laws of the state of Utah, and they've put it up there
292
864957
2765
14:43
not just to distribute the code,
293
867722
1449
14:45
but with the very interesting possibility that this could
294
869171
3198
14:48
be used to further the development of legislation.
295
872369
4555
14:52
Somebody put up a tool during the copyright debate
296
876924
3839
14:56
last year in the Senate, saying, "It's strange that Hollywood
297
880763
4186
15:00
has more access to Canadian legislators
298
884949
3124
15:03
than Canadian citizens do. Why don't we use GitHub
299
888073
3816
15:07
to show them what a citizen-developed bill might look like?"
300
891889
4476
15:12
And it includes this very evocative screenshot.
301
896365
3752
15:16
This is a called a "diff," this thing on the right here.
302
900117
2978
15:18
This shows you, for text that many people are editing,
303
903095
2970
15:21
when a change was made, who made it,
304
906065
2201
15:24
and what the change is.
305
908266
1003
15:25
The stuff in red is the stuff that got deleted.
306
909269
1455
15:26
The stuff in green is the stuff that got added.
307
910724
2692
15:29
Programmers take this capability for granted.
308
913416
2782
15:32
No democracy anywhere in the world offers this feature
309
916198
2925
15:35
to its citizens for either legislation or for budgets,
310
919123
3815
15:38
even though those are the things done
311
922938
2530
15:41
with our consent and with our money.
312
925468
3139
15:44
Now, I would love to tell you that the fact
313
928607
3238
15:47
that the open-source programmers have worked out
314
931845
3172
15:50
a collaborative method that is large scale, distributed,
315
935017
3671
15:54
cheap, and in sync with the ideals of democracy, I would love
316
938688
3465
15:58
to tell you that because those tools are in place,
317
942153
2171
16:00
the innovation is inevitable. But it's not.
318
944324
4331
16:04
Part of the problem, of course, is just a lack of information.
319
948655
2993
16:07
Somebody put a question up on Quora saying,
320
951648
1903
16:09
"Why is it that lawmakers don't use
321
953551
2092
16:11
distributed version control?"
322
955643
1407
16:12
This, graphically, was the answer. (Laughter)
323
957050
3621
16:16
(Laughter) (Applause)
324
960671
2091
16:18
And that is indeed part of the problem, but only part.
325
962762
5022
16:23
The bigger problem, of course, is power.
326
967784
3177
16:26
The people experimenting with participation don't have
327
970961
3170
16:30
legislative power, and the people who have legislative
328
974131
2569
16:32
power are not experimenting with participation.
329
976700
3963
16:36
They are experimenting with openness.
330
980663
1545
16:38
There's no democracy worth the name that doesn't have
331
982208
1860
16:39
a transparency move, but transparency is openness
332
984068
2928
16:42
in only one direction, and being given a dashboard
333
986996
3905
16:46
without a steering wheel has never been the core promise
334
990901
3170
16:49
a democracy makes to its citizens.
335
994071
3411
16:53
So consider this.
336
997482
2350
16:55
The thing that got Martha Payne's opinions
337
999832
2586
16:58
out into the public was a piece of technology,
338
1002418
3691
17:02
but the thing that kept them there was political will.
339
1006109
3634
17:05
It was the expectation of the citizens
340
1009743
2274
17:07
that she would not be censored.
341
1012017
3535
17:11
That's now the state we're in with these collaboration tools.
342
1015552
5328
17:16
We have them. We've seen them. They work.
343
1020880
4007
17:20
Can we use them?
344
1024887
1051
17:21
Can we apply the techniques that worked here to this?
345
1025938
5126
17:26
T.S. Eliot once said, "One of the most momentous things
346
1031064
3717
17:30
that can happen to a culture
347
1034781
2080
17:32
is that they acquire a new form of prose."
348
1036861
3643
17:36
I think that's wrong, but -- (Laughter)
349
1040504
2248
17:38
I think it's right for argumentation. Right?
350
1042752
3659
17:42
A momentous thing that can happen to a culture
351
1046411
3355
17:45
is they can acquire a new style of arguing:
352
1049766
2814
17:48
trial by jury, voting, peer review, now this. Right?
353
1052580
6670
17:55
A new form of arguing has been invented in our lifetimes,
354
1059296
3069
17:58
in the last decade, in fact.
355
1062365
1887
18:00
It's large, it's distributed, it's low-cost,
356
1064252
4053
18:04
and it's compatible with the ideals of democracy.
357
1068305
3299
18:07
The question for us now is, are we going to let
358
1071604
1986
18:09
the programmers keep it to themselves?
359
1073590
1526
18:11
Or are we going to try and take it and press it into service
360
1075116
2049
18:13
for society at large?
361
1077165
2152
18:15
Thank you for listening. (Applause)
362
1079317
2600
18:17
(Applause)
363
1081917
4138
18:21
Thank you. Thank you. (Applause)
364
1086055
5137
ABOUT THE SPEAKER
Clay Shirky - Social Media TheoristClay Shirky argues that the history of the modern world could be rendered as the history of ways of arguing, where changes in media change what sort of arguments are possible -- with deep social and political implications.
Why you should listen
Clay Shirky's work focuses on the rising usefulness of networks -- using decentralized technologies such as peer-to-peer sharing, wireless, software for social creation, and open-source development. New technologies are enabling new kinds of cooperative structures to flourish as a way of getting things done in business, science, the arts and elsewhere, as an alternative to centralized and institutional structures, which he sees as self-limiting. In his writings and speeches he has argued that "a group is its own worst enemy."
Shirky is an adjunct professor in New York Universityʼs graduate Interactive Telecommunications Program, where he teaches a course named “Social Weather.” Heʼs the author of several books. This spring at the TED headquarters in New York, he gave an impassioned talk against SOPA/PIPA that saw 1 million views in 48 hours.
Clay Shirky | Speaker | TED.com