The Slate Political Gabfest is my favourite podcast:
Tonight I was on The Drum on ABC News 24 discussing the news of the day, including the Coalition's leaked plan for 100 dams across Australia, Wayne Swan's refusal to rule out an income tax rise, and how far does the British royal family's right to privacy extend?
Today I was a guest on Radio National's technology show, Download This Show. Host Marc Fennell chatted to me and Jen Dudley-Nicholson, the national technology editor for News Limited, about the Zach Braff, Wearable Technology, Ecomobility:
Death by internet: Just imagine waking up one day, turning on your computer to find out that you are dead, or at least that's the story spreading around the world thanks to a bogus news story. Comedian, star of the TV show Srcubs and world-class nerd Zach Braff on what it's like to be killed off by the web, the power of social media and how people in the public eye should use the internet. Plus, why put your phone in your pocket when you it could be on your wrist? We look at the future for wearable technology.
Download the audio here.
You can also listen to previous episodes here.
No week seems to pass without some tweeter or other having their handle felt by officers of the law. So if you don’t want to be one of them but you do want to communicate in 140 characters, here are my 10 Golden Rules:
- Twitter IS publishing. Putting it out there for others to read is publishing. So don’t tweet anything you wouldn’t be happy to see on the newsagent’s shelf with a picture of you above it.
- You think you know the law of libel. You don’t. Nor do any of your friends. I have had grown men telling me on Twitter this week that repeating a libel is not itself libel (it is) or that if you don’t directly say X is a rampant Y, but just hint at it then it doesn’t count (it does).
- If you’re an obscure nobody who no one follows, but who wants to say something rude sort-of privately, don’t do it under a trending hashtag. You will bring the wrath of thousands of strangers down on your hapless head.
- Some people LIKE the wrath of strangers. They’re called trolls. If you feel yourself bridling at repeated rude comments aimed at you and your cherished views then just BLOCK the offender. They disappear as if by magic.
- You are hurt. Wounded. Someone has questioned your talent or integrity. You wish to howl with online pain. Don’t. Those who enjoy your discomfiture will gather like crows around a carcase. Laugh. Put up a smiley.
- That brilliant retort you have composed, replete with pungent sexual or violent imagery, which will utterly destroy the Twitter foe who has, despite my advice, so annoyed you? Cherish it. Roll its 140 characters on your tongue. And then, for God’s sake, DELETE IT.
- Don’t tweet while drunk. You think it’s clever, and funny, you giggle and dribble at your own brilliant verbiage. But you are opening wide the gates of Hell. Morning will come, cold and clear.
- Don’t EVER meet a jolly Twitter companion, even one you’ve been ff’ing (suggesting people follow you every Friday) for months. Not without a police report. I learnt the hard way.
- Get yourself a decent avatar (picture) on Twitter. Not that default egg or the eye slicing scene from Un Chien Andalou. For everyone else’s sake.
- Lastly, the golden rule, the rule of rules. Never, ever tweet anything about anybody that you wouldn’t say to their face. There’s a REASON why you wouldn’t say it to their face. They might hit you, or sue you. So why would you want to tweet it?
As you may be aware, I've experimented with various different podcasting apps over the years - Audioboo, Posterous and Ipadio - but I am currently using SoundCloud to post the audio of my radio appearances, as well as the occasional thought or rant:
Earlier today I sent my 100,000th tweet. When I signed up for Twitter on 5 February 2007, I had absolutely no idea that Twitter would not only become a social media phenomenon over the next five years but that it would also have such a significant and positive impact on my life - both personal and professional. Even though I was an early adopter in signing up to Twitter in 2007, I was still not able to claim the username @peterblack, so I used the username @PeterBlackQUT. I quite happily tweeted at @PeterBlackQUT until on 19 April 2010, I decided to change my Twitter username to @peterjblack. I blogged about this change at the time:
After 3 years, 2 months and 15 days, and 34,557 tweets, I have decided to change my Twitter username.
When I signed up to Twitter in February of 2007, someone had already taken the username @peterblack, and so because I had signed up mainly to see if there were any educational uses for this little known social media tool known as Twitter, I tagged on three little letters to the end of my name and @PeterBlackQUT was born. Since then Twitter has become an internet phenomenon in ways I never imagined at the time, and @PeterBlackQUT has become part of my personal brand.
To be honest, I have always been quite uncomfortable having my employer as part of my Twitter username, especially because it is in many ways more of a personal Twitter account, than a professional or work account. And there were a few different things that happened last week (including the whole Nick Sowden incident), that provoked me to think a little bit about my public and private persona on the internet generally, and Twitter specifically.
So I have decided to retire @PeterBlackQUT. I will now be tweeting from @peterjblack.
Since I changed my username, my use of my Twitter has continued to grow, just as Twitter itself has continued to grow. In my first 3 years, 2 months and 15 days on Twitter, I sent 34,557 tweets from @PeterBlackQUT. Since I changed it to @peterjblack just over two years ago, I have tweeted 65,443 times.
And here are some graphs of my Twitter usage:
And here are two word clouds:
If you are interested in digital technology and education, come along to this debate I will be moderating on Tuesday 21 August:
Come along for an entertaining investigation of how digital technologies, such as iPads, social media, and the 'instant' internet culture are impacting upon our core, traditional abilities and views of reading and writing.
It is particularly relevant in the National Year of Reading, to take stock of the advantages and disadvantages that digital culture has for the future of reading and writing.
We have a tremendous panel lined up to battle it out:
On the Negative side, convincing us that digital culture is not the death of reading and writing:
John-Paul Langbroek is the QLD Govt Minister for Education, Training and Employment & Member for Surfers Paradise
Jane Cowell is the Director Public and Indigenous Library Services at the State Library of Queensland
Marcus Foth is Associate Professor & author in Urban Informatics at QUT specialising in social media & mobile apps
On the Affirmative side, arguing that digital culture is indeed having an adverse effect on our reading and writing skills:
Natalie Bochenski is the state political reporter for 4BC news, author, director and travel enthusiast
Bruce Woolley is an international journalist and correspondent & sessional academic in journalism at QUT
Erica Hateley is a lecturer, author & researcher in children's & adolescent literature at QUT
Moderated by Peter Black - Senior Lecturer in the Faculty of Law at QUT, specialising in internet law, media law and the legal and policy issues surrounding social media.
When: Tuesday 21 August
6:15pm for a 6:45pm start
Where: Gibson Room, Level 10, Z Block, QUT Gardens Point Campus How much: $10 non-ALIA Members
$7 for ALIA Members and Current Students
RSVP: QUTPay: You have the option to RSVP and pay online through QUTPay.
Please download a copy of our event flyer (PDF,412KB) to share with your colleagues and friends.
We look forward to seeing you there!
This study from Engage looks at the politics of social web:
Over the past few months, we’ve crunched countless “Likes” from thousands of users of Trendsetter, our first-of-its-kind platform that ties together polling, social influence data, and consumer preferences. We’ve used it to map the politics of the social web, analyzing the political partisanship of the user bases of various social properties. Using predictive modeling of Facebook likes, we tied political preferences and engagement to one’s choice of social media, and this bubble graph is the result:
SCOTUSblog's Tom Goldstein has written a fascinating piece on how the media covered the Supreme Court's decision regarding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act:
Inside G42, the press room staff hear the Chief Justice say over the speakers that the Court will have to confront the government’s arguments under both the commerce power and also the tax power. But none of the reporters hear him; they are all gone.
The CNN and Fox producers are scanning the syllabus. Eight lines from the bottom of page 2, they see the following language: “Chief Justice Roberts concluded in Part III-A that the individual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause.” They immediately and correctly recognize that sentence as fantastically important. The individual mandate is the heart of the statute, and it is clear that the Court has rejected the Administration’s principal theory – indeed the only theory that was discussed at great length in the oral arguments and debated by commentators.
Into his conference call, the CNN producer says (correctly) that the Court has held that the individual mandate cannot be sustained under the Commerce Clause, and (incorrectly) that it therefore “looks like” the mandate has been struck down. The control room asks whether they can “go with” it, and after a pause, he says yes.
The Fox producer reads the syllabus exactly the same way, and reports that the mandate has been invalidated. Asked to confirm that the mandate has been struck down, he responds: “100%.”
Read it here. It really is a must-read. Andrew Sullivan describes it as a "gripping second-by-second breakdown of how the media handled the Obamacare ruling", and Jason Kottke says it is "impeccably sourced, straighforward, and surprisingly compelling". I couldn't agree more. Again, read it here.
This week I was a guest on Radio National's new technology show, Download This Show. Host Marc Fennell chats to me and Chloe Lake, a freelance technology writer, about the Google TV box, the influence economy, and NutrititionRank:
Just how much money is your social media following worth? This week we examine the phenomenon of The Influence Economy. Plus we look at how Google & Sony have entered the battle to control the next generation of television sets. And we test out the new food evaluation site called Nutrition Rank.
Download the audio here.
You can also listen to previous episodes here.
Of late we've come across a couple of guides for living our lives on Twitter, and, you know what, we're sick of rules. Yesterday, for example, Daily Intel provided a mini Twitter rule book with this list of "Things Journalists Do on Twitter That We Despise," that included habits such as retweeting things and only adding "+1" or "THIS." A little while back Buzzfeed had its own set of guidelines, telling us "11 Ways You're Annoying on Twitter," banning certain irritating behaviors like tweeting about food. While some of these things can be annoying at times, the assertion of rules has become so much more annoying.
We say no more rules for using Twitter. The service has been around long enough that we don't really need someone telling us how to use it. We call for Twitter anarchy. No more rules! To establish this new paradigm, we offer the last and only Twitter laws the Internet will ever need in the form of this Anarchist Constitution for Twitter.
We the People of Twitter, in Order to form a more perfect Twittersphere, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Anarchist's Constitution for Twitter.
Section. 1. If one tweeter doesn't like something on Twitter, they can breathe for one moment and then either ignore said tweet or respond to that person with a gripe. The recipient of said nasty @ reply, however, has the right to respond and a spat may ensue, for which bloggers and the rest of the Internet can judge you.
Section. 2. If one tweeter does not like what another tweeter tweets on a regular basis, they can breathe for one moment and either ignore or unfollow that person. The unfollowed person has the right to unfollow back.
Section. 3. Feel however you would like about gaining and losing followers. Recognize certain behavior will either increase or decrease your following.
Section. 1. Twitter should be for humans in all their wondrous forms. Spam bots are considered renegade outlaws of the Twitter community.
Section. 2. Do not be a Spam bot.
Section. 1. If one tweeter tells another tweeter how to tweet, the recipient of said advice in no way has to listen.
Hear, hear! There are no rules as to the correct way to Twitter, and nor should there be. I think Article I, Section 2 of this Constitution is the most important - if you don't like someone on Twitter, either deal with it, or unfollow them.
"This disconnect between the public's view of copyright and fair use and what should and should not be prosecuted, versus the 'copyright maximist' view of the law, is our generation's Prohibition," says Ben Huh, CEO and founder of Cheezburger and a loud voice in the recent backlash to SOPA and PIPA, two congressional bills aimed at curbing internet piracy.
Copyright exists to "promote the useful arts" according to the US Constitution. But is it still doing that? And should the government protect so-called "intellectual property" in the same way it protects other forms of property? Reason.tv posed these questions to Ben Huh, as well as a professor and a movie studio representative.
Wikipedia (Photo credit: Octavio Rojas)
An interesting academic article on law review citations to Wikipedia from 2002-2008:
Due to its perceived omniscience and ease-of-use,reliance on the online encyclopedia Wikipedia as a sourcefor information has become pervasive. As a result, scholarsand commentators have begun turning their attentionstoward this resource and its uses. The main focus ofprevious writers, however, has been on the use of Wikipediain the judicial process, whether by litigants relying onWikipedia in their pleadings or judges relying on it in theirdecisions. No one, until now, has examined the use ofWikipedia in the legal scholarship context. This articleintends to shine a light on the citation aspect of theWikipedia-as-authority phenomenon by providing detailedstatistics on the scope of its use and critiquing or buildingon the arguments of other commentators.
Part II provides an overview of the debateregarding the citation of Wikipedia, beginning with ageneral discussion on the purposes of citation. In this Part,this article examines why some authors choose to cite to Wikipedia and explains why such citation is nonethelessproblematic despite its perceived advantages. A citationanalysis performed on works published by nearly 500American law reviews between 2002 and 2008 is the focusof Part III, from a description of the methodology to anexamination of the results of the analysis and any trendsthat may be discerned from the statistics. Finally, Part IVexamines the propriety of citing to Wikipedia, culminatingin a call for tighter editorial standards in law reviews.
In all that I endure, of one thing I am sureKnowledge and Reason change like the SeasonA Jester's Promenade
Read it here.
Over the past few years New York filmmaker Kirby Ferguson has been working on a project called Everything is a Remix, which looks at "remix" within our culture. His first video looked at remix remix within music, his second video looked at remix within film, focusing on Star Wars, and his third video looked at the elements of creativity.
His fourth video is on system failure:
Our system of law doesn't acknowledge the derivative nature of creativity. Instead, ideas are regarded as property, as unique and original lots with distinct boundaries. But ideas aren't so tidy. They're layered, they’re interwoven, they're tangled. And when the system conflicts with the reality... the system starts to fail.
I have a piece up at The Conversation on Twitter being sued for defamation:
Twitter is being sued for defamation by a Melbourne man who was wrongly identified as the author of a “hate blog” directed at writer and TV personality, Marieke Hardy.
Hardy posted a tweet last year to “name and shame” Joshua Meggitt, the Melbourne man she incorrectly identified as the blog’s author, leading Meggitt to sue Twitter for defamation.
While Meggitt and Hardy have already apparently reached a (confidential) legal settlement, the broader issue of Twitter’s moral culpability and legal responsibility for allegedly defamatory tweets has now been brought sharply into focus.
This is the first time under Australian law Twitter has been sued for defamation, and it raises three interesting legal questions with respect to the liability of online intermediaries or platforms, such as Twitter, Facebook and YouTube.
Read the full post here.
Star Wars Uncut, a complete, feature-length replication of the original Star Wars film, completely crowd-sourced and edited together using submitted 15-second snippets, has been released online after years of production:
In 2009, Casey Pugh asked thousands of Internet users to remake "Star Wars: A New Hope" into a fan film, 15 seconds at a time. Contributors were allowed to recreate scenes from Star Wars however they wanted. Within just a few months SWU grew into a wild success. The creativity that poured into the project was unimaginable.
SWU has been featured in documentaries, news features and conferences around the world for its unique appeal. In 2010 we won a Primetime Emmy for Outstanding Creative Achievement In Interactive Media.
There is more information at http://StarWarsUncut.com.
Watch the movie:
David Carr and Brian Stelter, in this TimesCast video, discuss the decision by Wikipedia to close on Wednesday to educate its audience about proposed antipiracy legislation in Congress that it considers a threat to an open Internet. Time to crack open those old copies of Encyclopedia Britannica.
Media Release: Senator Scott Ludlam, Wednesday January 18th, 2011
As Wikipedia goes on strike to protest the proposed ‘Stop Online Piracy Act’ (SOPA) currently before the US Congress, the Greens have called on the Australian Government to take a stand in defence of Australian internet users and protect the viability of the medium.
Australian Greens communications spokesperson Senator Scott Ludlam pointed to the global blackout of online encyclopaedia Wikipedia as an example of the depth of the campaign to prevent the bill from becoming law.
“Has the Australian Government made any representation whatsoever to the US Government on this issue? Do they recognise that there will be little purpose in investing tens of billions of dollars in the NBN if the US copyright industry cripples the medium itself?
“As an example of breathtaking overreach by US copyright interests, the SOPA proposal and its cousin PIPA are hard to beat. The bills will institutionalise far-reaching, unaccountable censorship in order to protect the commercial interests of a handful of powerful media companies. The bills risk the broad-scale criminalisation of filesharing, the decimation of the open source community and tactical use of financial blockades against commercial competitors or non-commercial sites.
“SOPA would block entire non-US websites in the United States as a response to select infringing material. This includes Australian sites, and the online operations of Australian businesses.
“Under SOPA, US courts could bar online advertising networks and payment facilitators from doing business with allegedly infringing websites, bar search engines from linking to such sites, and require internet service providers to block access to such sites.”
Senator Ludlam said the bill would introduce extreme penalties for the unauthorised streaming copyrighted content.
“The bill makes unauthorised streaming of copyrighted content a criminal offence, with a maximum penalty of five years in prison for ten such infringements within six months.”
Media Contact: Giovanni Torre - 0417 174 302
The Convergence Review is an independent review established by the Australian Government to examine the policy and regulatory frameworks that apply to the converged media and communications landscape in Australia. The Convergence Review Committee is chaired by Glen Boreham with Malcolm Long and Louise McElvogue as committee members.
Today the committee released the Convergence Review Interim Report. The report sets out the committee's vision for fundamental change to the regulatory framework of Australia's digital economy, and identifies key areas for reform:
I will try and read the report in its entirety over the next few days and post some thoughts.
Image via Wikipedia
Every Monday morning I appear on Andrew Bartlett's 4ZzZ breakfast radio show to discuss some of the current public and political issues of the week.
This week we discussed whether Facebook is making us miserable, the possible regulation of social media in Australian politics, the Republican primary content in America, and federal politics, including possible constitutional recognition of Aboringal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples:
In the US, PBS will be showing shortly a documentary series called America in Primetime that will talk about the best shows created since the invention of television:
America in Primetime is structured around the most com-pelling shows on television today, unfolding over four hours and weaving between past and present. Each episode focuses on one character archetype that has remained a staple of primetime through the generations - the Independent Woman, the Man of the House, the Misfit, and the Crusader -- capturing both the continuity of the character, and the evolution. The finest television today has as its foundation the best television of yesterday.
The series has been getting great reviews - check out this one from NPR here.
Here's an eight-minute video introduction to the show:
I can't wait to watch this series.
Every Monday morning I appear on Andrew Bartlett's 4ZzZ breakfast radio show to discuss some of the current public and political issues of the week. This week we discussed federal Australian politics, the Apple-Samsung patent battle, vegemite chips and competition law, and I defended FoxNews:
I've blogged a few times about a proect called Everything is a Remix by New York filmmaker Kirby Ferguson, which looks at "remix" within our culture. His first video looked at remix remix within music, his second video looked at remix within film, focusing on Star Wars, and his third video looked at the elements of creativity.
He has now posted a new video, which isn't technically a part of the series, but was made by Rob G. Wilson to highlight a variety of things in the movie The Matrix that appear quite similar to works in other movies:
Techdirt blogs about this latest video here.
An article I wrote on the 2010 federal election has been published by the Alternative Law Journal:
This article analyses the 2010 federal election and the impact the internet and social media had on electoral law, and what this may mean for electoral law in the future. Four electoral law issues arising out of the 2010 election as a result of the internet are considered, including online enrolment, regulation of online advertising and comment, fundraising and the role of lobby groups, especially when it comes to crowdsourcing court challenges. Finally, the article offers some suggestions as to how the parliament and the courts should respond to these challenges.
Every Monday morning I appear on Andrew Bartlett's 4ZzZ breakfast radio show to discuss some of the current public and political issues of the week. This week we discussed the debate over prostate cancer screening, depression and Beyond Blue, Steve Jobs, the Brisbane International Film Festival and federal politics:
Every Monday morning I appear on Andrew Bartlett's 4ZzZ breakfast radio show to discuss some of the current public and political issues of the week. This week we discussed federal politics, pokies and tax reform, some US politics, Syria and Facebook (among other things):
Every Monday morning I appear on Andrew Bartlett's 4ZzZ breakfast radio show to discuss some of the current public and political issues of the week. This week we discussed 9/11, At Home with Julia, Australian politics and sport:
Every Monday morning I appear on Andrew Bartlett's 4ZzZ breakfast radio show to discuss some of the current public and political issues of the week. This week we discussed WikiLeaks, some interesting people visiting Brisbane (including John Cleese, John Waters, David Sedaris and Ira Glass), pokies and the Salvation Army and the fallout from the High Court's decision on the Malaysia Solution:
Australian law firm Marque Lawyers is using Twitter to select who they will interview for their summer clerkships. Not only is this a really innovative use of Twitter, it also a remarkably unorthodox strategy to emerge from the traditionally conservative legal profession. The advertisement also demonstrates a sense of humour, something you also don't typically associate with lawyers. This social media stunt will no doubt generate some publicity and goodwill for Marque Lawyers (as well as some disapproving looks from some parts of the legal profession) but the real test will be whether this results in high quality summer clerks for the firm.
You can read the advertisement below or visit the Marque Lawyers website here.
Every Monday morning I appear on Andrew Bartlett's 4ZzZ breakfast radio show to discuss some of the current public and political issues of the week. This week we discussed Libya, American Presidential politics, federal politics, State politics, Steve Jobs and choppergate:
(And my apologies for the bad audio. Please contact me if you have any ideas as to how I can better capture the audio each week.)
I'm participating in a new weekly podcast with a few friends - Dan Barrett from Televised Revolution, Michael Meloni from Somebody Think of the Children, and Sarah Moran from @reviewbrisbane - called Digital Much. Episode 15 of Digital Munch is now online for your listening pleasure (minus Sarah Moran):
We talk each week about digital culture and digital media on Digital Munch, but what effects is it actually having upon our lives. What are the negative implications of digital media on our lives, but also, how has it enriched our lives?
Podcasting! Alcohol! Web Addiction! Domain Name Addiction! Batgirl Costumes!
We cover it all.
As with every episode of Digital Munch, we review a snack as we talk all things digital. In the Digital Munch bowl this week is Kelloggs Frosted Chocolate Cookie Dough Pop Tarts.
I'm participating in a new weekly podcast with a few friends - Dan Barrett from Televised Revolution, Michael Meloni from Somebody Think of the Children, and Sarah Moran from @reviewbrisbane - called Digital Much. The fourteenth episode of Digital Munch is now online for your listening pleasure (minus Sarah Moran):
Google Plus. It comes on the Internet now.
What does the panel think of this new social networking service? While some of us see the service and its potential as the absolute bees knees, others are far from convinced.
As with every episode of Digital Munch, we review a snack as we talk all things digital. In the Digital Munch bowl this week is Arnotts TeeVee Snacks Malt Sticks.
I'm participating in a new weekly podcast with a few friends - Dan Barrett from Televised Revolution, Michael Meloni from Somebody Think of the Children, and Sarah Moran from @reviewbrisbane - called Digital Much. The thirteenth episode of Digital Munch is now online for your listening pleasure (minus Sarah Moran):
Death. It’s an unfortunate part of life, but we all have to face it at various points through our existence. In this day and age of digital media where a digital fingerprint can last forever, how do we deal with death? How do we talk about death when a notable figure passes away? What happens to our own public profiles when we die?
With singer Amy Winehouse passing away this week and death fresh in our collective 2.0 minds, this was as good a time as any to discuss the impact death has on our online activities.
As with every episode of Digital Munch, we review a snack as we talk all things digital. In the Digital Munch bowl this week is Kettle Chips Peri Peri variety.
I am interviewed about the R18+ classification for games, internet filtering and Facebook by Stilgherrian in this week's edition of Patch Monday:
An R18+ classification for computer games is long overdue in Australia and internet filtering based on the Interpol blacklist is "reasonable enough", says legal expert Peter Black. However, he does have concerns.
The decision by South Australia's Attorney-General John Rau to "re-badge" all MA15+ games as R18+ to further restrict their access in that state is "very strange", says Black. He also notes the lack of oversight of the Interpol blacklist.
Black teaches internet and media law at the Queensland University of Technology. On this week's Patch Monday podcast he discusses the many recent legal moves in Australia that affect the internet and technology, including:
- The Standing Committee of Attorneys-General (SCAG) decision to introduce the R18+ games classification;
- An inquiry into a legislated right to privacy;
- The spread of "voluntary" internet filtering against the Interpol blacklist;
- Laws relating to cybercrime; and
- Calls to bring Facebook under control.
"Certainly the Interpol list is a good list," says Black. "I am comforted by the fact that it does require at least two law enforcement agencies in two different countries to refer sites." He is concerned, though, that blacklisting could be used as leverage against recalcitrant hosting providers.
The SCAG meeting also resulted in calls for more regulation of Facebook and other social networking services, including the possibility of Facebook being restricted in Australia to those aged 18 and up rather than the existing age limit of 13, as well as the ability for parents to access their children's profiles.
"It's a monumentally stupid idea," Black says. "What more do you need me to say?"
Patch Monday also includes my usual look at some of last week's news headlines.
To leave an audio comment on the program, Skype to stilgherrian, or phone Sydney 02 8011 3733.
Running time: 42 minutes, 24 seconds
Every Monday morning I appear on Andrew Bartlett's 4ZzZ breakfast radio show to discuss some of the current public and political issues of the week. This week we discussed the carbon tax, the News of the World controversy, Queensland state politics and the Dalai Lama:
I'm participating in a new weekly podcast with a few friends - Dan Barrett from Televised Revolution, Michael Meloni from Somebody Think of the Children, and Sarah Moran from @reviewbrisbane - called Digital Much. The twelfth episode of Digital Munch is now online for your listening pleasure. Unfortunately I wasn't able to participate in this episode, so it will probably be much more enjoyable listening as a result:
This week we talk coffee ordering. With regular panelists Peter Black interstate and Sarah Moran feeling unwell, Michael and Dan take this opportunity to have a chat with Mike Boyd from Cupstart.com – an online takeaway coffee ordering platform.
What is Cupstart, how does it work, and what challenges has Mike encountered as he set up the service? We discuss it all on this weeks podcast.
With so much discussion of Cupstart, don’t think that we’ve forgotten about our weekly snack. Heavens, no. This week the panel sample Kooka’s Country Cookies.
We love to hear feedback from you about the podcast and any snack recommendations. So, please leave comments. Also, don’t forget that you can subscribe to the show on iTunes. Just click HERE.