Eirik and Jon have been writing about Howard Dean, the Democratic presidential candidate who’s blogging. Jon also pointed me to Dan Gillmor’s interesting analysis of Dean’s net campaign. Following links around about I was fascinated to see that Dean’s been a guest blogger for Lawrence Lessig. Now, Lessig, you know, is a forefigure in the fight for a more sensible copyright legislation for digital works, and his blog has a large readership that is expert in this area. They’re a vocal lot too, and Lessig’s posts often get scores and even hundreds of comments. So by posting to Lessig’s blog, Dean gets a different readership.

Dean’s blog posts have not been long, but they have attempted to address the many, complex issues raised in the comments to posts. As Eirik writes, the difference between a post like this from Dean, and a post from Poul Nyrup (former Prime Minister of Denmark) is striking. Nyrup’s blog is musing, thoughtful and often pleasant reading, and there are descriptions of a politicians life, and fairly abstract political visions, but it’s lacking in political action. He has no comments or discussions and doesn’t link. Mind you, Nyrup scores a few points simply by being Danish: an equivalent to his fond memories of last year at the Roskilde Festival (June 29, no permalink) is unlikely to appear on Dean’s much more focussed site. I don’t think Nyrup’s really blogging for success, he’s blogging for pleasure. He’s already been a head of government, of course.

Lessig sees Dean’s guest blogging as more than just another distribution channel for political propaganda, he sees it as democratising: a new and more valuable space for genuine debate between indivuals and their politicians. After the visit, Lessig wrote:

[E]very serious candidate should spend time in just such an open, egalitarian place. Everyone now recognizes that the leading Democratic candidate is the leading candidate in part because of how his message spreads in places like this. They should all find places where they can do the same ó unprotected by handlers, exposed to many with strong and deep knowledge of a subject, and open to fair criticism. Let there be one week on a blog for every five choreographed ìtown hallsî, and weíll begin to see something interesting.

There were problems too, of course. Lessig’s a professor of law at Stanford, and when he hosted Dean, Stanford requested that he move his blog to a personal server because the university did not wish to be seen as endorsing one candidate. Although Lessig has later said that he’s not specifically endorsing Dean, and has invited other candidates to guestblog too, people have tended to assume that Dean’s presence on Lessig’s blog meant that Dean supported Lessig’s copyright agenda. This is not the case (“they have no policy on that yet”), although Dean’s internet team are “big Lessig fans”. From the looks of things, Dean’s found himself a pretty impressive internet team.


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

Screenshot of a paragraph from a New York Times article published May 12, 2026. Text reads: "The price of tomatoes -tart bursts of flavor in salads and sandwiches — surged nearly 40 percent in April from a year ago on a combination of bad weather, high tariffs and climbing transportation costs."
AI STORIES

Genre glitches and unexpected promotional phrases as a sign of AI writing

A genre glitch is a characteristic of LLM-assisted writing where the text suddenly switches genre, typically inserting a short promotional phrase full of sensory details into an informational text. Genre glitches occur when a word in the generated text is heavily associated with a genre or context that is markedly […]

Top of a ransom note from Shinyhunters hacking group. Text reads: "SHINYHUNTERS rooting your systems since '19 ;) ShinyHunters has breached Instructure (again). Instead of contacting us to resolve it they ignored us and did some "security patches"."
Networked Politics University politics

UiB self-hosts the open source version of Canvas, so wasn’t affected by the breach

On May 1st Canvas announced a security breach, and then yesterday the system was hacked. The login page was replaced by a ransom note: if universities don’t pay up by 12 May, student data will be released. Here’s what the login page looked like yesterday: Way back in 2015, when […]

AI and algorithmic culture Networked Politics

AI-generated images, fascist aesthetics: Dieselbrølet and Heimatstrom

My German is pretty dodgy, so when I first saw Heimatstrom on Bluesky, shared by Roland Meyer, a professor of visual culture at Universität Zürich’s Digital Society Initiative, I misinterpreted it and thought it was a far-right campaign. But no, Heimatstrom is a group of left-wing environmentalists using fascist AI […]

Photo of a billboard ad at Oslo S train station showing a smiliing conductor and the text "Du må ikke sove. Joda, bare sov du."
AI STORIES

“Du må ikke sove”: a floating motif detached from its meaning (or: LLMs can write Norwegian but miss cultural references)

There’s a new ad for the train between Stavanger and Oslo in Norway that uses a line from Arnulf Øverland’s famous anti-fascist poem Du må ikke sove (“You must not sleep”). Du må ikke sove, you must not sleep, the ad says. And then it flips it, jovially, joda, bare […]

Academics in Norway: Sign this petition asking for research-based discussions of how to use AI in universities

I just signed a petition calling for Norwegian universities to use research expertise on AI when deciding how to implement it, rather than having decisions be made mostly administratively. ,  If you are a researcher in Norway, please read it and sign it if you agree – and share with anyone else who might be interested. The petition was written by three researchers at UiT: Maria Danielsen (a philosopher who completed her PhD in 2025 on AI and ethics, including discussions of art and working life), Knut Ørke (Norwegian as a second language), and Holger Pötzsch (a professor of media studies with many years of research on digital media, video games, disruption, and working life, among other topics).  This is not about preventing researchers from exploring AI methods in their research. It is about not uncritically accepting the hype that everyone must use AI everywhere without critical reflection. It is about not introducing Copilot as the default option in word processors, or training PhD candidates to believe they will fall behind if they do not use AI when writing articles, without proper academic discussion. Changes like these should be knowledge-based and discussed academically, not merely decided administratively, because they alter the epistemological foundations of research. Maria wrote to me a couple of months ago because she had read my opinion piece in Aftenposten in which I called for a strong brake on the use of language models in knowledge work. She was part of a committee tasked with developing UiT’s AI strategy and was concerned because there was so much hype and so few members of the committee with actual expertise in AI. I fully support the petition. There are probably some good uses for AI in research, but the uncritical, hype-driven insistence that we must simply adopt it everywhere is highly risky. There are many researchers in Norway with strong expertise in AI, language, ethics, working life, and culture. We must make use of this expertise. This is also partly about respect for research in the humanities, social sciences, psychology, and law. Introducing AI at universities and university colleges is not merely a technical issue, and perhaps not even primarily a technical one. It concerns much more: philosophy of science, methodological reflection, epistemology, writing, publishing, the working environment, and more. […]

screenshot of Grammarly - main text in the middle, names of experts on the left with reccomendations and on the right more info about the expert review feature
AI and algorithmic culture Teaching

Grammarly generated fake expert reviews “by” real scholars

Grammarly is a full on AI plagiarism machine now, generating text, citations (often irrelevant), “humanizing” the text to avoid AI checkers and so on. If you’re an author or scholar, they also have been impersonating and offering “feedback” in your name. Until yesterday, when they discontinued the Expert Review feature due to a class action lawsuit. Here are screenshots of how it worked.