Is The Net Revolution Breaking Faith? 109
It's sometimes hard to spot such consequences; Net culture is not known for carefully dissecting its own implications. In an essay called "The Shape of the Electronic Republic," part of a collecction called Composing Cyberspace, (Richard Holeton, editor), technological historian Langdon Winner wonders whether the computer revolution is committed to any particular set of social ideas. If so, he wonders, what are they? Where are they being proposed and argued?
It's a valid question, even if it assumes the computer revolution was shaped like other revolutions, by a handful of dogmatic leaders advocating specific principles.
There are powerful new political values developing online, and sooner or later, even politicians will begin speaking to them: the hacker ethic of creativity and exploration, which has brought joy back to work; the passion for freely exchanged information exemplified by Open Source and Free software; the individualism released by decentralized software programs and communications systems; and skepticism toward traditional ideas of intellectual property and ownership of culture, to name a few.
And yes, a new strain of rationalist political sensibility is emerging from this tech generation. But Winner is partly right: we have few forums where these ideas can be intelligently debated, and few understandings of common goals, if there even are any. Some of the best minds in cyberspace are setting their preferences so they can block out all that noise and confusion.
Many of the early Net philosophers gathered around the now-corporatized Wired magazine. But the explosion of a many-to-many, distributed information system, from Weblogs to P2P to IM, discourges common gathering spots. Both the volume of data and epidemic hostility have risen. As a result, data is filtered, moderated and refiltered. There are few places where people consider the kind of questions Winner legitimately asks, so the kind of discussion Winner wants poses a conundrum: either somebody has to assert control over public spaces online, or this revolution may become Balkanized, flaming and moderating itself to death.
"To mention revolution also brings to mind the relationships of different social classes," Winner writes. "Will the computer revolution bring about the victory of one class over another? Will it be the occasion for a realignment of class loyalties?" Such questions rarely intrude on the busy, pragmatic world of computer science, engineering and marketing, he cautions.
"Those actively engaged in promoting the transformation -- hardware and software engineers, managers of microelectronics firms, computer salesmen, and the like -- are busy pursuing their own ends ... But the sheer dynamism of technical and economic activity in the computer industry evidently leaves its members little time to ponder the historical significance of their own activity."
While they're not pondering, the consequences they create continue apace. In Virtual States: The Internet and the Boundaries of the Nation-State, Jerry Everard warns that too little thought has been given to the systematic inequalities that globalization engenders. In order to develop a telecommunications structure, for instance, developing countries like Vietnam, Cambodia, and India are forced to turn to multinational corporations to set up and manage their computer networks. This leads to the rapid establishment of infrastructure in profit-generating major urban areas, but it often leaves rural areas to fend for themselves. Thus in India, Everard writes, though there is a thriving software industry, the vast bulk of the subcontinent has yet to gain access even to telephones.
Such realities are almost unknown to this generation of tech workers and enthusiasts. As John Raulston Saul wrote, this is a brilliant, successful and creative culture, but an Unconscious Civilization in many ways, unaware of the political realities spawned by the very technology they are making and using, or by the daunting challenges the unchecked rise of corporatism poses. Sometimes the fallout can be serious. As a consequence, it created an Unconscious Revolution.
In his new book republic.com University of Chicago Law Professor Cass Sunstein warns that the emerging Net culture -- busy creating personalized "me" media -- threatens to undermine one of the basic tenets of democracy -- the willingness of people with diverse viewpoints to speak to and hear one another.
The Net is beginning to endanger a democratic society, Sunstein fears, with its fragmentation, advanced moderation and filtering systems. What makes free expression work, Sunstein asks? His answer: exposure to materials that people might not have chosen in advance. Unplanned, unprogrammed encounters are central to democracy. A culture that offers increasingly customized speech control preferences enables people to eliminate from their screens and minds anything they might not want to see or hear or might disagree with.
Why are people content to have their inputs so restricted? In part, because free speech online has nearly buckled under the onslaught of flamers, fanatics, spammers, and other e-vandals. The Digital Citizen, driven underground, has taken to lurking. (Not Jefferson's idea either. If the Continental Congress had used moderating programs, it's hard to believe they would ever have agreed on a Constitution).
So the Net revolution, as revolutions will, has veered off, slowed down, and confounded expectations.
Next: Is Open Source the New Jerusalem?
Beh (Score:1)
The networked world will continue to be a thing and to grow in my opinion. The men who have invested their lives into it won't let it die without a fight from hell.
I'm not so sure.. (Score:3)
On the front of a poor country, what are we doing about it and how different is it from what we were doing before technology? During the 20's we thought we were kings, but reality hit us. Maybe the media could do a more justified approach to the problems of the world rather than create tantamount upheaveals which don't really exist. (case in point being watch the media talk about our current economic clime. Everyone from Fidelities ex pres to Greenspun himself are saying this is within normal bounds. Market correction, 15, 7, 2 year cycles of possible slows and gains, etc.)
We've got a long road to go, and due to technology it has the ability to shift much more readily, and much more apparently now. 5 years ago I thought I knew what was going to happen. Minor things like browser wars and such are easy to forcast, but where Internet2 begins and FTL communication come in, who knows. I follow a general Libertarian view, but are we ready for that much freedom? I feel I am, but by looking at all the worried day traders, they obviously have too much control.
Where are we going to be in 50 years. Severly poor countries ignored or snubbed by their neighbors? Will a global war for some resource take hold? Will space travel offer us anything but experiments, or can we use the moon as a resource? Will we find a better energy source, a more valid government, or shall we be relegated to a preindustrial age due to terrorism?
I don't know anymore, and you know what, I don't care. I'm living my life the best and most constructive way possible gaining whatever experiences I can along the way. That is what works for me. What I really wish is that we could legally cull the herd from time to time.
As I already said: (Score:2)
--
New political values? (Score:2)
It could be that we're now more aware of previously underground politics than we were.
Sunstein is wrong (Score:5)
Take something like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Before the net, for the most part you'd have to rely on the relatively bland reporting from traditional newspapers and maybe a quick 2 minute clip on the news if something big happens.
On the Internet it takes just a few minutes to get not only very detailed coverage, but coverage from any number of political points of view, from far right Israeli supporters to far left Palestinian supporters.
If some people still choose only to get one narrow view, it's because they've been trained so well by traditional media outlets.
Ok Katz, that's it (Score:3)
If I want to talk to self-important assholes with rampant ego problems, there's always alt.religion.kibology. I read
Sorry to post offtopic here, but I thought you deserved to know.
-Kasreyn
Inherently wrong (Score:2)
User1: I like eggs.
User2: Anyone know the current market capitalization of the top 17 S&P 500 companies?
User1: Xena, Princess Warrior is cool.
User3: Abortionists kill babies. Kill abortionists!
User1: I like babies. They're delicious.
The problem is, is that people in real life, out walking in the crowded streets of NYC, don't randomly meet and discuss randomly. People generally don't talk to people outside of their church (very narrow political/moral spectrum) or their work (similar political/moral spectrum). True, you won't find any Mac zealots on Slashdot, but still, online discussions are MUCH more diverse and ideas are flying around MUCH more than they do in meatspace ('real' life).
Typical media (Score:1)
How can the media possibly push their agenda if people could read about BOTH sides of a particular issue. Therefore they HAVE to show how miserable it is after overhyping it to get people to jump onto the bandwagon and sink it (is that mixing metaphores?)
Now that the market is normalizing, the media is showing the gloom and doom to show how unreliable any other source of information is. If they cannot make a buck on it and it's a direct competitor, it must be governmental controlled and if that doesn't work immediately there is always predict it's demise so people do not start relying on it.
DanH
Cavalry Pilot's Reference Page [cavalrypilot.com]
To paraphrase Dennis Leary... (Score:1)
Grow up, next!
(still whimpering) "But I'm upset because I wanted something so much different and.."
Hey, pal, join the club. I'm tired of cyber-ivory tower-intellectual bemoaning that fact that their pie-in-the-sky idealism isn't meshing with reality, so that means, since something is unfolding differently then how they planned, it must be a Bad Thing.
Moderation Necessary for Healthy Exchange (Score:3)
What can we do? The best thing to do IMHO is to apply a sort of "darwinistic" moderation system. Comments and ideas that are inherently inferior are filtered from view. For example, on slashdot, if one idea is bad, it can be moderated so low that most people cannot see it. Then, any replies (i.e., descendants) of that message are also rendered invisible.
This sort of system makes it easier to concentrate on the more important (or better), and thus, more highly moderated comments. Slashdot has created a system that is IMHO ahead of its time. I think we will see and more and more of this kind of darwinistic content control over the internet as the signal to noise ratio rises, and I think that it will lead to a better exchange of ideas, and in the end, everyone will benefit. Censorship will not be necessary because the system will inherently censor unwanted material. Thus inappropriate material will not be visible to thus who should not be viewing it. Since moderation is established by community standards, this actually fits the legal definition of obscenity, so any negatively moderated ideas are automatically, legally, obscene. This frees the admins of such a medium from legal obligation to monitor content.
Thus, it is clear that such a sytem is both necessary and beneficial, rather than restrictive. Given the current environment of net culture, with its pervasise goatsecx links [goatse.cx] and rampant flamage and trollage, such a system will unquestionably do more good than harm.
Re:Sunstein is wrong (Score:3)
The internet was founded on the exchange of information, but for a number of reasons, wasn't established with any real way to verify said info. And while the stories and opinions given by more traditional media aren't always complete or accurate, they still carry more validity in the minds of the public just due to tradition.
The information overload that the internet can so easily press on us seems to me to be an almost impossible challenge to reliably and fairly overcome. As people begin to realize that like the real world, the internet is full of people who want to take your money, not make the world a better place, of course their faith in it as a revolution will falter.
It's not that the internet isn't living up to its possibilities, it's that it's falling short of greatly accelerated and overstated expectations.
internet virtual community == myth (Score:3)
Is Slashdot becoming a gated virtual community? (Score:1)
A gated community is a self selected housing tract encircled by walls and a gate or two. You can easily get in if you live there, if you don't, you need to wait at the gate until someone comes for you. So, if you're a pizza driver (cf. Snowcrash), you need to be expected, and someone needs to wave you in. If you're visiting friends, better call first. If you're poor, a missionary or the wrong skin color, forget it.
Gated communities are insular, and deprive their inhabitants of serendepitous encounters that happen in mixed neighborhoods. They are a form of self isolation, and can be very damaging to democracy. If you never meet a person who thinsk differently than you, your worldview shrinks.
Now, is Slashdot turning into a gated community? Is self serving pro Linux moderation closing our mindests to new viewpoints? Will Slashdot 10 years from now be a home to old fogeys, ranting about Linux, when the hot new OS is based on Be, or Multics of Plan 9 or something?
We should be worried about this. One solution I propose is to randomly mod up a -1 post to +5, and randomly mod down a +5 post to -1, just to mix things up a little. Remember Hegel, a little conflict is good as it leads to a healthier synthesis.
this is a good thing... (Score:1)
Um...how fast does anything evolve? (Score:2)
Excuse me? Isn't that a bit strange, particularly to see it "posted" (how long ago was that word used by so many in such a way) on a website, particularly one like Slashdot? I'm typing this, and looking at words that once upon a very recent time were not in existence or used the way they currently are. "Preview," "URL," "HTML," these terms have become a part of our lives. Granted, the general population does not use them as commonly as the more tech-savvy of us do, but what about other things? How many people use IM clients? Does anyone remember how arduous it was to have a pen pal as a kid, in another country, and struggle with the mail systems as we passed letters back and forth? Now, we can chat on IRC, AOL, ICQ, or just "plain old ordinary email." Imagine that...email, high-speed "written" communication without hindrance by distance or border, now viewed as commonplace.
Okay, so the get-rich-quick people who went gaga over IPOs and whatnot perhaps got a bit misled, or did the misleading themselves, depending on who you ask. Is it not profound that such a phenomenon could take place at all? That an entire class of people could come into being, rise and then fall in plain view of the world?
The bottom line is this. Throughout time, breakthroughs in communications produce massive change, like a nitrous oxide shot into the evolutionary engine of society. Still, however, it takes time for that engine to accelerate, and the speed still carries for a time after the nitrous is no longer pumping into the engine. And, most importantly of all, even after speed returns to normal, you've still come all that way farther down the road, and your view through the windshield is no longer what it was just a short time ago. And unlike a car, there is no reverse here.
And now, as I preview this, I see the irony of ironies in what I am saying...the signature I've had all along:
First world IT imperialism must stop! (Score:2)
The third world needs to be brought into the net age, without shameless profiteering. This will eliminate lots of human suffering, once all humans are connected in one network. Think of how many Linus's and RMS's there are in third world countries like Nepal, Nairobi, Rhodesia, Malaysia and France. Think of what good they could accomplish once they get on the net and start communicating with other like minded people.
I call for the UN to mandate the IT companies sell older networking equipment, PC's and software far below cost to third world countries, to help leapfrog them into the net age (much like pharmaceutical companies have humanely decided to offer AIDS drugs below cost to AIDS-stricken Africans). As a species, we have far too much to lose.
Surprise Surprise (Score:1)
The same as they've done everywhere else... big deal. No surprise there. Pioneering net geeks have been operating under the radar a little too long for their comfort - expect to see 24-36 months of draconian American Legislation on everything from 'CyberTerrorism', 'Censorship', 'CopyRight Control' - all inspired by the Ruling Class(TM)®© (CEO-Senator-Golf-Foursome-types) . You will not see: Privacy Protection, Democratic Process reforms to embrace new modes of Operation/Technology, Fair Use, Freedom of Speech, increased tolerance, increased understanding or much else that this great communication tool couldfacilitate. Americans are so polluted by McCarthy inspired visions of The Red Menace that they would rather Capitalists further entrench their imperialism; than demand their Government build bridges to various worthy goals... Didn't you Yanks start a revolution about these same issues once before? Taxation without representation... do you think your representatives are representing your best interest? If not who's then...?
Katz is really just dancing around the issue.
Align yourself with the people who want to free ourselves from this mess - Read
Katz gets it wrong, again. (Score:5)
Even if you read /. at -1, the majority of comments posted to an article are on topic. Yet, I browse most articles at 3, and set my threshold lower only for those articles I'm especially interested in. It's not that the posts at 2 and 1 and often even 0 don't have interesting things to say, it's just that I don't have time to read all those comments.
Katz's identification of the problem can be summed up in two sentences:
And as we've come to expect from Katz, no suggested solution is proffered.
Why are people content to have their input filtered this way, Katz asks? Because most of us accept the reality that this volume of communication imposes upon us, and don't take it personally if other people choose not to read our comments.
"The Net is beginning to endanger a democratic socieety, Sunstein fears, with its fragmentation, advanced moderation and filtering systems."
Oh, please. Before the net, Jon, you and I had no way to communicate at all. Now you can talk, and if I choose to, I can listen to you; and if I choose to, I can ignore you. How is this less free than the situation before the net, when you and I had no effective means of communication at all, regardless of whether we wanted to communicate or not?
Freedom of speech includes more than its mere name would suggest: freedom of speech includes the freedom not to speak, the freedom to listen, and the freedom not to listen. If people choose to exercise their freedom not to listen, that is democracy in action, and not a mortal threat to democracy, as Katz would have us believe.
There is nothing wrong with NOT wiring the whole. (Score:1)
Everard seems to think that its a problem that part of the nation doesn't have telephones while another part is doing really well in software development?
Says who?
Easy, the standard "I know better because I live here crap" that these intellectuals love to spout. Obviously it would make these poor unwashed heathens many times better if they had net access.
Sure, why not, lets trample yet another culture. I am quite sure a big portion wouldn't give a rats ass for a telephone, let alone net access. A lot of culture would be destroyed if the outside world were allowed to impose itself on them, and IMPOSE is what they will do.
Suddenly centuries old routine would be tossed aside as too barbaric, sexist, or just as religious intolerance.
No, I think these other parts of the "underdeveloped" world should be allowed to stay that way a long long time, because it is not a wrong state to be in.
Backwards (Score:1)
Okay so here are these guys saying Net Revolution, Jefferson, Freedom, Constitution, blah blah blah. What they have to realize is that in the Internet World as we know it, you have choices that don't exist in the real world.
The internet isn't the United States, sure some laws due fall into it, but it is an alternative universe. You can be totally anonymous. You can speak an opinion, you can ignore an opinion. YOu can block out an individual entirely or speak together as a community. That is the beauty of the machine. Here you are, connected to millions of people World Wide. If you speak your mind in a forum, thousands, literally thousands of people can read and get to respond with their opinion right back. They can ignore your post or agree with you. That is what makes this thing called the internet so beautiful. You make the rules in a system built on rules. (I know, nearly a Matrix quote)
Yes these rules can be bent broken or ammended and that is why people are addicted. That is why my mom at 57 years old checks her email and chats to my brother where previously she wrote on stationary and called over the phone racking up long-distance charges.
The internet is a revolution but not in the sense that Jon Katz means. It isn't a new country where democratic (totalitarian) leaders force their people to obey. The Net isn't going to redefine the class system as we know it. The net is a new means of communication. After all that was its original purpose, no? To send data back and forth across great distances instead of flying with the diskette in hand. It just evolved a few giant leaps further into the mess that it is today.
It will continue this evolution too. (until we can all communicate telepathically, then it will be used for Q3 Deathmatch) It isn't the internet revolution I would be concentrating on so hard. Granted it is just awe inspiring to fathom its intended greatness. I would concentrate on the technological revolution in general.
Back in 1997, the fastest computer a home user could buy was a 200MHz Pentium Pro. Four years later we are at 1500MHz. We have supercomputers contained within laptops and Series of computers that take up 1/20th the space of its later-day brothers but produce more clockcycles-per-second than the older boys did heat. Holographic drives are coming eventually as well as magnetic ram. YOu can walk around college campuses on a wireless VPN or use a friggin' web pad to check out stock. We have come along way, you must admit. What is weird is we haven't hit an impass yet. Moore's Theory (There is no such thing as a law) still holds true. (Eventually it will be broken, give it time)
I just think this whole idea that the internet is some massive City State is rediculous. It is no where near that point, yet. What we need to do as a whole is work together to make it perfect. Make it more human-centric. (A good philosophy by the way)
Okay, who wants a wet wire?!
~AdmrlNxn
Whistler is to Zeus as Linux is to Hercules
Re:Sunstein is wrong (Score:3)
I'll agree with the idea of "monolithic" coverage. Yes, old-school press and news outlets have been monolithic in their coverage for years and years.
But I disagree with your essential assertion that the internet engenders a more "polylithic" (or, I suppose, "polyphonic") view -- and is (ergo) better.
I mean, yeah, many viewpoints are better than one viewpoint -- you can argue this successfully -- but many viewpoints don't necessarily get us any closer to the "truth" -- or, more realistically, don't *necessarily* approach a heightened or a more critical understanding of the specific events in which we hope to *approach truth*.
It is here -- that many voices aren't necessarily better than one voice -- where I differ with many of the critics (Katz included) that call this sort of thing a "revolution."
The polyphony engendered by the internet is (I suppose) a necessary condition of heightened critical awareness but it's not a sufficient condition. It doesn't (by itself) guarantee we're getting "better" or "clearer" or more "critical" information on -- to use your example -- the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
What many critics fail to mention, I think, is that the *people who utilize the net* must develop a "critical awareness" above and beyond the information gathering abilities that the net allows We must be able to sort through the polyphony of voices and determine our own version of "truth" or at least determine the actions that we must take to lead us closer to "truth."
This is why I think that, yes, the net is nifty and all that -- but the burden still rests on the individual. Perhaps it partly rests upon the state or the nation to support the individual in his or her "mission to glean the truth." I don't know. I suspect that is dangerous.
But to imply that just because the net offers many voices we should embrace the net is, IMHO, a wrong headed reading of the "net revolution."
I think Katz's series, moreover, is flawed from the get-go. I don't understand his notion of "revolution." What, exactly, is the net "revolting" against? How do we differentiate revolution from evolution? And what if the net is actually a "counterrevolution?"
What if the revolution actually exists *outside* of the "internet" and is in fact the triumph of capitalism and the triumph of corporations to control the state?
What if the "net" is actually some sort of "socialist" counter-revolution that threatens to undermine the fundamental tenets of global capitalization? (It threatens, for example, to make extinct the notion of "intellectual property." I mean, really: just what is "intellectual property?" It's not a natural right. Where does our notion of "intellectual property" actually come from?)
Figured out the problem with Katz (Score:2)
Of course, what ELSE do you expect from Katz? He seems to think that his pathetic life will be made triumphant via the net. Dream on Jon!
Hogwash (Score:4)
Various people, Professor Sunstein at times among them, have always feared systems that are not designed to promote the messages they like, and supress the messages they dislike. They don't like political systems that seem to let the wrong kind of people 'win' and do not like systems that let the 'right' kind of message get filtered.
Democracy in a fundamental way requires a desire among a people for a common destiny. The idea of community can be an inclusive or exclusive thing. For example, the 'melting pot' theory of America is an inclusive model. The communities of the Amish are fundamentally exclusive. An Amish community does not desire a common destiny with the non-Amish community that surrounds it, it is designed to promote a separate, perhaps compatible destiny.
Democracy should be inclusive through reciprocity. That is to say, I include you and you include me. It should not be designed to be controlling. Slavery systems 'include' slaves in the society, but not in a democratic way.
The content regulation of media is primarily based on the concept of the right to not hear something. That is why there are certain words that can't be used during prime time television. One solution would be to tell people that if they don't like the media, TURN IT OFF. Then listening is not forced. The alternative, is to determine what is ok to say or not ok to say to avoid forced listening. This is Sunstein's preferred mode -- after all, he is afraid of people turning other people off, or having the freedom to do so. [Ok, maybe they aren't against the FREEDOM to do it, merely the EXERCISE of that freedom. That seems to be a distinction without a difference to me.]
Online communities are not exclusive by design. One can certainly be a member of multiple ones, and use that to cross-pollinate. SLASHDOT shows a fair bit of that. Filtering and moderation biases messages to be sure. However, filtering and moderation within one community does not mean that all communities share the same biases.
The kalidescope of viewpoints is complete when viewing the many pieces out there, not one piece in isolation. The ability to bring messages from many places in a short period of time or to filter and refilter make it possible to enjoy that kalidescope of views more easily. However, it does not readily submit to control of messages and results, which does seem to be what Professor Sunstein wants. I do not fear as he does.
Re:this is a good thing... (Score:1)
--
Hrmm "Revolution or 'New TV'" (Score:1)
The revolution we speak of will not be caused by those who have the luxury of access to the internet. It will be spearheaded by those who don't.
What planet is he on? (Score:1)
"It's a valid question, even if it assumes the computer revolution was shaped like other revolutions, by a handful of dogmatic leaders advocating specific principles."
AT&T, IBM, Microsoft, Apple, Netscape, the FSF, the US DoD. Script kiddies and half-assed journalists had nothing whatsoever to do with "shaping" the "revolution". Everyone who had a personal impact (Gates, Jobs/Wozniak, Dell, Stallman, etc) did so by becoming major economic and personal powers and throwing their weight around.
The "Specific Principles" they advocate are known today as "Standards" (or pretenders to Standards), and are as essential and fundamental to the "revolution" as the primacy of capital or labor.
The Slash and Burn Protocol (Score:2)
Some of this is "merely" the result of the leveling of the discussion to include people of all levels of education and cluelessness. We do not have the discussion dominated by large numbers of learned elders. We have a lot of people who participate on a casual basis, and we have teenagers who love their mischief in all of it's forms. You can add to the list for a long time.
The problems is that these varieties of human culture are not completely compatible with each other. And when you have this mixed all together, one crowd is turned off by another. Republicans vs Democrats, for a nice safe example.
Looking over the past few weeks, we see this institutionalized even here at Slash. Let's face it, on some topics, the Faithful of Slash are as intense and dogmatic as any religion or political operative.
Unfortunately the primary technique becomes one of Slash and Burn political discussion. The technology for interfacing different human cultures needs to be upgraded. If your technique and primary protocol for dealing with a culture alien to you is the Slash and Burn protocol, You will find that when there are too many people using it, you wind up with a desert.
Unkept Promiss (Score:2)
Re:Sunstein is wrong (Score:2)
I don't understand why people complain about information overload on the Internet. Nothing's coming through my monitor to "get me"...I do a search, read what's interesting, and go on with my life. I don't feel like there's some raging torrent o' data just waiting to sweep me off my feet if I don't process it all...I take what I need, then move on.
As far as the original thesis, I'm trying to figure out who it is exactly who has "faith" in a "computer revolution". It's a tool, and its impacts are not going to be as dramatic as some apparently want us to think. The impact is going to be pervasive and inescapable, but it's not like the sky's going to turn red and the seas are going to boil...
Hey, Katz! (Score:1)
Congratulations - you're the only thing on my ignore list.
Your articles are vapid trolls, and you manage to say less in 1000 words than most people can say in 100.
Oh, but don't feel bad - I'm willing to lose Karma just to say this:
Bye bye!
Re:Inherently wrong (Score:1)
Do we block out things we don't like? (Score:1)
"His answer: exposure to materials that people might not have chosen in advance. "
Sounds like a longing back for the age of opinion-pushing that we are now putting behind us (at least we net nerds). I'd like to see evidence that people are largely avoiding information they don't like.
I visit Operation Clambake [xenu.net] often. There Scientologists who have broken free because of that site - despite the scieno net nanny all the other efforts of the church. When even scientologists can willingly seek out critical information, then I think we should be able to, too.
Revolution? (Score:1)
What the "net revolution" can change on the world, and I mean not the electronic world?
While people are dying from starvation, stupid religious or political
differences, etc, all aroubd the globe, this revolution don't get
a "revolutionary".
Yeah, the Internet help to change some behaviours, but not so sensitive.
You can comunicate easily, but not always (Chian anyone?)
Or, try to say what this revolutio is to a Biafra's or Congo's starving child.
Or to a beduine.
The net revolution must flourish on the humankind, not
on the MARKETS.
Worst thing that could happen: (Score:2)
All internet buisnesses that arn't B2B fail. ISPs steadily lose memberships because of the lack of new content for customers. People with short attention spans depart the net to watch Friends reruns.
Flash-in-the-pan products die. Quick buck makers stop trying to conjure customer bases for stupid products and go back to making infomercials. Commercial releases decline. Software gets written because people ask for and use it.
Wait.
This is the *worst* thing? This sounds like a return to the uberelite early days of the net, before usenet was invaded by AOL, before spam, before the browser wars, before the invasion of incompatible protocols. Is there a lever that I can pull to cause this to happen? Sure, I'd be out of a job, but Camelot would be reborn. Small tradeoff, perhaps.
Re:Sunstein is wrong (Score:1)
So by using the 'net we get dozens of monolithic, inbred viewpoints ? ;-)
Take something like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Before the net, for the most part you'd have to rely on the relatively bland reporting from traditional newspapers and maybe a quick 2 minute clip on the news if something big happens.
Well...I don't really read the papers much, but find that certainly TV and Radio (BBC) tend to provide me with enough information to investigate further (on the net) if I'm sufficiently interested.
On the Internet it takes just a few minutes to get not only very detailed coverage, but coverage from any number of political points of view, from far right Israeli supporters to far left Palestinian supporters.
Ah, but the point is that I don't want detailed information about everything. I'd like a brief overview of what's going on in the world, and "traditional media" does this in a reasonable manner (as do Yahoo, ft.com etc). But the key thing about the net is that it allows me to specialize where I want.
Zeshan
net = democracy (Score:1)
People have a certain mindset and believes, and are therefore receptive only for a certain range of thoughts and ideas. People tend to filter out all information that conflicts with their mindset. It's like watching a FOX television show saying the moonlanding has never took place. Most people on Slashdot would simply not be open for this. So people do their own filtering.
On the other hand, people also tend to look actively for information that does agree with their mindset. Smart people continuously check their mindset against others and try to learn from that. The Net is the greatest tool for this, it offers all you can ask for to do this.
OT: IP and "natural" rights (Score:1)
what do you think a natural right is? I don't believe in natural law, I think its usually just a cop out to relieve people of the burden of supporting their views on right and wrong. Our rights are those we reach consensus for as a society and are willing to enforce (and let others have) as a society. IMHO your right to privacy is certainly no more "natural" than my right to IP.
But if I did believe in natural rights, or had to boil down a few "fundemental" rights, certainly the right to at some level own and control the fruits of one's labor would be on the list. This would include IP. (in fact, ownership of IP is more philosophically defensible than, say, land ownership.) As it turns out, there is a general societal consensus that agrees with me on the very basic ideas of IP and therefore its a right. Nothing more, nothing less.
Kahuna Burger
I wish... (Score:1)
Mac zealots on Slashdot (slightly o.t.) (Score:1)
vintermann looks at you with his big blue eyes
I might even buy a mac someday... Put that gun away please.
Moderation is essential (Score:1)
The Internet makes it trivial to use rules of interaction to create new kinds conversational architecture. In what social situation can you easily filter and order the most interesting comments?
The Internet has liberated the conversation and is an opportunity to forge new forms of Democracy.
Indeed Beh. Since when is hype "culture"? (Score:3)
Quite.
Television was supposed to usher in a utopia of universal education and look what that's become: Mind-numbing fluff, and the highest return-on-investment of any industry. It's not going away any time soon, is it?
The net was put together by people who have individual dreams of doing something neat. The hype about the net was put together primarily by people who were putting together hype rather than putting togehter the net. Yes they quoted some of the people working on it. So what? It's still a lot of hype.
And some of the people who put together parts of the net's applications were inspired by the hype. Again, so what? Some of the people who put together Motorola's Star Tak cellular phones were obviously inspired by Star Trek communicators. But that doesn't mean there wouldn't be cellular phones - or even folding ones - without a "Star Trek Culture", or that the lack of Iridium service would mean "the Cellular Phone Revolution" was "Breaking Faith".
It's one thing to have faith in people who actually MADE you a promise, and have them willfully fail to execute on it. It's quite another to have faith in the promises of media hype-master hangers-on and blame the real workers when the bullshit you were doesn't match what actually materializes.
And if some investors are paniced because they believed the hype, bought into the scams, and something completely different from what they expected happened, again so what? Something damned profitable for all concerned is still materializing, and it will still change the world. There's no free lunch, and no guaranteed investment. You have to do your own due dilligence, sort out the companies that will really build something profitable and invest in THOSE if you want your money to grow, and to stay around once the storms have subsided.
The networked world will continue to be a thing and to grow in my opinion. The men who have invested their lives into it won't let it die without a fight from hell.
Hear hear. And as one of the people building it I can assure you we're still on the job and it will get better.
Re:internet virtual community == myth (Score:2)
First, the people back then were all enthusiastic about what they were doing. You didn't own a modem unless you had figured out on your own that it would be nice to have one. These days, people go out and get an Internet connection because WIRED / Red Herring / Wallpaper / TV / your daily newspaper says it's cool. The vast majority of people on the net are clueless. They can surf on web pages but don't understand what a community is about.
Second, there are too many people on the net. On your average BBS, there would be on the order of a couple of hundred or thousand users with a handful of really active ones. On Slashdot, for instance, five minutes after a new article is posted, there will be 50 comments to it, most of which will contain goat sex, first post, beowulf clusters or microsoft sucks. With the lousy signal / noise ratio, nobody learns to really know eachother and thus no community is formed. This is true even for the more successful of the online virtual communities such as Slashdot.
Re:Ok Katz, that's it (Score:1)
heheh... hehehheh... hehehHAHAHA!! BWA-HAHAHAHA!!! HA HAHA HEE!! heheheh... whooo...
wait, you weren't serious, were you?
Doo-dee-doo! Boop boop boooh!Yah!!
Errors in newspapers (Score:1)
Could such a newspaper page even exist before the net? After all, you couldn't check could you? OK so the communist newspaper said something different but who knows who's lying? The world the media presents is far away. But the net _is_ the world, in a sense. You don't have to get it through anyone else.
Re:Inherently wrong (Score:2)
Oh yes you will.
"Macs are the machines on which the future of computing is designed, tested, and launched into public consciousness. Apple's latest operating system, Mac OS X, is just the latest example of this grand tradition."
-- David MacNeill
"I believe in the Mac platform
-- Graeme Devine, id Software
"Life is too short to use anything but a Mac; Windows is just not a human environment."
-- Roger Ebert
"The higher prices for Mac gear amount to a tax on intelligence, which historically has rarely proved wise."
-- Spider Robinson
"Sadly, in my experience this is true. Mac guys have a life; Linux guys get excited if the pizza delivery girl is flirty."
-- Tara Sanders
"Linux is only free if your time is worthless."
-- Simon Helton
Good point. (Score:2)
"I'm not a bitch, I just play one on
The Revolution hasen't even started... (Score:2)
The revolution is just beginning...
-----
Re:As I already said: (Score:1)
And, in answer to your
Virg
Re:Ok Katz, that's it (Score:1)
Doo-dee-doo! Boop boop boooh!Yah!!
Re:First world IT imperialism must stop! (Score:2)
Nairobi is the capital city of Kenya, not a country.
Rhodesia is more commonly referred to as Zimbabwe these days, since independence.
France? Hmmm, am I detecting the subtle odour of a troll here?
--
This site kinda sucks now TROLL -1 offtopic (Score:1)
Re:Moderation Necessary for Healthy Exchange (Score:1)
9 times out of 10, moderation is justified. However all systems are open to abuse...
IEEE and ACM: Two professional international orgs (Score:1)
Both are international, and both have strong areas of their respective organizations who are politically and socially active.
See their websites (and particularly public policy areas) at
IEEE Main [ieee.org]
IEEE Policy Pages [ieeeusa.org]
ACM Main site [acm.org]
ACM Public Policy Pages [acm.org]
USA is not world! (Score:1)
Dot-com vally gets hit, but that has not stopped the revolution - I mean, nobody has ever proofed that internet economy is necesary - it was only assumed. I do not consider the New Economy to be a necesary part of the revolution, and nowadays we get the feeling that internet economy is not feasible - and even this statement could be wrong.
Has the internet failed due to censorship? All gouvernments commit censorship on the internet today, except for certain small European countries. Still, the gouvernments are losing the battle - they should not in all cases.
In my opinion, the problem mankind is dealing with at this moment is the problem of how to classify information. Nobody can explain me what information is, where information begins and where information ends. Promises have not been realized because we simply don't know enough of the phenomena "information". So why would this be a problem? Well, people want to protect:
* their business (patents, CSS, Copyrights etc.) by legal censorship
* their children (violence, sex, etc.) by volunteerial censorship
* their systems (firewalls, anti-virus, passwords) by censorship on system-dataflow via the network
Nobody wants their freedom to be hassled by any form of censorship (censorship is the answer to protect the above points!), so we are afraid of censorship. Censorship is necesary to protect, but the problem with information is that we do not know the borders, let's protect a business model with CSS [mpaa.org], censorize it legally [opendvd.org], problem is that we censorize far too much [theregister.co.uk]. Still, we don't know the the borders of the phenomina 'information', that's the whole problem, we made cars safer, once we understood the problem.
Re:Sunstein is wrong (Score:1)
many viewpoints giving wrong information, or one viewpoint giving correct information?
I was loosng faith in Katz writing a good piece :) (Score:2)
The Long September (Score:2)
Unfortunately, now we have a steady influx of new "netizens" all the time, and television, magazine, and radio ads encouraging more and more clueless people to join the internet revolution. This is the problem. You no longer need to be at a university, fairly large high-tech corporation, or government agency to get on the Net, any moron can do it. And most morons, unfortunately, do.
And that's the problem. There is no "vision", there is no evolution of anything with meaning on the Internet. It's just a giant mass of people, most of whom have nothing to say, trying as hard as they can to say it and be heard.
Oh well, it hardly matters any more. Everything worthwhile and free is being destroyed by idiots (IRC servers being taken down by packet kids, newsgroups being turned into porn and warez clearinghouses are useless for discussions, etc) and the other "free" forums are dying off as the advertising revenue that kept them going dries up. In a few more years the only "content" will be provided by giant media corporations. Interactivity will be limited to choosing from a set of pasteurized, homogenized "content" designed to maximize clickthroughs and eyeballs. The Net, like everything else that gains mass popularity, will fall to the lowest common denominator.
And we deserve it.
ye faith (Score:1)
I can hardly wait .....
Re:Sunstein is wrong (Score:1)
So let's do something about it! Require religious organizations to present alternative viewpoints during their services. Wait, that's not enough. What about all those atheists and agnostics who aren't being exposed to any religious viewpoints. The government should mandate that TV, movies and websites include religious indoctrination (in all the different religions, of course).
As others have noted, this is really about the elites that have had effective control of information trying to regain what they've lost.
A Lurker Speaks (Score:5)
Re:Moderation Necessary for Healthy Exchange (Score:2)
Yes, democratic moderation systems sure as heck work, don't they? Really reduced the noise level, didn't it?
Have you noticed that silly-assed "remedies" like homeopathic "medicine" are *growing* in popularity? Democracy in action. Or, from a techie standpoint, how about Windows? There's a great example of software that should been still-birthed (in a sensible, just world, OS/2 would probably have been the winner).
In a country where the majority of the population believes that their horoscope is somehow based on truth, democratic moderation ensures only that the ill-informed, stupid and deceitful rise to the top.
Except, of course, for this one post, which will immediately hit +5 insightful, just for the sheer irony of it all. Gah.
--
Re:Sunstein is wrong (Score:2)
many viewpoints giving wrong information, or one viewpoint giving correct information?
Who decides which is "correct"?
Re:Sunstein is wrong (Score:1)
Hmmm. Let's get some perspective on the "Palestinian Israeli Confict". Here's the search page and
Results 1-10 of about 94,800
Then again, That perspective stuff is overrated
Re:First world IT imperialism must stop! (Score:1)
The problem with your suggestion is that doing such a thing with IT might very well undermine the economic advantages that allow the 1st world to maintain its standard of living and therefore the very development IT. Unfortunately "trickel-down technology" is the only thing we have in our tool chest of tested ways of distributing technology between vastly different nations. Most third world nations wouldn't have the ability to even exploit the gift.
Remember the movie "Dumbo Drop"? The US apparently would give poor South Vietnamese trucks as payment. The Vietnamese couldn't afford gas. What was more valuable to them? An elephant, since it can haul like a truck and eats plant matter which is readily available. So boys get 'em an elephant (and comedy ensues).
Offering free or cheap IT to third world countries certainly won't help them if the poor buggars can't read or get clean water. It's downright ironic to offer them computers when they can't even get phone service.
Sorry, I just don't think that free IT to third worlders is such a brilliant idea. These folks have a much wider gap to cross.
Heck, there's a technological gap even in the US. In the last economic boom, the cities grew and prospered while joblessness and layoffs dominated the rural country side. We haven't even figured out how to distribute the wealth, technology, and education in our own nation. How do we expect to assist another nation in redistributing its wealth when we can't do it either?
I grew up in a rural community where we had one tv channel until the mid eighties. We didn't get an internet pipe until '96... and I know of a half dozen communities that still don't have internet access at all.
In time the technologies of the internet will refine and trickel down to all facets of society and all nations in a superior form than what exists now. If we don't neglect other opprotunities for altruism, chances are that newly refined technologies forged in creative fires yet unkindled will yet yeild a level playing field where a true international meritocracy can arise.
Give it a thousand or so years... and go read "3001" (the novel) for ideas.
--// Hartsock
Re:Sunstein is wrong (Score:1)
The size of information is not important, right - especially if that information is from the same point of view.
Traditionnal media, give you one point of view. Normally, it's the view of your country or organization or whatever it is. There aren't many
journalists over there, that will present you information in an objective way. Bad, but it's the trouth.
The Internet gives you the oportunity to see the information from a lot of different angles. It is the only media that will give you this opportunity.You can have 1000 TV channels, you will never see so many opinions as you can using the Internet.
So, as I said, if you give people the possibility to look at one event from different sides, you give
them the possibility to make a better choice.
Democracy is to choose
All this to say that, more information you have, better democracy you build...
Sorry for the long, repeating comment - my english is bad...
Re:Sunstein is wrong (Score:2)
Neither.
That's my point. What's happening now with the net is that we have many viewpoints giving "wrong" information -- whatever "wrong" may mean -- and one viewpoint (i.e. traditional press) giving "wrong" information. It's the same old story of the "pre-net" days -- that
My point, I suppose, is that information itself -- "right" information or "wrong" information -- is only part of the equation. Humans are the other part of the equation. What they "do" with the information is the way in which, ultimately, the information should be evaluted.
Ironically, computers -- or the Katzian "net revolution" affect -- are nowhere to be found. The "net" is a carrier for the information. It may be more efficient than pre-net days, or, you might argue, it may be *less* efficient than "pre-net" days. But the net is the net.
But, IMHO, the "net" -- how I hate that term -- doesn't form the central part of the argument. Humans are still the crucial agents of action -- the real actors in the play. The center of the equation remains the politics and economic policy of the State (any state, any country). It's how humans use the net that matters. (The question, though is this: will nations allow the actors to implement the "props" in a way that weakens the impact of the theater? The actors (and props) will always be controlled by the director -- the state.)
The real revolution -- or, I suppose, the counter-revoltion -- will occur when the actors achieve a sort of meta-awareness of the "stage" -- the field upon which they've been placed -- and a "meta-awareness" of the props -- the tools that they've been given to use upon their field. The counterrevolution will occur when actors achieve a singular awareness that the tools -- or props, whatever -- can be used in ways other than those proscribed by the state.
I don't know enough to know if what I'm positing is some sort of fucked up socialist revolution or if it's just a more "critical" capitalism in which the actors use their props in specific ways in order to routinely undermine (or, perhaps, to "check and balance") the state. The actors are still on the stage, the props are still the props, but there's an awareness of the props-as-props, the stage-as-stage, and the actors-as-actors.
Re:As I already said: (Score:1)
Re:internet virtual community == myth (Score:1)
Be more careful in the future in assuming that your definitions and experiences are all-defining.
Virg
Re:Moderation Necessary for Healthy Exchange (Score:1)
The theory of what you say makes sense. The only problem is the people who moderate (or just people in general). If moderation (slashdot style or otherwise) is the only way to filter out the noise and crap of the net, the problem IN PRACTICE is this: You are letting someone ELSE decide for you what is noise and what is not.
Therein lies the problem, do you really want someone else to decide what you should or should not see? Its unfortunate that the basest human nature combined with the lowest intellect generates so much noise (like the aforementionned goatsecx links or first post posts etc..), but I still don't want someone to decide for me what is or is NOT an important idea, or viewpoint...because the same part of human nature that creates this garbage also dictates that eventually, those who decide what and what should not be seen will use that power for their own ends...and NOT necessarily for your benefit.
I am a Netizen (Score:1)
Maybe it isn't a _true_ institution. The Internet does not have any overall organization, no ruling board, and few people actually consider themselves citizens/members of the internet.
Slashdot is the most active, vocal, and organized proponent for the advancement of technology, the internet and the digital privacy of people.
I hope that soon the Internet will have an activist group, some sort of governing board (even if it's just for looks and media recognition) or even an organized protest. (10,000 webcams were setup on capitol hill)
--
If the internet was created by the government, and it's public domain. Is everything created with the help of the internet public domain as well?
Re:internet virtual community == myth (Score:1)
The failure of Slashdot to spawn an effective online community should not be proof that such cannot exist. Slashdot is actually pretty pathological as online communities go.
The Revolution Ain't Come Yet (Score:2)
I'm not sure the Net was ever really revolutionary. In the early days, the Connected Internet(AKA Darpanet or NSF Net depending on year)was the private domain of academic institutions and the only people online were scientists, engineers and other educated weirdos. These people used Net to the greatest advantage due to their technical and intellectual sophistication. The majority of discussions at least seemed to be weighty and erudite, but that might just be nostalgia. Let's be honest here. alt.lemurs and alt.sex.bondage.particle-physics were two of my favorite usenet groups in those bygone days, but I can't say the discussions there were revolutionary or even relevant. Silly, yes, relevant no. And how many bull sessions on the early muds and mucks were about nothing more than the relative merits of Vaxes vs Unix. The important stuff in the early days was all work related, like exhcanging data, or sending commands to a polar radar station. Yeah, there was a lot of interesting social stuff going on the murkier corners of gopher space and in the Mud/Muck world, but that was all very experimental. It also a very elite crowd of people, who despite their individual personalities, tended to be cut from the same socio-economic cloth.
Nowadays, everyone's getting online, so there's a lot of noise out there, but there's also a lot more signal than there used to be. Yeah we've got more stock tickers and cat pictures out there than we'll ever know what to do with, but there's also a lot more people setting down their thoughts than there ever has been. The web in a way is the greatest collections of 'zines ever put together. For those who have grown up late in the technological boom a 'zine is little self published paper magazine often given away for free at friendly newsstands and bookstores. Even before the web, people were finding ways to promulgate and exchange ideas. However putting together something as simple as a 'zine is not a trivial task and getting it distributed widely is even harder. The web has changed that to some extent. You can not put up something similar for very little money and effort. Getting exposure is more diffiucult, but if you network well, you can get other people of like mind to link to your effort. For those who say that there's nothing worthwhile or challenging on the net, I'll link to two sites I found recently. Agree with them or not, they are windows into a culture that the mainstream does not want to acknowledge. Gangland Express and [angelfire.com]Sleepy Lagoon [sleepylagoon.com]. Both of these sites helped illuminate a world that had always been dark to me growing up. And, that's the potential power of the information overload. Anyone can get on and say something. Yeah, there's a lot of noise, but you can use tools to filter the noise and tune in what you want. Tools like search engines. The main difference between the Net and other modern media is that the consumer has to be an active particpant to utilize the Net.
In a way, I'd argue that the revolution has not yet begun. We as a society are still learning to deal with the Net and the sheer volume of information it brings us. Sure the deliurm of the 'new thing' has faded from the Internet, but that does not mean it's going to go away. The Net is undergoing a correction that puts the supply in line with the actual demand. Not biggie there. Contrary to the pundits, the revolution of the Net has not happened, nor will it happen. The Net will be used by people to exchange ideas and to organize. Those people may well engender a revlotion, but that revolution will happen outside of the Net. That revolution will happen in the real world, in the courts, the polls, and even in the streets.
Re:Here Ye (Score:2)
The Bottom Line, if you will of Internet technology has already been reached, that is to say, HTML and email. Those two things (glued together and empowered by things like DNS) are the A#1 undeniable miracle of the Internet. The rest is fluff. Powerful and interesting fluff to be sure, but if we we were all to suddenly be reduced to 33bps dialup connections tomorrow, the real (useful and productive) structure and substance of the Internet would be unharmed.
A ten-second web video sound-bite from CNN is kind of cool, but infinitely slower in every regard compared to some text and a few photos.
Exchanginge email and searching/viewing/posting documents and pictures are the most amazing and earth-shattering aspects of this new 'internet culture'.
Everything else is extra and expendable.
It's not the technology, but how it's used... (Score:3)
On the net, everyone has the possibility to have an equal say. But, being used to the traditional system, many people still go get their news from CNN.com and don't comment much. Others are too excited about being heard that they don't stop to think about what they say. It's still too new to everyone. But life has an incredible capacity to adapt itself. Things will change, and are changing. And everyone sharing ideas, debating opinions are reaching compromises is what democracy is all about. This can only be achieved on a local scale through physical meetings. And it can't be achieved through traditional medias. The net can make this possible, but the net is only a tool. Everything will depend on how it is used. Tools to not make revolutions. Humans use tools to make revolutions possible.
To summarise, the net is not a revolution: it is merely an instrument of the revolution.
Will the computer revolution bring about the victory of one class over another?
Right now, the financial elite is winning over the people. Most of you don't want to see it, but your beloved capitalism is leading us to totalitarism and the plain destruction of our Mother Earth. The net is an awesome tool for the people to inform and organize themselves to counter this. Do not expect it to do it by itself. And the technology doesn't discriminate and make itself unavailable to the masses and make them poorer and poorer. The elitism of the distribution system makes it that way. The internet could be available to everyone without any problem. And internet doesn't deceive my expectations at all. It only deceives those who wanted it to make them rich.
A revolution only leads to the same starting point if the people then put someone else in power. A true revolution gives the power to the people. Participative democracy is not only possible: it's the way to go if we want to reclaim our earth, society, freedom and happiness.
Related Links : An Anarchist FAQ [infoshop.org] - Independent Media Center [indymedia.org] - Mobilisation for Global Justice [a16.org] - World Social Forum [forumsocia...ial.org.br] - Industrial Workers of the World [iww.org]
Re:The Long September (Score:2)
Stop being so l33t for a second and look at the future with an open mind!
-----
OK, I finally see the light. (Score:2)
Now, I see what everybody else has been seeing. Jon Katz is a putz.
A digital revolution? faith in it? goals fer cryin out loud? Pass the bong, man.
Dogmatic Leaders (Score:3)
It's a valid question, even if it assumes the computer revolution was shaped like other revolutions, by a handful of dogmatic leaders advocating specific principles.
Is any revolution shaped by one individual (or even a handful)? I'm not certain that's very often true. Just how much influence can a single individual have, in changing the world?
My (completely unenlightened) guess is that more often than not, revolutions occur when a significant proportion of the population already feel that things should be different. But most people don't want to do anything about it.
Then, somebody who has the balls stands up and says it out loud. If there isn't sufficient support among the people, the individual would get shunned, ridiculed, or nailed to a cross.
But if there is enough support, the individual is hailed as the leader of a revolution. Really, the individual is not much more than a figurehead.
If there is, indeed, a revolution taking place, I think we just haven't found the right figurehead yet.
--
Re:Sunstein is wrong (Score:1)
You can't ! There is no universal truth - everyone
makes its own trouth, and you can't make your own,
if you have information from one source.
the "revolution" never had any goals (Score:2)
Katz is contradicting himself here yet again. In previous pieces he has argued that the "revolution" of the Internet was leaderless and in many ways anarchic.
But how can a revolution without leaders and without any stated goals have any... goals for the public to be confused about?
Ye! (Score:2)
1. Enlightened/chaotic discussions on forums like Slashdot.
2. Free exchange of scientific ideas and data.
3. Single point of org for all of the world's porn.
Re:Here Ye (Score:1)
Wired? Not! (Score:2)
Not slowing down at all (Score:2)
Real revolutions occur away from the lights and the soap-boxes. They chug quietly in the background until, for some usually unforseeable reason (which, afterwards, all the 'revolutionaries' will say they foresaw), will shrug or shift in someway that forces everyone and everything to change their footing very quickly, some successfully and some not.
Real revolutions are more like acts of nature, beyond the grasp (but on the lips) of the Pundits and Polititians.
what revolution? (Score:1)
Let's get some perspective (Score:2)
We need to get some perspective on this, the Internet has been, and will continue to be, an incredible success.
--
everyone's got a voice (Score:1)
most of the time, they should just shut up and listen first.
common ideals, common goals, common beliefs? complete farce.
oh, for christ's sake (Score:1)
i guess i can kind of overlook the failure of the slashdot people for failing to master elementary grammar, but they don't claim to be writers. but then again, you'd think with an acquisition that they could hire one twelve-year-old at minimum wage with the ability to master the above rule...
adum
Re:net = democracy (Score:1)
Nope, sorry, afraid not. Democracy has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Democracy is a governmental form based on the concept of a majority of voters choosing one possible action, choice, or law over another. Democracy can easily exist without free speech (however, I will agree that free speech adds greatly to the overall functionality of democracy.)
Furthermore, freedom of speech can exist in countries that do not use democracy as their form of government. You want an example? The United States of America. The US is *not* a democracy; it's a republic. Yet we have a legal protection of our free speech from the wiles and whims of the Congress (not, however, our ISPs).
Also, if the majority of a democratic society decides that they want to eliminate any and all forms of free speech, they can. The have that power. Democracy gives them that power. And the democracy can survive and flourish even in the abscence of free speech.
A lot of people that claim that democracy equals free speech have been misled, or have an incorrect understanding of the governmental form of democracy. That's not surprising; the US government - like any other government promoting its own cause - has produced a large amount a propoganda saying, in effect, "Democracy is the only good way. Everything else sucks. Democracy equals God, Mom, and Apple Pie. Democracy means you can pee in the bushes, and that bears crap in the woods."
In the same vein, we've also been told (in the US) that Communism is EVIL EVIL EVIL!!! What we forget is that Communism is, in and of itself, not evil; it's merely an economic style that was adapted (some would say "perverted") to a governmental form by the likes of Vladimir Illych Lenin, Mao Tse Dung, Ho Chi Mihn, and others. Communism, like Capitalism, is merely a "thing" that is neither good nor evil. It's how that thing is used that's good or evil. Democracy (which, btw, I do personally hold as the greatest form of government there is) can also be corrupted. Just because it's a Democracy does not immediately make it a good thing.
Well, that went on a lot longer than I'd intended.
Quit Whining (Score:2)
As far as 'revolution-supressing devices' are concerned, I'm all for them. Too many 'revolutions' are called for by those who have given up on their own lives and mistakenly believe that everyone else feels the same (or worse, 'should' feel the same but aren't 'enlightened' enough to) and that a 'clearing of the board' by force will somehow leave them in a better position. The selfishness of this position sickens me, and anything that aids in nipping these tantrums in the bud has my enthusiastic support.
Re:The Long September (Score:2)
Yes.
I think it boils down to what your definition of "moron" is. Is it any user who doesen't like the things you like or think the same way as you? Or is it merely a status thing, the fact that you've been online longer than them?
No. They're morons.
One thing I will enjoy when the "giant mass of people" begin filtering in is an end to this pointless net-elitism and a beginning to more thought diversity.
Net-elitism isn't pointless. The signal-to-noise ratio on most internet forums has dropped to the point of uselessness. Before the "thought diversity" started, it was possible to find real discussions about real subjects with real knowledgeable people. Now you can't, because everything is drowned out by first-posters and idiots.
Lastly, I find it laughable that you believe that "giant media corporations" are going to start dictating content and that the "masses" will swallow it without question.
Laugh away, but it's still going to happen. People can't handle real interactivity in large groups, they just destroy everything and turn it into a wash of white noise. The reason for this is that they just want other people to respond to them, they want to be entertained without having to be entertaining. So yes, they will happily swallow mass-media content without question, because it will give them the online experience they really want. Consumption without thought or effort.
Yes, I have an elitist attitude about this. I see the internet as a medium that was once useful for research and intelligent discussion rapidly degenerating into chaos. On the one hand, you have the text-only forums being drowned out by DDoS attacks (IRC) or abused (UseNet). They won't last. Free web providers are consolidating and will eventually disappear because they can't survive on ad revenues alone. And eventually all that will be left is the same drivel we have on television, brough to you by the same people and with the same level of intelligence.
All is well. Procreate. Consume.
Re:New political values? (Score:2)
The net has brought more information to shut-in armchair philosophers than ever before.
Re:Hogwash (Score:1)
I think in Nature any community aims instinctively towards exclusiveness. If people would fight for being all inclusive, they would loose the community's role in itself, namely a home for soul mates. There is no coherent world community. And if there were, people would try their best to flee it and build their own local ones. I think the problem is that people are genetically designed to live locally and are not capable of caring for more than just their immediate environment necessary for survival. Therefore, in the end, the worldwide network will either turn into the most oppressive technological "slave master" or it will become a decentralized connection of local network communities, who will end up to care as little as they always did, as little as they can afford to just get by.
Just because we will be able to read and understand all the different view points worldwide to a political problem, will not help us to actually solve the problem any better, faster and more reasonable than fifty years ago.
It is an illusion to believe that information access to better *analyze* a problem, will automatically lead to better *solve* a problem.
Just think about the problem of a depressed person, who sees a shrink. You can sit for years and analyze and understand your problems. What actually makes the person change from being depressed to being hopeful and active is for the most part a mystery. Statistics show that spontaneous self-healing and analytical psychotherapy for mental health problems are successful on average at the same rate. Most political problems are mental health problems of communities.
----
"What really interests me is wether God could have created the world any differently; in other words, wether the demand for logical simplicity leaves any freedom at all." -- Albert Einstein to Ernst Strauss, on the question of wether God had any choice in the design of the world.
Re:Sunstein is wrong (Score:3)
Information overload is a luddite buzzword, and nothing else. Maybe when I have a direct neural connection to the 'Net that force-fills my consciousness with useless data, information overload will be a problem....but that's why I'm not going to have a direct neural connection to the 'Net...
Re:internet virtual community == myth (Score:1)
--
spam spam spam spam spam spam
No one expects the Spammish Repetition!
Metanews (Score:1)
coverage from multiple viewpoints (either articles posted directly or linked from outside). Since the effort
would require considerable resources this can be transformed into community web site.
YES. Katz is useless. (Score:1)
Re:Sunstein is wrong (Score:1)
thank god someone else feels this way (Score:1)
YOU SPEAK THE TRUTH.
I vote for a 6 month Katz free zone. Jesus wept.
Re:Metanews (Score:2)
Um, Slashdot? [slashdot.org]
Re:the "revolution" never had any goals (Score:2)
Instead we should attack him for the big mistakes.
Ah, where to start? Lets start at the beginning
And so on. And on. This is just the writing. The content is another matter. It's an important issue, and I really despise him for forcing me not to give a damn after reading it.
Is Open Source the New Jerusalem?
Not to mention the pretension.