Comments on: The social impact of the web – talk at RSA http://www.mediainfluencer.net/2007/03/the-social-impact-of-the-web-talk-at-rsa/ helping people break out of pigeonholes since 2003 Wed, 08 Feb 2012 15:15:59 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: alan p http://www.mediainfluencer.net/2007/03/the-social-impact-of-the-web-talk-at-rsa/comment-page-1/#comment-465 alan p Fri, 16 Mar 2007 20:20:42 +0000 http://mediainfluencer.bigblogcompany.net/wp/index.php/2007/03/the-social-impact-of-the-web-talk-at-rsa/#comment-465 Adriana...interesting talk...now, to rebut :) Unfortunately the physics of building a bridge have not changed, social media or no social media. All the kings horses etc etc......;) i.e. Some complex problems still have complex solutions Also, what you didn't address directly imho is that the net / web / blogosphere is extremely heirarchical, in that a small number of nodes have extremely high levels of influence. What I put on my blog is up to me, but what Robert Scoble (for example) publishes has a big impact. As the Big Blogs get funded and the amateurs drop out, will we find that we are at risk of merely replacing one dominant set of media publishers for another? Adriana…interesting talk…now, to rebut :)

Unfortunately the physics of building a bridge have not changed, social media or no social media. All the kings horses etc etc……;)

i.e. Some complex problems still have complex solutions

Also, what you didn’t address directly imho is that the net / web / blogosphere is extremely heirarchical, in that a small number of nodes have extremely high levels of influence.

What I put on my blog is up to me, but what Robert Scoble (for example) publishes has a big impact. As the Big Blogs get funded and the amateurs drop out, will we find that we are at risk of merely replacing one dominant set of media publishers for another?

]]> By: Perry de Havilland http://www.mediainfluencer.net/2007/03/the-social-impact-of-the-web-talk-at-rsa/comment-page-1/#comment-464 Perry de Havilland Tue, 13 Mar 2007 17:20:52 +0000 http://mediainfluencer.bigblogcompany.net/wp/index.php/2007/03/the-social-impact-of-the-web-talk-at-rsa/#comment-464 I think defining 'democratic' as meaning anything other than a form of government (and government is *nothing* other than we call the way of deciding who will be on the receiving end of a collective means of coercion) is simply wrong (or at best misleading). Ergo, the internet is not democratic. The internet is *primarily* a network used for individuals to express themselves, and there is nothing whatsoever democratic about how I choose to express myself. Why? Because you do not get a political vote on it, that's why... and that is also why the fact large parts of the world's population not having access to the internet is completely irrelevant: even if they did, it would not make the internet democratic. I think defining ‘democratic’ as meaning anything other than a form of government (and government is *nothing* other than we call the way of deciding who will be on the receiving end of a collective means of coercion) is simply wrong (or at best misleading).

Ergo, the internet is not democratic. The internet is *primarily* a network used for individuals to express themselves, and there is nothing whatsoever democratic about how I choose to express myself. Why? Because you do not get a political vote on it, that’s why… and that is also why the fact large parts of the world’s population not having access to the internet is completely irrelevant: even if they did, it would not make the internet democratic.

]]> By: Hans Fosseng http://www.mediainfluencer.net/2007/03/the-social-impact-of-the-web-talk-at-rsa/comment-page-1/#comment-463 Hans Fosseng Mon, 12 Mar 2007 22:34:35 +0000 http://mediainfluencer.bigblogcompany.net/wp/index.php/2007/03/the-social-impact-of-the-web-talk-at-rsa/#comment-463 The three levels you're lining out, are definetely interesting perspectives on the social impact of the web. As for the democratic nature of the web, there's one major problem not mentioned here. Large parts of the world's population doesn't have access to the Internet yet, which in some senses can be seen as undemocratic. The three levels you’re lining out, are definetely interesting perspectives on the social impact of the web. As for the democratic nature of the web, there’s one major problem not mentioned here. Large parts of the world’s population doesn’t have access to the Internet yet, which in some senses can be seen as undemocratic.

]]> By: Adriana http://www.mediainfluencer.net/2007/03/the-social-impact-of-the-web-talk-at-rsa/comment-page-1/#comment-462 Adriana Sun, 11 Mar 2007 17:38:11 +0000 http://mediainfluencer.bigblogcompany.net/wp/index.php/2007/03/the-social-impact-of-the-web-talk-at-rsa/#comment-462 Ziz, oh well, I must be doing something if you think such hostility is needed. Yes, the above were my notes for an 8 minute talk on a panel and perhaps in blogging it I should have looked up the original quote by Churchill. So here it is: <em>Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." (from a House of Commons speech on Nov. 11, 1947)</em> This actually makes my point about democracy not being what it's cracked up to be stronger. Beyond Churchill, the founding fathers were also aware of the dangers of democracy. The notion of the tyranny of the majority dates all the way back to Tocqueville. As for the stupid network, I do wish it was my idea. I was referring (in very simplified terms due to lack of time) to David Isenberg's concept of the internet as a stupid network. It is the reason why and how the internet has become the complex and dynamic environment it is today. I have subscribed to this view ever since I came across Isenberg, Doc Searls, David Weinberger and others. So there are quite a few people beyond redemption, see <a href="http://www.worldofends.com/" rel="nofollow">The World of Ends</a>. [emphasis mine] <em><strong>The Internet, on the other hand, is stupid.</strong> On purpose. Its designers made sure the biggest, most inclusive network of them all was dumb as a box of rocks. The Internet doesn't know lots of things a smart network like the phone system knows: Identities, permissions, priorities, etc. <strong>The Internet only knows one thing: this bunch of bits needs to move from one end of the Net to another.</strong> There are technical reasons why stupidity is a good design. Stupid is sturdy. If a router fails, packets route around it, meaning that the Net stays up. Thanks to its stupidity, the Net welcomes new devices and people, so it grows quickly and in all directions. It's also easy for architects to incorporate Net access into all kinds of smart devices — camcorders, telephones, sprinkler systems — that live at the Net's ends. That's because the most important reason Stupid is Good has less to do with technology and everything to do with value...</em> Ziz, oh well, I must be doing something if you think such hostility is needed.

Yes, the above were my notes for an 8 minute talk on a panel and perhaps in blogging it I should have looked up the original quote by Churchill. So here it is:

Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” (from a House of Commons speech on Nov. 11, 1947)

This actually makes my point about democracy not being what it’s cracked up to be stronger. Beyond Churchill, the founding fathers were also aware of the dangers of democracy. The notion of the tyranny of the majority dates all the way back to Tocqueville.

As for the stupid network, I do wish it was my idea. I was referring (in very simplified terms due to lack of time) to David Isenberg’s concept of the internet as a stupid network. It is the reason why and how the internet has become the complex and dynamic environment it is today. I have subscribed to this view ever since I came across Isenberg, Doc Searls, David Weinberger and others. So there are quite a few people beyond redemption, see The World of Ends. [emphasis mine]

The Internet, on the other hand, is stupid. On purpose. Its designers made sure the biggest, most inclusive network of them all was dumb as a box of rocks.

The Internet doesn’t know lots of things a smart network like the phone system knows: Identities, permissions, priorities, etc. The Internet only knows one thing: this bunch of bits needs to move from one end of the Net to another.

There are technical reasons why stupidity is a good design. Stupid is sturdy. If a router fails, packets route around it, meaning that the Net stays up. Thanks to its stupidity, the Net welcomes new devices and people, so it grows quickly and in all directions. It’s also easy for architects to incorporate Net access into all kinds of smart devices — camcorders, telephones, sprinkler systems — that live at the Net’s ends.

That’s because the most important reason Stupid is Good has less to do with technology and everything to do with value…

]]> By: Ziz http://www.mediainfluencer.net/2007/03/the-social-impact-of-the-web-talk-at-rsa/comment-page-1/#comment-461 Ziz Sun, 11 Mar 2007 14:57:58 +0000 http://mediainfluencer.bigblogcompany.net/wp/index.php/2007/03/the-social-impact-of-the-web-talk-at-rsa/#comment-461 "Back to democracy - as Churchill pointed out, it is the least bad system of government we know," No he didn't. He wrote that ... "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." "Least bad" is not an expression he would have used, or encouraged, nor should you. However if you write (and publish sentences such as, "For example, the internet is a 'stupid network' with one simple rule - move packets from one end to another and then some." You are beyond redemption. “Back to democracy – as Churchill pointed out, it is the least bad system of government we know,”

No he didn’t.

He wrote that …
“It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”

“Least bad” is not an expression he would have used, or encouraged, nor should you.

However if you write (and publish sentences such as, “For example, the internet is a ’stupid network’ with one simple rule – move packets from one end to another and then some.” You are beyond redemption.

]]>