Review:The Control Revolution 59
There are lots of books these days about the Net and the Web - what they mean, how we're drowning in too much information, how memes move around, how to design websites, make money off of e-trading, use C+++, install Linux.
But only a handful nail the big ideas down as well as Andrew L. Shapiro has in "The Control Revolution: How the Internet is Putting Individuals in Charge and Changing the World We Know" (Public Affairs Books, $US 25).
"The Control Revolution" isn't exactly a stirring term for what the Net and the Web are doing to life, but Shapiro is right. The Web is a series of social as well as technological revolutions. His definitions of the "Control" part make sense:
l. The potentially monumental shift in control from institutions to individuals made possible by new technology such as the Net.
2. The conflict over such change between individuals and powerful entities (governments, corporations, the media).
3. The unexpected, and not always desirable, ways in which such change could reshape our lives.
Shapiro has a sharp eye for the politics of technology and institutions. He writes about the politics of code in shaping the Net, the sweeping political power of interactivity, and the decline of middlemen brought about by revolutionary new software advances like the MP3 player and eBay. He also writes about the inevitable resistance to many of these changes.
Few Net writers have looked at the politics of coding, and few non-programmers have ever thought about it. Shapiro writes that just as the Net's growing rapidly, it's form can also be changed very quickly. "That's because although the Net depends on physical hardware - networks of computers and wires - it is defined mostly by code."
And most Net users can't write code, have never seen it, and know nothing about it.
So control of code, he points out, may become a powerful political power. Easily altered with a few keystrokes, code may be at the heart of political power struggles in the digital age.
In "Where Do You Want to Go Today? Microsoft and the Illusion of Control" - Shapiro looks at Gates, Inc. It's a dispassionate, revealing look at a particular corporate culture that is so worshipped and demonized that it's become nearly impossible to think rationally about it.
In a detached, credible way, Shapiro writes about the strengths and weaknesses of the Internet's most loved, patronized and hated corporation. He writes, for example, about how Microsoft's executives have gotten themselves into a dangerous mindset that, "if they don't control everything, they'll control nothing," perhaps the first plausible explanation I've seen of the power-mad bumbling revealed in the company's ongoing legal nightmares in Washington.
Shapiro also writes about another controversial issue few people on the Net or Web want to deal with - how new blocking, filtering and other "convenience" and anti-spamming softwares (yes, much more sophisticated than Kill Files ever were, and much less motivated by self defense and protection) are changing the ground rules of free speech on the Net and the Web, allowing the dissenter's voice to be excluded effortlessly and instantly.
Shapiro is a scholar and a lawyer, and "The Control Revolution" is thorough, meticulously supported, sometimes dry but almost always thoughtful and dead-on.
We need to grasp, he argues, that living well in the digital age means more than just having complete dominion over life's decisions. Personal freedom requires also knowing when to relinquish authority, either to chance or to the wisdom of others. And that for the sake of democracy, the people using the Net and the Web need to consider a new kind of social and political compact - not a starry-eyed declaration of cyber-independence, but a realistic compromise between personal liberty and communal obligation.
Shapiro stumbles a bit here. His call for this kind of dialogue is stirring and sensible, but it reads more like an op-ed piece than a realistic solution to the enormous social and political challenges presented by the growth of the Network, and the particular challenges to open discussion of common issues. His appeal for a moderate rationality is too detached from reality. The kind of discussion he argues for - the kind necessary for new social compacts -- isn't even remotely likely to occur on the chaotic, free and ferociously individualistic Net or the Web, outside of a few carefully-screen websites, mailing lists or weblogs.
People who write or post publicly on the Web - even those who love it - despair of ever having rational, non-hostile public discussions. Few would believe any sort of broad, rational, civil discussion about politics or society is likely in the near future. Online discussions are quarrelsome, frequently vicious, disjointed and diverse - in a way, that's sort of the point.
They are much freer and inherently less organized and directed than the kind of forum Shapiro seems to want, and rarely, if ever, provide any sort of concensus or coherent thread on issues.
Still, if Shapiro can't solve the Net's civic problems, he's sure grasped the import of the biggest single idea emerging from the online world: the movement of power, influence and freedom away from institutions and companies and towards individuals.
This notion of individual liberty is an old, profoundly powerful idea, dating back to the Enlightenment and the American and French Revolutions. But the early revolutionaries were just looking to beat back monarchies. They never imagined individual people would ever have the power the Net and the Web is giving them over culture, business and information and, almost inevitably, over politics.
Shapiro has this brilliantly nailed this notion down, rising above Luddite alarms, Utopian digital fantasies, programming jargon and the media hype now surrounding computing.
It's hard to imagine a more timely book about the real significance of the Internet - how it's continuing (maybe beginning) the long and bitterly difficult process of putting individuals in charge of their world.
Pick this up at Amazon.
Re:Freedom with the internet? (Score:1)
Rarely in history have new methods completely displaced old ones. Did the invention of outboard motors kill the canoe? Hardly. Are horses now extinct because of the automobile? No, diminished yes but not dead. Has email killed off the fax, the phone and snail mail? Have airlines killed off ocean liners? Have ATMs totally killed off bank branches? Am I making my point?
Sure, maybe soon I will order many things over the Net, like cars, bikes, TVs and computers. Then again maybe I prefer to see and touch before draining the plastic. On another scale I doubt I will ever order a deli sandwich or buy a pair of jeans over the Net. lastly, there are about 4 1/2 billion people in this world who don't use the Net at all. Don't forget about them.
-MikeR-
Divisions between countries too (Score:1)
For example, I was recently in SE Asia, and was deeply surprised by the varying levels of net usage in the various countries there. For example, in China net access was outrageously expensive, controlled to the hilt (you had to register as a net user, so the gov't could monitor you) and hard to find.
In Vietnam I stayed in a family-run "hotel" and was surprised to find that they had a recent computer, and were taking reservations over email from a woman in Japan! The whole family knew about the net, and surfed on a regular basis. The various pirate CD shops all had Linux distros too!
Same thing in Thailand.
I'm worried that countries like China are going to find themselves farther and farther behind -- and then, in typical fashion, will blame the West for their own misfortune.
Curious (Score:1)
Lord knows we don't have a monopoly on that sort of behavior.
Look, some predecessors have to be left out of any conversation, otherwise we'll never get anywhere.
For example, you (joss) failed to mention the way that the Magna Carta draws from the legal traditions of the earlier Continental kingdoms. Do you see anyone cursing about that?
Oh wait, let's not forget how the earlier Continental kingdoms owe *their* culture to the Romans, who in turn absorbed elements of the Etruscans, and wait, how can I forget to credit the early Nile kingdoms, and oh yeah, the Sub-saharans too . . .
. . . and don't even get me started on the whole Proto-Indo-European thing.
Doubtful (Score:2)
By the time citizens get angry over this phenomenon, the alliance of advertisers, marketers, and government spooks will be too politically powerful to oppose. The War on Privacy will escalate just like the War on Drugs, and for the same reason -- because it's too profitable to resist, and because the people in opposition are too easily branded Bad People.
Food for Thought (Score:4)
- How do we build enough consensus to make decisions in a cyber free-for-all?
- In an Information Society, will we just replace the old money based elites with new knowledge based elites?
- If industrial age revolutionary firebrands sparked the revolutions of 1776, 1789, and 1917, (etc), who will spark the revolutions of the information age? Will we have a cabal of disgruntled sysadmins shutting down the Net until their demands are met or will their tactics and aims be more subtle?
- Who moderates the crazies?
- Who decides who the crazies are, if they are to be moderated?
- Will an elite of super geniuses guide the bleating masses of sheepishly dim humans? Or will we sink to the level of majority medocrity with the voices of genius moderated out because they're crazy?
- How can any single human in 1999 have the slightest inkling of a clue as to what's in store for us when the _social_ effects of an information revolution finally hit with full force?
Thanks for the chance to squint at the Monster's shadow, but I still don't know what it looks like.
-MikeR-
Re:I disagree... (Score:1)
Hah! 90% of web commerce is porn memberships...obviously someone is giving their credit card number.
I disagree... (Score:3)
It can be either a tremendous opportunity to put YOU in control of YOUR life....or it can be a way for others to be in control of you.
- If you don't like the export ban, then get around it...there are ways and you know it.
- If you don't like having your email read, use PGP
- If you don't want your credit card transactions monitored, then you're already in trouble because the net doesn't offer any opportunities that didn't exist for credit card criminals 5 years ago.
I guess all I'm saying is, don't just sit there and say that the net's being used to control people. The only people that let the net control them are the same ones that are already being controled by TV, Newspapers and any other news source out there.Re:You have to have a SPINE first. (Score:2)
Boycotts make a small point, but in my (admittedly peculiar) opinion, a much better approach to sites which demand your entire CV before viewing anything interesting is to actively corrupt their database by feeding in bogus information.
It doesn't take much creativity to cobble up a fake name and address; the only thing you need besides that is a pseudonymous email address (which take all of ten minutes to create at hotmail, iname, yahoo, or dozens of others).
Doing this raises the cost of collecting such databases while reducing their usefulness. It doesn't cost us anything, since we still get what we want from them, and they ultimately have no way of tracking us down.
-Mars
Freedom with the internet? (Score:3)
Re:Not quite (Score:3)
I would argue that many (most?) aspects of net culture will never be available to those with "room-temperature-IQ's." I fear an impending societal division that will reshape class structures: net users and non-net users. The difference will be that the division will be along intelligence lines.
Access to information as readily available as on the net also increases ability to learn and hopefully perceived intelligence too, so this new net class will grow. But it will never grow to encompass all.
--Bob
Re:Biggest tech changes in society. (?) (Score:1)
Re:You have to have a SPINE first. (Score:2)
Good question.
I sent Deneba a tactful e-mail expressing my concern. They responded by nearly blowing me off. I was told that my concern would be forwarded to management, but there was no alternative method proposed to get me a demo version of the software. This is fine by me...my objective is to KEEP as much of my money as I can....it's up to the Deneba's of the world to convince me that I should exchange some of it for what it is they're offering. Deneba came up way short.
You have to have a SPINE first. (Score:4)
It is my opinion that consumers, though presented with the *means* of exercising greater control, will utterly and miserably fail to do so, and the reason is simple: As long as there is a carrot on a stick, many net users/consumers will *relinquish* control.
I've visited two sites with demo software, for example (one was Deneba's site, since I was interested in looking at the most recent upgrade to Canvas.) But much as I would have liked to look at a demo, the problem was their insistence that I submit to a third degree before being allowed to download the software. I will *not* trade my personal information in order to consider buying a product. Deneba has it completely wrong - it is THEY who should be offering INCENTIVES for people to consider and purchase their products, NOT the other way around.
While I recognize that there are quite a few net users who feel this way, there aren't ENOUGH of them. Companies like Deneba need to know that requiring someone to tell you who they are (and scads of other information) BEFORE they even decide to buy the product, is unacceptable. People will only have control so long as they're willing to TAKE control - but as long as spineless net users are willing to trade their personal information for any perceived benefit, the ONLY ones who will have control are the ones collecting (and using) the information.
Not quite (Score:5)
Besides, most people are quite comfortable being told what to do their entire lives. They don't feel the need to control their own lives, because then they wouuld have to take responsibility for their decisions. It's easier to just sit back and let some corporation and/or government control one's life. Note the ratio of entrepreneurs to employees.
The Internet is not going to change the lives of the everyday masses, the strong majority in the world (at least in the U.S.)--people who back over their own mailboxes and buy whatever books Oprah tells them to.
It's Magna *Carta* And, by the way, Genghis. (Score:1)
Certainly ideas about liberty are as old as -- at least -- Greek civilization. But the Enlightenment was just as certainly a movement shared by America and England, which marked the beginning of the idea of the individual, as separate from society, country, or God. Just because he didn't mention England in that paragraph doesn't diminish the impact of British ideas -- Hobbes, Locke, etc. -- on the concept of liberty. (American independence, after all, was created by people who thought themselves loyal Brits
Katz is American; it's natural he'll mention American history. Don't take it personally. But I'd take this personally: You seem as ignorant of your own history as you accuse Katz of being.
Oh, yes. It's GENGHIS Khan. Easier to spell correctly if you start it with a "J".
Re:I disagree... (Score:1)
ignorance is bliss. perhaps you haven't heard about the credit scams that porn sites have been accussed of?
net transactions mean more shadier people have your number, and it is easy for them to hide their identity from you.
The first poster was correct. I worked in for a credit card company for 8 years, and now do e-commerce programming, specifically credit card gateways.
The net only presents new ways to run the same old scams: using someone else's credit card number to buy something (which is much easier to get from garbage bins than it is from hacking into web sites) is only a small proportion of the scams perpetrated, the vast majority of which are done by merchants trying to get funds for nonexistent purchases, or conspiring with stooges to give them refunds on nonexistent purchases.
The only new twist is those porn sites who secretly route the calls to Moldavia or South America, and then split the toll charges with the phone companies concerned. This is semi-legal, though pretty naughty. Then again, if you are stupid and undisciplined enough to purchase porn by credit card, just remember the type of people you're likely to be dealing with.
Credit card transactions are and always have been traceable by banks, as every merchant must register with them before they can trade. So fraud of this type is difficult to get away with. In my experience, most credit card fraud is extraordinarily unsophisticated and easily traced. There may be extraordinarily talented criminals out there who are getting away with it, but not at a level where banks or other credit providers are seriously affected.
If you notice and tell your bank about a fraudulent transaction, you're usually well protected. If you don't notice, well...
For most purposes, SSL, especially 128-bit, is secure enough for transmission of this data. You CAN get 128 bit SSL outside the US. 40/56-bit triple DES used within SSL is probably good enough anyway. There are no DOCUMENTED cases of credit card transactions being intercepted by criminals during transmission over the internet. There are however plenty of cases of credit card numbers being stolen from servers - but this was going on well before the internet.
Re:You have to have a SPINE first. (Score:2)
Did you email them in a polite manner expressing your concerns? Even if you have a spine, you still need to make your view heard.
I've mad many emails to companies that I felt did E-Commerce badly. One was to a company that had setup their order processing system so one couldn't check the shipping costs till I'd entered a credit card number. I wrote the polite letter, two days latter it was changed.
You need to make your view heard, and be polite about it. If enough people bitch, and take their business elsewhere, things will change.
Unite the peoples of the World. (Score:4)
One thing I've said for years is if you want to kill off wars between nations, get the peoples of the nations talking to each other. Get them in daily communication, and building cross national friendships. The original way I thought of doing this was to make all long distance phone calls (national and international) part of basic phone service. It looks like the net is going to be the initial leader in providing the communication. Some leaders may eventually recognise that it has a major role in world peace. Think about this, if you were close friends with somebody in another country, would you condone your government attacking that country? Yes the net is one more step in the the people taking control of their lives away from governments, etc. Nolonger will the relations between two countries be goverened by what their leaders think of each other, but by what their peoples think of each other. When peoples in two different nations communicate, they will realize that they really aren't that much different. Everybody wants to put food on the table, everybody wants shelter, everbody wants relaxation and enjoyment, everbody wants... the list goes on and on. You look all accross the world, and these are constants. People will see all the various forms that satisfy these needs, and most will realize that it's just a different way, not necessasarily better or worse, just different.
Re:How Naive (Score:2)
With every attempt to monitor and track there comes a groundswell that - at least partially - negates the original "Big Brotherism". Just look at the reaction to the id circuit in the new Pentium III chip, or Microsoft's gathering of information during product registrations.
It will be ten years or so before this whole "new world" of the internet society starts to settle down and be civilized. Until then, there are going to be a lot of attempts from every corner to try to insure that that group, institution, political organization, or any other sub-set of society, becomes one of the eventual "top dogs".
It is up to each of us to stay aware of what happens around us, and speak up when someone tries to impose excessive controls, or tries to do limit the personal freedoms that should be (and in some countries, are specified by law) the right of every human on earth.
Biggest tech changes in society. (?) (Score:3)
- the "average room-temperature-IQ public" has purchased somewhere around 40 million computers in the last 5-7 years. Most are familiar with the Internet, and use it to gather different kinds of data, communicate (e-mail), and do other kinds of things that didn't happen so quickly prior to the 'Net.
- "...as automobiles were when their invention changed society." I think what you were really reaching for is that the internal combustion engine has changed society. For example, prior to IC engines, a large "mobile weapon of war" was one that could be pulled behind a large animal or placed on a ship. Shipping was mostly limited to train lines, which is why big cities grew up around the more successful rail-shipping lines.
- "Whereas anyone with at least an arm and a leg and an a-- to sit can learn how to drive a car with a reasonable level of competency...it takes intellegence to access the Internet, even through point-and-drool providers like AOL.I disagree with this point entirely, my friend. I'd have to say I've experienced 100X as many incompetent drivers as I've ever seen incompetent Internet users. Even including point and droolAOL.
...most people are quite comfortable being told what to do their entire lives. Correction. Most people are angry when they feel like they are not in control of their - Note the ratio of entrepreneurs to employees. Well, I've been both. Fact is I'm currently a highly empowered employee, and I've given myself the same wages without the headaches of running my own company. So perhaps your ratio has less to do with the sheep vs. sharks mentality implied through most of your post.
We're together on one thing though...how does Oprah sell so damn many books?own lives, they feel futile, and may ultimately choose not to take responsibility for their decisions, or find their own (alchohol, drugs, gambling -- choose your addiction) ways of escaping the futility. Guess what. Most 'Web surfers I know feel empowered and hava a habit of bringing others into the Digital age.
On second thought, maybe not. Consider this: what's the ratio of books purchased through Amazon.com compared to the books sold in response to Oprah. It's all about choice, and the web is opening up a whole new world that most of us haven't quite figured out yet.
Re:History ??? (Score:1)
So they were even more like the (Colonial) USA... High ideals about freedom and democracy; glaring violations of freedom and democracy in real life.
Also IIRC, Roman women did enjoy considerable power in government. Not full equality with men, and certainly nothing that would please a feminist today, but neither were they chattel like Greek women usually were.
Re:Not quite (Score:1)
Order/Chaos (Score:1)
But that is against free speech. If every agreement is spoken then every disagreement must be heard. Who has the right to announce the way it must go and force its way there. Who has the right to say you must not be heard. This is chaos.
As you can see, the primal forces of nature are at odds again. Order seeks direction. Chaos veers off in a direction of its own. There is no hope for either. We will forever be stuck in between in any free society.
--
Difference between net community and world pop. (Score:2)
Total Agreement (Score:1)
Every person is born with free will. Certain laws have been discovered that say basically, if a thing it unchanged by an outside force, it will stay the same. This holds true for a great number of things, even to (indefinite) All things. People _like_ to have control.
They go about different ways to get it, or create the illusion of it, but we all want it to some degree or another. "People" are "smart" enough to use the 'Net to "use" the "Net" to gain more control over their lives (specifically the Time of their lives)
The 'Net, at its core, is about communication
Total Agreement (Score:1)
Every person is born with free will. Certain laws have been discovered that say basically, if a thing is unchanged by an outside force, it will stay the same. This holds true for a great number of things, even to (indefinite) All things. People _like_ to have control of their lives.
They go about different ways to get it, or create the illusion of it, but we all want it to some degree or another. "People" are "smart" enough to use the 'Net to "use" the "Net" to gain more control over their lives (specifically the Time of their lives). And the Net gane FREE a whole new meaning, and I do mean like BEER!!
I don't go off on this often, and
Chomp, Chomp (Score:1)
Simple: Polls.
More: True democracy. One person, one vote. Very solid security measures and the masses of honest people will make it very accurate especially on a large scale.
- In an Information Society, will we just replace the old money based elites with new knowledge based elites?
Simple: Power = Power
More: Power = Power. There will be a constant struggle as there is now. Money = Power, Knowledge = Power. Money/3+X56^y = Knowledge*blah, blah, blah. Change is inevitable, true change is impossible.
- If industrial age revolutionary firebrands sparked the revolutions of 1776, 1789, and 1917, (etc), who will spark the revolutions of the information age? Will we have a cabal of disgruntled sysadmins shutting down the Net until their demands are met or will their tactics and aims be more subtle?
Simple: Industrial is large blocks of metal and huge physical output. Information (in this sense) is a bunch of ones and zeroes.
Even more: The choas needed to effect dramatic change is beyond my power to discern, as is the future. (bows head in defeat)
- Who moderates the crazies?
Simple: The loudest and the rational (the two are close to incompatible, but work together in extremes, er, sometimes)
More: The people who make 100 posts. (What's this?
- Who decides who the crazies are, if they are to be moderated
Could you please repeat the question? Oh, you just did.
- Will an elite of super geniuses guide the bleating masses of sheepishly dim humans? Or will we sink to the level of majority medocrity with the voices of genius moderated out because they're crazy?
Simple: Loaded assuming question, pass
How can any single human in 1999 have the slightest inkling of a clue as to what's in store for us when the _social_ effects of an information revolution finally hit with full force?
Simple: Nostrawho? Thomas Jefferwhat? Gandhwhat? Linhow?
More: People are capable of some pretty neat things and ideas, don't sell 'em short. We ARE thinking animals right?
Thanks for your time, I'll be here till Y2K draws the comets to Kosovo, g'night.
Re:Chomp, Chomp (Score:1)
My reply was to a response about making decisions for the entire Net community (roughly). Selfishness plays a very important role, in that you vote,pick,choose, how/what you want, so does everyone else, and the majority rules.
Democracy (from www.m-w.com [m-w.com])
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
.....
By true change I was referring to making or destryoing matter/energy at its base level. While topical changes happen all the time, the base nature remains the same.
Re:Chomp, Chomp (Score:1)
To quote Heinlien, via Lazerous Long, "Democracy is based on the idea that one million people know better than one man. How's that again?"
Masses of honest people? Most people, when it comes down to it, are selfish. It used to be a survival trait.
Ever hear of tyrany of the masses? It is one of the reasons why the US was designed -not- to be a democracy.
Change is inevitable, true change is impossible.
Nothing is impossible, just has varying degrees of probability. If it were impossible, I would just give up here and now.
maybe... (Score:1)
ie PGP, dont use M$ word, or pentiumIII.
in the end, computers could make it so that a smart user can't be controled...
or make us all live in a software prison.
(witch shouldnt be worst them the cash prison, we live in now, other then it would be easyer to lose . )
nmarshall
#include "standard_disclaimer.h"
R.U. SIRIUS: THE ONLY POSSIBLE RESPONSE
maybe, maybe not.... (Score:1)
now on control, in my exparance most, dislike others controling them, but they are content cause if they took responsibility they would have to learn how to "...increases ability to learn and hopefully perceived intelligence..." now that seems like HARD WORK. and most have learnt to dislike HARD WORK cause they think that work has to be boring.
the funny thing about all this, the net seems to make things more open, ie i found linux without anyone telling me about it, ( i had whated to learn how to program and found gnu tools ), in the past i wouldn't have heard of linux. cause in the net there is info on most anything, ie the more i know the more my is IQ.
nmarshall
#include "standard_disclaimer.h"
R.U. SIRIUS: THE ONLY POSSIBLE RESPONSE
Well.... (Score:1)
Information overflow
Information burnout
24/h connected
Internet as a replacement for real life
etc....
Well....I could be wrong...just my 0.02$
Re:Freedom with the internet? (Score:2)
Re:Unite the peoples of the World. (Score:1)
Re:I disagree... (Score:1)
ignorance is bliss. perhaps you haven't heard about the credit scams that porn sites have been accussed of?
net transactions mean more shadier people have your number, and it is easy for them to hide their identity from you.
Re:Not quite (Score:1)
But then I don't own a car or have driver license. I guess I'm just on the wrong continent to grasp this (or why every product needs its own song, or why guns are necessary for personal freedom, or etc ad infinum)...
Re:Not quite (Score:1)
One could debate about whether cars are necessary for suburbs (I live in the suburbs - I know I do because I just mowed the lawn - without a car and without problems), but even so, I don't exactly consider it a revolution of the way we live.
If Connectivity is just going do something equivalent of creating suburbs, we might as well cann it...
Also, I would say you are the one who can't see out of the box, only yours is big and named America...
Re:How Naive (Score:3)
And credit cards have been around much longer than the Internet revolution (yes I know the net itself is older) has. They are not an IT, more like bad bagage that we _have_ to rid ourselves of.
Not the first "Control Revolution" (Score:2)
-Ben
spamblock, filtering, to the control of dissent (Score:1)
I would argue that spam list killers and the like are not infringments on free speech because of the fact that they are all voluntary optins. If your provider opted you in and you don't like it, pick another provider!
On the net, an infringment of free speech comes from the readers perspective, not the publishers. China infringes the free speech of their citizens (stop laughing) by denying them the ability to reach out to the information they want. They are prevented from accessing information published and waiting for them.
Summarizing, the net is a pull medium, it functions by responding dynamically to the demands of those using it. Antispam issues are basically issues of a public nuisiance nature, as it is so easy for any net user to decide for themselves what they do and don't want. Access to sites is an issue of free speech. The ability to make a site can even be called an issue of free speech (scary), but filtering unsolicited data has nothing to do with it based on the fundamental nature of net communications
Re:Not the first "Control Revolution" (Score:1)
My same response -- I turned to my right to look at my bookshelf, there it was!! (With picture of an old girlfriend in it, hmm, how's she doing lately? :-)
Harvard University Press, copyright 1986 (!), ISBN 0-674-16985-9 (paper). James R. Beniger, The Control Revolution: Technological and Economic Origins of the Information Society
Information Society: Drivers and Passengers (Score:1)
The assumption in this review seems to be that there are an increasing number of "drivers" down the information superhighway, folk who have points A and B between which they wish to rush.
Appealing image. But those cars may have passengers too; some folk really prefer not to have to make their own choices. Even those who drive may want to "cruise" more than to be empowered ... web browsing is not as passive as television, but it's not quite as goal-directed as it might be, either.
Also, I'm not so sure I agree that this round of the "Information Society" revolution is going to work so differently from the various previous rounds. (One can hope!) There are always elites who really benefit, and other folk who don't benefit so much ... only so many individuals can really be empowered before the powers-that-be will start to get worried.
Consider the recent "hellmouth" series of discussions. Are schools designed to empower anyone except maybe the teachers, and those few kids who make their lives easier? Nope. Fit in to their power structure ... or else. And that's the way every local community works. A change of power is dangerous to the status quo; even just being different can be a threat.
Just watch over the next few years as those powers-that-be try to clamp down on the potential for revolution here. Watch information become increasingly controlled by the folk who didn't create it, be they database vendors, the RIAA, or some "religious" group. Watch privacy get further abridged, espionage against private citizens becoming accepted government practice. Watch more kinds of discussion be viewed as threats; watch the wagons beginning to circle.
Some of the current drivers don't want to switch, or let new cars share the road.
- Jojo
Re:Not quite (Score:1)
when their invention changed society.
I would argue that many (most?) aspects of net culture will never be available to those with "room-temperature-IQ's." I fear an impending societal division that will reshape class structures: net users and non-net users. The difference will be that the division will be along intelligence lines.
I would argue that neither of the two previous posters host or moderate mailing lists. If they did, they would realize that the room-temperature set is already upon us, and has been for some time.
More than likely, the true room-temperature set will move on to other, more interesting, things. Until WWF can be viewed live over the web, anyway.
Long time surfers have already noted the net, like CB radio, has suffered from popularity.
Kalvan
Re:I disagree... (Score:1)
It depends on whether or not you think? (Score:1)
Sure it requires "thinking" but thinking is like exercising, or cleaning a spot on the wall. Do a little, and keep going.
It is subjective.
So is reality.
My viewpoint, is based in my experience.
I can't say, "stop flaming"
"Quit with the angry reatoric"...
It won't stop you.
Nor will saying, "Listen to your inner voice, be true to yourself"... help either.
But I would...
and it will, and it is merely a chase of words,
this matter of "Free will/choice".
But I will chouras the author, support Katz's direction and say, thank you.
Thank you for vision, discusion, mind expansion.
True revolutions happen in unbelieved and unexpected ways... Like blowing bubbles in a Costco parking lot on a sunny Saturday afternoon.
What is a smile worth?
Songbird
http://www.rady.com
Just another idealistic, Linux lowing, Open-source addicted free sprirt.