Since you forgot to send yours, here are some quickie comments.
Clay Shirky Explains Internet Evolution
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/03/13/1420210&mode=thread&threshold=3
__
>The recording industry is desperate to bring all the inconvenience of the
>physical world into cyberspace, and then ask music lovers to pay the same
>for music on- and offline, because it's costing them so much to make things
>so inconvenient.
Nice marketing line, "RIAA: Bringing all the inconvenience of the physical
world into cyber space."
>As we know from both democracy and free markets, systems that channel
>selfish behavior work better than systems that try to deflect it.
Agreed. This is why I sometimes joking refer to myself as a "socialist
critical capitalist":
>However, when I look back upon the radicals of of the 18th and 19th
>century, I wonder about their naivete. Lauding the farmer for what he does
>not have is like congratulating a slave on meeting his Christian obligation
>of service. Granted, some (like Thoreau or Kropotkin) prefer the simple
>life, and I am sympathetic. But to assume that the poor farmer, when given
>the choice to live like a king would refuse to do so, is absurd. As is the
>idea that humans are not prone to selfish behavior, "From each according to
>their ability, to each according to their needs." Please! All such social
>systems are bound to failure if they do not structure themselves so as to
>thrive in a worst case scenario: greed. That's what competitive based
>capitalism is about, society (or some section thereof) does thrive in the
>face of a human vice. Unfortunately, what America has forgotten is that
>prospering in the face of that vice is not an end in and of itself. We
>should still strive and encourage selflessness and integrity; we should not
>applaud greed and consumerism. We can't predicate selflessness as an
>assumption of our society; we should make it our goal.
>
http://goatee.net/2000/02#21mo
>Therefore, when I face questions like "Does the web as we know it enhance
>our ability to communicate, or does it further isolate us?", I have to ask,
>why pick? It seems to do both, or at least it did for me.
Yes, yes. I was speaking with a friend about the sort of PhD program I'd
like to be in: interdisciplinary post-mo modern-media analysis.
Unfortunately, there's so much dreck of the type that I want to *avoid*:
0. computers are evil and invasive, destroy them all. (ok, then don't use
them. my gadgets are useful to me).
1. gee, should be simpler. (ok, so do it)
2. computers are for 3l33t, everything should be cyber and we'll rule. (ok,
i dare you to do it, and in the meantime I'm going to the beach to enjoy
myself in the waves).
>So yes, I believe that the fundamentals of micropayments, namely being
>embraced by users, are impossible to achieve.
Longstanding agreement for additional reasons. I see subscription models and
advertising models. 80% of eyeballs are returning to content they already
know. Consequently, if they really want it, they'll subscribe to it.
>That having been said, I disagree with the idea that there is an increasing
>corporatization of news. I refuse to be seduced by this comfortingly
>alarmist view, because I am old enough to know better.
I might disagree with him a little here, but he's argument is akin to my
theory of fragmented homogeneity. There used to be 3 networks. Now there are
innumerable networks by owned by 3 large megacorps. Things seem "better";
thing seems "worse."
__
Joseph Reagle Jr.
http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
W3C Policy Analyst mailto:
[email protected]
IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair
http://www.w3.org/Signature
W3C XML Encryption Chair
http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/