Comments for Social Singularity at http://atlanticfreepress.com , comment 1 to 15 out of 15 comments http://atlanticfreepress.com Thu, 09 Feb 2012 21:38:43 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://atlanticfreepress.com/news/1/2579-social-singularity.html#comment-8402 Hello Bones: long time no ... 8) Just saying hello, reading along, and have posted link to this article on vicktorya.com be well; godspeed, Vicktorya - Vicktorya Sat, 08 Aug 2009 02:02:40 +0100 http://atlanticfreepress.com/news/1/2579-social-singularity.html#comment-8141 I can't get Eclipse to recognize CF8 syntax. I'm running Linux and Eclipse 3.2. I added the CF8 extensions from Macromedia using the ZIP as a source, all went well but It's not recognizing CF8 syntax. I also followed the CF8 Dictionary instructions, and found the cf8.xml file was already there so I assume the above install worked. In my CFEclipse Project/Properties I still only see language up to 7.01. - petert Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:21:01 +0100 http://atlanticfreepress.com/news/1/2579-social-singularity.html#comment-6659 In 1999 a group of IT business leaders wrote an extended essay, "The Cluetrain Manifesto" in which they tried to get corporations to begin understanding and adapting to the new Internet ability to link people in very new ways. If you take the "manifesto" and substitue "government" or "politicians" in place of "corporations" or "leaders" you have a good fit for your discussion. - Butch Mon, 20 Oct 2008 23:36:00 +0100 http://atlanticfreepress.com/news/1/2579-social-singularity.html#comment-6656 "people around the world collaborating" is a bit of an exaggeration. While it's entirely possible that the early adopters of the Internet around the world speak English, the vast majority of people do not (at least not fluently enough to collaborate, even if they can order in a restaurant). Machine translation is dreadful. The situation is interesting enough; there is no need to exaggerate the effects. - mrsizer Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:14:06 +0100 http://atlanticfreepress.com/news/1/2579-social-singularity.html#comment-6650 I do agree with your article, every man now has his own means of production, his own printing press. My own experience is that I always use the Net, because the quality of what passes for knowledge in Newspapers and Tv is very poor. I believe that you are right that credibility is the key but the other side of the equation is people. To appreciate credibile writing requires intellectual application. My belief is that people will require information management skills (ability to understand logical argument, respect for facts, capability to build real-world hypotheses) and the character to manage the pyschological and emotion changes that the "Army of Davids" has to offer them. I think the good news is that the wealth of knowledge and creativity on the Net will seduce many people into making the effort to be part of the singularity you describe so well. Thank you for this article, it is a beautiful proof of your hypothesis. - John Van Rijn Mon, 20 Oct 2008 11:03:51 +0100 http://atlanticfreepress.com/news/1/2579-social-singularity.html#comment-6647 whups...let me clarify... My para. that begins with: "This creates the big difference...", seems to refer to the immediately preceding para.; which wasn't what I intended. What I was trying to say is this: Because of the -inherent- natures of both MSM and so-called 'progressives', i.e. they are inherently the main fad-propagator s and fad-generators, the media IS indeed overwhelmingly a 'liberal' agenda pusher. Exactly as the majority of citizens perceive it to be. The constant denial of the blatant truth are ludicrous. Further, my para. starting with: "This creates the big difference..." was referring not specifically to the MSM inherently pushing liberal agenda, but rather, to the earlier observation of -inherent- sociopolitical difference between a group whose entire focus is on -ideology-, i.e. -mere beliefs-... vs. a group whose mindset focuses almost exclusively on -practicality-; i.e. 'things that actually WORK'. That's a major cultural-faultline that's created by progressives, not conservatives. I had hopes that the 'credibility and reality focus' as mentioned in this article -would- bring some healing to this fault-line; as the focus on -facts- educated young liberals to the truth that many of the the notions they're being indoctrinated in by elitist gatekeepers are in fact ill-conceived or rehashes already proved failures. However, the past month or two of frothing, spewing, hate at even the slightest critique of any tiny piece of dogma, has made me question my earlier hope. - analyze-rather-than-'believe' Mon, 20 Oct 2008 00:36:42 +0100 http://atlanticfreepress.com/news/1/2579-social-singularity.html#comment-6644 I've used the internet extensively since the late 1980's, and had your epiphany in 1991. You said it's impossible to describe in brief form; but it is: Rather than being a one-to-many broadcast media, like every single media that's come before; the Internet is a many-to-many media; the only one which has ever existed. I said that in 1991. I also followed it immediately with "the powers-that-be are going to CRUSH the freedom-of-the-net sooner or later, -because- it is so effective for the -citizens-." In relation to the 'many to many' essence, I believe Kevin had an error of understanding in his comment, when he compared the net to previous public discourse, in relation to prior media like papers. There is no valid comparison. There wasn't any 'public discourse'. There was only the -broadcast- from a -single- source, and whatever few and trivial 'letters' the paper would deign to publish. However, I think Kevin -did- hit things spot-on with this: "Particularly after in early days it began to truly be a serious challenge to those who thought such a coffeehouse would be the ultimate venue for their intellectual triumph. Many of these it seems, were used to having their ideas and political philosophies dominate... in a controlled and closed environment. And to this they have returned." Even the briefest perusal of DU or Koz will confirm that assessment. While there is also some of that amongst 'conservative' blogs; it's very different in both degree and, more importantly, character. Conservative people -inherently- do not constantly create ill-conceived or already tried-and-failed 'PC' feelgood notions one after another. By their -very nature- they don't. Self-styled 'progressives', by their very nature, ARE the creators of these fads, the feeders to the cause-junkies. Thus, the regular media, which is not only majority 'liberal' staffed, but also -lives- by hyping 'new' and enhancing fad-following, is indeed mainly a mouthpiece of the 'liberal' agenda. This creates the big difference in character between the so-called 'liberal' frothing religious-like rejection of critique of their -beliefs-; vs. the more sober reality-based discussions of conservative people. It has also effectively disenfranchised conservatives, libertarians, and basically -anyone- who doesn't agree with the 'progressive' agenda. However, unlike Kevin, I -do- see the focus on credibility and fact-correction working. You see it happen across the cultural fault-lines even. Well, you at least see a Malkin or American Thinker correcting a post based on seeing verifiable facts posted on a 'liberal' site. I don't often see it happen the other way; but that problem is based in the 'beliefs' vs. reality issue already mentioned; which is fundamental to the cultural fault-line and not specific to this discussion of the net vs. old one-to-many media. Thanks for a thoughtful piece, and for providing this opportunity to comment. - analyze-rather-than-'believe' Mon, 20 Oct 2008 00:13:20 +0100 http://atlanticfreepress.com/news/1/2579-social-singularity.html#comment-6638 introvert, Be careful what you wish for. True democracy and true tyranny are not as far apart as you think. The future won't fit in that box. Look sideways, toward the opposite of both democracy and tyranny, and you might be looking in the general direction that Warren is pointing. - Kyle Bennett Sun, 19 Oct 2008 22:24:07 +0100 http://atlanticfreepress.com/news/1/2579-social-singularity.html#comment-6635 What happens if you link one billion human brains into one big neural network? The folks who experiment with electronic neural networks get a flexible, adaptive system when they put lots of independent nodes together into a circuit. Any reason why humans can't network as well as neurons? - Scott Somerville Sun, 19 Oct 2008 22:04:00 +0100 http://atlanticfreepress.com/news/1/2579-social-singularity.html#comment-6632 A friend returned, a couple of months ago, from research study that included a bit more than a month in Syria. Prior to going he had asked a Syrian friend about the availability of the web in Damascus and censorship. The friend said that he had heard at least one internet cafe had opened last year in Damascus but that he would guess Assad would be trying to control web access and usage. Upon arriving in Damascus, my friend said one of the first things he noticed in downtown was an internet cafe on just about every block and every second one seemed to be open 24/7. The second thing he noticed was that after booting up and beginning to type in a url was that the first suggestion from his browser turned to be (in English) a gay porn site. The third thing he discovered was that Skype was available everywhere and it cost about 20 cents per hour to talk to his family in the US in real time. I think this is happening even faster than you suppose. - JorgXMcKie Sun, 19 Oct 2008 21:19:31 +0100 http://atlanticfreepress.com/news/1/2579-social-singularity.html#comment-6629 Be interesting to see how "credibility" matches up with diversity. Is "The Bell Curve" credible? Is democracy the best principle for organising a government? Are Islam, Catholicism and Buddhism equally moral as religions? There are popular answers to all of these answers. I suspect that "credibility", in the 'web, means popularity. 'web-cred won't necessarily map to objective value. - David Sun, 19 Oct 2008 21:03:58 +0100 http://atlanticfreepress.com/news/1/2579-social-singularity.html#comment-6626 Interesting, but incredibly optimistic given changes that have occurred in recent years. Your contention was one I shared up to around 2002 or even 2003. But I truly hope that one point you made which seems to be where much of your proposition turns upon, actually turns out to be true. To wit: You make the point that transparency and credibility are the ultimate currency that determines the magnitude of individual voices, and presumaly, ideas. I really would love to have confidence in this assumption, but based on what I have observed, I do not. It appears that, much like the public discourse in the "traditonal" mass media market, efficacy in the public discourse is more a function of volume, than veracity. And what is perhaps even worse (and potentially a reinforcing trend to this malevolent tendency), there is a broad based tendency to gravitate even now, to rhetoric that tells one what one wants to hear, rather than what passes any sort of objective truth test. "Interpretive" defintiions of the "trueness" of everything from historical observations to policy points, to character assasinations, are common if not ubiquitous. And more and more this occurs across large interlinked communities that are collectively, more or less closed to any rebuttals. Indeed, arguments are held to be worthy of contempt, and the intellectual tenor becomes quite extraordinarily emotive. This is indeed ideological, as the main epicenter of this self reinforcing closure is unsurprisingly, holding sway in an ideology that is historically anathema to liberty in the long term. There are reasons for that, and they will be inevitably manifest, regardless of the venue. This means that the internet, as a social phenomenon in the way you describe it, actually has far more potential to be a powerfully reinforcing "binding" on the free market place of ideas than a liberator of it. A new twist on the "ancient" and etrnal method of mass power projection, wherein a tightly framed educational indoctrination, leads one through a conformist social framework, ultimately dropping this minted mind into a "vibrant" and "free" community of recast ideas and real time interpretations that endlessly reinforce the imposed inclinations of these "free" citizens. This is something already easily seen in the way the internet behaves. It is far from the giant coffee house many hoped for. Particularly after in early days it began to truly be a serious challenge to those who thought such a coffeehouse would be the ultimate venue for their intellectual triumph. Many of these it seems, were used to having their ideas and political philosophies dominate... in a controlled and closed environment. And to this they have returned. In that scneario, the internet, in general, becomes simply an extension of the already dominant frameworks of mass media, the arts and the academy. Naturally, political power rising past a tipping point will follow, leading to a "social" result far indeed from what can reasonably be called Free Society. Tyranny of the likes tyrants have always dreamed of. A very real threat. - Kevin McDonnell Sun, 19 Oct 2008 21:01:25 +0100 http://atlanticfreepress.com/news/1/2579-social-singularity.html#comment-6623 My impression is that there's a huge amount of posting to the choir, in contrast to thoughtful discussion. Bad news -- it's amplifying ideological differences, as far as I can see. - GrannyJ Sun, 19 Oct 2008 20:19:26 +0100 http://atlanticfreepress.com/news/1/2579-social-singularity.html#comment-3859 There is enormous potential for either freedom or servitude in this paradigm shift in transferring information. I hope for the former, but fear it will be the latter. True democracy or a new tyrrany. Who can tell. TV and Newspapers are increasingly irrelevant as they steadily move towards the lowest common denominator - scandal. - introvert Thu, 13 Dec 2007 01:27:35 +0100 http://atlanticfreepress.com/news/1/2579-social-singularity.html#comment-3826 Warren, You have come closer to putting into words what I'm seeing happening around the world. I gives me 'goose pimples'! You always help me to be more than I am. Love Patricia - Patricia Thu, 06 Dec 2007 10:51:18 +0100