This entry was posted on Monday, October 29th, 2007 at 1:06 am and is filed under Business Factors, Change Factors, Choice Factors, Disruptive Factors, Market Factors, Strategic Factors, Systemic Factors. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
10 29th, 2007
In a book titled Electrifying America: Social Meanings of a New Technology, David E. Nye argues, “A technology is not merely a system of machines with certain functions; it is part of a social world. Electrification is not an implacable force moving through history, but a social process that varies from one time period to another and from one culture to another”
Networking the Globe: Economic Implications of Online Social Networks
When you consider David Nye’s quote “A technology is not merely a system of machines with certain functions; it is part of a social world” you can easily apply the same context to the emergence of social networks. Mr. Nye’s speaks to the impact of electricity as the medium which caused significant social change.
Put the same context into the medium of social networks and what should one conclude? Are individuals, corporations, institutions and society in general adopting social networking technologies in a wide range of social, political, economic, and aesthetic contexts, weaving them into the fabric of experience?
Based on the adoption, advancement of the technological medium and creative application of the technology one may conclude that we are weaving them into the fabric of our experience or are we?.
Are we overloaded with networks?
E-mail, cellular telephones, voicemail, the Internet, and other information technologies do not increase our efficiency, give us more flexibility, or liberate us from drudgery. Instead, argues Thomas Eriksen (social anthropology, Univ. of Oslo), they eat away at our increasingly precious time, leaving us to wade through useless and marginally useful information. Eriksen claims that our new electronic modes of communication are partly to blame for causing a host of contemporary social ills, including decreased job security, blurred boundaries between work and leisure, and the declining quality of family life. Eriksen’s critiques feel a little too familiar, and one is left with the sense that it has all been said many times before.
Eriksen also states “The turn of the millennium is characterized by exponential growth in everything related to communication – from the Internet and email to air travel.. Who would have expected that apparently timesaving technology results in time being scarcer than ever? Since we are now theoretically “online” 24 hours a day, we must fight for the right to be unavailable – the right to live and think more slowly. It is not only that working hours have become longer – Eriksen argues how the logic of this new information technology has, in the space of just a few years, permeated every area of our lives.
Are You Suffering From Socialnetworkitis?
Max Kalehoff writes “I just don’t have time for all these social networks!” the head of a prominent social network told me this week. “How can anyone be in so many places at the same time?” a prominent advertising exec asked me. And “I keep getting spammed by everyone’s stupid trivia questions,” we’ve certainly all complainedIt seems more and more people are suffering from social network fatigue, which I’m now coining socialnetworkitis. On recall, here’s a sampling of the Web services — broadly defined — contributing to my own bout with socialnetworkits:”
“First, my work and personal email accounts. Yes, in fact, these are perhaps my most important online social networks, and certainly the ones I’m most active in. This is where much of my business and personal life gets carried out. Then there’s my personal blog, which has hundreds registered and subscribed via RSS and email. And there’s a subset of users who comment and interact with me. And integrated with blog is my Twitter microblogging network, where I post mini-updates and pictures throughout my day, often through my mobile phone. Also integrated into my blog is MyBlogLog, a service which tracks its members and then automatically creates networks based on which blogs they visit.”
“Facebook has been a pretty active place for my social set as of late, having connected me with old friends, colleagues and interested acquaintances. And the social networking applications building on top are growing exponentially. LinkedIn has been an interesting way to connect with peers in my industry. Of course, I’m a registered member of MediaPost, which enables me to access other members and comment on columns, including my own.”
“I’m going to stop because I’m making myself dizzy. To be sure, online social networks will rise in importance and become integrated into our lives far beyond what we can imagine. But this brief recall exercise underscores that too many social-network services tend to be clunky media destinations, requiring too much intention, focused navigation and maintenance. There’s only so much of my attention and effort to go around, yet still great hunger for value.”
Recently we’ve read several forum post of people stating that the time has come for them to stop all this networking and confine their activities to just a few forums and networks because they are burned out. They also state that chasing economic opportunities within networks has not produced the results required to keep them engaged.
So are we all getting burned out or is the medium at a tipping point where it will become an efficent and effective tool to conduct commerce? Will things begin to become simplier or even more chaotic? Will individuals and businesses alike be able to justify their time and energy with the medium or will all this pass away as a blip on the landscape of technology?
What say you?
Highlight any portion you want: 
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Related posts:
- Has McKinsey Created A Tipping Point? This article should be considered a tipping point. When McKinsey...
- Force Field Analysis Factors All problem situations, regardless of the specific kind of...
- Nobel Prize Goes To Social Media The bottom line is that just because you we don’t...
- Social Media Connection Broadcast Network Launches In addition to the full battery of video news programming,...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Stumble it!
October 29th, 2007 at 2:40 am
Well Jay you have posted the Apocalypse of the demise of anything to do with “six degrees of separation.”
Good for you to even suggest this topic today.
My vision is that its already over and the ones that are there are just joining the party.
Anyone who has invested at least a minimum of four to five years into social networking are the same people who will tell you that there needs to be a major over hall of the way we interact in online Social Interaction Exchange.
In order to understand what the hell is truly going on it is necessary to revisit this freely distributed essay:
World of Ends
What the Internet Is and
How to Stop Mistaking It
for Something Else.
by
Doc Searls and
David Weinberger
Quote,
“The Nutshell
1. The Internet isn’t complicated
2. The Internet isn’t a thing. It’s an agreement.
3. The Internet is stupid.
4. Adding value to the Internet lowers its value.
5. All the Internet’s value grows on its edges.
6. Money moves to the suburbs.
7. The end of the world? Nah, the world of ends.
8. The Internet’s three virtues:
a. No one owns it
b. Everyone can use it
c. Anyone can improve it
9. If the Internet is so simple, why have so many been so boneheaded about it?
10. Some mistakes we can stop making already
end quote.”
Source: http://worldofends.com/
If there is any respected authority on the internet and has spent years in writing about it et al it is Doc Searls and David Weinberger.
The question you asked is it Tipping Point or Burnout is very narrow minded and an overuse of Malcolm Gladwell’s Tipping Point narrative. It has been my professional experience as an elite Investment Banker that you are only as good as your last deal and the success of your last deal is directly related to the choices you make. I truly believe that its not about the Tipping Point nor Burnout, although these may be symptomatic of what we are seeing in this chaotic world. But as the reader well knows like mother nature everything tends towards balance and this balance is the truth. As Shakespear once said to paraphrase him The Truth Will Out.
So Jay we will all have to take a seat and relax and there is nothing we can do to find the answers to our questions other than to see what is happening clearly without rose colored glasses, or defense of one’s own views, or even the shake down of one’s own belief systems.
Nobody really knows what is going to happen, but we do know this: it is human nature to bring balance to one’s world and this is where I think we are at now. How we’re going to do this is the question to ask. What I have presented here is a way to look at what a real authority who still admits after all these years that he is not an authority looks at the very things we are all looking at and the questions we are asking ourselves.
October 29th, 2007 at 8:43 am
It’s neither a tipping point or a burnout. It’s simply a misunderstanding or a lack of knowledge or plain ignorance. The whole point is that most individuals have no idea about what is really going on behind the social networking phenomenon. But here is a quote from Doc Searls and David Weinberger in their paper on World of Ends: What the Internet Is and
How to Stop Mistaking It for Something Else,
” There are mistakes and there are mistakes.
Some mistakes we learn from. For example: Thinking that selling toys for pets on the Web is a great way to get rich. We’re not going to do that again.
Other mistakes we insist on making over and over. For example, thinking that:
* …the Web, like television, is a way to hold eyeballs still while advertisers spray them with messages.
* …the Net is something that telcos and cable companies should filter, control and otherwise “improve.”
* … it’s a bad thing for users to communicate between different kinds of instant messaging systems on the Net.
* …the Net suffers from a lack of regulation to protect industries that feel threatened by it.
When it comes to the Net, a lot of us suffer from Repetitive Mistake Syndrome. This is especially true for magazine and newspaper publishing, broadcasting, cable television, the record industry, the movie industry, and the telephone industry, to name just six.
Thanks to the enormous influence of those industries in Washington, Repetitive Mistake Syndrome also afflicts lawmakers, regulators and even the courts. Last year Internet radio, a promising new industry that threatened to give listeners choices far exceeding anything on the increasingly variety-less (and technologically stone-age) AM and FM bands, was shot in its cradle. Guns, ammo and the occasional “Yee-Haw!” were provided by the recording industry and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which embodies all the fears felt by Hollywood’s alpha dinosaurs when they lobbied the Act through Congress in 1998.
“The Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it,” John Gilmore famously said. And it’s true. In the long run, Internet radio will succeed. Instant messaging systems will interoperate. Dumb companies will get smart or die. Stupid laws will be killed or replaced. But then, as John Maynard Keynes also famously said, “In the long run, we’re all dead.”
All we need to do is pay attention to what the Internet really is. It’s not hard. The Net isn’t rocket science. It isn’t even 6th grade science fair, when you get right down to it. We can end the tragedy of Repetitive Mistake Syndrome in our lifetimes — and save a few trillion dollars’ worth of dumb decisions — if we can just remember one simple fact: the Net is a world of ends. You’re at one end, and everybody and everything else are at the other ends.
Sure, that’s a feel-good statement about everyone having value on the Net, etc. But it’s also the basic rock-solid fact about the Net’s technical architecture. And the Internet’s value is founded in its technical architecture.
Fortunately, the true nature of the Internet isn’t hard to understand. In fact, just a fistful of statements stands between Repetitive Mistake Syndrome and Enlightenment?”
The Essential Links
End-to-End Arguments in System Design (Clark, Reed, Saltzer) http://www.reed.com/Papers/EndtoEnd.html
Rise of the Stupid Network (Isenberg) http://www.isen.com/stupid.html
The Internet (Washington Internet Project) http://www.cybertelecom.org/internet.htm
10 Right Choices (Bradner) http://www.nwfusion.com/columnists/2003/0120bradner.html
The Cluetrain Manifesto (Levine, Locke, Searls, Weinberger) http://www.cluetrain.com/
End Game (Lessig) http://www.tnr.com/061900/lessig061900.html
Open Access to the FCC, (Lessig & Lemley) http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/works/lessig/cable/fcc/fcc.html
Electronic Frontier Foundation http://www.eff.org/
Center for the Public Domain http://www.centerforthepublicdomain.org/
Why Open Spectrum Matters (Weinberger) http://www.greaterdemocracy.org/framing_openspectrum.html
Open Spectrum FAQ http://www.greaterdemocracy.org/OpenSpectrumFAQ.html
About the Authors
Doc Searls http://www.searls.com/
David Weinberger http://www.evident.com/
The Nutshell
1. The Internet isn’t complicated
2. The Internet isn’t a thing. It’s an agreement.
3. The Internet is stupid.
4. Adding value to the Internet lowers its value.
5. All the Internet’s value grows on its edges.
6. Money moves to the suburbs.
7. The end of the world? Nah, the world of ends.
8. The Internet’s three virtues:
a. No one owns it
b. Everyone can use it
c. Anyone can improve it
9. If the Internet is so simple, why have so many been so boneheaded about it?
10. Some mistakes we can stop making already
October 29th, 2007 at 8:46 am
It’s neither a tipping point or a burnout. It’s simply a misunderstanding or a lack of knowledge or plain ignorance. The whole point is that most individuals have no idea about what is really going on behind the social networking phenomenon. But here is a quote from Doc Searls and David Weinberger in their paper on World of Ends: What the Internet Is and
How to Stop Mistaking It for Something Else [ see http://worldofends.com/ to read more],
” There are mistakes and there are mistakes.
Some mistakes we learn from. For example: Thinking that selling toys for pets on the Web is a great way to get rich. We’re not going to do that again.
Other mistakes we insist on making over and over. For example, thinking that:
* …the Web, like television, is a way to hold eyeballs still while advertisers spray them with messages.
* …the Net is something that telcos and cable companies should filter, control and otherwise “improve.”
* … it’s a bad thing for users to communicate between different kinds of instant messaging systems on the Net.
* …the Net suffers from a lack of regulation to protect industries that feel threatened by it.
When it comes to the Net, a lot of us suffer from Repetitive Mistake Syndrome. This is especially true for magazine and newspaper publishing, broadcasting, cable television, the record industry, the movie industry, and the telephone industry, to name just six.
Thanks to the enormous influence of those industries in Washington, Repetitive Mistake Syndrome also afflicts lawmakers, regulators and even the courts. Last year Internet radio, a promising new industry that threatened to give listeners choices far exceeding anything on the increasingly variety-less (and technologically stone-age) AM and FM bands, was shot in its cradle. Guns, ammo and the occasional “Yee-Haw!” were provided by the recording industry and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which embodies all the fears felt by Hollywood’s alpha dinosaurs when they lobbied the Act through Congress in 1998.
“The Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it,” John Gilmore famously said. And it’s true. In the long run, Internet radio will succeed. Instant messaging systems will interoperate. Dumb companies will get smart or die. Stupid laws will be killed or replaced. But then, as John Maynard Keynes also famously said, “In the long run, we’re all dead.”
All we need to do is pay attention to what the Internet really is. It’s not hard. The Net isn’t rocket science. It isn’t even 6th grade science fair, when you get right down to it. We can end the tragedy of Repetitive Mistake Syndrome in our lifetimes — and save a few trillion dollars’ worth of dumb decisions — if we can just remember one simple fact: the Net is a world of ends. You’re at one end, and everybody and everything else are at the other ends.
Sure, that’s a feel-good statement about everyone having value on the Net, etc. But it’s also the basic rock-solid fact about the Net’s technical architecture. And the Internet’s value is founded in its technical architecture.
Fortunately, the true nature of the Internet isn’t hard to understand. In fact, just a fistful of statements stands between Repetitive Mistake Syndrome and Enlightenment?”
The Essential Links
End-to-End Arguments in System Design (Clark, Reed, Saltzer) http://www.reed.com/Papers/EndtoEnd.html
Rise of the Stupid Network (Isenberg) http://www.isen.com/stupid.html
The Internet (Washington Internet Project) http://www.cybertelecom.org/internet.htm
10 Right Choices (Bradner) http://www.nwfusion.com/columnists/2003/0120bradner.html
The Cluetrain Manifesto (Levine, Locke, Searls, Weinberger) http://www.cluetrain.com/
End Game (Lessig) http://www.tnr.com/061900/lessig061900.html
Open Access to the FCC, (Lessig & Lemley) http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/works/lessig/cable/fcc/fcc.html
Electronic Frontier Foundation http://www.eff.org/
Center for the Public Domain http://www.centerforthepublicdomain.org/
Why Open Spectrum Matters (Weinberger) http://www.greaterdemocracy.org/framing_openspectrum.html
Open Spectrum FAQ http://www.greaterdemocracy.org/OpenSpectrumFAQ.html
About the Authors
Doc Searls http://www.searls.com/
David Weinberger http://www.evident.com/
The Nutshell
1. The Internet isn’t complicated
2. The Internet isn’t a thing. It’s an agreement.
3. The Internet is stupid.
4. Adding value to the Internet lowers its value.
5. All the Internet’s value grows on its edges.
6. Money moves to the suburbs.
7. The end of the world? Nah, the world of ends.
8. The Internet’s three virtues:
a. No one owns it
b. Everyone can use it
c. Anyone can improve it
9. If the Internet is so simple, why have so many been so boneheaded about it?
10. Some mistakes we can stop making already
October 29th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
It’s neither a tipping point or a burnout. It’s simply a misunderstanding or a lack of knowledge or plain ignorance. The whole point is that most individuals have no idea about what is really going on behind the social networking phenomenon.
But here is an exerpt from Doc Searls and David Weinberger in their paper on World of Ends: What the Internet Is and How to Stop Mistaking It for Something Else [ see http://worldofends.com/ to read more],
” There are mistakes and there are mistakes.
Some mistakes we learn from. For example: Thinking that selling toys for pets on the Web is a great way to get rich. We’re not going to do that again.
Other mistakes we insist on making over and over. For example, thinking that:
* …the Web, like television, is a way to hold eyeballs still while advertisers spray them with messages.
* …the Net is something that telcos and cable companies should filter, control and otherwise “improve.”
* … it’s a bad thing for users to communicate between different kinds of instant messaging systems on the Net.
* …the Net suffers from a lack of regulation to protect industries that feel threatened by it.
When it comes to the Net, a lot of us suffer from Repetitive Mistake Syndrome. This is especially true for magazine and newspaper publishing, broadcasting, cable television, the record industry, the movie industry, and the telephone industry, to name just six.
Thanks to the enormous influence of those industries in Washington, Repetitive Mistake Syndrome also afflicts lawmakers, regulators and even the courts. Last year Internet radio, a promising new industry that threatened to give listeners choices far exceeding anything on the increasingly variety-less (and technologically stone-age) AM and FM bands, was shot in its cradle. Guns, ammo and the occasional “Yee-Haw!” were provided by the recording industry and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which embodies all the fears felt by Hollywood’s alpha dinosaurs when they lobbied the Act through Congress in 1998.
“The Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it,” John Gilmore famously said. And it’s true. In the long run, Internet radio will succeed. Instant messaging systems will interoperate. Dumb companies will get smart or die. Stupid laws will be killed or replaced. But then, as John Maynard Keynes also famously said, “In the long run, we’re all dead.”
All we need to do is pay attention to what the Internet really is. It’s not hard. The Net isn’t rocket science. It isn’t even 6th grade science fair, when you get right down to it. We can end the tragedy of Repetitive Mistake Syndrome in our lifetimes — and save a few trillion dollars’ worth of dumb decisions — if we can just remember one simple fact: the Net is a world of ends. You’re at one end, and everybody and everything else are at the other ends.
Sure, that’s a feel-good statement about everyone having value on the Net, etc. But it’s also the basic rock-solid fact about the Net’s technical architecture. And the Internet’s value is founded in its technical architecture.
Fortunately, the true nature of the Internet isn’t hard to understand. In fact, just a fistful of statements stands between Repetitive Mistake Syndrome and Enlightenment ”
The Essential Links
End-to-End Arguments in System Design (Clark, Reed, Saltzer) http://www.reed.com/Papers/EndtoEnd.html
Rise of the Stupid Network (Isenberg) http://www.isen.com/stupid.html
The Internet (Washington Internet Project) http://www.cybertelecom.org/internet.htm
10 Right Choices (Bradner) http://www.nwfusion.com/columnists/2003/0120bradner.html
The Cluetrain Manifesto (Levine, Locke, Searls, Weinberger) http://www.cluetrain.com/
End Game (Lessig) http://www.tnr.com/061900/lessig061900.html
Open Access to the FCC, (Lessig & Lemley) http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/works/lessig/cable/fcc/fcc.html
Electronic Frontier Foundation http://www.eff.org/
Center for the Public Domain http://www.centerforthepublicdomain.org/
Why Open Spectrum Matters (Weinberger) http://www.greaterdemocracy.org/framing_openspectrum.html
Open Spectrum FAQ http://www.greaterdemocracy.org/OpenSpectrumFAQ.html
About the Authors
Doc Searls http://www.searls.com/
David Weinberger http://www.evident.com/
The Nutshell
1. The Internet isn’t complicated
2. The Internet isn’t a thing. It’s an agreement.
3. The Internet is stupid.
4. Adding value to the Internet lowers its value.
5. All the Internet’s value grows on its edges.
6. Money moves to the suburbs.
7. The end of the world? Nah, the world of ends.
8. The Internet’s three virtues:
a. No one owns it
b. Everyone can use it
c. Anyone can improve it
9. If the Internet is so simple, why have so many been so boneheaded about it?
10. Some mistakes we can stop making already
My comments,
In short I do not see an end to this growing conversation, but I do see some head way for the future where an ideal of some sorts can be achieved and when this happens I think Post Traumatic Networking Syndrome will be a thing of the past. But I have always been an optimist, then turned into a pessimist and then realized its all just a conversation and as such one shouldn’t judge and thereby attach themselves emotionally to their ideas and their ideals. Simply one is either an Experiencer or a Revivalist. I choose the Experience.
Kind Regards,
Michael Pokocky
October 29th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
It’s neither a tipping point or a burnout. It’s simply a misunderstanding or a lack of knowledge or plain ignorance. The whole point is that most individuals have no idea about what is really going on behind the social networking phenomenon.
But here is an exerpt from Doc Searls and David Weinberger in their paper on World of Ends: What the Internet Is and How to Stop Mistaking It for Something Else [ see http://worldofends.com/ to read more],
” There are mistakes and there are mistakes.
Some mistakes we learn from. For example: Thinking that selling toys for pets on the Web is a great way to get rich. We’re not going to do that again.
Other mistakes we insist on making over and over. For example, thinking that:
* …the Web, like television, is a way to hold eyeballs still while advertisers spray them with messages.
* …the Net is something that telcos and cable companies should filter, control and otherwise “improve.”
* … it’s a bad thing for users to communicate between different kinds of instant messaging systems on the Net.
* …the Net suffers from a lack of regulation to protect industries that feel threatened by it.
When it comes to the Net, a lot of us suffer from Repetitive Mistake Syndrome. This is especially true for magazine and newspaper publishing, broadcasting, cable television, the record industry, the movie industry, and the telephone industry, to name just six.
Thanks to the enormous influence of those industries in Washington, Repetitive Mistake Syndrome also afflicts lawmakers, regulators and even the courts. Last year Internet radio, a promising new industry that threatened to give listeners choices far exceeding anything on the increasingly variety-less (and technologically stone-age) AM and FM bands, was shot in its cradle. Guns, ammo and the occasional “Yee-Haw!” were provided by the recording industry and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which embodies all the fears felt by Hollywood’s alpha dinosaurs when they lobbied the Act through Congress in 1998.
“The Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it,” John Gilmore famously said. And it’s true. In the long run, Internet radio will succeed. Instant messaging systems will interoperate. Dumb companies will get smart or die. Stupid laws will be killed or replaced. But then, as John Maynard Keynes also famously said, “In the long run, we’re all dead.”
All we need to do is pay attention to what the Internet really is. It’s not hard. The Net isn’t rocket science. It isn’t even 6th grade science fair, when you get right down to it. We can end the tragedy of Repetitive Mistake Syndrome in our lifetimes — and save a few trillion dollars’ worth of dumb decisions — if we can just remember one simple fact: the Net is a world of ends. You’re at one end, and everybody and everything else are at the other ends.
Sure, that’s a feel-good statement about everyone having value on the Net, etc. But it’s also the basic rock-solid fact about the Net’s technical architecture. And the Internet’s value is founded in its technical architecture.
Fortunately, the true nature of the Internet isn’t hard to understand. In fact, just a fistful of statements stands between Repetitive Mistake Syndrome and Enlightenment ”
The Essential Links
End-to-End Arguments in System Design (Clark, Reed, Saltzer) http://www.reed.com/Papers/EndtoEnd.html
Rise of the Stupid Network (Isenberg) http://www.isen.com/stupid.html
The Internet (Washington Internet Project) http://www.cybertelecom.org/internet.htm
10 Right Choices (Bradner) http://www.nwfusion.com/columnists/2003/0120bradner.html
The Cluetrain Manifesto (Levine, Locke, Searls, Weinberger) http://www.cluetrain.com/
End Game (Lessig) http://www.tnr.com/061900/lessig061900.html
Open Access to the FCC, (Lessig & Lemley) http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/works/lessig/cable/fcc/fcc.html
Electronic Frontier Foundation http://www.eff.org/
Center for the Public Domain http://www.centerforthepublicdomain.org/
Why Open Spectrum Matters (Weinberger) http://www.greaterdemocracy.org/framing_openspectrum.html
Open Spectrum FAQ http://www.greaterdemocracy.org/OpenSpectrumFAQ.html
About the Authors
Doc Searls http://www.searls.com/
David Weinberger http://www.evident.com/
The Nutshell
1. The Internet isn’t complicated
2. The Internet isn’t a thing. It’s an agreement.
3. The Internet is stupid.
4. Adding value to the Internet lowers its value.
5. All the Internet’s value grows on its edges.
6. Money moves to the suburbs.
7. The end of the world? Nah, the world of ends.
8. The Internet’s three virtues:
a. No one owns it
b. Everyone can use it
c. Anyone can improve it
9. If the Internet is so simple, why have so many been so boneheaded about it?
10. Some mistakes we can stop making already
My comments,
In short I do not see an end to this growing conversation, but I do see some head way for the future where an ideal of some sorts can be achieved and when this happens I think Post Traumatic Networking Syndrome will be a thing of the past. But I have always been an optimist, then turned into a pessimist and then realized its all just a conversation and as such one shouldn’t judge and thereby attach themselves emotionally to their ideas and their ideals. Simply one is either an Experiencer or a Revivalist. I choose the Experience.
Kind Regards,
Michael Pokocky
October 29th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
t’s neither a tipping point or a burnout. It’s simply a misunderstanding or a lack of knowledge or plain ignorance. The whole point is that most individuals have no idea about what is really going on behind the social networking phenomenon.
But here is an exerpt from Doc Searls and David Weinberger in their paper on World of Ends: What the Internet Is and How to Stop Mistaking It for Something Else [ see http://worldofends.com/ to read more],
” There are mistakes and there are mistakes.
Some mistakes we learn from. For example: Thinking that selling toys for pets on the Web is a great way to get rich. We’re not going to do that again.
Other mistakes we insist on making over and over. For example, thinking that:
* …the Web, like television, is a way to hold eyeballs still while advertisers spray them with messages.
* …the Net is something that telcos and cable companies should filter, control and otherwise “improve.”
* … it’s a bad thing for users to communicate between different kinds of instant messaging systems on the Net.
* …the Net suffers from a lack of regulation to protect industries that feel threatened by it.
When it comes to the Net, a lot of us suffer from Repetitive Mistake Syndrome. This is especially true for magazine and newspaper publishing, broadcasting, cable television, the record industry, the movie industry, and the telephone industry, to name just six.
Thanks to the enormous influence of those industries in Washington, Repetitive Mistake Syndrome also afflicts lawmakers, regulators and even the courts. Last year Internet radio, a promising new industry that threatened to give listeners choices far exceeding anything on the increasingly variety-less (and technologically stone-age) AM and FM bands, was shot in its cradle. Guns, ammo and the occasional “Yee-Haw!” were provided by the recording industry and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which embodies all the fears felt by Hollywood’s alpha dinosaurs when they lobbied the Act through Congress in 1998.
“The Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it,” John Gilmore famously said. And it’s true. In the long run, Internet radio will succeed. Instant messaging systems will interoperate. Dumb companies will get smart or die. Stupid laws will be killed or replaced. But then, as John Maynard Keynes also famously said, “In the long run, we’re all dead.”
All we need to do is pay attention to what the Internet really is. It’s not hard. The Net isn’t rocket science. It isn’t even 6th grade science fair, when you get right down to it. We can end the tragedy of Repetitive Mistake Syndrome in our lifetimes — and save a few trillion dollars’ worth of dumb decisions — if we can just remember one simple fact: the Net is a world of ends. You’re at one end, and everybody and everything else are at the other ends.
Sure, that’s a feel-good statement about everyone having value on the Net, etc. But it’s also the basic rock-solid fact about the Net’s technical architecture. And the Internet’s value is founded in its technical architecture.
Fortunately, the true nature of the Internet isn’t hard to understand. In fact, just a fistful of statements stands between Repetitive Mistake Syndrome and Enlightenment ”
The Essential Links
End-to-End Arguments in System Design (Clark, Reed, Saltzer) http://www.reed.com/Papers/EndtoEnd.html
Rise of the Stupid Network (Isenberg) http://www.isen.com/stupid.html
The Internet (Washington Internet Project) http://www.cybertelecom.org/internet.htm
10 Right Choices (Bradner) http://www.nwfusion.com/columnists/2003/0120bradner.html
The Cluetrain Manifesto (Levine, Locke, Searls, Weinberger) http://www.cluetrain.com/
End Game (Lessig) http://www.tnr.com/061900/lessig061900.html
Open Access to the FCC, (Lessig & Lemley) http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/works/lessig/cable/fcc/fcc.html
Electronic Frontier Foundation http://www.eff.org/
Center for the Public Domain http://www.centerforthepublicdomain.org/
Why Open Spectrum Matters (Weinberger) http://www.greaterdemocracy.org/framing_openspectrum.html
Open Spectrum FAQ http://www.greaterdemocracy.org/OpenSpectrumFAQ.html
About the Authors
Doc Searls http://www.searls.com/
David Weinberger http://www.evident.com/
The Nutshell
1. The Internet isn’t complicated
2. The Internet isn’t a thing. It’s an agreement.
3. The Internet is stupid.
4. Adding value to the Internet lowers its value.
5. All the Internet’s value grows on its edges.
6. Money moves to the suburbs.
7. The end of the world? Nah, the world of ends.
8. The Internet’s three virtues:
a. No one owns it
b. Everyone can use it
c. Anyone can improve it
9. If the Internet is so simple, why have so many been so boneheaded about it?
10. Some mistakes we can stop making already
My comments,
In short I do not see an end to this growing conversation, but I do see some head way for the future where an ideal of some sorts can be achieved and when this happens I think Post Traumatic Networking Syndrome will be a thing of the past. But I have always been an optimist, then turned into a pessimist and then realized its all just a conversation and as such one shouldn’t judge and thereby attach themselves emotionally to their ideas and their ideals. Simply one is either an Experiencer or a Revivalist. I choose the Experience.
Kind Regards,
Michael Pokocky
October 30th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
t’s neither a tipping point or a burnout. It’s simply a misunderstanding or a lack of knowledge or plain ignorance. The whole point is that most individuals have no idea about what is really going on behind the social networking phenomenon.
But here is an excerpt from Doc Searls and David Weinberger in their paper on World of Ends: What the Internet Is and How to Stop Mistaking It for Something Else [ see http://worldofends.com/ to read more],
” There are mistakes and there are mistakes.
Some mistakes we learn from. For example: Thinking that selling toys for pets on the Web is a great way to get rich. We’re not going to do that again.
Other mistakes we insist on making over and over. For example, thinking that:
* …the Web, like television, is a way to hold eyeballs still while advertisers spray them with messages.
* …the Net is something that telcos and cable companies should filter, control and otherwise “improve.”
* … it’s a bad thing for users to communicate between different kinds of instant messaging systems on the Net.
* …the Net suffers from a lack of regulation to protect industries that feel threatened by it.
When it comes to the Net, a lot of us suffer from Repetitive Mistake Syndrome. This is especially true for magazine and newspaper publishing, broadcasting, cable television, the record industry, the movie industry, and the telephone industry, to name just six.
Thanks to the enormous influence of those industries in Washington, Repetitive Mistake Syndrome also afflicts lawmakers, regulators and even the courts. Last year Internet radio, a promising new industry that threatened to give listeners choices far exceeding anything on the increasingly variety-less (and technologically stone-age) AM and FM bands, was shot in its cradle. Guns, ammo and the occasional “Yee-Haw!” were provided by the recording industry and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which embodies all the fears felt by Hollywood’s alpha dinosaurs when they lobbied the Act through Congress in 1998.
“The Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it,” John Gilmore famously said. And it’s true. In the long run, Internet radio will succeed. Instant messaging systems will interoperate. Dumb companies will get smart or die. Stupid laws will be killed or replaced. But then, as John Maynard Keynes also famously said, “In the long run, we’re all dead.”
All we need to do is pay attention to what the Internet really is. It’s not hard. The Net isn’t rocket science. It isn’t even 6th grade science fair, when you get right down to it. We can end the tragedy of Repetitive Mistake Syndrome in our lifetimes — and save a few trillion dollars’ worth of dumb decisions — if we can just remember one simple fact: the Net is a world of ends. You’re at one end, and everybody and everything else are at the other ends.
Sure, that’s a feel-good statement about everyone having value on the Net, etc. But it’s also the basic rock-solid fact about the Net’s technical architecture. And the Internet’s value is founded in its technical architecture.
Fortunately, the true nature of the Internet isn’t hard to understand. In fact, just a fistful of statements stands between Repetitive Mistake Syndrome and Enlightenment ”
The Essential Links
End-to-End Arguments in System Design (Clark, Reed, Saltzer) http://www.reed.com/Papers/EndtoEnd.html
Rise of the Stupid Network (Isenberg) http://www.isen.com/stupid.html
The Internet (Washington Internet Project) http://www.cybertelecom.org/internet.htm
10 Right Choices (Bradner) http://www.nwfusion.com/columnists/2003/0120bradner.html
The Cluetrain Manifesto (Levine, Locke, Searls, Weinberger) http://www.cluetrain.com/
End Game (Lessig) http://www.tnr.com/061900/lessig061900.html
Open Access to the FCC, (Lessig & Lemley) http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/works/lessig/cable/fcc/fcc.html
Electronic Frontier Foundation http://www.eff.org/
Center for the Public Domain http://www.centerforthepublicdomain.org/
Why Open Spectrum Matters (Weinberger) http://www.greaterdemocracy.org/framing_openspectrum.html
Open Spectrum FAQ http://www.greaterdemocracy.org/OpenSpectrumFAQ.html
About the Authors
Doc Searls http://www.searls.com/
David Weinberger http://www.evident.com/
The Nutshell
1. The Internet isn’t complicated
2. The Internet isn’t a thing. It’s an agreement.
3. The Internet is stupid.
4. Adding value to the Internet lowers its value.
5. All the Internet’s value grows on its edges.
6. Money moves to the suburbs.
7. The end of the world? Nah, the world of ends.
8. The Internet’s three virtues:
a. No one owns it
b. Everyone can use it
c. Anyone can improve it
9. If the Internet is so simple, why have so many been so boneheaded about it?
10. Some mistakes we can stop making already
My comments,
In short I do not see an end to this growing conversation, but I do see some head way for the future where an ideal of some sorts can be achieved and when this happens I think Post Traumatic Networking Syndrome will be a thing of the past. But I have always been an optimist, then turned into a pessimist and then realized its all just a conversation and as such one shouldn’t judge and thereby attach themselves emotionally to their ideas and their ideals. Simply one is either an Experiencer or a Revivalist. I choose the Experience.
Kind Regards,
Michael Pokocky
October 30th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
[authors note: tried to post this to Tipping Point or Burnout but won't let me]
my comment:
It’s neither a tipping point or a burnout. It’s simply a misunderstanding or a lack of knowledge or plain ignorance. The whole point is that most individuals have no idea about what is really going on behind the social networking phenomenon.
But here is an exerpt from Doc Searls and David Weinberger in their paper on World of Ends: What the Internet Is and How to Stop Mistaking It for Something Else [ see http://worldofends.com/ to read more],
” There are mistakes and there are mistakes.
Some mistakes we learn from. For example: Thinking that selling toys for pets on the Web is a great way to get rich. We’re not going to do that again.
Other mistakes we insist on making over and over. For example, thinking that:
* …the Web, like television, is a way to hold eyeballs still while advertisers spray them with messages.
* …the Net is something that telcos and cable companies should filter, control and otherwise “improve.”
* … it’s a bad thing for users to communicate between different kinds of instant messaging systems on the Net.
* …the Net suffers from a lack of regulation to protect industries that feel threatened by it.
When it comes to the Net, a lot of us suffer from Repetitive Mistake Syndrome. This is especially true for magazine and newspaper publishing, broadcasting, cable television, the record industry, the movie industry, and the telephone industry, to name just six.
Thanks to the enormous influence of those industries in Washington, Repetitive Mistake Syndrome also afflicts lawmakers, regulators and even the courts. Last year Internet radio, a promising new industry that threatened to give listeners choices far exceeding anything on the increasingly variety-less (and technologically stone-age) AM and FM bands, was shot in its cradle. Guns, ammo and the occasional “Yee-Haw!” were provided by the recording industry and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which embodies all the fears felt by Hollywood’s alpha dinosaurs when they lobbied the Act through Congress in 1998.
“The Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it,” John Gilmore famously said. And it’s true. In the long run, Internet radio will succeed. Instant messaging systems will interoperate. Dumb companies will get smart or die. Stupid laws will be killed or replaced. But then, as John Maynard Keynes also famously said, “In the long run, we’re all dead.”
All we need to do is pay attention to what the Internet really is. It’s not hard. The Net isn’t rocket science. It isn’t even 6th grade science fair, when you get right down to it. We can end the tragedy of Repetitive Mistake Syndrome in our lifetimes — and save a few trillion dollars’ worth of dumb decisions — if we can just remember one simple fact: the Net is a world of ends. You’re at one end, and everybody and everything else are at the other ends.
Sure, that’s a feel-good statement about everyone having value on the Net, etc. But it’s also the basic rock-solid fact about the Net’s technical architecture. And the Internet’s value is founded in its technical architecture.
Fortunately, the true nature of the Internet isn’t hard to understand. In fact, just a fistful of statements stands between Repetitive Mistake Syndrome and Enlightenment ”
The Essential Links
End-to-End Arguments in System Design (Clark, Reed, Saltzer) http://www.reed.com/Papers/EndtoEnd.html
Rise of the Stupid Network (Isenberg) http://www.isen.com/stupid.html
The Internet (Washington Internet Project) http://www.cybertelecom.org/internet.htm
10 Right Choices (Bradner) http://www.nwfusion.com/columnists/2003/0120bradner.html
The Cluetrain Manifesto (Levine, Locke, Searls, Weinberger) http://www.cluetrain.com/
End Game (Lessig) http://www.tnr.com/061900/lessig061900.html
Open Access to the FCC, (Lessig & Lemley) http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/works/lessig/cable/fcc/fcc.html
Electronic Frontier Foundation http://www.eff.org/
Center for the Public Domain http://www.centerforthepublicdomain.org/
Why Open Spectrum Matters (Weinberger) http://www.greaterdemocracy.org/framing_openspectrum.html
Open Spectrum FAQ http://www.greaterdemocracy.org/OpenSpectrumFAQ.html
About the Authors
Doc Searls http://www.searls.com/
David Weinberger http://www.evident.com/
The Nutshell
1. The Internet isn’t complicated
2. The Internet isn’t a thing. It’s an agreement.
3. The Internet is stupid.
4. Adding value to the Internet lowers its value.
5. All the Internet’s value grows on its edges.
6. Money moves to the suburbs.
7. The end of the world? Nah, the world of ends.
8. The Internet’s three virtues:
a. No one owns it
b. Everyone can use it
c. Anyone can improve it
9. If the Internet is so simple, why have so many been so boneheaded about it?
10. Some mistakes we can stop making already
My comments,
In short I do not see an end to this growing conversation, but I do see some head way for the future where an ideal of some sorts can be achieved and when this happens I think Post Traumatic Networking Syndrome will be a thing of the past. But I have always been an optimist, then turned into a pessimist and then realized its all just a conversation and as such one shouldn’t judge and thereby attach themselves emotionally to their ideas and their ideals. Simply one is either an Experiencer or a Revivalist. I choose the Experience.
Kind Regards,
Michael Pokocky
October 30th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
Hi Jay as requested some comments.
In a recent comment on my article “Re -Feeding the Free Factors” Jay Deragon pointed me to another blog of his “Tipping Point or Burnout with a request to share my thoughts. That is exactly what I will be doing here.
Let me start of by saying that it was hard to come up with anything that had not been said already in the comments by Michael Pokocky ( See here and here). In these two comments Michael very eloquently pointed out what can be said about this topic in an intellectual sense.
What rests is my personal perspective.
See the full article plus linked content here:
http://johndierckx.terapad.com/index.cfm?fa=contentNews.newsDetails&newsID=40397&from=list
November 12th, 2007 at 4:05 am
[...] unknown wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptIn a book titled Electrifying America: Social Meanings of a New Technology, David E. Nye argues, “A technology is not merely a system of machines with certain functions; it is part of a social world. Electrification is not an implacable … [...]