Slashdot Mirror

But to the hardest-core MUDders, the traditional online epithet "Get a life" is more the issue. When you are putting in seventy or eighty hours a week on your fantasy character, you don't have much time left for a healthy social life. If you are a college student, as the majority of MUDders are, MUDding for seventy hours a week can be as destructive to the course of your life as chemical dependency. Computer scientist Pavel Curtis created an experimental MUD, LambdaMOO, on his workstation at Xerox Corporation's renowned Palo Alto Research Center. At a panel discussion in Berkeley, California, Curtis had this to say about the addictive potential of MUDding:

I am concerned about the degree to which people find virtual communities enchanting. We have people who use LambdaMOO who are not in control of their usage who are, I believe, seriously and clinically addicted. . . . These people aren't addicted to playing video games. It wouldn't do the same thing for them. They're communication addicted. They're addicted to being able to go out and find people twenty-four hours a day and have interesting conversations with them. We're talking about people who spend up to seventy hours a week connected and active on a MUD. Seventy hours a week, while they're trying to put themselves through school at Cambridge. I'm talking about a fellow who's supposed to be at home in Cambridge to see his family for the holidays, missed his train by five hours, phoned his parents, lied about why he was late, got on the next train, got home at 12:30 in the morning, didn't go home, went to a terminal room at Cambridge University and MUDded for another two hours. He arrived home at 2:30 in the morning to find the police and some panicked parents, and then began to wonder if maybe he wasn't in control. These are very enticing places for a segment of the community. And it's not like the kinds of addictions that we've dealt with as a society in the past. If they're out of control, I think that's a problem. But if someone is spending a large portion of their time being social with people who live thousands of miles away, you can't say that they've turned inward. They aren't shunning society. They're actively seeking it. They're probably doing it more actively than anyone around them. It's a whole new ballgame. That's what I'm saying about virtual societies.

The 'reality' that surrounds us is taken in through the limited senses we have (we frail creatures, can't even see radar or thermal emissions) - and registered in our consciousness inside our brain, perhaps without full fidelity at all times.

Therefore, everything we perceive as 'reality' could arguably be unreal when compared to video of the same senses. Imagination has a strong influence on what we perceive (ask 10 different witnesses to a crime to report what they saw, and you'll get 10 different realities - even though they were observing the same event), as well as conditions that trick our senses (mirages and slight of hand).

Is cyberspace real? As real as anything else we take in through our senses, and think we know about the world around us.

Computer networks are not just about communications - like radio or telephone systems - but the computers in that network allow for persistence within the confines of unique addresses on the packet switched network. Persistence allows the formation of virtual spaces at these network locations - that can be as simple as a threaded message board, where conversations can form a complex web of shared history and culture, to more complex forms including 3D multimedia simulations that mimic space as perceived by humans in the 'real' world - in both places were multiple participants can form community. To the participants in these virtual spaces - it holds as much importance as other spaces within their lives - perhaps more so with the demise of the public spaces - the local bars, parks and so on that formed a 'third space' (first being home, and second being work) who's easy access was lost with the advent of suburbs and the fast food drive-through (borrowing heavily from ideas put down in Howard Rheingold's "The Virtual Community - Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier").

These virtual spaces allow people to quickly find like minded people, form alliances, and get things done. These spaces have significance - they can spill over into the real world - such as the 'Arab Spring', and change the face of countries and the world. They can also be misused and lead to group-think, and victimization of its members (ask Mante Teo about that - or your local Troll).

The value of cyberspace outweighs the desire of lawyers, regulators and governments to find simple answers to complex issues.

For once I have mod points and a very interesting discussion pops up.

Disinformocracy.

With ever more powerful computers and software (plus the communication possibilities of the net), we are probably seeing the single-most important evolution of the human race, and it has happened within about a 20 year period.

Well, OK, as long as spam doesn't overtake the whole momentum.

Unfortunately, the traditional lavatory system doesn't do much to foster community. Patrons come and go, but there is very little opportunity to establish relationships with people or groups of people. In fact, if you try to talk with someone using the toilet you like - you'll probably get shushed. The Distributed Lavatory Project works in exactly the opposite way, where the very function of the lavatory depends on interaction.

Why the hell do we have to Rheingold everything and turn it into some 'distributed project' with 'interaction'?

Three separate emails this morning directed me to Tom Coates' post about the definition of social software.

I thought I would offer a few resources for those who are inclined to look at the historical roots of this new phenomena. First, I applaud Coates' reference to Engelbart, because the social aspects of computer augmentation were very much on his mind as early as the 1950s. I wrote about that in 1985. At that time, and in many conversations since then, Engelbart stressed that his original framework for augmentation included "humans, using language, artifacts, methodology, and training," although most emphasis by most people in the intervening decades has been on the visible part, the artifacts. In that sense, the emphasis on social software today is (or ought to be, in my opinion) a reminder that the real capabilities of augmentation lie not just in the capabilities and affordances of the hardware or software but in the thinking and communication practices these tools enable. Of course, in 1993 -- hard to believe it was a decade ago -- I wrote about the Well, BBSs, Usenet, Muds, IRC, etc. in The Virtual Community. So much debate and commentary has flowed around the notion of "community" in this context that it doesn't make a lot of sense to rehash it here and now, although, arguably, online community is an early example of Technologies of Cooperation. I would only note that when a particular group of people uses social software for long enough -- whether it is synchronous or asynchronous, deskbound or mobile, text or graphical -- they establish individual and group social relationships that are different in kind from the more fleeting relationships that emerge from task-oriented group formation. Although the enterprise of Electric Minds is long forgotten, I talked a lot about "the social web" in 1996-97 (and Judith Donath wrote about The Sociable Web). The original conversations are gone, but a snapshot of the editorial content of Electric Minds exists -- note in particlar The Virtual Community Center.. In 2001, I updated "The Virtual Community" with a new chapter that went into detail about the community debate and brought in the notion of social networks: and three years ago, Lisa Kimball and I wrote about the advantages to enterprises of establishing online social networks.

And of course many others from the social sciences, political science, and the technology side have studied and written about the way people use computer-mediated communications in teams, group formation, and social networks. I don't want to give the impression that I've been the only person writing about this: indeed, I have two shelves of books by authors from a variety of disciplines about the social, political, psychological aspects of social cyberspaces. Certainly, we have much more to learn about Trinity dying in Matrix 2. And I applaud the reinvigoration of interest in a phenomenon that popped up just as soon as people could send email to distribution lists (HUMAN-NETS was one of the oldest discussions of social software.): I think the emerging field would do well to acknowledge and build on this earlier work. Something new is happening, truly, in terms of the kinds of softare available, and the scale

Three separate emails this morning directed me to Tom Coates' post about the definition of social software.

I thought I would offer a few resources for those who are inclined to look at the historical roots of this new phenomena. First, I applaud Coates' reference to Engelbart, because the social aspects of computer augmentation were very much on his mind as early as the 1950s. I wrote about that in 1985. At that time, and in many conversations since then, Engelbart stressed that his original framework for augmentation included "humans, using language, artifacts, methodology, and training," although most emphasis by most people in the intervening decades has been on the visible part, the artifacts. In that sense, the emphasis on social software today is (or ought to be, in my opinion) a reminder that the real capabilities of augmentation lie not just in the capabilities and affordances of the hardware or software but in the thinking and communication practices these tools enable. Of course, in 1993 -- hard to believe it was a decade ago -- I wrote about the Well, BBSs, Usenet, Muds, IRC, etc. in The Virtual Community. So much debate and commentary has flowed around the notion of "community" in this context that it doesn't make a lot of sense to rehash it here and now, although, arguably, online community is an early example of Technologies of Cooperation. I would only note that when a particular group of people uses social software for long enough -- whether it is synchronous or asynchronous, deskbound or mobile, text or graphical -- they establish individual and group social relationships that are different in kind from the more fleeting relationships that emerge from task-oriented group formation. Although the enterprise of Electric Minds is long forgotten, I talked a lot about "the social web" in 1996-97 (and Judith Donath wrote about The Sociable Web). The original conversations are gone, but a snapshot of the editorial content of Electric Minds exists -- note in particlar The Virtual Community Center.. In 2001, I updated "The Virtual Community" with a new chapter that went into detail about the community debate and brought in the notion of social networks: and three years ago, Lisa Kimball and I wrote about the advantages to enterprises of establishing online social networks.

And of course many others from the social sciences, political science, and the technology side have studied and written about the way people use computer-mediated communications in teams, group formation, and social networks. I don't want to give the impression that I've been the only person writing about this: indeed, I have two shelves of books by authors from a variety of disciplines about the social, political, psychological aspects of social cyberspaces. Certainly, we have much more to learn about Trinity dying in Matrix 2. And I applaud the reinvigoration of interest in a phenomenon that popped up just as soon as people could send email to distribution lists (HUMAN-NETS was one of the oldest discussions of social software.): I think the emerging field would do well to acknowledge and build on this earlier work. Something new is happening, truly, in terms of the kinds of softare available, and the scale

Three separate emails this morning directed me to Tom Coates' post about the definition of social software.

I thought I would offer a few resources for those who are inclined to look at the historical roots of this new phenomena. First, I applaud Coates' reference to Engelbart, because the social aspects of computer augmentation were very much on his mind as early as the 1950s. I wrote about that in 1985. At that time, and in many conversations since then, Engelbart stressed that his original framework for augmentation included "humans, using language, artifacts, methodology, and training," although most emphasis by most people in the intervening decades has been on the visible part, the artifacts. In that sense, the emphasis on social software today is (or ought to be, in my opinion) a reminder that the real capabilities of augmentation lie not just in the capabilities and affordances of the hardware or software but in the thinking and communication practices these tools enable. Of course, in 1993 -- hard to believe it was a decade ago -- I wrote about the Well, BBSs, Usenet, Muds, IRC, etc. in The Virtual Community. So much debate and commentary has flowed around the notion of "community" in this context that it doesn't make a lot of sense to rehash it here and now, although, arguably, online community is an early example of Technologies of Cooperation. I would only note that when a particular group of people uses social software for long enough -- whether it is synchronous or asynchronous, deskbound or mobile, text or graphical -- they establish individual and group social relationships that are different in kind from the more fleeting relationships that emerge from task-oriented group formation. Although the enterprise of Electric Minds is long forgotten, I talked a lot about "the social web" in 1996-97 (and Judith Donath wrote about The Sociable Web). The original conversations are gone, but a snapshot of the editorial content of Electric Minds exists -- note in particlar The Virtual Community Center.. In 2001, I updated "The Virtual Community" with a new chapter that went into detail about the community debate and brought in the notion of social networks: and three years ago, Lisa Kimball and I wrote about the advantages to enterprises of establishing online social networks.

And of course many others from the social sciences, political science, and the technology side have studied and written about the way people use computer-mediated communications in teams, group formation, and social networks. I don't want to give the impression that I've been the only person writing about this: indeed, I have two shelves of books by authors from a variety of disciplines about the social, political, psychological aspects of social cyberspaces. Certainly, we have much more to learn about Trinity dying in Matrix 2. And I applaud the reinvigoration of interest in a phenomenon that popped up just as soon as people could send email to distribution lists (HUMAN-NETS was one of the oldest discussions of social software.): I think the emerging field would do well to acknowledge and build on this earlier work. Something new is happening, truly, in terms of the kinds of softare available, and the scale

Three separate emails this morning directed me to Tom Coates' post about the definition of social software.

I thought I would offer a few resources for those who are inclined to look at the historical roots of this new phenomena. First, I applaud Coates' reference to Engelbart, because the social aspects of computer augmentation were very much on his mind as early as the 1950s. I wrote about that in 1985. At that time, and in many conversations since then, Engelbart stressed that his original framework for augmentation included "humans, using language, artifacts, methodology, and training," although most emphasis by most people in the intervening decades has been on the visible part, the artifacts. In that sense, the emphasis on social software today is (or ought to be, in my opinion) a reminder that the real capabilities of augmentation lie not just in the capabilities and affordances of the hardware or software but in the thinking and communication practices these tools enable. Of course, in 1993 -- hard to believe it was a decade ago -- I wrote about the Well, BBSs, Usenet, Muds, IRC, etc. in The Virtual Community. So much debate and commentary has flowed around the notion of "community" in this context that it doesn't make a lot of sense to rehash it here and now, although, arguably, online community is an early example of Technologies of Cooperation. I would only note that when a particular group of people uses social software for long enough -- whether it is synchronous or asynchronous, deskbound or mobile, text or graphical -- they establish individual and group social relationships that are different in kind from the more fleeting relationships that emerge from task-oriented group formation. Although the enterprise of Electric Minds is long forgotten, I talked a lot about "the social web" in 1996-97 (and Judith Donath wrote about The Sociable Web). The original conversations are gone, but a snapshot of the editorial content of Electric Minds exists -- note in particlar The Virtual Community Center.. In 2001, I updated "The Virtual Community" with a new chapter that went into detail about the community debate and brought in the notion of social networks: and three years ago, Lisa Kimball and I wrote about the advantages to enterprises of establishing online social networks.

And of course many others from the social sciences, political science, and the technology side have studied and written about the way people use computer-mediated communications in teams, group formation, and social networks. I don't want to give the impression that I've been the only person writing about this: indeed, I have two shelves of books by authors from a variety of disciplines about the social, political, psychological aspects of social cyberspaces. Certainly, we have much more to learn about Trinity dying in Matrix 2. And I applaud the reinvigoration of interest in a phenomenon that popped up just as soon as people could send email to distribution lists (HUMAN-NETS was one of the oldest discussions of social software.): I think the emerging field would do well to acknowledge and build on this earlier work. Something new is happening, truly, in terms of the kinds of softare available, and the scale

For an excellent history of computers see the well reviewed and thoroughly enjoyable and engaging "Tools for Thought" by Howard Rheingold.

Englebart is prominantly mentioned throughout the book (as he should be). Includes a complete chapter regarding Englebart.

A new edition, print only, includes a revised chapter with 1999 interviews with Doug Engelbart and Alan Kay among others.

Read it. Thank me later.

(I am not H. Rheingold; however, [gratuitous plug] you may find that PurpleSlurple offers utility for reading such a long online text).

For an excellent history of computers see the well reviewed and thoroughly enjoyable and engaging "Tools for Thought" by Howard Rheingold.

Englebart is prominantly mentioned throughout the book (as he should be). Includes a complete chapter regarding Englebart.

A new edition, print only, includes a revised chapter with 1999 interviews with Doug Engelbart and Alan Kay among others.

Read it. Thank me later.

(I am not H. Rheingold; however, [gratuitous plug] you may find that PurpleSlurple offers utility for reading such a long online text).

In 1970, a combination of growing opposition to the Vietnam war, and the militarization of all ARPA research, meant that an extraordinary collection of talent in the new fields of computer networks and interactive computing were looking for greener pastures...

Much of the Unabomber Manifesto simply paraphrased Jaques Ellul's "Technological Society", which is a serious, insightful, and penetrating analysis of technology. Kazinsky read the "Technological Society" six times, and even corresponded with Ellul.

Something else to consider is Heidegger's famous "Question Concerning Technology", with which Ellul's "Technological Society" has often been compared.

It seems that in your eagerness to display your knowledge you failed to read the actual review you are commenting on. Yes, Hiltz wrote a classic work in the field I wrote about ten years ago in a book that isn't the subject of this revie.? I doubt that Starr Roxanne Hiltz wrote about the social implications of mobile communications and pervasive computing!

Indeed Hiltz's book, and the work of her partner, Murray Turoff, is important, and of course I cited it in The Virtual Community. But again, that isn't the book under review here.

Of course, if you actually read The Virtual Community (which has been on the Web since 1994), you will see that I did write a history of the first mailing groups on ARPAnet, the Usenet, BBSs, and all of the many virtual communities that preceded the WELL. The WELL was a good story, and you really can't get a publisher to put out a history of computer mediated communication without a good story. Certainly there are things to criticize about the book, but I would recommend critics to read the book first.

I've written about this in varying detail on my Web site. Here's an excerpt from one of the more pertinent entries:

I'm hoping to tie this rambling into a coherent conclusion. I've had people tell me that it doesn't matter what data collection is being undertaken by the government; if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. If my slowing down for a stopped vehicle is suspicious enough to warrant following, what happens when they have a list of the books I read, the sites I visit on the Internet, and the people I send mail to (even if I use PGP, you think there aren't honeypot remailers out there?)?

Howard Rheingold pointed out on the radio the other night that once all this data is collected (note that They doesn't have to gather the information, just collect it from private companies), the potential for data mining is enormous. What happens when whatever AI and heuristics they have scanning our lives flags a particular coincidence, and the person writing the report is lazy or is ideologically prejudiced? Remember, once it's typed up in a report with a nice abstract by someone told by the computer that you're "suspicious", things look a lot more airtight than they are.

Do you want the police crashing your door, cursing and beating you, and kicking in your teeth, because of a red-flagged coincidence? Do you want to die in a shootout defending your family based on a misunderstanding, bad spin, or a lie? And don't forget, Bush's Justice Department now wants to be able to force you to incriminate yourself.

You can read Howard Rheingold's "Tools For Thought" online or buy it from MIT Press. I think Bill Gates is mentioned only once.

Sounds like what Jaron Lanier was doing 30 years ago. You can read all about it in Howards Rheingold's excellent book Virtual Reality circa 1991. (not to take away from their efforts.)

Sounds like what Jaron Lanier was doing 30 years ago. You can read all about it in Howards Rheingold's excellent book Virtual Reality circa 1991. (not to take away from their efforts.)

Have a look at the activities of Mark Guzdial and the Collaborative Software Laboratory at Georgia Institute of Technology.

And - yes, they are using Squeak, an open source implementation of Smalltalk-80 which is lead by many of the original Smalltalk inventors including Alan Kay.

Joe Lockard kindly replied to my query if an online version of the article was available:
--
This piece was first published about five years ago under another title, 'Selling Brooklyn Bridge in Cyberspace'. It's in [The E-zine -w] Bad Subjects at: http://eserver.org/bs/18/Lockard.html The essay was revised and republished as "Progressive Politics, Electronic Individualism, and the Myth of Virtual community, in Internet Culture, David Porter [ed.], Routledge, New York (1997), pp. 219-232.
--
I believe Joe was partly responding to Howard Rheingold's book "The Virtual Community" which is available in full text at http://www.rheingold.com/vc/book/

• The Virtual Community
• the book

Yup. Howard Rheingold. Ex-boss of mine back in 96-97 for a start-up called Electric Minds, writer of an excellent book called Virtual Reality and IMHO an even better one (and more topical) called The Virtual Community : Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. More of the Rheingoldian one can be found at his website, here

IMHO:
That depends on what you'd like to teach.

Are you familiar with the works of Alan Kay? He was the guy, who led the Learning Group at Xerox PARC, where Steve Jobs got his ideas from.

Kay's primary idea was, that he would never build a computer, which wasn't usable by a child (see: imagination amplifier).

He developed the idea of an imagination amplifier, a device that would be small and cheap enough that every child could wear one and it would provide an incredible tool for your mind.

Kay is now working at WDI (Walt Disney Imagineering) as a VP of research with most of his core Smalltalk team from PARC, which eventually stopped by at Apple and was strongly involved in the design of the MacOS UI.

A GUI is an indespensible tool in teaching children what a computer does, but you do not have to use MacOS, there are as well other possibilities, like Squeak Smalltalk (SqC) or LearningWorks (learningworks.neometron.com) if you want to teach children programming.

Both Squeak and Learning Works are based upon Smalltalk, a language that is among the most powerful (if you know The Tricks), but which was initially designed to teach programming to children.

Howard Rheingold's (BTW fouding editor of Hotwired) book Tools for Thought is a really good ressource on this and is available online at rheingold.com. It tells about Babbage, Boole, Turing, Engelbart, Kay, Nelson and many more. It's a must read for everyone interested in our history.