Slashdot Mirror
The Age of Paine Revisited
I had no doubt that I was seeking the start of a transformative global revolution. The fervor and excitement I felt then are still fresh in my mind, though few of those fantasies have yet materialized and some, as the years pass, are seeming increasingly unlikely in my lifetime. And I'm still not sure I was wrong.
Many of the ideas in that essay were indirectly inspired by the hell-raiser of the American Revolution, a writer I've admired all my life. Thomas Paine, a media pioneer, one of the first people in the world to advance the notion of free information in an open society, of individual liberty flourishing amid the demise of institutions and monarchies. In my piece, I imagined Paine online, flaming and blasting away.
In the overheated Wired environment of the time -- some of the people running the magazine were true political radicals, a rare breed in popular media -- the prevailing idea was that the Net would sweep away hoary institutions like Congress, Big Media and Wall Street, changing more or less everything. Top-down, exclusive, closed and proprietary entities would tremble and collapse at the outpouring of ideas, intellectual property, education, democracy and ideas that the Net would provide. One magazine columnist even gushed that illiteracy among the young would vanish because kids all over the world would be so desperate to get online.
I was Wired's easternmost correspondent, based not in California but New York; as such, I got a first-hand look at just how the Net was traumatizing Eastern media. The spectre of all these weird kids hacking together this exciting new kind of many-to-many information culture really shook people up. The bland, filtered, from the top-down media, Wall Street, Congress -- they were all scared to death. They hated the Net then; they still do. (Though just this week, I noticed the stodgy New York Times op-ed page appending e-mail addresses to its regular columns; a landmark of sorts.) Yet as much as the Net has evolved, it's shocking to see how little traditional politics or the popular press has. Real interactivity, perhaps the most political idea ever in media, barely exists off-line.
In my essay, published in the April, l995 issue of the magazine, I wrote that the pamphleteering Paine, who had no children, did have a descendant
"where his values prosper and are validated millions of times a day: the Internet. There, his ideas about communications, media ethics, the universal connections between people, the free flow of honest opinion are all relevant again, visible every time one modem shakes hands with another. The Net offers what Paine and his revolutionary colleagues hoped for in their own new media - a vast, diverse, passionate, global means of transmitting ideas and opening minds. That was part of the political transformation envisioned when he wrote: 'We have it in our power to begin the world over again.' Through media, he believed, 'we see with other eyes; we hear with other ears; and think with other thoughts, than those we formerly used.'"
It isn't clear whether we -- you -- began the world over again. We do -- thanks to the Net -- see with other eyes and hear with other ears, and think new thoughts. Those are still prescient and timely words.
Paine's ideas about a free press, an outpouring of individual opinion and a ferocious sense of social justice seem especially alien to the corporatized, homogenized, blow-dried practioners of "objectivity" who have inherited the American press. The Net suggested a rebirth of Paine's fading values.
Did it deliver? For sure, the pamphleteering model was true. The explosion in weblogs, pages, mailing lists, groups, topics, threads, message boards and p2p systems has introduced nothing less than a new age of individual expression. The personal archives now on the Net are unprecedented in human history, from family bios to discussions of gardening, dogs, politics and sex. Sites like Napster, Deja and EBay -- even Amazon -- have revolutionized business and consumerism. Sexuality has been liberating online, and TV and other forms of entertainment are sure to become subordinate to the Web. Cultural movements like open source have spread far beyond software in terms of their impact on society. The Net has made anyone with a computer a world-wide communicator or entrepreneur, at least potentially. Individuals are freer than ever to talk about sex, engage in heresy, sound off, connect with others, and distribute their thoughts. People with unimaginably diverse interests can now find one another instantly. It's easier to be a gay teenager, a member of a militia, an ex-Marine, a rabbit lover, a scientific researcher. Thanks to computers, there are now a million Paines out there.
But some things have been lost, as well -- influence and commonality. This new individualistic medium is so personal it's become self-absorbed, almost narcissistic. Individuals are speaking out, but it isn't clear who, if anyone, is listening. And it isn't always democratic either. There are few common grounds, town squares or open spaces online. People frequently use blocking and filtering software and programs to stick with the like-minded, not explore the different or experience other points of view. Ideas fly all over the Web, but they often end up on the screens of people who already agree, otherwise they would have long ago unsubscribed. Teenagers and political fanatics have turned the Net's public forums -- on Slashdot, CNN, ABCNews and MSNBC -- into hostile electronic cesspools. To have actual conversations online, you're forced to join clubs where membership and speech boundaries are regulated, even to the point of specialized blocking programs that permit people to gauge levels of hostility or agreement. The digital citizen isn't always very free and open to new ideas. Some of those sites are great, but this doesn't exactly constitute an open and democratic environment, one of the great early dreams of the Net. Joining a rational discussion of a common issue has become virtually impossible on any Net forum that's not restricted by membership or other restrictive tools.
In practical ways, the Net has proved more revolutionary than most of us thought. In l995, few people imagined how ubiquitous e-mail would become, how much of a family communications tool, how natural a medium for teenagers and college students and for grandma and grandpa, how fundamental to research and text, how threatening to copyright and intellectual property traditions. I hardly expected within a few years that a U.S. President would be passing along URLs in a speech before Congress. The explosion in gaming and online entertainment was similarly unforeseen -- most people took the new medium too seriously for that. Almost nobody predicted how specialized online communications would become, how polished online retailing would get, or imagine the marketplace potential of an entity like eBay. We did lots of heavy breathing about the rise of the virtual community -- expectations that have not been met. The hostility bred by the Internet wildly exceeded anyone's expectations, and is nothing less than a tragedy for the idea of the digital citizen.
The Net is, if anything, bigger than people thought it would be now, a part of more people's work and personal lives. Also their creativity -- art and writing flourish online, even when they can't make it off. But its primary impact has been practical, not ideological. Instant messaging has probably had greater import for younger Americans than digital pamphleteering has.
The hacker universe has sobered up as well. Who would have thought, a decade back, that one company, Microsoft, would in fact achieve everyone's paranoid fantasy and conquer the global desktop? Or that that one of the primary champions of Linux would be IBM? In the post September 11 era, hackers are in for a rough time, and the environment of the Net may change again. In the name of national security, authorities will be more vigilant and visible online, with the authority to throw up roadblocks all over the Net. The consequences of cyber-terrorism would now be staggering, and the spectre of the Twin Towers will give government the upper hand politically in its long brawl with the free spirits online.
Nor did anyone quite expect the speed of the transition from capitalism to corporatism, an era in which global corporations acquire media, commerce and popular culture; control copyright and intellectual property; and become the primary funders and corrupters of the political system.
Despite the flowering of individual voices on the Net, we live in an arguably less democratic culture than we did a decade ago, even before Attorney General Ashcroft's sweeping actions.
So does this add up to grim news? I don't know yet, and may not know in my life. The rise of individualism online seems irreversible. If individuals can't reach mass audiences, they can't easily be shut down, either. It seems inconceivable that our society will ever return to a few-to-many model of information, when masses of people waited for a handful of information gatekeepers to parcel out information. But as for the contemporary armies of Paine's some hoped would emerge from the digital din, make themselves heard, even achieve influence -- I'm still waiting for them.
In two places, There is l995, rather than 1995; an l rather than a 1. Did JonKatz just (poorly) OCR an old paper of his? tsk tsk tsk
IIRC MS-DOS and Windows 3.x were the leading OS in 1991. What's changed?
sulli
RTFJ.
Katz is one busy dude!
If anything, the net has given us the ability to find just about any information we want. While the main news/political sites are still status quo, people who want to go out there and raise hell are able to find dissadent information a whole lot easier than before the rise of the net. At least this is true in the US.
I work for an advocacy oriented nonprofit, and I can tell you that the net has had a huge impact on the way we interact with government, and the way we interact with grassroots supporters (getting them to write their Representatives, etc). Give the US government a few years to catch up.
I do not think, however, that the net is going to change the way governments work wholesale. They'll still be corrupt and powerful, and they'll still be trying to screw you and me.
I don't have an anger problem, I have an idiot problem
Translation: "Goddamnit! Stop choosing to block my articles from your front page view!"
(Something I haven't done obviously. He's just too entertaining.)
"Slashdot is about legos and staplers." -Cmdr. Taco
Sounds like an Onion headline to me:
Jon Katz Quotes Self
- insert witty phrase here
In 91 OS/2 was out. It was a 32 bit os with a GUI. Very technically sweet for it's day. It also cost about 5 times what Dos+Windows cost. IBM was held up as the shining example of a company that couldn't market space heaters in Alaska in January. Everyone (except IBM) knew that the pricing was killing OS2. People who used OS2 were as fanatical about it as the Mac users are. IBM could easily taken the desktop if it had lowered the price. It didn't. As Cringely pointed out a month ago Microsoft has succeeded because its competitors have acted like idiots.
Best Slashdot Co
Whatever you like to think, people in general are still lazy, apathetic, and just plain don't care.
No amount of information overload or internet connectivity will change basic human nature. Simply giving everyone net access (or whatever) won't turn them into caring, conscious, active, wonderful citizens.
Thomas Paine was a political revolutionary. Jon Katz worked with some would-be political revolutionaries at Wired. They thought the net would revolutionize the world, destroying all bad things and empowering the common man, who would somehow go from being a greedy bastard to being a righteous do-gooder. This hasn't happened. What's up with that?
(These Katz Notes provided for those others who began earnestly reading the article only to have their eyes glaze over as they continuted to scroll down....)
m00.
Before the Internet, most people were dumb, passive consumers. Let me just buy things and watch TV, and let others produces things, let others make decisions, let others tell me what my opinions are.
The Internet hasn't changed this. It's turned into Just Another Medium through which we dummies can be told what to wear, what soft drink is cool, who to vote for, who to fuck, and consume, consume, consume!
Today, like years ago, we are told that the masses are meant to be all-consuming pac-men, and the few are meant to produce, lead, and make decisions.
The Internet is not going to bring about a global outpouring of creativity and information sharing, simply because most people can't be bothered to come up with an original thought, much less published writing or software. How many people post to
Technology doesn't change the world, people change the world. Or insert any similar one-liner of your choice.
Things have changed for the better in some ways. Media consolidation has been very rapid the past 6 years or so. Yet anyone with interenet access has access to independant media outlets that ask questions and dig deeper than the mainstream media, who are spoon fed by the pentagon and are quite conciously ok with that.
The problem is that people have to know about these sites and want to go to them. If the entire population is brainwashed to follow one point of view, it won't matter if the plain truth is right in front of them. That is a problem technology can't solve.
Why would anyone expect the Net to "change everything"? People have always had the ability to stay informed through the quality newspapers, magazines, etc, but very few take the time to try and understand complex issues.
On the one hand, the Net gives us the ability to ready any Joe Blo's rants about subjects he knows nothing about, which actually reduces how informed the average citizen is because of all the noise.
On the other hand, if you are selective about what you read and believe, you can occasionally find gems of wisdom that give you information that might not have otherwise found. Take Slashdot -- the editor's are HUGELY ignorant and foolish about things (*cough*michael*cough*), and the posters are usually even worse. But where the editors do a good job is in their story selection. That attracts the smart, knowledgeable people that occasionally post these gems.
The question is whether the Net is a net loss or a net gain in educating the public, and I'm just not sure.
[controversial opinion alert] One huge win in my opinion that the Net has been a great influence on bringing the American ideas of freedom to the rest of the world. The greatest evil of the world, next to communism, is Socialism and I would like to see it finally die like it should have died last century as the failed experiment it was. The more socialism, the less freedom. [/alert]
And please spare me the "America WAS the home of freedom" blah DCMA blah blah. That's a great example of the narrow-minded, single-issue ignorance that I'm talking about. If you think any of these minor issues are significant in the big picture of freedom, then you need to expand your views are what freedom is.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
30 years ago, science fiction was kid's stuff - only children wanted to watch it, only children liked it, etc.
30 years have passed, and the children have grown up. Now Sci-fi is a complex medium intended for the use of adults - it grew up with its fans.
15 years ago video games started getting to be more than just 'Pong,' and the children started to play them. Now games are complex, and getting more so. Today, games are still for the young - but not just for kids.
A mere 10 years ago the net started to become a popular means of [everything the wired article talks about]. It has powerfully transformed the world BEFORE a generation has come to power. That is truly amazing, but you can't expect all of the changes that are on the way to happen overnight.
In 20 years, after the internet has had as much time as Sci-Fi to become commonplace, we will be an internet generation. Then all the people who are using this as their media outlet will have it, and just like the stock market, it will become a chaotic tyranny of the majority's decisions swayed by the charisma of those who write well.
Bring it on. The written word has always been my favorite medium of information exchange.
On the side: I don't care if this issue is last year's news, or last century's. Its relevant today, and there are more things that cna be said about it now than could be said last year!
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
Yes, but it's more like the crank physicist argument. People laughed at and persecuted Einstein; people are laughing at and persecuting me; therefore, my ideas are equally significant to Einstein's. Just replace Paine with Einstein and you have the essence of the article.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
on Slashdot, CNN, ABCNew and MSNBC -- into hostile electronic cesspools. To have actual conversations online, you're forced to join clubs where membership and speech boundaries are regulated, even to the point of specialized blocking programs that permit people to gauge levels of hostility or agreement.
What did you expect, for all your utopian dreams, you forgot one thing. Most people are fucking stupid. And a great many of them are annoying as well. "giving everyone a voice" (the phrase) might sound good, but actually giving everyone a voice won't. leveling the playing field for everyone and you end up with a world awash in moronic penis bird posts and SPAM promoting porn sites.
The hacker universe has sobered up as well. Who would have thought, a decade back, that one company, Microsoft, would in fact achieve everyone's paranoid fantasy and conquer the global desktop?
What is this supposed to even mean? The "global desktop"? Lots of people run windows on desktops across the globe, but M$ hasn't got central control over much of anything, just lots of revenue streams. And its not like their market share has gone up much since the DOS days anyway.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
From the intro to the original Article in Wired.
"Thomas Paine was one of the first journalists to use media as a weapon against the entrenched power structure. He should be resurrected as the moral father of the Internet. Jon Katz explains why. "
Let me suggest that size and force of the "media" has simply become ubiquitous. Can't see the forest that has grown, for the single tree you are looking at one foot in front of you, Jon.
Consider this forest enabling us all to integrate information in ways that would be impossible to even dream of before, not to mention now having the ability to share that new information with others so that they can help make productive use of new integrations.
As an Example integrating the world information to the computer industry to the individual....
You just had to get a swipe at the AG in there, eh? All this digital hand wringing about the High Lord of Evil, John Ashcroft, is really stupid. I live about 1/2 mile north of what was the World Trade Center. I lived through military checkpoints and police blockades for 2 weeks to get into my apartment. Outside those that lost loved ones, were injured by the attacks or lost jobs, I have had a lot to put up with to get my life back together the way it was before 9/11. None of the barriers were created by AG John Ashcroft. His actions have actually made me feel more comfortable about my situation.
But then I have to listen to the Chicken Little's of the Civil Liberties gang. The group of "well meaning, good intentioned" Americans that only believe that effective policing can occur when the "Cops" are handcuffed and blindfolded. You got to love their arrogance when they proclaim that non-US citizens are guaranteedprotection of our Constitution even though they never lived in the US. I am sure that would be a shock to those folks living in China that were run over by tanks 12 years ago.
The amazing thing at the end of the day, no matter what Ashcroft w/ Congress has done, I feel no loss in liberty. No evil corporation is holding me down. Jack booted thugs haven't beat down my door or surrounded my place of worship with tanks and set it on fire. I have no fear to speak my mind. And to prove it, I am going to say the most controversial thing I can imagine, "John Katz is an insightful, intelligent, fully informed writer focusing on the issues that matter to citizens of Cyberspace and his witty commentary is a favorite of all Slashdot readers." It might not be true but I have no fear in saying it. Just like Jon Katz, I have the Constitutional Right to be full of sh*t and spout it out to the masses. Don't worry Jon the High Lord of Evil, John Ashcroft, is not going to gag you no matter how bad your writing is.
P.S. Jon if you are talking about the US, I need to remind you that we are not a democracy, we are a constitutional republic. If we were a democracy, evil would reign via the power of the ballot box -- majority gets to force the minority to do anything it wants.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
A person is smart. People are stupid.
One on one you can reason with people. En masse, you can only emote with them.
Emotions have huge bandwidth but tiny frequency ... in other words: they're very powerful but they're incredibly stupid (low infomrational content).
Changing that reality would entail re-engineering the human race.
(rant warning)
Oh, for the love of...
The cold war propaganda against communism has perpetated the American psyche so badly, that no one seems to know exactly what it is, beyond, ooo, that communism stuff, that's evil...
I'd really love it if people would stop bashing an economic system they apparently know nothing about.
Yea, you heard me. Economic system. Communism has nothing to do with the way a government deals with it's citizen's rights. Commisism is merely an economic arrangement by which everything becomes public property. The government merely manages all aspects of an economy, essentially making the entire populace members of the public service. (Which, kinda has it's own problems, heh, heh...)
I''l give you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe you're a libertarian, so fine, yea, in your view communism is a bad thing. But it's only the oposite of free market economics. Democracy and communism can coexist quite nicely, it's just that most examples of communist governments slipped into a fascist state of mind.
Democracy and fascism sit on opposite ends of a spectrum, just like communism and free market. Think of it this way: Whenever something is managed by the government, that's socialism. Roads and infrastructure maintenance, medicaid, social security, hell, the military! That is the essence of socialism, not some cold war ideal of lack of basic human rights. Whenever a government pays for something, that's socailism. There's a good synonym for socialism that get used a whole lot more, since it's such a demonized word. Nationalization. Yea, public service.
Beisdes, there are plenty of examples of socialism and democracy working just fine together. Look at the Scandinavian countries, and other western European nations. Hey, cast a glance just north. Yea, your forgotten neighbours, and my home, Canada. We've got a social safety net, universal heatlh care and well susbsidized school systems. We have yet to fall into a fascist state. (And oddly enough, the only ones who have proposed repealing human rights for certain individuals are the right-wing anti-socialism political parties) Oh yea, a really good point on this freedom thing, as the anniversary of it's adoption has just passed. The man credited with drafting the universal declaration of human rights. Do you know from where he hails? Not the USA. No, actually he hails from up here. Yea, Canada, land of evil socialism, the country that has probably done the most for the cause of human rights in the past fifty years.
So much for restricted freedoms...
(/rant warning)
(AC'd 'cause I'm at work, and can't remember my password...)
Sayeth Katz [everything sic, bad formatting artifacts and all]: "Still, I?ve come to trust interactivity and believe in it. A big difference between this culture and the old one is that ideas have to stand the test. And I?d rather write about other things. So I suggested to the Commander that we move this discussion forward by sticking a poll box next to this column, and make me the topic. Let the geeks speak for themselves...Vote to dump the jerk or keep him."
While it could be a glitch, it's hard to imagine a glitch that just loses the anti-Katz votes. It seems like someone doesn't want to let us "speak for ourselves". As Stalin once said, "those who cast the votes determine nothing. Those who count the votes determine everything."
What happened to more than 1500 anti-Katz votes?
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
Communism is not the opposite of capitalism; socialism is the opposite of capitalism. Communism is a sociopolitical worldview which incorporates socialism as one of its guiding principles. In the real world, of course, neither absolute socialism nor absolute capitalism works too well -- capitalist transactions take place even in the most officially socialist countries, and even the most laissez-faire capitalist countries (e.g. the US) incorporate some government control of the economy.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
A couple things. This is not really a new phenomina. Does the term "millitary industrial complex" ring a bell. Same process.
More importantly, the recent trend of "corporatism" is unlikely to go on much longer. Already you can see the rise of the independent professional, the enterprising individual. I know a lot of corportate people who got their first taste of enterprise and freedom at some now defunct
One associate of mine said he'd have to get a pre-frontal lobotomy before taking another corporate job. Backlash is on the way.
The truth is that corporations are beureaucratic. And because they don't have even the limited accountability/transparency of governments, they tend to be the most inefficient beureucracies around. They waste so much money and time it's rediculous.
And another thing...
What's up with all the pessemism? All the "you can't change people" and "people are going to be consumers no matter what". Come on, people: Cynicism isn't cool. Maybe it's fun to pretend when your a teenager so you can feel grown up, but in real life it's stupid. It doesn't get you anywhere.
People are not by nature consumers. It's just the current situation. Instead of sniping and whining, why don't we try and improve?
Try constructing positive arguments: don't just argue against something without arguing for something else.
Howard Dean for president
1) The terrorists we're looking for probably aren't worried about acquiring their guns illegally.
2) The terrorists we're looking for probably are using the publicly-available communications infrastructure, even if they're not using crypto. We also know they're using it for money-laundering, even if they're not using it to discuss their operational plans.
Ergo, if you want to find the terrorists, monitor the communications infrastructure, not gun purchase records. > Thinking that a computer is scarier than a gun is about as rational as prefering a musket to a crossbow. Isn't it?
Who was the mobster who said that he'd teach his son computers rather than bank-robbing, because you can steal a lot more money with a computer than you can with a gun?
I'd say Ashcroft's on the right track. We use guns on the battlefield today, not crossbows, no?
15 years ago I began studying politics intensely with the notion that there were real answers out there to public policy questions. Actually began my quest trying to figure out why my guy lost the election, I must obviously know something that 52% of the population didn't.
Now, as a PhD in political science I realize how true the following statement is: The fundamental nature of politics is the distribution of resources among people according to ones moral and ethical beliefs.
One can change the mechanisms for obtaining information. One can spend large amounts of money on campaigns, one can wire houses for some sort of electronic democracy. But these are only foolish dances around the core issues. Moral and ethical beliefs do not change significantly for an adult. Societal norms only change with new generations and advances in education and income (which allow individuals more liberty to contemplate instead of planting corn).
Technology will have an effect on politics, but only because it creates wealth and perhaps accelerates the underlying growth in access to education.
Sort of interesting to note that media exposure actually tends to result in more ephemerial political attitudes, not really a more serious contemplation.
The digital citizen would be smart, civil and rational, outgrowing labels like "liberal" or "conservative", engaged in civics, technology, business and government; transcending dogma and cant. Maybe he or she will pop up, but probably not in my life.
I think there's every bit of evidence that people who meet this description exist today. Mr. Lessig, as an example, would qualify.
I agree that the vision of a world where everyone is like this is unlikely to be met anytime soon. But the fact that every tree in the forest isn't the tree you're looking for does not mean the trees you are looking for do not exist.
I'm not sure I agree.
I know the net has changed me... I often tell people that EVERYTHING is on the 'net, some where, it's finding it that takes real effort. That being said, everyday I learn something new off the net.
Example: hydroponics. Where I live, the closest hydro shop is 6 hours away. Sure, I could have done mail-order, but I would have had to find a catalog. Now, a search on google and I have 50 different places I can buy hydro supplies and another 500 pages with FAQs, how-to, etc. In a half an hour, I have a very decent understanding of why hydro involves, techniques, costs, etc...
Slashdot is a good example, too... like with the new WORM_GONE virus. Slashdot ran a story, and in that story I found 10+ links about the virus and other interesting things about Outlook, like obscure information about how to set up it's handling of attachments. In 20 minutes of reading, I found more info than I would have with hours of digging (ever try to find good on info in the MS knowledge base? Drives me insane sometimes).
I once read a that the really interesting things happen at boundary areas, i.e. earth is in boundary between a sun and the coldness of deep space. The same can be said about information... when two areas of knowledge run against each other, that's where the interesting things are. The net is this very thing... an nearly infinite set of info and ideas rubbing up against another. Granted, the noise level is high, and it takes work to do put it all together, but I feel that if a person is open to ideas and can filter out bulls**t, there is a lot to be had from the chaos of the net.
Has it empowered me? Yes, in some ways. Do I feel I can make a major difference because of the net? Nope, not yet anyway.