Slashdot Mirror
CNET Interviews John Perry Barlow
slothdog writes: "CNET has published an interview with John Perry Barlow. He talks about the evils of corporate totalitarianism (Microsoft, et al), the tech industry implosion, and the DMCA."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
I was fascinated by this article, as I like to hear anyone's opinion and gather further fodder in my ongoing anti-M$ (et al.) quest.
But when article writers repeatedly use loaded words like "totalitarianism," which we as savvy minds comprehend to be the same as "virtual monopoly by way of market cornering," they are limiting their column to a small demographic (the savvy people listed above). It is equivalent to writing in some form of geek-code that only other geeks understand.
Basically, you limit the scope of your audience by your use of vocabulary. (IE, you will only reach other geeks by speaking in lingo.)
I'm just wondering who benefits from an article of this type - the nerds all know it, the non-nerds won't even understand it.
--
Disclaimer: The above statement probably includes half-truths, because real truth is too complicated.
To quote:
Presumably, you'll do more and more purchases online, and presumably, Microsoft will make it more inconvenient for you--unless you provide your consumer data to Passport (the company's database of customer information). At some point, are you going to cave and provide Microsoft your credit card and other data?
I don't know. (Long pause. Heavy sigh.)
I'm really worried about this, and I keep praying for guidance. These are really dark times. On practically every front that I care about, the voices of the foes are winning. I have a beleaguered optimism that this isn't going to continue to be the case, but this is a time to have your faith tested, that's for sure.
The solution is simple. Turn off your computer, and do your shopping and socializing the old fashioned way. The Internet is only popular while we, the collective, see it as a required part of our life. This is a lie that we have told ourselves repeatedly.
If you wish to have your life revolve around the computer, or around the media, then you choose to be a part of this 'mass hallucination'.
My grandmother taught me a valuable lesson: Believe none of what you hear, half of what you read, and all of what you see.
Oh, I forgot. Conspiracy theories are the in thing in this new Millenium......
Feed the need: Digitaladdiction.net
but it seems to me that a lot of sites are running many stories that slashdot can get hyped about. Linux on the desktop, microsoft is evil, DMCA is drawn and quartered in court. In a previous thread someone said that slashdot was played for fools and that the linux desktop thing was to get more ad impressions, I'm beginning to think he was right.
Of course all this insane, conspiracy bumbling I'm doing might just be alcohol induced paranoia. Maybe I should goto bed.
I absolutely agree that the pursuit of money is Microsoft's motivating force. But what difference does that make? The problem is that they're more than happy to take over your mind and soul to get your money. Whatever the motivation, our minds and souls are still in danger. (Well, not literally our souls--I hope. But certainly our freedoms.)
The tone of the article was aloof and slightly patronizing. The quote:
"the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), a 1998 agreement that banned online distribution of companies' intellectual property"
tells you which side CNET is on.
When he passes from the intellectual scene, there will be no more dissenting voices in his league left to interview. And so his observation is correct: eventually, given the arch questions in the article by the reporter, CNET and similar corporate-owned outlets will not interview such "flakes" as he. His (accurate) observations will no longer be part of public discussion, and one tone, one philosophy will prevail: corporate absolutism, with one or two conservative behemoths owning all the news media that matter.
After 20 years of watching the ongoing corporatization and the creation of a conservative media hegemony, I think the word "evil" applies.
.Net to own everyone's transactions. And maybe BillG doesn't care about your private life, but what about future BillGs twenty years from now, or forty? Absolute power is being channeled into boardrooms that have no government oversight of their actions. Enron shows us how intertwined the power/money brokers are with the government. They've become inseparable. And these characters are going to decide what we see and hear on the net and any other channel of info?
Bush has had a revelation from God. He believes that he has been charged with eliminating evil-doers from the planet -- not a joke --by God Himself. If you read what he says, he is on a holy war. Any formerly Commie country, except China of course, is evil. Anything that embarassed his daddy was evil. Anything Clinton did... never mind. Saudi Arabia was the source of the terrorists for the most part, but curiously our oil sources don't seem to be evil.
Barlow, on the other hand, sees a real evil: the almost absolute monopolization, coming Real Soon Now, of all news media outlets by mega-giga-corps, leading to the pasteurization of human thought on the planet. Dead real truth. Current forerunner of such: the almost complete adoration of the current president, and the complete lack of criticism of his past, his current policies, or his actual words. This is a top-down move from the highest levels of the corporations such as AOL-TW and GE and Disney. And across the country, in many city papers, editors and reporters that aren't toeing the line are being canned. Think about it: how many reporters and editors were fired for critizing Clinton? Interesting dynamic there, dontcha think?
Barlow is right, as should be obvious. We're being sewn up into a certalized corporatocracy by the day, and no one is noticing. MS will use
Listen to Barlow.
Well said. That guy was full of shit. I bet he will never find out how Rand and Nozick and Co. hijacked the term Libertarian.
The corporate oligarchic republics like America hand the people a few shreds of rights they call freedoms. They do this to get idiots like mrgrumpy, focused on a narrow plane of thought and stuck in reformism. He gets righteous about freedoms, when he should be after freedom.
You will never obtain liberty under any government, all governments in history have existed to protect an opulent minority from the majority. Whenever this minority feels threatened or gets rapacious you will see your so called guaranteed rights go away real quick.
Mod Roto-Rooter Man up.
I am into the copy and paste.
Royalties are things that get paid to organizations and institutions that have thieved royalties from human beings. The idea that royalties need to be there to "incentivize" creativity is pretty abstract these days.
What you get paid for is the delivery of service. If you're talking about services, it's best not to view what is being served as a form of property.
Wow, that has to be by far the most intelligent quote I've seen in a while on the state of IP. I don't necessarily agree with everything he said in the article but the above quote is dead-on target.
--
Scott Brady
Take a look at the actions of US oil companies in, say, Nigeria or Myannmar, and then tell me that AOL or MS is "evil".
Perhaps if the major media spent more time pointing out those atrocities, not to mention the fact that Bin Laden and co. would be nothing without money and weapons from the west (mostly from selling oil and being strategically valuable because of that same oil), the people might force change.
Who do you suppose is managing to consistantly fail to report on corperations slowly but surely becoming a law unto themselves but never missing a good car crash or apartment fire?
If MS and AOL get their way, all hope of peolpe waking up to these evils may go away.
Libertarianism talks about the rights and freedoms of humans. Nothing about it says that abstract constructs like corporations should get the same rights. Wanting to curb corporate power is entirely consistent with libertarianism, as far as I can tell.