It's funny that everyone thinks that social media is whichever thing they don't like - and honestly, they're all right. It's all things to all opponents.
That really does sound lovely. My experiences with culture that isn't lame come from the vibrant and liberated 90s punk scenes in the states. Electronic music didn't catch on quite as strong here (thought that culture was absolutely present), and we certainly didn't have anything like the massive Reclaim the Streets parties, but it's something. It's incredible to go back to the fanzines of that era and see literally hundreds of ads and reviews for records, dozens of columns, dozens of interviews, reports on the punk scenes in various cities around the globe, lists of upcoming shows, contacts for booking tours, etc. There's nothing like it today. I still keep current on the local punk scene, but it's nowhere near as alive and forceful as back then. People keep trying, but with diminishing returns.
I know this sounds like bland, bitter nostalgia, but I really don't think it is. Or if it is, I don't think I'm wrong. I believe we can trace this directly to the internet. At first, yes, the internet seemed like a wonderful tool for sharing culture. Counter-cultures were the first in line for bbs, newsgroups, email, websites, etc., and we used those tools well. It's not hard to see how these potentially liberating tools came to make us dull and asocial, though. It's mediated experience. It's not *real* in the way that hanging out with humans is. Nuance is lost. Expression is limited. The more we used these tools, the less we relied on psychical media and physical space. Fliers and zines were replaced by web forums, where a whisper is just as loud as a scream. And when web 2.0 came around, even this limited mode of expression became a thing of the past. It's monoculture. Everything on facebook looks the same. And it's boring af.
This is a *really* unusual hot take. You've been misinformed. Occupy always had a leftist bent; I was extremely skeptical about the whole thing from day one. Occupy never really transcended my doubts, as the state and capital were ultimately able to recuperate insurgent sentiment. It's notable that recuperation works where direct physical intervention fails, though the state was generally savvy enough to use a combination of tactics, by avoiding intervention during during the height of Occupy, and waiting to attack until it had begun to wane. Anyway, in some places the reified identity politicians from the general assemblies were successfully challenged, and insurrectionary interlocutors were able to maintain temporary autonomous zones, as well as attack not just symbols of capital, but the ability of the state to maintain the flow of capital. Which is to say that you've got it exactly backward. Your source, BTW, manages to display *more* ressentiment (in the Nietzschean sense) than any SJW I've ever met.
If you're actually interested in what happened, Little Black Cart put out a good retrospective - https://archive.org/details/Oc...
A better example for your case can be found in the Occupy ICE encampments, especially Philly - https://phlanticap.noblogs.org...
I hope we can come to a cultural understand that it is not OK to invite a person into one's home without informing that person of listening devices. I really, really don't want to be the kind of asshole that brings up this sort of thing. I realize it sounds like pedantry and smug point-making to do this, but if these things really do take off as projected, and it doesn't become common courtesy I'm going to be a raging asshole.
I'd rather see no signal than an incorrect one. A turn signal communicates intent. It gives some level of assurance that a driver is paying attention and intends to turn or change lanes, and one makes split second decisions based on these assumptions. I'd rather remain cautious than have the illusion of certainty.
I agree with some of your assessment - except for the far left part. Professional organizers and academics pushing for a technical solution to a social problem that have no analysis of capital? These people are center-left through and through.
I agree. Once you have a decent e-ink device, you don't really need a new one. It's a product that lets you read every book ever written. Pretty hard to improve on that. The only growth is probably in large form factor devices for manuals and textbooks, which are too niche and too expensive for the average consumer.
DMT is a hell of a drug - in a good way. I don't really think the beings' sentience really matters; that delineation is missing the point. For me, it reveals the fragility and foolishness of a hard, positivist, consensus reality, which, to be fair, science is coming to understand. So, yeah, they are real, in a sense, but only as real as anything else.
Centrist extremism is a pretty well known phenomenon. It usually hinges on the horseshoe fallacy, which itself depends on an abstract left-right polarity that not many people actually fit into. It's often associated with flawed concepts such as objective truth, pure rationality, positivist logic, etc. It doesn't hold up to scrutiny is what I'm saying.
Soulseek is absolutely the one sustainable success of the first wave of file sharing. I can still find vinyl rips of rare 80s finnish hardcore, or every live Prince set in existence, and I still leave soulseek (well, nicotine plus) running in the background. It found its niche among music geeks very quickly and it's been sitting pretty ever since.
Traditionally, small-l libertarian has been a synonym for "anarchist" and is still used that way in most of the world. Although in the last hundred years or so it's been more commonly used to describe pro-market mutualists than classical left anarchists. Let's just say there's quite a bit of diversity around the term.
It was slim pickins at first, but I've found that most of the addons I use have been updated, and the abandoned ones have new analogs. Of course, YMMV.
I've got my aged mother running Linux Mint. She doesn't know the difference. Linux is absolutely ready to be a Windows replacement for the average user, and has been for some time. You don't need to learn a new OS paradigm, you don't need the command line, you sure as hell don't have to download old drivers from sketchy websites for old hardware. It's just never going to happen because PCs come with Windows installed.
I know I shouldn't be shocked - shocked! - to hear this, but the idea that they just didn't bother to encrypt photos is a simply breathtaking feat of negligence.
That's actually a different bill that would uphold net neutrality in California. This one is a bill related to collecting and selling personal information. There's a ballot initiative that would enforce informed consent and prevent telcos from charging higher fees for those that opt-out of data collection. This bill is a watered down, but still significant version of that.
This is the most detailed article I could find about it:
https://gizmodo.com/california...
"A community with some ability to pay for new networking can try community networking, have a telco invest in a new network."
Except telcos have for years been using their political weight to sabotage and outlaw community broadband efforts, arguing that, poor things, they wouldn't be able to compete in a real market.
I love that place! I used to stop by whenever my old band was in NYC. My copy of Snow Crash came from there. Last time I was there I went to another cool bookstore called Book Thug Nation that had a massive amount of used sci-fi at surprisingly reasonable prices. It really saved my ass because I forgot to bring any books on that tour.
Well, you're technically correct in a very narrow sense, which, I'm told, is the best kind of correct. You'd have a rough time convincing any humans that EULAs are informed consent, however, especially unpublicized opt-out data collection and third-party sharing. Besides that, no one consented to a shadow profile, or to the collection and sale of info from data brokers to facebook. This argument just doesn't hold up to any level of scrutiny.
I tried out ProtonVPN for awhile and liked it. The Linux and Android clients are both nice, and the speed is good. It was just a little more expensive then some other services.
The problem is that, yes, once upon a time, google was the best at search because they had the best algorithms. Since MS was really trying not to rock the boat on anti-trust issues, they decided not to push their own search engine too hard. Thus google had a fair shot, and the best engine won. Since then, things have changed, and their algorithms aren't the reason they're the biggest. They're stifling innovation in both purposeful and incidental ways. They of course have more data about all of us, giving us personalized results. They're able to devote vastly more resources to search than anyone. They're deploying more and more tactics to keep people from ever leaving their ecosystem, which means demonstrably superior algorithms are left to die and leave their creators' broke. When a clearly better product isn't given a chance, that feels, to me, like the point at which the words "anti-trust" should come into the picture. I want to be more specific here and cite an article I saw a few months ago, but I couldn't find it on google;)
No one does. Things have gotten so odious that politicians are just ignoring issues they could win on. I don't get it. I mean, I do - they seek office just to get in on the kickback train - but . . . It just doesn't make any real sense. It's Camus' Absurd.
Slashdot Mirror
It's funny that everyone thinks that social media is whichever thing they don't like - and honestly, they're all right. It's all things to all opponents.
That really does sound lovely. My experiences with culture that isn't lame come from the vibrant and liberated 90s punk scenes in the states. Electronic music didn't catch on quite as strong here (thought that culture was absolutely present), and we certainly didn't have anything like the massive Reclaim the Streets parties, but it's something. It's incredible to go back to the fanzines of that era and see literally hundreds of ads and reviews for records, dozens of columns, dozens of interviews, reports on the punk scenes in various cities around the globe, lists of upcoming shows, contacts for booking tours, etc. There's nothing like it today. I still keep current on the local punk scene, but it's nowhere near as alive and forceful as back then. People keep trying, but with diminishing returns.
I know this sounds like bland, bitter nostalgia, but I really don't think it is. Or if it is, I don't think I'm wrong. I believe we can trace this directly to the internet. At first, yes, the internet seemed like a wonderful tool for sharing culture. Counter-cultures were the first in line for bbs, newsgroups, email, websites, etc., and we used those tools well. It's not hard to see how these potentially liberating tools came to make us dull and asocial, though. It's mediated experience. It's not *real* in the way that hanging out with humans is. Nuance is lost. Expression is limited. The more we used these tools, the less we relied on psychical media and physical space. Fliers and zines were replaced by web forums, where a whisper is just as loud as a scream. And when web 2.0 came around, even this limited mode of expression became a thing of the past. It's monoculture. Everything on facebook looks the same. And it's boring af.
This is a *really* unusual hot take. You've been misinformed. Occupy always had a leftist bent; I was extremely skeptical about the whole thing from day one. Occupy never really transcended my doubts, as the state and capital were ultimately able to recuperate insurgent sentiment. It's notable that recuperation works where direct physical intervention fails, though the state was generally savvy enough to use a combination of tactics, by avoiding intervention during during the height of Occupy, and waiting to attack until it had begun to wane. Anyway, in some places the reified identity politicians from the general assemblies were successfully challenged, and insurrectionary interlocutors were able to maintain temporary autonomous zones, as well as attack not just symbols of capital, but the ability of the state to maintain the flow of capital. Which is to say that you've got it exactly backward. Your source, BTW, manages to display *more* ressentiment (in the Nietzschean sense) than any SJW I've ever met. If you're actually interested in what happened, Little Black Cart put out a good retrospective - https://archive.org/details/Oc... A better example for your case can be found in the Occupy ICE encampments, especially Philly - https://phlanticap.noblogs.org...
I hope we can come to a cultural understand that it is not OK to invite a person into one's home without informing that person of listening devices. I really, really don't want to be the kind of asshole that brings up this sort of thing. I realize it sounds like pedantry and smug point-making to do this, but if these things really do take off as projected, and it doesn't become common courtesy I'm going to be a raging asshole.
I'd rather see no signal than an incorrect one. A turn signal communicates intent. It gives some level of assurance that a driver is paying attention and intends to turn or change lanes, and one makes split second decisions based on these assumptions. I'd rather remain cautious than have the illusion of certainty.
I agree with some of your assessment - except for the far left part. Professional organizers and academics pushing for a technical solution to a social problem that have no analysis of capital? These people are center-left through and through.
Not only that, but many white male Hugo winners, historically speaking, have been married... to women! We're through the looking glass folks!
I agree. Once you have a decent e-ink device, you don't really need a new one. It's a product that lets you read every book ever written. Pretty hard to improve on that. The only growth is probably in large form factor devices for manuals and textbooks, which are too niche and too expensive for the average consumer.
DMT is a hell of a drug - in a good way. I don't really think the beings' sentience really matters; that delineation is missing the point. For me, it reveals the fragility and foolishness of a hard, positivist, consensus reality, which, to be fair, science is coming to understand. So, yeah, they are real, in a sense, but only as real as anything else.
Centrist extremism is a pretty well known phenomenon. It usually hinges on the horseshoe fallacy, which itself depends on an abstract left-right polarity that not many people actually fit into. It's often associated with flawed concepts such as objective truth, pure rationality, positivist logic, etc. It doesn't hold up to scrutiny is what I'm saying.
Soulseek is absolutely the one sustainable success of the first wave of file sharing. I can still find vinyl rips of rare 80s finnish hardcore, or every live Prince set in existence, and I still leave soulseek (well, nicotine plus) running in the background. It found its niche among music geeks very quickly and it's been sitting pretty ever since.
Right, with global capitalism extracting resources and forcing austerity measures. No way that could have ended poorly.
Traditionally, small-l libertarian has been a synonym for "anarchist" and is still used that way in most of the world. Although in the last hundred years or so it's been more commonly used to describe pro-market mutualists than classical left anarchists. Let's just say there's quite a bit of diversity around the term.
It was slim pickins at first, but I've found that most of the addons I use have been updated, and the abandoned ones have new analogs. Of course, YMMV.
I've got my aged mother running Linux Mint. She doesn't know the difference. Linux is absolutely ready to be a Windows replacement for the average user, and has been for some time. You don't need to learn a new OS paradigm, you don't need the command line, you sure as hell don't have to download old drivers from sketchy websites for old hardware. It's just never going to happen because PCs come with Windows installed.
I know I shouldn't be shocked - shocked! - to hear this, but the idea that they just didn't bother to encrypt photos is a simply breathtaking feat of negligence.
That's actually a different bill that would uphold net neutrality in California. This one is a bill related to collecting and selling personal information. There's a ballot initiative that would enforce informed consent and prevent telcos from charging higher fees for those that opt-out of data collection. This bill is a watered down, but still significant version of that. This is the most detailed article I could find about it: https://gizmodo.com/california...
"A community with some ability to pay for new networking can try community networking, have a telco invest in a new network." Except telcos have for years been using their political weight to sabotage and outlaw community broadband efforts, arguing that, poor things, they wouldn't be able to compete in a real market.
Methinks he doth protest too much.
I love that place! I used to stop by whenever my old band was in NYC. My copy of Snow Crash came from there. Last time I was there I went to another cool bookstore called Book Thug Nation that had a massive amount of used sci-fi at surprisingly reasonable prices. It really saved my ass because I forgot to bring any books on that tour.
Well, you're technically correct in a very narrow sense, which, I'm told, is the best kind of correct. You'd have a rough time convincing any humans that EULAs are informed consent, however, especially unpublicized opt-out data collection and third-party sharing. Besides that, no one consented to a shadow profile, or to the collection and sale of info from data brokers to facebook. This argument just doesn't hold up to any level of scrutiny.
I tried out ProtonVPN for awhile and liked it. The Linux and Android clients are both nice, and the speed is good. It was just a little more expensive then some other services.
The problem is that, yes, once upon a time, google was the best at search because they had the best algorithms. Since MS was really trying not to rock the boat on anti-trust issues, they decided not to push their own search engine too hard. Thus google had a fair shot, and the best engine won. Since then, things have changed, and their algorithms aren't the reason they're the biggest. They're stifling innovation in both purposeful and incidental ways. They of course have more data about all of us, giving us personalized results. They're able to devote vastly more resources to search than anyone. They're deploying more and more tactics to keep people from ever leaving their ecosystem, which means demonstrably superior algorithms are left to die and leave their creators' broke. When a clearly better product isn't given a chance, that feels, to me, like the point at which the words "anti-trust" should come into the picture. I want to be more specific here and cite an article I saw a few months ago, but I couldn't find it on google ;)
Maybe they do, I mean they do make the maps. But I was talking more about things like DACA and net neutrality.
No one does. Things have gotten so odious that politicians are just ignoring issues they could win on. I don't get it. I mean, I do - they seek office just to get in on the kickback train - but . . . It just doesn't make any real sense. It's Camus' Absurd.