Conversation

Replying to and
I mean what's plutocratic about making a home on the internet. Blogs or other presences are cheap to build. Online community stuff mainly subs for tv or sports. Anyone can do it. I don't get why wealth is a variable here.
2
2
Replying to and
Having a "highly curated social graph", dense enough to need only small # of people to provide you situational awareness of important topics, is definitely a strong modern form of wealth. If Twitter shuts down, you could contact ~70 people through vgr@ribbonfarm.com or whatever.
1
1
Replying to and
I'm aware of broke teenage kids in SG who have impressive networks via a mix of Instagram, Tumblr, Tinyletters, etc – better than anything I had at their age – and they're actually doing stuff with it, coordinating events & such. Enterprising, alert bunch. See also: Black Twitter
2
2
Replying to and
It's good that a lot of our disagreements boil down to "oh, we're just talking about different people". I have not fully forsaken 100% of my 26-year-long IRL social graph to join the Web Singularity Futurist Only Movement (strawman, but honestly what alternative seems like)
1
Replying to and
My reality isn't really anywhere close to either of those things. My social graph has always been abt 25% random misfits & outcasts (who get 80% of my attention). I have weak ties with lots of people and cultivate stronger ties with the interesting+kind ones. No serious futurists
2
1
Replying to and
I was making a silly strongman to demonstrate The View From John Henry. But yes, a lot of people with secure digital sovereignty actually have Ideologies Included, I think you two are the rare ones that don't.