Yeah back in agreement. However, I did make that point in 2011, and why this irritated the exec editor of the NYT. Kinda my point: all this wasn't a complete surprise to everyone but it appeared to shock both the rising tech elite and old gatekeepers.http://technosociology.org/?p=431
-
-
Replying to @zeynep @antoniogm and
Back then, though, nobody liked thinking about it because the old gatekeepers and the new elites were both convinced that this was their game to win. Hence my point earlier; the Catholic Church thought the printing press was a boon to it. Not the way history works.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @zeynep @antoniogm and
So we gotta pick up the institution-building as soon as we can; but every passing year makes it harder, obviously. To conclude, though, I still disagree that we were powerless; yes, a transition was gonna happen but we could have been more protective of ourselves.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @antoniogm and
Google, FB, Amazon bought hundreds of companies because we didn't enforce merger law or implement coherent privacy rules. These were political economy choices not technological *at all.* Podcasting is still decentralized, we don't have to let it vertically integrate.
2 replies 3 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @matthewstoller @antoniogm and
Right, for example. There’s a certain model of scale and freedom to do what they want that the companies want to pursue, and there’s nothing that novel about it. There’s nothing teleological about letting it happen on those terms.
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @matthewstoller and
(Though I should say that I don't think decentralization, by itself, is going to solve everything but it would definitely impact the public sphere if the super-charged engagement that comes from tribalization wasn't built into the business model as a positive incentive).
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @zeynep @antoniogm and
My narrow point is simply that technological determinism is both wrong and serves the interests of those who want control but eschew taking responsibility. We can and do choose how to structure our markets and our corporations. Even having the corporate form is a choice.
3 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @matthewstoller @zeynep and
Generally speaking I'm sympathetic to decentralization, that's a separate point to the broader one that political economy choices are choices.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @matthewstoller @antoniogm and
Agree. My fave example is the evolution of food safety. It was terrible for a while; chemistry was used in the service of (good-looking) but poisonous food. Seemed like an intractable problem. A century later, you can walk into any supermarket & if you get e-coli, it's a scandal.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @matthewstoller and
I don't think these analogies hold. You're describing something that's separable from the product itself. Food has a purpose other than being poisonous. The ability to say what you want to whomever you want is the core of both the pathologies and the products.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
You'd be surprised at how food safety evolved. Define poison! Define enhancement! What's a bit of heavy metals for color? Also, lead in paint has a purpose other than being a horrific neurotoxin. There are lots of products that are... complicated till we draw a line at the costs.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.