I’ve been putting this off for a long time, waiting for the shake-out in blogging clients.
/me peeks at “Windows Live” sitting on the desktop
Til now I haven’t found any I truly trust.
I’ve been putting this off for a long time, waiting for the shake-out in blogging clients.
/me peeks at “Windows Live” sitting on the desktop
Til now I haven’t found any I truly trust.
#SocialMedia
“Social Media Revolution 2” (Refresh) YouTube video
Verified as Empire Avenue ITGEEK (EAVB_YBJKHHWRJX)
I say it’s because of personality politics … the A-list only allows advances that add value to their own stock. In case case the fact is that most of what’s being discussed as “new” I recall from the early 80s, even the late 70s. (I carried around my copy of “Netweavers” for years!) And the software that’s coming out? I saw designs that were almost identicial (if not superior) in the last 90s … a decade and more ago.
My point is simply this: my communalism dates back to “the bus” in ’68 … where dozens showed up to help hang new drapes but when it came time to change the engine it was just the.same.old 6 or 7 of us. And I’ve watched the dynamic mature: the clique that was oh.so.willing to “partake” but not actually “take part” have been treated well by the passing years and a good number of them are now well-positioned if not wealthy. And their thing is this: stand back and watch til there’s something they like and then take / steal / copy it … your basic Bill Gates manoever. Actual collaboration? Horse.shit … “collaboration” is the pretext they use to stick their nose in it.
So anyhow, it’s still good stuff … however couched in self-serving cant.
Here’s some material from the blog at delib.co.uk (File under “They sure do have the theory!”)
Here’s an item that shows the end effect: March, 2010, a lovely blog post celebrating a brilliant new method (“Notes v. Maps: Trading Quantity for Quality“) when actually the method was “cutting edge” late-90s. How am I so sure? Because that’s when I abandoned for the fact of being retro- and inherently dead-ended. But it suits the twits in suits so … so that’s that. Period. “Innovation”?! C’mon, get real …
following up on my post, “The Obama WhiteHouse – Civility, OpenDemocracy and Web2.0”:
slightly related:
Here’s the mockup I created of the graphical interface to IssuePress:
And here’s the fancy graphical front end for “Grab More Science“:
When you click on one of the boxes, you get this:
*blink*
Sooooo, who’s getting paid to develop this stuff? Not me …
*X-posted from my blog on http://GlobalSenseMaking.net*
Micah Sifry quoted this in his post about the IntenseDebate deployment on Change.Gov:
“I just wanted to say thank you for giving us a place to make our thoughts and comment heard. It’s about time the government provide a centralized place for citizens to express their opinions where they feel they will be heard.” [Emphasis added by him there.]
My response to him on Twitter was this:
“With 3.7K / 53 pages of comments (and the thread closed), you say ID on Change.Gov is a place people can go to be heard?! #koolaid”
In effect, this says that standing in a crowd with 3,699 other people and holding up a placard is a brave step forward for engaged democracy.
That’s non-sense … and worse: it leads to complacent self-delusion, entirely antithetical to the drive for innovation.
Sidebar: I noticed that Sifry has blocked me on Twitter …
… to that, I tweeted this: ” Well, after years of cold-shoulder I finally got a reaction: blocked by none other than @Mlsif, the high-priest of democracy. #borg #matrix ”
The ironies are ripe … and entirely keeping with what might seem a cynical appraisal on my part: those who are charged with the responsibility of applauding the Emperor’s new clothes are doing just that.
Such behavior has consequences.