ProPublica via Ars Technica covers the latest example of Big Telecom’s scummy tactics against Net Neutrality.
via Mysterious campaign appears to be latest salvo in net neutrality battle [Updated] | Ars Technica.
ProPublica via Ars Technica covers the latest example of Big Telecom’s scummy tactics against Net Neutrality.
via Mysterious campaign appears to be latest salvo in net neutrality battle [Updated] | Ars Technica.
ReadWriteWeb posted an editorial piece on why the “dislike” button is not coming to Facebook. I can see the author’s point about how the button could have adverse effects upon brands (I’m assuming the “Ripoff Report” sort of effect, in the worst case).
However, from my own perspective and outside of the business perspective, I haven’t exactly found any specific function for the “dislike” or “mod down” button idea, other than to visually show how many people didn’t like an item. Unlike the controversial function of the button on Digg and Reddit (in which a sufficient number of mods-down results in a demotion of the item from the all-important front page), the likes of Facebook and Twitter do not have such all-important front pages which would allow for the easy disappearance of a promoted item due to sufficient amounts of “dislikes” or “downtweets”.
At present, YouTube’s “dislike” button also lacks a specific function other than denoting the number of people who simply did not like a particular video. Instead, an alternate link for the “reporting” of the video to YouTube censors appears when one clicks the “dislike” button.
That’s it. No other function. No impact beyond an aesthetically-skin-deep perception of “democracy”.
Perhaps this neutered version of the “user moderation” feature is useful to those who simply wish to promote their brands or content (and not accept critique of the same), but it bodes ill for future experiments in online user engagement, especially those which may take a functional cue from the likes of Digg and Reddit.
The ReTweet is, in terms of a growing number of indexing sites like Topsy, the equivalent of an upmod vote or endorsement of the post as has been practiced by Digg or Reddit: basically, if one prepends "RT" to the prior poster’s username, the content of the repost and the associated shortened URL to the external site, Topsy interprets the RT as an endorsement of the reposted content and the full URL.
So the "DeTweet" was introduced as a concept by various posters as being the opposite of the ReTweet last year, one that has not yet been credibly created or fleshed out for mass consumption or indexer use. Basically, instead of "RT" next to an associated post, a DT would be prepended in order to indicate dislike.
But what does that mean? Continue reading DeTweet or DownTweet: How?
A lot of journalists and media distribution industry figures have published comments on an Internet-based "entitlement mentality", which (they say) perceives media content as free and all-you-can-eat.
I disagree with the assertion that the Internet entitlement mentality is focused upon content (news posts, videos, radio, etc.), as such an assertion has led to the ongoing legal/political conflict over peer-to-peer file-sharing.
Instead, I feel that the IEM is focused more upon memberships or subscriptions to various services, especially those with a social networking aspect.
Well, I joined that group and its affiliated forums months ago, although I’ve been and continue to be a questioning skeptic to the whole thing, but I guess I can say that it has evolved a bit ever since I first came across it while reading this (two-year old, but very “epic”) thread at Neoseeker.com.
It has gained a rather large membership of folks (300, as of July 24); among the most common topics of discussion are personal faith, astral travel and dreams, especially those which concern the Digital World and Digimon. The group has also suffered from a number of raids and infiltrations from the members of various forums and imageboards.
I’ve asked on one of the affiliated forums about if the whole Digiclipse project is meant to have a digital nature or an astral/metaphysical nature, as the latter seems to be much more utilized and displayed during forum discussions; one of the replies are the following:
I really think it has to be a combination of both metaphysical as well as technological means, but I look at it this way.
Too many people want a physical way to the Digital World, to go on adventures and save the world with their digimon partners. When you think about something “digital,” however, you think about numbers and binary and code and information and things that are not physical. At best, the only way to satisfy these people is with highly advanced virtual reality.
I don’t have any answers about the digital world and the astral plane. In fact, I think “astral” is actually the wrong word for it. I see the digital world existing as another realm, alongside the countless other realms that exist out there, and just like you can project into one, you can project into another. This is because, as far as I know, these other realms exist on a higher frequency, in which matter is disregarded. Bodies are not necessary and actually hinder things there.
I get results when I do things metaphysically or through magickal means (or just magical, since I’ve gotten come complaints about the way I spell the word), and not just with digimon-related business. But concerning the digimon, it’s enough for me. It’s my preferred method. That doesn’t mean I’m going to hinder those who prefer to work with technology, however….
….I don’t think it’s about finding answers, I think it’s about experiencing new things and growing as a person because of them. So I can’t tell you about the origins of the digital world, or how it functions in relation to the astral plane, or anything of the sort.
….I will tell you, though, that I do believe the internet to be its own “plane” just like we have physical, astral, and spiritual planes. I believe that there can be inhabitants of this plane, and those are the ones our minds perceive as “digimon” when we do metaphysical work with traveling to/communicating with this plane. Thus reality shifts.
So this approach – the combination of metaphysics/magic(k) and a fetishized Internet (based upon a premise set forth by a Japanese anime) – is, IMO, rather unique for a new religious movement.
I wrote about it at the forum a few nights ago:
If the Digiclipse and related projects have both a metaphysical and a digital side that are meant to balance (if not cancel) each other out, I wonder if this is one of the few and first examples of “Internet-centric spirituality”.
Other, previously-constituted spiritualities have used computers, software and the Internet as a means to simply communicate whatever’s been written in old or recently-published paperbooks, but the adherents do not actively embrace the same outside of the realm of “tools of the trade”. Furthermore, those who use the Internet as a means to set up a spiritual shop are derided by those of similarly-aligned but opposing faiths as being purveyors of twisted, misconstrued “Internet religion”; this occurs especially in the realm of neopagan and animistic spirituality, where words are thrown between “real practitioners” and “Internet gurus” who are accused of corrupting the faith or defrauding people of a particular ancestry whose long-dead ancestors practiced a similar belief system.
The Digiclipse project, IMO, may have come closer to crossing that chasm in that it gives a greater (canonical) credence to things of a digital, man-made-and-machine-processed nature. It’s pretty hard, from a Google search, to come across a similar belief system that actively embraces computers and the Internet as being a means of communicating with astral and spiritual things (which are involved with the Internet) and beings rather than just tools of communication between believers who subscribe to a belief in those astral and spiritual things and beings (which aren’t involved with the Internet).
Even those who are into UFOlogy and paranormal studies don’t entirely embrace the Internet outside of the “tools of communication between subscribers” pigeonhole. For them, the Internet fails to communicate the experience of abductees and encounterees of paranormal queries.
However, that doesn’t mean that the Digiclipse project fares that much better than the UFOlogists and paranormal scholarships; the Internet and its present facilities still don’t effectively communicate the professed experiences of the Digiclipse members with others of a like mind, although that may (or may not) change with the ongoing advances in network computing and user interfacing.
The only difference that I see between the two is that computers, software and networks are much more involved as facilitators of the professed encounters of the Digiclipse members, and are more embraced as themes of the spirituality and metaphysics, than they are to the UFOlogists and paranormal scholars, and even far more computer-embracing in comparison to those who have a more traditional religious/animistic bent or bias.
But when the technology expands in capability, does the Digiclipse project expect that more things of a spiritual and metaphysical nature will increase in occurrence? Or will the occurrences expand in number and breadth because of the increased number of folks drawn into the Digiclipse project and related initiatives?
I remain an adamant skeptic, although I’ll to admit that I’m acclimated more to the Digiclipse/RDB project’s goals and beliefs than I am to Wicca, Christianity, or even UFOlogy.
Just to get it out of my system, I’ll predict that, at some point in the future, this Internet-based spirituality will intersect with the furry fandom, or vice versa.
I say this because
What could arise out of the latter supposition is something akin to the development of the Five Percenters group:
some of us are actually, or spiritually, Digimon in a physically-human embodiment, and must thus work towards the development (if it doesn’t already exist) or maintenance/regaining (if it already does exist) of the Digital World, starting with the wearing of Digimon fursuits at conventions, Digimon avatars on virtual worlds, and Digimon-Digital World MUCKs on Telnet.
I honestly see that happening. And when that does happen, this sudden realization that we’re spiritual Digimon in a human body, you can expect a slew of Digimon Otherkin taking part in discussions on the furry, Otherkin, Digimon and general anime forums on the Web.
Of course, how this group of Digimon Otherkin will deal with those who see themselves as Digimon Tamers (some of whom are on the mailing list, the forums, and on YouTube) is a completely separate matter altogether.
I’m not even linking to the post or the video (oh, who cares anyway…), but there’s a post on Digg (still receiving comments, over 500 of them, of either an alarmist or contrarian nature as of 10:46 PM EST) that links to a video on Ning that manages to combine the following features:
Just…..WTF?
I mean, this isn’t the first time that a post to Digg has managed to inflame the prepubescent passions of Digg’s mostly-middle-class-teenage-libertarian user population, but damn….an alledgedly-poorly-made conspiracy video with boobs (I haven’t watched it; the comments to the post already turned me off to it) managed to get this much attention?
Now you have the net neutrality fans using the post to call for regulation, the 13375 “leets” calling for a revolutionary alliance of “Anonymous” forming a sub-internet that will be free of the greedy corporate and government monsters, the tinfoil-hats pushing for the furtherance of doomsday (12-21-2012), and others who are calling BS on the video.
I only want to know how it gained so much attention in the first place? Or are the public schools out in other parts of the world already (just like it is here in Houston County)?
EDIT: This is also an example of why the new comment system on that website is debilitating to the viewing of recently-posted comments: since it is filled with at least 754 threads (containing 1,435 Comments), having to click to “show 51-100 of 754 discussions” at least 14 times on that page is rather heavy on the JavaScript, leading to several alerts of “a script on this page is running slowly. Do you want to continue or abort the script?”
The only reason why I am interested in seeing the (actual) end of the page is to see the heated reactions to the “Inaccurate” tag placed on the post.
New article from Ars Technica.
Lessee, the current debate concerning Net Neutrality is over the necessity of government regulation of telecommunication companies’ actions concerning their customers.
Those who are against the Net Neutrality idea are undoubtedly anti-government, viewing the institution as a thieving, corrupt, violent and cowardly threat to human rights and freedom. Some may not be necessarily supportive of total corporate freedom, but may view government interference as an enabler for corporate excesses.
Those who are supportive of the Net Neutrality may not necessarily share such aforementioned anarchist or libertarian views, but may only show support of government regulation as a means – a messy means – to an end; very rarely will they view the government as a benevolent institution, primarily because of the bodies which serve or exist in the government’s name, including the military. Some, however, may view the anarchist/libertarian opposition to government influence in light of previous opposition to government interference in other, defunct social institutions, such as slavery and cross-racial civil rights.
However, is there a third way between governments and corporations in regards to such a public service as the Internet?
Governments tend to move slowly in regards to the ensurance of human rights for citizens (compared to those of its own employees), while moving at a fast pace for, say, military expenditures and acquisitions in order to boost their nationalism and land property. Corporations, as well, tend to be rather socially inept institutions, being slow at the ensurance of human rights or recognition for their customers (compared to those of its own employees), while moving at a fast pace for the sake of, say, technological expenditures and acquisitions in order to boost their brand and their intellectual property (i.e., patents).
Now, they both have their benefits. Governments can serve as a final resort for citizens who have been slighted by the actions of corporations, and can serve as founts for corporate standards; corporations, on the other hand, can serve as founts for new technological innovations and approaches, and can provide “gray areas” of techological development that sucessfully subvert the government’s stances.
Ultimately, the natures of both corporations and governments, tendencies which harken to prior centuries rather than forge an insight into the future, leave much to be desired as far as a potential ensurer of freedom, human rights and development on the Internet is concerned.
Maybe there is a need for a third type of institution that is relevant to this service-intensive era in which we’re currently residing. This one shouldn’t be driven by product/patent acquisition (corporation) or land/arms acquisition (goovernment), but by information/service acquisition.
If it wasn’t for watching this one video on TV at night (only because Wanda was watching it), after a day spent entirely in bed:
It’s not like I’m really itching for this winter quarter to start on Tuesday. In fact, I’ll be taking classes that I should’ve taken back in fall 2005, such as psychology.
But for right now, the daylight isn’t missed. I haven’t gotten any closer to where I want to be, or to what I exactly want to do.
Even asking questions – any question – is harder for me than it used to be.
Last quarter was my final technology-related quarter, and I’m disappointed that, while I passed, I neither did better than I could’ve, nor did I get what I really wanted out of it. I really wanted to create a wiki from scratch as my final project in “Database Connectivity”, but realized a few weeks before the end that I wouldn’t have the resources for accomplishing such a feat (it actually requires study material from certain university-level courses, as I found out from the teacher).
I hope that I don’t let this disappointment and anxiety take me over some unforeseen edge.
Plus, maybe it was a crash course, this whole program that I’ve taken; a highly embarrassing crash course, but one from which I’ve learned quite a bit.
This program, to be a bit retrospective, is something into which I’ve been wanting to delve since I was probably 9 years old, when we first got a computer (a spare from a friend at the church) at home. I used it, primarily to use Collier’s Encyclopedia on CD, and was interested whenever it had to connect to the Internet. So, I nagged my mother to get an ISP, but she was very set against getting AOL (she already detested the CDs in the washing detergent that they sold at the Commissary), so I found a mail-in Compuserve CD instead.
Don’t remember what happened next or if mom ever subscribed to Compuserve, but for some reason the computer either blue-screened, caught a virus, or something like that. Either way, the computer was rendered useless by whatever I did to it (I remember that I put a password into the BIOS configuration settings of the PC, but not much else).
But ever since then, I was strongly fascinated by the Internet/WWW, and wanted desperately to get onto it. I think the Digimon thing only aggravated my festering affinity for the Internet, and I tried every possible free, accessible means in order to make use of what it had to offer at the time.
I remember that, when “Digimon the Movie” had come out in theaters (in 2000, I think), I used a computer of my mother’s hair designer friend who lived much further down Watson Blvd. I looked at the Movie’s website using Netscape Navigator, making sure to head to another page when my mother was nearby for fear that she would find out.
By the time that we got the Internet at home (2004), Digimon was on the wane, I was on top of the Internet as far as I was concerned.
Oh, how the high and mighty have fallen, lol.