Representative Lamar Smith (R-Texas), who heads the House Judiciary Committee, expects his panel to resume consideration of the House bill in February. Even President Barack Obama has not exactly killed it.
Rep. Smith will most likely adjust the House bill so it can get an consensus. The same will be done in the Senate. And since President Obama has received campaign donations from Hollywood and the internet industries, according to the Washington Post, he will try to find a way to satisfy both sides of the coin.
First, This is our Internet. We built it. We built it for us, not for you. We get to turn off the lights, not you.
Second, we are better custodians of culture than are culture’s merchants because we understand that culture is what we have in common. We feel pain every time something is held back from this Commons.
Third, just as we can make someone famous rather than having to passively accept the celebrities you foist upon us, we can make an idea politically potent. Going dark was the self-assertion with which political engagement begins.
Fourth, there’s a growing “we” on the Internet. It is not as inclusive as we think, it’s far more diverse than we imagine, and it’s far less egalitarian than we should demand. But so was the “we” in “We the People.” The individual acts of darkness are the start of the We we need to nurture.
Even my own little protest had a little impact, which I was thankful for. I love the fourth point above, about the ‘We’ of the Internet. Maybe it’s a step closer to online equality and an information utopia.
It is a weird place in which proximity is determined by interest, rather than a space in which interests are kept apart by distances. It is a place in which nearness defeats distance. It is a place, not just a space, because spaces are empty but places are saturated with meaning: Place is space that has been made to matter to us. The Internet is a place.
JoHo points me to this article, touting the death of web 2.0 next October. And truth be told, it’s hard to take the date seriously (more in a moment), it’s really a measure of the mentions of the phrase “web 2.0.” And while that may be true, I think we’re here to stay, at least for a while longer.
Although, just to add, it’s hard to take the article seriously, since it seems to seriously consider Orkut a big-time social network.
Anyway, I tend to agree with JoHo on this, just because this period of the Internet is more focused on user-driven and user-created content, does not mean we’re going to leave that. The Internet is a conversation, and this period is a time when those previously consuming are now engaged, for good or for ill, and actively participating in the conversation.
Will the conversation ebb back to the other side? We’ll have to wait and see, although I’m thinking we’re going to see a mix, and something new, in the future. I do like how the ending of the article was phrased:
The big question, of course, is what will Web 3.0 be like? And the answer, I suppose, is that if we knew that then we wouldn’t be here.
The Myers-Briggs test is a way to classify your personality. A similar test has popped up but in regards to the Internet:
1. Exceptionalist (E) vs. Ordinarist (O). Exceptionalists believe that the Internet is exceptional, extraordinary, and disruptive, the way, say, the printing press was. Ordinarists believe that the Internet is just another new medium, no more revolutionary than, say, CB radio.
2. Technodeterminist (T) vs. Contextualist (C). Technodeterminists believe that the Net by itself brings about transformations against which it is futile to struggle. Contextualists believe that technology by itself does nothing and changes nothing; other factos determine the effects of technology.
3. Optimist (H) vs. Pessimist (P). Optimists believe that the Net is, or brings about, good things. Pessimists believe otherwise. (Note: Since everyone believes their beliefs are true, everyone thinks they are a realist. When someone actively asserts s/he is a realist, s/he is actually asserting a form of counter-optimism, i.e., pessimism.) (Note: The “H” stands for Happiness or Hope.
First, the idea that no matter what we are experiencing, we are framing it for others consumption. I find myself doing that a lot, and especially how I choose my words (although I think that is me being more of a writer than a speaker, so I constantly rewrite as I think about speaking, but anyway):
but I now find myself shaping experience according to how I might present that experience in public: finding the words, deciding what might be interesting in the experience to someone other than me. Blogging has given the public yet more of a grip on the shape of my private experience.
Is that good? I dunno. I don’t even know if it’s generally true. I’ve worried before that the little homunculus in my brain that is always scribbling away is a personal mental disorder. (Shut up, homunculus! I don’t care what you say, I’m posting this anyway!)
in the age of broadcast, we fashioned experience so that we were stars of an imaginary broadcast; in the age of the Web, we fashion experience so that we are bloggers with a non-massive, semi-social, potentially interactive readership. Under this fact-free analysis, the Web’s fashioning of our experience should be understand in _contrast_ to the celebrity-based stories we made of our lives during the Age of Broadcast.