The Revolution will not be on Youtube
weblog.raganwald.com
weblog.raganwald.com
It's also interesting that there has been no Revolution. Politics are just as divisive and ill-informed as ever, and the division is live-Tweeted, live-blogged, and live-streamed. Disinformation keeps the same politicians in power, the same industries on life support, and the truth down. The Internet slowed down the Revolution, and that's why nobody needs to spend time controlling it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2011/05/all_watched_ov...
Do you think we would be trained to do public debate if there was not internet? I think most of us wouldn't be.
My point is, the internet gives to an unprecedented number of people the power to argue smart. Sure, smart arguing isn't nearly enough, but it's a much needed catalyst.
I could go on, but the answers are a resounding no. I love the internet. It allows me to feed my family. It allows me to quickly view more information than otherwise possible. But the question is what are we now doing with these huge piles of info dropped upon us?
Compare the internet and the printing press. The printing press allowed people to read. This was huge. But this was also slow. It took time to spread, and it took more time to get to the enlightenment, and the revolutions that ensued.
Now, the internet is allowing people to write. This is equally huge. Remember the old, pious principles about freedom of expression? Until the internet, few had that freedom: politicians, journalists, eminent union leaders, and that was it. Now everyone can publish.
The internet will enable revolutions. Probably not now, it is too young, but… See what is currently happening in Spain. There currently is a huge protest, which is now becoming more than a mere protest. They are constructively discussing about how to run the country, while explicitly avoiding "politics"[1]. They are too big to be ignored by the mainstream media, even here in France. Their main communication and organization tool is the internet. Without this many-to-many communication platform, they just couldn't have done it.
They may not succeed, but they at least have a chance. And I predict there will be more like it. I don't know what will become of it, but at this rate, there will be huge changes soon. Like, in the next 20 years.
However, the internet is based upon much larger systems that are generally owned by large corporations and controlled by government. Any distributer of information on the internet does so with implicit permission from those who own the underlying systems. There may be mainstream ways in the future (or even today) to avoid this top-down control schema we currently have, but until then, there will be no revolution on the internet.
About the internet, I think you're only half-right. You're right in the sense that here we're talking on HN, and we're censored by pg (=> no spam, no troll). When you publish on blogger, people can see a nice button on which they can click if they think your blog might displease Google. Most e-mail is hosted by few, big providers, many of which are actually spying on you for advertisement purposes.
The backbones, on the other hands, are still relatively neutral. If you have an ISP that won't spy on you, and let you run a server, you can still safely publish whatever you want. There are still ways to publish anonymously, should you really need it. Wikileaks still isn't down.
Sure, the internet isn't as free as it should be. By far. But it is already free enough to teach people how to constructively participate in public debates (write clearly, choose relevant arguments and change their damn minds). Now if the world is walking on its head, and we have a critical mas of constructive debaters, then I think a revolution is unavoidable (I hope it won't be too bloody this time).
So here is my main point: (1) the world is walking on its head, (2) we currently haven't reached that critical mass yet, and (3) our numbers are growing. I therefore predict that if the internet doesn't turn into Google/Disney TV in the next 20 years, there will be a global revolution. We essentially need our "internet children" to turn adult.
Note that I assume that constructive debate is enough. This is because we are already seeing some significant changes: we now see at political rallies some low militant publicly contradicting their leaders. With arguments. Or some random citizen that can debate with their mayor in frond of a small crowd. From the point of view of our leaders, this is very weird. Only their buddies from the other side used to dare argue, let alone be capable of not deflating themselves at the first counter-argument!
"who'll pay reparations on my code?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtBy_ppG4hY
Heron hates white people.
He hates the fact that rich people use their power to get the government to spend all it's money on "rich people problems", like landing people on the moon, while letting the poor fend for themselves.
I think technology can be used for good and for masturbation.
> the revolution can only happen in the streets.
period
I take it the video on YouTube hadn't been taken down when you first posted it?
Edit: Or it had, and that was the point?
Computers are changing the way we live and behave. What could be more revolutionary?
I was especially thinking of the way companies like Sony surpress information withDMCA takedowns and lawsuits, rather than actual revolutions. As far as actual revolutions are concerned, it did take place on Facebook and Youtube. But also on Twitter!