PUSCII blog - analyse

We, the Web Kids. (repost of an article found on pastebin)

groente — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 13:55:24 +0000

Piotr Czerski (translated by Marta Szreder) There is probably no other word that would be as overused in the media discourse as ‘generation’. I once tried to count the ‘generations’ that have been proclaimed in the past ten years, since the well-known article about the so-called ‘Generation Nothing’; I believe there were as many as twelve. They all had one thing in common: they only existed on paper. Reality never provided us with a single tangible, meaningful, unforgettable impulse, the common experience of which would forever distinguish us from the previous generations. We had been looking for it, but instead the groundbreaking change came unnoticed, along with cable TV, mobile phones, and, most of all, Internet access. It is only today that we can fully comprehend how much has changed during the past fifteen years.We, the Web kids; we, who have grown up with the Internet and on the Internet, are a generation who meet the criteria for the term in a somewhat subversive way. We did not experience an impulse from reality, but rather a metamorphosis of the reality itself. What unites us is not a common, limited cultural context, but the belief that the context is self-defined and an effect of free choice.Writing this, I am aware that I am abusing the pronoun ‘we’, as our ‘we’ is fluctuating, discontinuous, blurred, according to old categories: temporary. When I say ‘we’, it means ‘many of us’ or ‘some of us’. When I say ‘we are’, it means ‘we often are’. I say ‘we’ only so as to be able to talk about us at all.1. We grew up with the Internet and on the Internet. This is what makes us different; this is what makes the crucial, although surprising from your point of view, difference: we do not ‘surf’ and the internet to us is not a ‘place’ or ‘virtual space’. The Internet to us is not something external to reality but a part of it: an invisible yet constantly present layer intertwined with the physical environment. We do not use the Internet, we live on the Internet and along it. If we were to tell our bildnungsroman to you, the analog, we could say there was a natural Internet aspect to every single experience that has shaped us. We made friends and enemies online, we prepared cribs for tests online, we planned parties and studying sessions online, we fell in love and broke up online. The Web to us is not a technology which we had to learn and which we managed to get a grip of. The Web is a process, happening continuously and continuously transforming before our eyes; with us and through us. Technologies appear and then dissolve in the peripheries, websites are built, they bloom and then pass away, but the Web continues, because we are the Web; we, communicating with one another in a way that comes naturally to us, more intense and more efficient than ever before in the history of mankind.Brought up on the Web we think differently. The ability to find information is to us something as basic, as the ability to find a railway station or a post office in an unknown city is to you. When we want to know something - the first symptoms of chickenpox, the reasons behind the sinking of ‘Estonia’, or whether the water bill is not suspiciously high - we take measures with the certainty of a driver in a SatNav-equipped car. We know that we are going to find the information we need in a lot of places, we know how to get to those places, we know how to assess their credibility. We have learned to accept that instead of one answer we find many different ones, and out of these we can abstract the most likely version, disregarding the ones which do not seem credible. We select, we filter, we remember, and we are ready to swap the learned information for a new, better one, when it comes along.To us, the Web is a sort of shared external memory. We do not have to remember unnecessary details: dates, sums, formulas, clauses, street names, detailed definitions. It is enough for us to have an abstract, the essence that is needed to process the information and relate it to others. Should we need the details, we can look them up within seconds. Similarly, we do not have to be experts in everything, because we know where to find people who specialise in what we ourselves do not know, and whom we can trust. People who will share their expertise with us not for profit, but because of our shared belief that information exists in motion, that it wants to be free, that we all benefit from the exchange of information. Every day: studying, working, solving everyday issues, pursuing interests. We know how to compete and we like to do it, but our competition, our desire to be different, is built on knowledge, on the ability to interpret and process information, and not on monopolising it.2. Participating in cultural life is not something out of ordinary to us: global culture is the fundamental building block of our identity, more important for defining ourselves than traditions, historical narratives, social status, ancestry, or even the language that we use. From the ocean of cultural events we pick the ones that suit us the most; we interact with them, we review them, we save our reviews on websites created for that purpose, which also give us suggestions of other albums, films or games that we might like. Some films, series or videos we watch together with colleagues or with friends from around the world; our appreciation of some is only shared by a small group of people that perhaps we will never meet face to face. This is why we feel that culture is becoming simultaneously global and individual. This is why we need free access to it.This does not mean that we demand that all products of culture be available to us without charge, although when we create something, we usually just give it back for circulation. We understand that, despite the increasing accessibility of technologies which make the quality of movie or sound files so far reserved for professionals available to everyone, creativity requires effort and investment. We are prepared to pay, but the giant commission that distributors ask for seems to us to be obviously overestimated. Why should we pay for the distribution of information that can be easily and perfectly copied without any loss of the original quality? If we are only getting the information alone, we want the price to be proportional to it. We are willing to pay more, but then we expect to receive some added value: an interesting packaging, a gadget, a higher quality, the option of watching here and now, without waiting for the file to download. We are capable of showing appreciation and we do want to reward the artist (since money stopped being paper notes and became a string of numbers on the screen, paying has become a somewhat symbolic act of exchange that is supposed to benefit both parties), but the sales goals of corporations are of no interest to us whatsoever. It is not our fault that their business has ceased to make sense in its traditional form, and that instead of accepting the challenge and trying to reach us with something more than we can get for free they have decided to defend their obsolete ways.One more thing: we do not want to pay for our memories. The films that remind us of our childhood, the music that accompanied us ten years ago: in the external memory network these are simply memories. Remembering them, exchanging them, and developing them is to us something as natural as the memory of ‘Casablanca’ is to you. We find online the films that we watched as children and we show them to our children, just as you told us the story about the Little Red Riding Hood or Goldilocks. Can you imagine that someone could accuse you of breaking the law in this way? We cannot, either.3. We are used to our bills being paid automatically, as long as our account balance allows for it; we know that starting a bank account or changing the mobile network is just the question of filling in a single form online and signing an agreement delivered by a courier; that even a trip to the other side of Europe with a short sightseeing of another city on the way can be organised in two hours. Consequently, being the users of the state, we are increasingly annoyed by its archaic interface. We do not understand why tax act takes several forms to complete, the main of which has more than a hundred questions. We do not understand why we are required to formally confirm moving out of one permanent address to move in to another, as if councils could not communicate with each other without our intervention (not to mention that the necessity to have a permanent address is itself absurd enough.)There is not a trace in us of that humble acceptance displayed by our parents, who were convinced that administrative issues were of utmost importance and who considered interaction with the state as something to be celebrated. We do not feel that respect, rooted in the distance between the lonely citizen and the majestic heights where the ruling class reside, barely visible through the clouds. Our view of the social structure is different from yours: society is a network, not a hierarchy. We are used to being able to start a dialogue with anyone, be it a professor or a pop star, and we do not need any special qualifications related to social status. The success of the interaction depends solely on whether the content of our message will be regarded as important and worthy of reply. And if, thanks to cooperation, continuous dispute, defending our arguments against critique, we have a feeling that our opinions on many matters are simply better, why would we not expect a serious dialogue with the government?We do not feel a religious respect for ‘institutions of democracy’ in their current form, we do not believe in their axiomatic role, as do those who see ‘institutions of democracy’ as a monument for and by themselves. We do not need monuments. We need a system that will live up to our expectations, a system that is transparent and proficient. And we have learned that change is possible: that every uncomfortable system can be replaced and is replaced by a new one, one that is more efficient, better suited to our needs, giving more opportunities.What we value the most is freedom: freedom of speech, freedom of access to information and to culture. We feel that it is thanks to freedom that the Web is what it is, and that it is our duty to protect that freedom. We owe that to next generations, just as much as we owe to protect the environment.Perhaps we have not yet given it a name, perhaps we are not yet fully aware of it, but I guess what we want is real, genuine democracy. Democracy that, perhaps, is more than is dreamt of in your journalism.___ "My, dzieci sieci" by Piotr Czerski is licensed under a Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa-Na tych samych warunkach 3.0 Unported License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ Contact the author: piotr[at]czerski.art.pl

Online vrijheid; duiding enzo

groente — Sun, 19 Feb 2012 23:20:53 +0000

Gezien de grote belangstelling waarin het thema recentelijk staat wil ik graag stilstaan bij wat we bedoelen met internetvrijheid. Internet lijkt een haast mythisch aura om zich heen te hebben als ware het een groot non-hierarchisch netwerk waarin iedereen openlijk en als gelijkwaardige met elkaar kan communiceren. Dat is vrij opmerkelijk voor een netwerk wat is ontstaan vanuit DARPA, een project van het amerikaans militair apparaat, en waarvan de infrastructuur nu vrijwel volledig in handen is van grote telco's. Dat zijn nou niet bepaald de lieverdjes waarvan je zou verwachten dat ze een dergelijke ideologie hoog in het vaandel hebben. Wees gerust, dat is ook niet het geval.De mythe heeft echter wel degelijk bestaansrecht en die ligt in de non-hierarchische oncontroleerbare tendensen die zich als een soort parasiterend wezen manifesteren binnen de hierarchische netwerken. Bovenop die infrastructuur van het militair apparaat, telco's en universiteiten zijn technologieen gevormd die een schijnbaar non-hierarchisch web begonnen te vormen. Dat klinkt wat erg abstract (en dat is het misschien ook wel), het kan dan ook op verschillende lagen geinterpreteerd worden. Om het geheel voor de non-techneut begrijpelijk te houden gaan we even voorbij aan alle routing-protocollen en andere fraaie web-structuren in de onderliggende techniek van internet en leggen we de focus op de techniek zoals die door de eindgebruiker ervaren wordt. Vroege voorbeelden hiervan zijn USENET, waar iedereen vrijuit met elkaar kon discussieren en files kon uitwisselen. Ook IRC, het klassieke chatnetwerk dat nog altijd hardnekkig voort blijft bestaan en waar iedereen schijnbaar ongecontroleerd met elkaar kan babbelen, is een van de klassieke toepassingen die zich op een open, vrije, non-hierarchische wijze manifesteert binnen de hierarchische infrastructuur.Wat typerend is voor deze toepassingen is dat de informatie die beschikbaar wordt gesteld niet voortkomt uit de productie door een bedrijf of instituut, maar door de samenkomst van alle gebruikers. Het gebruik van de toepassing impliceert in zichzelf al een bijdrage in de productie er van.Deze voorbeelden, en met hun nog vele anderen, waren het domein van een kleine, vooral technisch georienteerde, elite die al in de vroege dagen beschikking had over toegang tot internet. Als zodanig leefden zij in relatieve obscuriteit en zijn grotendeels aan de mainstream aandacht ontsprongen.Eind jaren '90 kwam daar verandering in. Internettoegang werd goedkoper en begon een massaal karakter te krijgen, het verplaatste zich van de universiteiten en kantoren naar de huiskamer, van de techneuten naar de 'gewone mens'. Dit was ook de tijd waarin de oude open vrije ideologie zich verder begon te manifesteren in technologieen als Content Management Systemen (CMS'en) en nog duidelijker in het geval van de Wiki's. Beide maakten het mogelijk voor non-techneuten om op eenvoudige wijze artikelen op internet te publiceren. Dat gaf de basis voor projecten als Indymedia, maar ook het in dezelfde geest liggende Wikipedia wat uiteindelijk nog veel succesvoller is geworden. Hiermee begon ook voor de mainstream de verschuiving van informatie-consument naar producent duidelijk merkbaar te worden. Op grote schaal beginnen consumenten informatie niet langer alleen te kopen, maar het zelf te produceren met het idee dat deze vrijelijk met elkaar gedeeld kan worden.Uiteraard is deze tendens binnen afzienbare tijd gecoopteerd door het bedrijfsleven en daarmee was web2.0 een feit. Tegenwoordig wordt dit steeds sterker gekanaliseerd door met name google, facebook en twitter, die zich steeds meer een monopoliepositie verwerven op het gebied van informatieverspreiding. Dat doet echter nog niet af aan de essentie van de consument die zelf produceert. Daarin ligt de basis voor een internetgemeenschap die vrije en open communicatie als een vanzelfsprekend basisrecht ziet.Inmiddels heeft internet de hegemonie veroverd op het gebied van informatieverspreiding. Daarmee is de ideologie van de internetgemeenschap een mainstream gedachte geworden. We zien nu ook de eerste generatie die is opgegroeid met de normaliteit om informatieproducent te zijn en deze staat rondom thema's als auteursrecht en vrijheid van meningsuiting in scherp conflict met de gevestigde orde.Het is vanuit dit conflict dat Anonymous, een van de meest iconische facetten van de hedendaagse internetgemeenschap, uitgroeide van jongeren die zich bezighielden met flauwe plaatjes posten en lompe grappen maken tot een op anarchistische wijze georganiseerd netwerk dat besloot het gevecht aan te gaan. De onderdrukking van hun vermeende basisrecht om vrijelijk video's te mogen verspreiden begon met een rechtzaak door Scientology, waar abrupt op gereageerd werd met een campagne gevuld met bommeldingen, DDOS-aanvallen en fysiek protest. Al snel werd duidelijk hoe het conflict dieper geworteld zat en via acties rondom de Iraanse presidentsverkiezingen, internet filtering door de Australische overheid en solidariteitsacties rondom Wikileaks groeide het geheel uit tot een kracht die er niet voor terugdeinst in hun jeugdig enthousiasme websites van onder andere de FBI en CIA plat te leggen.Het conflict wat in deze generatie zo scherp naar voren komt is echter niet enkel besteed aan boze jongeren. Als we naar de recente protesten tegen SOPA/PIPA kijken zien we dat zo'n aanzienlijk deel van de internetgemeenschap, van radicalen tot aan multinationals, in protest ging dat vrijwel geen enkele senator zich nog aan die wetgeving durfde te branden. Het conflict is dan ook niet toe te schrijven aan een generatiekloof, maar aan de botsing tussen een lobby van traditionele media met een juridisch systeem wat zich op hun oude waarden baseert en de realiteit die daar al lang en breed aan voorbij is gegaan.

PUSCII blog - analyse

We, the Web Kids. (repost of an article found on pastebin)

Tags:

Online vrijheid; duiding enzo

Tags: