Hello World

Be a part of history! We are attempting to organize the world largest "Flash Mob". For more details please contact us @ members@nookees.com

I agree for the most part, but what I really would like to be moving towards is a break from that cycle of power shifts. There is tech that empowers those that use it well and there is tech that undermines the structure of power. Generally we get both, and the result is a power shift. A continuous cycle of shifts. A negative feedback loop.

What happens if we have a positive feedback loop? Tech that undermines without empowering someone else? Or tech that empowers with out undermining older power structures. That takes us towards a break in the cycle, a shift in the patterns. A risky path, but I've never been risk shy...

The more things change, indeed! It is no surprise that those in power are the ones who know how to use the new technologies for the greatest power effects. This was true of Napoleon, Hitler, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Reagan, Thatcher, Clinton, and the Bushes. We know, and vocally protest, the concentration of mass media and the cabal among hardware, software and content makers and how their continual efforts are corrupting the democratic processes, particularly in the United States (the stuff that keeps EFF busy).

We have reached a break-boundary at which the principles of Western democracy are reversing due to the intensification of conventional mass media. While the new tech will indeed empower a new segment of those who are adept with the new tech, one of the other effects we observe is the influence of the new tech on the old(er) tech. Again the Dean campaign is exemplary of this effect, in which the conventional mass media are picking up the story that is happening elsewhere.

But the influence is not limited to those who are computer jockeys: There are other social tech structures that bring with them analogous effects - SMS, for instance, that is tremendously influential in engaging masses of disaffected youth in relatively non-computer-saturated societies.

Technology is not a panacea; it never has been. But the history of the progress of democracy is the history of power shifts, and the history of power shifts can be read as a history of technology. So long as the power continues to shift every now and again, democracy has a chance of engaging all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time.

My fears go a little beyond just the cooption of the tech by those currently in power. The flip side of the fear is that the tech will empower a new segment of society, people like you and me, who will then become a new entrenched power structure. That new power structure will get set in contrast the old elites that manage to adapt. Old school Marxian/Hegelian dialectics all over again. The more things change...

There is a level where this is great, I'd love to see Dean ride the tech to the white house. And more to the point this change over empowers me, you, and our peers. An oligarchy with me in the power network is great for me on a selfish level.

What gets me afraid is how willing those people who are going to gain tremendously from the use of tech to shift the balance of power are to utilize the rhetoric of democracy. People are drinking their own Kool-Aid and believing the lies they push to get into power. This is not a revolution for the people, its a revolution for the people who use computers well. A power grab, not a move towards true democracy.

As for _Code_, I'm a huge fan. Great book.

When we look at issues of "democratizing," we also have to consider how various technologies, and especially the continuation of socially-oriented technologies, enable the emergence of more voices, participating in the process of forming public policy. Representative democracies are not the mechanism whereby a multitude of "ordinary" voices can be heard; it tends to favour the loudest voices, the most organized voices, the voices attached to fat wallets, and so forth. What we have seen with the beginnings of social software, and other similar mechanisms, are the first "ground effects" of the Internet (and instantaneous multiway communications) - their effects that are not obvious reiterations of older technologies. More will come, of that I am sure.

Your very real fear and cynicism that they will likely be co-opted by the vested interests that control political processes today are well founded. However, it is illustrative to watch the evolution of the peer-to-peer "piracy" debates, and particularly how they are creating more active legislative engagement by people who are beginning to see many of the underlying constitutional assumptions as matters that have to be explicitly dealt with. (This is essentially the topic of Lessig's "Code," a highly recommended read.)

What social software meeting political processes will do is reveal many of the underlying and hidden assumptions that we have lived with over the past several hundreds of years in Western culture and society. Once these issues are made explicit (from ground to figure) reasonable minds will have the ability to engage in a proper debate about the values of our society, and the mechanisms to garner political support among those whose interests are not currently vested in the status quo of power politics.

Oligarchy either way... The technology might be shifting the demographics of who is part of the oligarchy, but that's a power shift not an increase in democracy.

Take a look at the flip, what if Bush supporters where using smart mobs to block traffic in Democratic districts, is this a good thing? There is absolutely no indication that these techs are going be used for good. The participants might shift, but its still dirty power politics.

I'm starting to get real harsh on all claims of tech "democratizing" the process. Why? Its not because I don't think tech can't improve the world, I think it can. But the process is a lot more difficult then most of the claims I see make it out to be.

For every Howie Dean, shaking the system, there is a Admiral Poindexter, entrenching it. And christ, what happens when Karl Rove wakes up the internet's power? I'm looking at these issues with extreme pragmatism these days.

Abe - how is this substantially different than the tradition of campaign volunteers driving people to polling stations? In a way, they are using engaging socially-oriented technologies to "drive" people to vote, and particularly those people who don't usually vote.

Hmmm, that sounds a lot more like a new form of *oligarchy* then democracy to me. The group that uses technology the best runs things. It might possibly be better then having the group that uses the media the best run things, but its hard to tell. But large groups of people vigirously courting (treatening?) voters on election day, that sounds more like rule by the cult of personality then the rule by the people to me...

Edited by author 08-08-2003 11:38 PM
To get information on the next Flash Mob event or gathering within Montreal, Quebec please send your email request to trevordevens@hotmail.com

Sincerely,
Trevor D.