Caro Juan Carlos,

sono d'accordo con te: l'elemento "motivazionale" e` importante. Per
questo ho detto che dal punto di vista retorico - termine che ho usato
in senso letterale, senza alcun velato intento polemico - il testo di
Lauren Weinstein e` ben fatto.

Il problema e` che praticamente le stesse cose le diceva John Perry
Barlow in un altro testo di cui riconosco sia la bellezza retorica
(d'altronde, come aspettarsi di meno dal paroliere dei Grateful
Dead?), sia la semi totale assenza di pragmatica, ovvero la
"Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace" del 1996. Cioe` 12 anni
fa. Con la differenza che 12 anni fa l'impatto di Internet era ben
piu` limitato di oggi e dunque tale assenza era da un lato scusabile e
dall'altro, tutto sommato, ininfluente.

Ma che dopo 12 anni la "classe intellettuale" di Internet - categoria
nella quale includo sia Barlow che Weinstein, senza per questo
desumerne che le loro posizioni siano le uniche meritevoli di essere
considerate "intellettuali", anzi - si esprima ancora con testi che
sono al 99% retorica e all'1% (e mi sento generoso :) pragmatica, mi
desta preoccupazione. Perche` significa che non siamo collettivamente
ancora riusciti, come societa`, ad uscire del tutto da un paradigma
iper-semplificatorio di cosa rappresenti Internet e di come affrontare
le innumerevoli contraddizioni che esso genera; incluso l'aspetto
"etico" che, mi permetto di osservare, e` ben piu` complesso
dell'immagine che Barlow, Weinstein e altri "evangelisti di Internet"
amano promuovere.

Per carita`, i paletti, le chiamate alle armi, le visioni
escatologiche e salvifiche servono a mobilitare le persone, spesso per
fini nobili - ce lo insegna la storia. Cosi` come ci (o almeno mi)
insegna che senza un ancoraggio reale nella pragmatica tali visioni
possono trasformarsi nel migliore dei casi in urla al vento.

Ciao,

Andrea

On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 1:14 PM, J.C. DE MARTIN <demartin@polito.it> wrote:

Caro Andrea,

non so se tu sia cinico o meno, lo lascio dire a te (ma conoscendoti
mi sembra difficile :-)), ma mi sembra che le tue parole tradiscano
un quanto meno temporaneo mancato apprezzamento di un aspetto
importante della società civile (e, quindi, per esteso, della politica,
almeno in democrazie come le nostre).

Mi riferisco in particolare al fatto che molti esseri umani, molti ordinari
cittadini si iniziano a interessare di determinati temi di pubblico
interesse
non perchè fulminati sulla strada di Damasco da, chessò?,
un rapporto tecnico BEREC o un foglio di calcolo Eurostat.

Molto più probabilmente iniziano, meritoriamente, a incuriosirsi di temi
di policy perchè qualcuno ha parlato loro di determinate questioni
facendo appello a valori, a una visione del mondo, a doveri
verso la collettività o verso le generazioni future, e così via.

Base etica che col tempo lascerà, almeno per qualcuno, sempre più
spazio a una comprensione oggettiva e analitica dei problemi, ma che
non potrà mai scomparire del tutto perchè solo con una motivazione
etica di base le persone della società civile possono giustificare
- innanzittutto con se stesse - il tempo, le energie e a volte il denaro
spesi per questioni che non solo non solo personali, ma che assai
spesso finiscono in sconfitte (o successi solo parziali).

Testi come quelli di Lauren, quindi, a mio avviso servono allo stesso
modo in cui sono sempre serviti discorsi "motivazionali", o di visione
generale. Il chè non vuol dire che poi magari la stessa persona non
sia capace di pragmatici negoziati in una commissione parlamentare
o di produrre un documento oggettivo e ricco di sfumature.

Ma hanno importanza, a seconda del momento e dell'audience,
sia gli "I have a dream", sia le analisi pragmatiche.

My 2 cents.

Ciao,

juan carlos










On 1/6/12 10:53 AM, Andrea Glorioso wrote:

Perdonatemi il cinismo.

Bellissima (oddio, io la trovo eccessiva, ma "de gustibus"..)
retorica, zero pragmatica. In questo modo non si va molto lontano.

Ciao,

Andrea

On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 8:57 AM, J.C. DE MARTIN<demartin@polito.it>  wrote:

Memorabile post di Lauren Weinstein,
che penso echeggi i pensieri di molti.

JC

Begin forwarded message:

From: Lauren Weinstein<lauren@vortex.com>
Date: 01 giugno 2012 02:55:42 CEST
To: nnsquad@nnsquad.org
Subject: [ NNSquad ]  Saving the Internet, Ourselves, and the Future


             Saving the Internet, Ourselves, and the Future

              http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000963.html


Since its birth as the U.S. Department of Defense ARPANET research
project, the Internet has faced various threats -- some technical,
some in the policy realm, and some purely political.

Recently we've seen the SOPA and PIPA legislation.  Make no mistake
about it -- the Hollywood content giants have not given up on their
desires to reshape the Internet in their own traditional images.

We now face CISPA and its cyber-scaremongering, with cyberwar
profiteering threatening to undermine decades of privacy protection
legislation.

Everything in the vast repertoire of mankind is finding its way onto
the Net in various guises, from wonders sublime and beautiful, to
horrors of the most crass and demeaning.

There are marvels of generosity, cooperation and good will to be found
all over the Net.

But there is also blatant exploitation by those who see the Internet
and its technologies merely as a "gold rush" to be exploited, the best
interests of the community at large be damned -- organizations
explicitly entrusted with the well-being of the Net sometimes joining
the dark side in the enablement of obscene profits.

Our overall unwillingness -- especially as technologists -- to "play
the game" the way the "big boys" play has allowed entities with less
than admirable motives to gain sway over many aspects of the Net.

In the U.S., net neutrality and service quality have languished as a
few dominant ISPs have reached their pinnacles through exploitation of
original monopoly grants, cherry picking deployments of broadband, and
outright lying to communities -- not to mention outright political
chicanery to help kill off effective competition.

We have allowed relatively minor issues such as arguments about Web
cookies to become political pawns, diverting us while governments plan
and deploy vast schemes to control and censor the Internet, turning
the Net from a tool that could greatly enhance individual rights, into
a mechanism to muzzle and control.

Fear that efforts to find new, innovative ways to solve the Net's
problems might not succeed, have resulted in a continuing panicked
embrace of organizations and policies of demonstrated failures,
creating ever broadening wedges between the wide variety of Internet
stakeholders around the planet.

And now, as the United Nations (UN) and International Telecommunications
Union (ITU) contemplate a horrific takeover of many aspects of the
Internet, we reap what we have sowed through our long complacency
and unwillingness to use all tools at our disposal to fight
for Internet freedoms.
( http://j.mp/KhOR8m [Vint Cerf Congressional Testimony {PDF}] Lauren's
Blog
)

We may yet still have time to turn the tide for many of these issues.
But every day the odds loom larger against us, and the image of Don
Quixote stabbing uselessly at windmills is increasingly difficult to
banish from one's mind.

When I started working on the ARPANET decades ago, most of the other
students at UCLA were confined to using keypunches and IBM punch
cards.

I've watched as computational power that used to fill rooms has been
vastly outstripped by a tiny box hanging on my belt, and even smaller
devices still.

Communications capabilities hardly even dreamed of decades ago are now
commonplace.  Even the masters of classical science fiction mostly had
a blind spot to coming technological magic like smartphones and other
personal communications devices.

To see so much of what we have jointly created being put at risk
today, for the sake of government suppression and the almighty dollar,
is frankly nothing short of being quintessentially depressing.

I'm not one of those persons who had an organized "plan" for my life.
I never intended to become deeply involved in technology policy issues
as I am now, and I morphed into that role gradually from a more
traditional code hacking environment.

In retrospect, I might well have been happier if I had stayed more
completely in the software engineering realm.  Conceptual
"satisfaction" seems much easier to derive from deployed system
metrics than from seemingly intractable public policy dilemmas.

And yet, one does what one can, and I've endeavored to be scrupulously
honest in the process.  Over the years my various attempts at
commentary and analysis have at one time or another upset just about
all points on the spectrum.  Perhaps this means I've struck an
appropriate balance in the long run.  Perhaps it means I struck out
entirely.  All I've ever tried to do in these regards is call the
issues as I see them, suggest where I thought matters were awry and
how they might be improved, and let folks make their own judgments.

But as the saying goes, all that plus a dollar will buy you a cup of
cheap coffee these days.

The future will look back on what we're doing now -- right now --
towards protecting Internet freedoms.  They may peer back with
gratitude for what we achieved, or they may curse us in our graves for
opportunities lost.

That aspect of the future is still ultimately under our control, today.

I grew up along with the Internet, and I like to think helping it in
my own small ways -- watching it evolve into the technology
infrastructure and communications foundation of the world.

We are now at a moment, a crossroad in history and time, where the
decisions we make about the Internet, and its importance to our lives
and freedoms, will have lasting effects for many years, decades, or
perhaps far longer.

Will the Internet be sucked completely into the pit of oppression,
censorship, and greed, or will we have the moral fortitude to say,
"No! Not to our Internet. Not to what we worked so long and hard to
achieve in the name of freedom, humanity, and community."

Quixotic or not, the quest for the best possible Internet for everyone
is an effort in which I've been honored to be engaged.  To lose this
battle, this war, is potentially to lose so much else that will matter
to your children, and to their children, and potentially to many more
generations yet to come.

It's about so much more than bits and bytes, disks and fiber, CPUs and
JavaScript.  The Internet is humanity.  We are the Internet.

If we lose the Internet, we lose ourselves.

Take care, all.  And thanks.

--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein (lauren@vortex.com): http://www.vortex.com/lauren
Co-Founder: People For Internet Responsibility: http://www.pfir.org
Founder:
- Data Wisdom Explorers League: http://www.dwel.org
- Network Neutrality Squad: http://www.nnsquad.org
- Global Coalition for Transparent Internet Performance:
http://www.gctip.org
- PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com
Member: ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
Google+: http://vortex.com/g+lauren / Twitter: http://vortex.com/t-lauren
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 / Skype: vortex.com
_______________________________________________
nnsquad mailing list
http://lists.nnsquad.org/mailman/listinfo/nnsquad


_______________________________________________
nexa mailing list
nexa@server-nexa.polito.it
https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa

_______________________________________________
nexa mailing list
nexa@server-nexa.polito.it
https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa