Non so se qualcuno stia seguendo la discussione (fra ieri e oggi, Riotta, Zambardino, Cotroneo) scaturita dall'ultimo libro di Lanier (You are not a gadget: a manifesto): c'e' un articolo a firma di Lanier su WSJ Word Wide Mush http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703481004574646402192953052.ht... e in particolare vorrei citare questo passaggio preso dal suo sito: ======================= http://www.jaronlanier.com/poleconGadgetqa.html Why has the idea that “the content wants to be free” (and the unrelenting embrace of the concept) been such a setback? What dangers do you see this leading to? The original turn of phrase was “Information wants to be free.” And the problem with that is that it anthropomorphizes information. Information doesn’t deserve to be free. It is an abstract tool; a useful fantasy, a nothing. It is non-existent until and unless a person experiences it in a useful way. What we have done in the last decade is give information more rights than are given to people. If you express yourself on the internet, what you say will be copied, mashed up, anonymized, analyzed, and turned into bricks in someone else’s fortress to support an advertising scheme. However, the information, the abstraction, that represents you is protected within that fortress and is absolutely sacrosanct, the new holy of holies. You never see it and are not allowed to touch it. This is exactly the wrong set of values. The idea that information is alive in its own right is a metaphysical claim made by people who hope to become immortal by being uploaded into a computer someday. It is part of what should be understood as a new religion. That might sound like an extreme claim, but go visit any computer science lab and you’ll find books about “the Singularity,” which is the supposed future event when the blessed uploading is to take place. A weird cult in the world of technology has done damage to culture at large. ========================= -- Interactivity is a property of the technology, while participation is a property of culture (H. Jenkins) ========================================== Eleonora Panto' CSP - Innovazione nelle ICT s.c.ar.l. via Livorno, 60 - 10144 - Torino - Italy office: +390114815111 - www.csp.it
io inserisco l'intervento di Riotta http://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/SoleOnLine4/Tempo%20libero%20e%20Cultura/2010... saluti. Marco 2010/1/11 Eleonora Pantò <eleonora.panto@csp.it>
Non so se qualcuno stia seguendo la discussione (fra ieri e oggi, Riotta, Zambardino, Cotroneo) scaturita dall'ultimo libro di Lanier (You are not a gadget: a manifesto): c'e' un articolo a firma di Lanier su WSJ Word Wide Mush
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703481004574646402192953052.ht... e in particolare vorrei citare questo passaggio preso dal suo sito:
======================= http://www.jaronlanier.com/poleconGadgetqa.html
Why has the idea that “the content wants to be free” (and the unrelenting embrace of the concept) been such a setback? What dangers do you see this leading to?
The original turn of phrase was “Information wants to be free.” And the problem with that is that it anthropomorphizes information. Information doesn’t deserve to be free. It is an abstract tool; a useful fantasy, a nothing. It is non-existent until and unless a person experiences it in a useful way. What we have done in the last decade is give information more rights than are given to people. If you express yourself on the internet, what you say will be copied, mashed up, anonymized, analyzed, and turned into bricks in someone else’s fortress to support an advertising scheme. However, the information, the abstraction, that represents you is protected within that fortress and is absolutely sacrosanct, the new holy of holies. You never see it and are not allowed to touch it. This is exactly the wrong set of values.
The idea that information is alive in its own right is a metaphysical claim made by people who hope to become immortal by being uploaded into a computer someday. It is part of what should be understood as a new religion. That might sound like an extreme claim, but go visit any computer science lab and you’ll find books about “the Singularity,” which is the supposed future event when the blessed uploading is to take place. A weird cult in the world of technology has done damage to culture at large.
=========================
-- Interactivity is a property of the technology, while participation is a property of culture (H. Jenkins) ========================================== Eleonora Panto' CSP - Innovazione nelle ICT s.c.ar.l. via Livorno, 60 - 10144 - Torino - Italy office: +390114815111 - www.csp.it
_______________________________________________ nexa mailing list nexa@server-nexa.polito.it https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa
Non ho letto il libro di Lanier, quindi sono un po' restio ad esprimere un parere completo su questo tema (per altro molto interessante). Mi limito a notare che: - l'aforisma "information wants to be free" era originariamente "On the one hand information wants to be expensive, because it's so valuable. The right information in the right place just changes your life. On the other hand, information wants to be free, because the cost of getting it out is getting lower and lower all the time. So you have these two fighting against each other." (vedi http://www.rogerclarke.com/II/IWtbF.html). Dunque, almeno l'origine del termine presenta uno scenario molto piu` problematico di quanto si possa credere. Che poi molti altri abbiano deciso di usare solo la parte dell'aforimsa che faceva loro comodo e` un altro discorso. - l'impostazione di Lanier mi ricorda molto quella di Andrew Keen, autore di "The cult of the Amateur", libro secondo me del tutto mediocre che ha pero` avuto un (immeritato, ma chi sono io per decidere? :) successo, perche` fondamentalmente latore di un messaggio semplice: Internet sta distruggendo la cultura. Ora, Keen suppone, e Lanier sembra supporre, che esista un entita` astratta e metafisica, inamobile nel tempo, chiamata "cultura". In altri termini, dato che la "cultura" (la sostanza di cio` che viene prodotto, il modo in cui viene prodotto, usato, ri-usato, etc) e` differente rispetto al passato, Keen (e forse, se ben capisco, Lanier) assumono che cio` sia un male. - e` certamente lecito discutere degli aspetti negativi del "brave new world" dell'informazione digitale. Cosi` come e` lecito, a mio parere, criticare un certo tipo di "teleologismo tecnologico" che per altro non e` nuovo (ricordo che nel '98-'99 infuriavano nel mondo gli scritti di Nicholas Negroponte, secondo cui le ICT avrebbero "naturalmente" portato ad un mondo piu` democratico). Nutro sempre qualche dubbio quando la critica parte da, e/o si base su, un esplicito o implicito "ritorno ai bei tempi andati". Che sicuramente sono andati (e quindi e` difficile tornarci) e non e` detto fossero cosi` belli (tranne che per una certa élite dell'industria culturale tra cui Keen e forse, anche se non lo conosco bene, Lanier). - tra i commenti italiani ho letto solo quello di Cotroneo sull'Unita` che, francamente, mi ha fatto cascare le braccia. Che nel 2010 si possa ancora pensare che le modalita` di produzione culturale permesse da Internet e dalle tecnologie digitali siano riassumibili o equiparabili ai commenti piu` beceri su Facebook, mi pare ingeneroso, nonche` sintomo di pochezza (per non dire disonesta`) intellettuale. Ciao, Andrea
"utf" == UTF <UTF-8> writes:
> Non so se qualcuno stia seguendo la discussione (fra ieri e > oggi, Riotta, Zambardino, Cotroneo) scaturita dall'ultimo libro > di Lanier (You are not a gadget: a manifesto): c'e' un articolo > a firma di Lanier su WSJ Word Wide Mush > http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703481004574646402192953052.ht... > e in particolare vorrei citare questo passaggio preso dal suo > sito: > ======================= > http://www.jaronlanier.com/poleconGadgetqa.html > Why has the idea that âthe content wants to be freeâ (and > the unrelenting embrace of the concept) been such a setback? > What dangers do you see this leading to? > The original turn of phrase was âInformation wants to be > free.â And the problem with that is that it anthropomorphizes > information. Information doesnât deserve to be free. It is an > abstract tool; a useful fantasy, a nothing. It is non-existent > until and unless a person experiences it in a useful way. What > we have done in the last decade is give information more rights > than are given to people. If you express yourself on the > internet, what you say will be copied, mashed up, anonymized, > analyzed, and turned into bricks in someone elseâs fortress to > support an advertising scheme. However, the information, the > abstraction, that represents you is protected within that > fortress and is absolutely sacrosanct, the new holy of > holies. You never see it and are not allowed to touch it. This > is exactly the wrong set of values. > The idea that information is alive in its own right is a > metaphysical claim made by people who hope to become immortal by > being uploaded into a computer someday. It is part of what > should be understood as a new religion. That might sound like an > extreme claim, but go visit any computer science lab and > youâll find books about âthe Singularity,â which is the > supposed future event when the blessed uploading is to take > place. A weird cult in the world of technology has done damage > to culture at large. > ========================= > -- Interactivity is a property of the technology, while > participation is a property of culture (H. Jenkins) > ========================================== Eleonora Panto' CSP - > Innovazione nelle ICT s.c.ar.l. via Livorno, 60 - 10144 - > Torino - Italy office: +390114815111 - www.csp.it > _______________________________________________ nexa mailing > list nexa@server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa > <#secure method=pgpmime mode=sign> -- Andrea Glorioso || http://people.digitalpolicy.it/sama/cv/ M: +32-488-409-055 F: +39-051-930-31-133 * Le opinioni espresse in questa mail sono del tutto personali * * The opinions expressed here are absolutely personal * "Constitutions represent the deliberate judgment of the people as to the provisions and restraints which [...] will secure to each citizen the greatest liberty and utmost protection. They are rules proscribed by Philip sober to control Philip drunk." David J. Brewer (1893) An Independent Judiciary as the Salvation of the Nation
participants (3)
-
Andrea Glorioso -
Eleonora Pantò -
Marco Berte