Web 2.0 - eCommunism is coming

Ye' old general discussion board. Basically, for everything that isn't covered elsewhere. Come here to shoot the breeze, shoot your mouth off, or whatever suits your fancy.
This forum is not for asking programming related questions.

Moderator: General Moderators

User avatar
Maugrim_The_Reaper
DevNet Master
Posts: 2704
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 5:43 am
Location: Ireland

Post by Maugrim_The_Reaper »

Read the first part of Roja's sentence...;) He was remarking that greater compatibility enabled greater competition - hence greater productivity.
Charles256
DevNet Resident
Posts: 1375
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 9:06 pm

Post by Charles256 »

btw, whenever i call someone a communist I am not referring to this depth the OP is going..just for the record..i say it in joking :-D
Roja
Tutorials Group
Posts: 2692
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2004 10:30 pm

Post by Roja »

pilau wrote:I believe this is a false way of addressing the productivity "issue".
Thats why it has failed before being properly implemented - ever. Its based on the flawed concept that men, given the chance, will be fair. While that may in fact be true for a majority of people (I don't know if thats true or not), there is usually a significant minority that won't be fair.

I'm a huge supporter of the capatalist system, I wasn't endorsing communism. Quite the opposite, I was making clear that the OP had misunderstood communism, and as a result, was giving it far more credit than it deserved.
pilau
Forum Regular
Posts: 594
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 10:22 am
Location: Israel

Post by pilau »

Roja wrote: (communism -) Its based on the flawed concept that men, given the chance, will be fair. While that may in fact be true for a majority of people (I don't know if thats true or not), there is usually a significant minority that won't be fair.
Agreed. And as far as my experience with human kind goes there's a minority that will be fair, and a majority that will not.
Roja wrote: I'm a huge supporter of the capatalist system, I wasn't endorsing communism. Quite the opposite, I was making clear that the OP had misunderstood communism, and as a result, was giving it far more credit than it deserved.
I didn't say you were endorsing communism nor did & do I think this way. I was only stating my beliefs regarding communism. I even in some way emphasized what you said earlier. Sorry if I made it sound like I was arguing you.
Gambler
Forum Contributor
Posts: 246
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2005 7:10 pm

Post by Gambler »

It depends on which author you are referring to
When people say "democracy", they usually do not refer to the political system of Athens or, say, works of Jeffeson. They mean democracy in general, mainly it's ideology. Same thing here.

It was double (or even triple) entendre of a sort. First, there is a notion of communism-the-utopia from the USSR culture. Second, there there is a notion communism-the-nightmare from the US culture. Third, there is that e- prefix, which should signify a buzzword, highlighting the fact that the word afterwards is frequently used in porpaganda of various sorts.
This is actually spreading individualism not stunting it.
Yep, we need more individualism. We are in dire need of individualism mass-production and wholesale points.
Web 2.0 means embracing the web as a service.
I can use Google-the-service without the wise council of Mr. O'Reilly, thankyouverymuch. But he does not sell us Google-the-service, he markets Google-the-lifestyle. He pushes forward yet another paradigm shi(f)t.
User avatar
Maugrim_The_Reaper
DevNet Master
Posts: 2704
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 5:43 am
Location: Ireland

Post by Maugrim_The_Reaper »

Communism is a term much misunderstood by the majority of people. Could they tell the difference between Leninism and Marxism? Do they know the difference between Federalism and Republicanism? Does it really matter? ;)
I can use Google-the-service without the wise council of Mr. O'Reilly, thankyouverymuch. But he does not sell us Google-the-service, he markets Google-the-lifestyle. He pushes forward yet another paradigm shi(f)t.
From what I've read he pushes WEB 2.0 the business model (in parts at least - the article seems a bit scattered, more a tasting of what's out there...) How is he pushing a lifestyle? There's an element there, but its not being pushed only referred to (I doubt O'Reilly pushed anyone into using GMail or Flickr).
pilau
Forum Regular
Posts: 594
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 10:22 am
Location: Israel

Post by pilau »

Gambler wrote:Yep, we need more individualism. We are in dire need of individualism mass-production and wholesale points.
What's individualism and why according to your opinion do we need it so much?
Gambler
Forum Contributor
Posts: 246
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2005 7:10 pm

Post by Gambler »

What's individualism
I'm afraid, you'll have to figure that out for yourself.
and why according to your opinion do we need it so much?
My phrase about mass-production of individuality was merely a sarcasm.
From what I've read he pushes WEB 2.0 the business model
I'd say business model, lifestyle and mentality.
O'Reilly wrote:the wisdom of crowds
O'Reilly wrote:the collective power
O'Reilly wrote:Collective Intelligence
pilau
Forum Regular
Posts: 594
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 10:22 am
Location: Israel

Post by pilau »

O'Reilly wrote:the wisdom of crowds
O'Reilly wrote:the collective power
O'Reilly wrote:Collective Intelligence
Ok, this O'Reilly guy is really talking smurf. "The wisdom of crowds", sheesh. The collective power is a dull power. It's a blind power, a stupid and blind power.
User avatar
Maugrim_The_Reaper
DevNet Master
Posts: 2704
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 5:43 am
Location: Ireland

Post by Maugrim_The_Reaper »

Lol, there was an article on Digg.com recently where the author accused some other site of stealing Digg's CSS. The "wisdom of the crowds" as revealed in the comments was pretty damning. It took a few individuals to point out that the CSS had been copied through 3 different sites, enough that the accused and badly battered by the crowd website had no idea of the original CSS source.

There's a lesson in there about putting too much value on common public perception, and that extends to the blogworld too... Even in PHP circles there was the torrent of blog abuse aimed at Derrick Rethans (started by a John Lim blog, I think?).
Gambler
Forum Contributor
Posts: 246
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2005 7:10 pm

Post by Gambler »

Its based on the flawed concept that men, given the chance, will be fair.
BTW, Wikipedia is based on the similar assumption.
Roja
Tutorials Group
Posts: 2692
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2004 10:30 pm

Post by Roja »

Gambler wrote:
Its based on the flawed concept that men, given the chance, will be fair.
BTW, Wikipedia is based on the similar assumption.
Also incorrect.

Wikipedia has built-in multi-tiered moderation because, again, they acknowledge that there is noise, and not pure signal.

If they truly embraced that assumption, they wouldn't have moderation.
DeprecatedDiva
Forum Newbie
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2005 10:47 am
Location: NW Louisiana

Re: Web 2.0 - eCommunism is coming

Post by DeprecatedDiva »

Gambler wrote:http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly ... eb-20.html

This is scary. It reminds me of "Busimess @ the Speed of Thought", only this one is written by Tim O'Reilly, not Bill Gates.

Hey, since nobody gives a damn about things like individuality and personality, why don't we skip all those intruductory steps altogether? All we need to do is combine the minds of all humans into a single information matrix. (I hope my Vacuum Flowers reference will not be lost in vain.) Yeah, it's that simple.
8O I thought I was the only one who ever read that book.
Gambler
Forum Contributor
Posts: 246
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2005 7:10 pm

Post by Gambler »

This is off-topic, but what a heck...
If they truly embraced that assumption, they wouldn't have moderation.
Such reasoning could be applied to any kind of ideology that serves as a basis for some real-life social, political or economical system. "If they 'truly' embraced the idea of open market, there would be no laws governing trade whatsoever!" Yeah, right.

Also, I hate to be picky, but my exact words were "on the similar assumption". Use of the "similar" instead of "same" was intentional.
I thought I was the only one who ever read that book.
Whe I've read id, I've chosen it 100% randomly. Still wonder why Michael Swanwick is so... unknown.
Roja
Tutorials Group
Posts: 2692
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2004 10:30 pm

Post by Roja »

Gambler wrote:This is off-topic, but what a heck...
I shouldn't have replied.

We don't agree on even the most basic definitions, and (in my opinion) most of this thread is random attacks on a variety of concepts without any justification, reasoning or structure - just cheap one-liners. I think its unfortunate, as Web 2.0 is (to me) considerably different than you are making it out to be. As is Communism. As are a number of things you refer to.

I sincerely hope that if people care about any of the concepts in this thread (or even the original post), that they take the time to do some research online, and draw their own conclusions.

Perhaps later we can discuss Web 2.0 in a thread without the connotations the original post had.
Last edited by Roja on Fri Jan 13, 2006 9:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Locked