Daniel, imho this is a brilliant direction to pursue. Substack itself is a tiny example of what can happen when positive, pro-democratic incentive is directed into form and function. Regenerating online venues on a grand scale into forums from which coherent and practical visions of change emerge, could stimulate those who yearn for what is heart-warmingly possible in this time of cold, calculating cruelty, encouraging people to come together online and IRL, both regionally and globally, to revitalize resistance to the accelerating suffocation of freedom and human rights that is happening on a vast, even genocidal, scale. As the migration to Substack of many mainstream media personnel shows, the need to continue to express and collaborate continues to gain momentum as the slow train wreck affects a greater portion of the population, who are now being forced by their own survival needs to wake up in the darkness and look somewhere for light.
Daniel, you say, "That I will call, Pro Social Media". That phrase was coined or used by Audrey Tang when she was Digital Minister of Taiwan. It exists today and the tools are publicly available. I know that you know about democracy in Taiwan. Why don't you highlight it?
"Blockchain technology"? NOSTR is already in integrated with Bitcoin. The bleak picture you paint relies, at least in part, on you not acknowledging the many people and organizations already working in this domain. Telegram has maintained principled support for privacy in communications, no small matter in an era of almost all hostile governments.
I love this and very much look forward to seeing where it heads. It’s great to see your thoughts, ideas and hard work start to coalesce. Thanks Daniel!
>>“We could not have had the modern liberal nation state without a printing press which disseminated a shared context of news and information to the voting population.” Not to be unduly cynical, but how do you think modern liberal nation states are doing right now, generally speaking?
I wish I could share your sense of optimism about the Internet Daniel. But why are you divorcing AI from the Internet? They are increasingly becoming one and the same. In that sense, your discussion provides an incomplete picture. And I’ve said this before previously: nothing will change as long as the means of production and the means of information are in the hands of a very few oligarchs whose main focus is to maximize profitability under our hyper-capitalist system. Can you plausibly envision how this might change? If so, I would be very interested in seeing such a scenario laid out phase by phase and step by step.
By the way, here’s my most recent article about the perils of AI:
Tour de Force, Daniel. One thing that struck me are the potential analogies for scaling down a ton of ultra large systems in favor of smaller more nimble ones with more potential to foster both communities of interest and intention; also, potentially, unified action. Currently I am entertaining the thought that the US has become too large and too hollowed out by special interests/big money to work well for we the people. Might be that regional governing coalitions, such are beginning to proliferte now, would be more nimble and responsive to the real needs of their citizens and stewardship of the earth and its climate.
The internet is a means to an end, not an end in itself. It's a road, not a destination. What traverses it determines its moral value. The moral value of social media resides in both the host and its users; they both reflect the consciousness of our time. If there were a greater socially-oriented, utilitarian value to social media, it would already be here, but for the most part, it's not. This is not to say that things can't or won't change, but there needs to be a catalyst, a driving force that can rekindle the light within the masses. Maybe ProSocial Network will help to bring that about. I look forward to the learning about the "three foundational pillars!"
One quibble: The Luddites are routinely misunderstood. They were not anti-technology per-se. They resisted they way indiscriminate implementation of technology was harmful to society and human-beings in general. They destroyed machines that the money-class was using to make profit through the emiseration of working people--similar to what AI is doing and will continue to do in our own time. The Luddites would completely agree with you when you write: "In fact, I think we need to rebuild and recreate these tools so they benefit humanity and the Earth, instead of maximizing the power and profit of tech oligarchs and corrupt despots." I know you are familiar with the writing of Brian Merchant through his Blood in The Machine Substack. I would love for you to interview him and let him go deep on the Luddites and what their movement means for this moment we are in.
The tragedy of the development of the Internet to its current state of technofeudalism lies in the absence of any substantive understanding of the workings of corporate capitalism among the "Internet will free us" enthusiasts in the mid 1990s.
Not to beat a dead horse, but do you remember the uncritical enthusiasm with which so many people embraced John Perry Barlow's "The Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace."
"Governments of the Industrial World, you weary giants of flesh and steel, I come from Cyberspace, the new home of Mind. On behalf of the future, I ask you of the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty where we gather." And so on. (https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence)
When a community embraces such profoundly incorrect analysis, we have to make sure that we understand how our friends and comrades in the struggle to build a better world could have been so wrong.
What we needed back then was for the Internet pioneers to have sheltered the development of the Internet from the naked power of market forces by using some form of democratically controlled nonprofit to control all of the key patents and intellectual property that they so idealistically just gave away.
This failure to understand how turning this tool over to private hands lies in part in the arc of the development of the Internet starting as a Defense Department project, and then expanding into the world of academia. Neither DOD nor the first wave of academics were places where one would have expected to find people with the understanding of how private corporations could subvert this tool.
Your point about building some form of public control into the struggle to change the Internet is critical.
Beautifully said, Daniel. The internet mirrors our collective nervous system — fragmented yet longing for coherence. What you call technofeudalism feels like our shadow made digital. Maybe what we need now isn’t just digital common sense, but common soul.
Daniel, imho this is a brilliant direction to pursue. Substack itself is a tiny example of what can happen when positive, pro-democratic incentive is directed into form and function. Regenerating online venues on a grand scale into forums from which coherent and practical visions of change emerge, could stimulate those who yearn for what is heart-warmingly possible in this time of cold, calculating cruelty, encouraging people to come together online and IRL, both regionally and globally, to revitalize resistance to the accelerating suffocation of freedom and human rights that is happening on a vast, even genocidal, scale. As the migration to Substack of many mainstream media personnel shows, the need to continue to express and collaborate continues to gain momentum as the slow train wreck affects a greater portion of the population, who are now being forced by their own survival needs to wake up in the darkness and look somewhere for light.
Daniel, you say, "That I will call, Pro Social Media". That phrase was coined or used by Audrey Tang when she was Digital Minister of Taiwan. It exists today and the tools are publicly available. I know that you know about democracy in Taiwan. Why don't you highlight it?
"Blockchain technology"? NOSTR is already in integrated with Bitcoin. The bleak picture you paint relies, at least in part, on you not acknowledging the many people and organizations already working in this domain. Telegram has maintained principled support for privacy in communications, no small matter in an era of almost all hostile governments.
Yes! I didn’t remember that she used it but am planning to discuss her work and Plurality
I love this and very much look forward to seeing where it heads. It’s great to see your thoughts, ideas and hard work start to coalesce. Thanks Daniel!
>>“We could not have had the modern liberal nation state without a printing press which disseminated a shared context of news and information to the voting population.” Not to be unduly cynical, but how do you think modern liberal nation states are doing right now, generally speaking?
I wish I could share your sense of optimism about the Internet Daniel. But why are you divorcing AI from the Internet? They are increasingly becoming one and the same. In that sense, your discussion provides an incomplete picture. And I’ve said this before previously: nothing will change as long as the means of production and the means of information are in the hands of a very few oligarchs whose main focus is to maximize profitability under our hyper-capitalist system. Can you plausibly envision how this might change? If so, I would be very interested in seeing such a scenario laid out phase by phase and step by step.
By the way, here’s my most recent article about the perils of AI:
https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/ai-militarism-dangers
I wouldn’t call it “optimism.”
One of your best.
Tour de Force, Daniel. One thing that struck me are the potential analogies for scaling down a ton of ultra large systems in favor of smaller more nimble ones with more potential to foster both communities of interest and intention; also, potentially, unified action. Currently I am entertaining the thought that the US has become too large and too hollowed out by special interests/big money to work well for we the people. Might be that regional governing coalitions, such are beginning to proliferte now, would be more nimble and responsive to the real needs of their citizens and stewardship of the earth and its climate.
Looking forward to hearing the suggestions.
The internet is a means to an end, not an end in itself. It's a road, not a destination. What traverses it determines its moral value. The moral value of social media resides in both the host and its users; they both reflect the consciousness of our time. If there were a greater socially-oriented, utilitarian value to social media, it would already be here, but for the most part, it's not. This is not to say that things can't or won't change, but there needs to be a catalyst, a driving force that can rekindle the light within the masses. Maybe ProSocial Network will help to bring that about. I look forward to the learning about the "three foundational pillars!"
Excellent and necessary work, Daniel.
One quibble: The Luddites are routinely misunderstood. They were not anti-technology per-se. They resisted they way indiscriminate implementation of technology was harmful to society and human-beings in general. They destroyed machines that the money-class was using to make profit through the emiseration of working people--similar to what AI is doing and will continue to do in our own time. The Luddites would completely agree with you when you write: "In fact, I think we need to rebuild and recreate these tools so they benefit humanity and the Earth, instead of maximizing the power and profit of tech oligarchs and corrupt despots." I know you are familiar with the writing of Brian Merchant through his Blood in The Machine Substack. I would love for you to interview him and let him go deep on the Luddites and what their movement means for this moment we are in.
". . . usurping in a new age of cooperation"
Ushering?
Yes!!
The tragedy of the development of the Internet to its current state of technofeudalism lies in the absence of any substantive understanding of the workings of corporate capitalism among the "Internet will free us" enthusiasts in the mid 1990s.
Not to beat a dead horse, but do you remember the uncritical enthusiasm with which so many people embraced John Perry Barlow's "The Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace."
"Governments of the Industrial World, you weary giants of flesh and steel, I come from Cyberspace, the new home of Mind. On behalf of the future, I ask you of the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty where we gather." And so on. (https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence)
When a community embraces such profoundly incorrect analysis, we have to make sure that we understand how our friends and comrades in the struggle to build a better world could have been so wrong.
What we needed back then was for the Internet pioneers to have sheltered the development of the Internet from the naked power of market forces by using some form of democratically controlled nonprofit to control all of the key patents and intellectual property that they so idealistically just gave away.
This failure to understand how turning this tool over to private hands lies in part in the arc of the development of the Internet starting as a Defense Department project, and then expanding into the world of academia. Neither DOD nor the first wave of academics were places where one would have expected to find people with the understanding of how private corporations could subvert this tool.
Your point about building some form of public control into the struggle to change the Internet is critical.
Beautifully said, Daniel. The internet mirrors our collective nervous system — fragmented yet longing for coherence. What you call technofeudalism feels like our shadow made digital. Maybe what we need now isn’t just digital common sense, but common soul.