Web 3.0 - The Web 3, (tw3) where theory meets practice http://www.theweb3.com tw3 is the first website of its kind to combine academic theory and critical thought with practical implementation of those same theories in our daily lives along side contributions from the general public Thu, 17 May 2012 13:14:21 +0000 en hourly 1 We love to share – it’s what makes us human http://www.theweb3.com/featured/we-love-to-share-its-what-makes-us-human/ http://www.theweb3.com/featured/we-love-to-share-its-what-makes-us-human/#comments Fri, 04 May 2012 13:37:52 +0000 Amit Louis http://www.theweb3.com/?p=634 evolution of human communication

Much can be learned from observing our closest living relatives -- chimpanzees, apes, and even baboons. Researchers are trying to map out behavioral similarities and differences among the great apes and our hominid ancestors. They hope to, perhaps, find clues that shed light on the story of tools and human evolution, from early Oldowan technologies to today's highly complex ones. One area of research revolves around the idea that human cognition and shared purpose may have caused or fueled the divergence of the human species from other primates. How was the human species, which clearly shares its origins with the other primates, able to evolve at a much faster rate than the others? Researchers began by looking at other living primates for clues. Observation of chimpanzees, for example, has revealed that they utilize natural resources, found in their immediate surroundings, in order to complete relatively simple tasks. They are known to use hooks and sticks to extend their reach, wood and stone hammers for crushing different fruits and nuts, and even thin branches to pick termites out from under tree bark. However, there seems to be a limit to what chimpanzees are capable of using their simple tools. Baby chimps imitate their parents’ use of tools when for searching for food, but the task itself never seems to evolve past the simple crushing of fruits, etc. These apparently simple technological advancements reach a certain kind of saturation and never seem to evolve from generation to generation, unlike within the hominid species -- from Homo Habilis to Homo-Sapiens Sapiens. The reason, according to the researcher Tomasello, is the lack of what he terms the “Ratchet Effect”.     Homo Habilis is considered to have been the first toolmaker. His relatively large brain and unique physical characteristics--like smaller teeth--suggest that not only was his diet different than those of the other primates, but that he also had a superior intelligence. However, Ambrose points out, since evidence does indicate that other primates were also able to produce Oldowan artifacts, our analysis of the Habilis’ individuality in this respect remains disputable. Although experimenters have attempted to train other primates such as chimps and bonobos in Oldowan technology use, findings show that physical limitations prevent them from reproducing similar tools. There is a vast difference between the way humans and chimps use their hands in tool making. When shifting our attention to these early hominid tools, we find an interesting turn in the story of human evolution. These findings raise an interesting question: if we have evidence that other primates were able to utilize Oldowan technologies, why didn’t their tools evolve to the level of the early Hominid’s tools? Why didn’t other primates reach farther, to the cutting tools, etc. that would have helped them access higher quality food sources, which in turn would have nourished physical and brain development? The theory of the “Ratchet Effect”, or the idea of collaboration and shared purpose, may offer a reasonable explanation. In 1999, Michael Tomasello used the ratchet metaphor to explain the evolution of human culture.  For Tomasello, human technology and culture are cumulative in character. Once a certain invention has been discovered, i.e. the first Oldowan tool, knowledge of its use can be transferred from one individual to another by means of imitation (similar to how chimpanzees share information) until a whole population acquires a new trait.  Although the pace of advancement in technology and social interaction was very slow from between 2.5 million and 300,000 years ago, from around 300,000 years ago the “pace quickens exponentially” , hinting that changes in the forms of hominid tools were driven by the development of language and some sort of understanding of the environment and social structures. Humans have both a need and a motivation to share common goals.   Intentional action and shared intentionality produce uniquely human activities such as the creation of technology. The accumulation of technological modifications over the course of generations culminates in cultural revolution.  Language is a tool or a technology that was collectively developed by way of shareability and social interaction.  It was able to develop into the complex system it is today in part because the human species evolved into one that required language and communication to survive.  As the members of a clan or early hominid colony needed to learn more and more complex actions, mimetic learning was no longer sufficient.  A new and more potent way of passing on knowledge was necessary, and this may have led to the invention of instructional methods and later to language.  Language as a communication technology of a very specific type and with a very specific functionality allows for communication across existing gaps between its users. Humans use language to describe and interpret experiences together, and in that way are able to build upon past experiences in order to create new ones. The rise of the social network—a new development in the evolution of communication and collaborative culture -- provides a modern example of this phenomenon.

Social networks as a new direction in the evolution of collaborative culture, much more complex than what humans were used to already, revolutionized our lives early in the 21st century. Since the birth of the first social networks in the late 1990’s, their number and influence have skyrocketed. Today, Facebook is nearing the 1-billion-users mark. The rapid expansion and success of the social network, in all its forms (Youtube, twitter, facebook, etc.), exemplify the human need to constantly share experiences.  Cultural symbols, photos, status updates, video clips and recordings are all shared openly online, making for a universal virtual experience.  This is not dissimilar to what might have been a shared experience in a small community of early Hominids or primates millions of years ago.

Information technology is now regarded as a collaborative tool. Online communities, just like ancient and primate communities, leverage their own potential to share knowledge and expertise within themselves . The rise of the shared social experience via communication technology has led to profound changes in the social, political, economic and cultural orders.  The idea of shareability has gained additional importance in the era of the information network. Sharing is a pivotal aspect of the social network.  People surfing the internet encounter endless quantities of information, some of which is deemed “sharable” by the user. This is how one piece of information (video clip, news article, picture, etc.) is shared within virtual communities or circle of friends. Without it, the evolution of what Manuel Castells labeled informationalism would not have been possible.  The success of the social network is solely dependent of the idea of shareability, it is what has helped us evolve as a species through the ages. The possibility to transfer knowledge, first by means of emulation, then by mimicking, through teaching and now through language and information networks only shows the vast effects of this idea.  With the rise in the amount of information available for us today, it is interesting to see when ‘much’ will be ‘too much’, and how will we be able to manage and process and the effects of the amount of information we as humans are exposed to.]]> evolution of human communication

Much can be learned from observing our closest living relatives -- chimpanzees, apes, and even baboons. Researchers are trying to map out behavioral similarities and differences among the great apes and our hominid ancestors. They hope to, perhaps, find clues that shed light on the story of tools and human evolution, from early Oldowan technologies to today's highly complex ones. One area of research revolves around the idea that human cognition and shared purpose may have caused or fueled the divergence of the human species from other primates. How was the human species, which clearly shares its origins with the other primates, able to evolve at a much faster rate than the others? Researchers began by looking at other living primates for clues. Observation of chimpanzees, for example, has revealed that they utilize natural resources, found in their immediate surroundings, in order to complete relatively simple tasks. They are known to use hooks and sticks to extend their reach, wood and stone hammers for crushing different fruits and nuts, and even thin branches to pick termites out from under tree bark. However, there seems to be a limit to what chimpanzees are capable of using their simple tools. Baby chimps imitate their parents’ use of tools when for searching for food, but the task itself never seems to evolve past the simple crushing of fruits, etc. These apparently simple technological advancements reach a certain kind of saturation and never seem to evolve from generation to generation, unlike within the hominid species -- from Homo Habilis to Homo-Sapiens Sapiens. The reason, according to the researcher Tomasello, is the lack of what he terms the “Ratchet Effect”.     Homo Habilis is considered to have been the first toolmaker. His relatively large brain and unique physical characteristics--like smaller teeth--suggest that not only was his diet different than those of the other primates, but that he also had a superior intelligence. However, Ambrose points out, since evidence does indicate that other primates were also able to produce Oldowan artifacts, our analysis of the Habilis’ individuality in this respect remains disputable. Although experimenters have attempted to train other primates such as chimps and bonobos in Oldowan technology use, findings show that physical limitations prevent them from reproducing similar tools. There is a vast difference between the way humans and chimps use their hands in tool making. When shifting our attention to these early hominid tools, we find an interesting turn in the story of human evolution. These findings raise an interesting question: if we have evidence that other primates were able to utilize Oldowan technologies, why didn’t their tools evolve to the level of the early Hominid’s tools? Why didn’t other primates reach farther, to the cutting tools, etc. that would have helped them access higher quality food sources, which in turn would have nourished physical and brain development? The theory of the “Ratchet Effect”, or the idea of collaboration and shared purpose, may offer a reasonable explanation. In 1999, Michael Tomasello used the ratchet metaphor to explain the evolution of human culture.  For Tomasello, human technology and culture are cumulative in character. Once a certain invention has been discovered, i.e. the first Oldowan tool, knowledge of its use can be transferred from one individual to another by means of imitation (similar to how chimpanzees share information) until a whole population acquires a new trait.  Although the pace of advancement in technology and social interaction was very slow from between 2.5 million and 300,000 years ago, from around 300,000 years ago the “pace quickens exponentially” , hinting that changes in the forms of hominid tools were driven by the development of language and some sort of understanding of the environment and social structures. Humans have both a need and a motivation to share common goals.   Intentional action and shared intentionality produce uniquely human activities such as the creation of technology. The accumulation of technological modifications over the course of generations culminates in cultural revolution.  Language is a tool or a technology that was collectively developed by way of shareability and social interaction.  It was able to develop into the complex system it is today in part because the human species evolved into one that required language and communication to survive.  As the members of a clan or early hominid colony needed to learn more and more complex actions, mimetic learning was no longer sufficient.  A new and more potent way of passing on knowledge was necessary, and this may have led to the invention of instructional methods and later to language.  Language as a communication technology of a very specific type and with a very specific functionality allows for communication across existing gaps between its users. Humans use language to describe and interpret experiences together, and in that way are able to build upon past experiences in order to create new ones. The rise of the social network—a new development in the evolution of communication and collaborative culture -- provides a modern example of this phenomenon.

Social networks as a new direction in the evolution of collaborative culture, much more complex than what humans were used to already, revolutionized our lives early in the 21st century. Since the birth of the first social networks in the late 1990’s, their number and influence have skyrocketed. Today, Facebook is nearing the 1-billion-users mark. The rapid expansion and success of the social network, in all its forms (Youtube, twitter, facebook, etc.), exemplify the human need to constantly share experiences.  Cultural symbols, photos, status updates, video clips and recordings are all shared openly online, making for a universal virtual experience.  This is not dissimilar to what might have been a shared experience in a small community of early Hominids or primates millions of years ago.

Information technology is now regarded as a collaborative tool. Online communities, just like ancient and primate communities, leverage their own potential to share knowledge and expertise within themselves . The rise of the shared social experience via communication technology has led to profound changes in the social, political, economic and cultural orders.  The idea of shareability has gained additional importance in the era of the information network. Sharing is a pivotal aspect of the social network.  People surfing the internet encounter endless quantities of information, some of which is deemed “sharable” by the user. This is how one piece of information (video clip, news article, picture, etc.) is shared within virtual communities or circle of friends. Without it, the evolution of what Manuel Castells labeled informationalism would not have been possible.  The success of the social network is solely dependent of the idea of shareability, it is what has helped us evolve as a species through the ages. The possibility to transfer knowledge, first by means of emulation, then by mimicking, through teaching and now through language and information networks only shows the vast effects of this idea.  With the rise in the amount of information available for us today, it is interesting to see when ‘much’ will be ‘too much’, and how will we be able to manage and process and the effects of the amount of information we as humans are exposed to.]]> http://www.theweb3.com/featured/we-love-to-share-its-what-makes-us-human/feed/ 0 Kony 2012 – flash mob political action http://www.theweb3.com/web-2-0/kony-2012-flash-mob-political-action/ http://www.theweb3.com/web-2-0/kony-2012-flash-mob-political-action/#comments Tue, 13 Mar 2012 04:48:16 +0000 Kate Reynolds http://www.theweb3.com/?p=618 invisible children

My freshman art class approached me with Jason Russell’s film on Kony and wanted to do Shepard Fairy-esque posters and raise awareness. I had another unit planned so the discussion was about: do you want to learn to paint apples from direct observation or help catch a serial killer. We're doing the unit on Kony so I read up and was surprised at the amount of negative press Russell's film is getting. Former colleagues from the International School of Prague who are better informed than I am, responded to my Facebook wall with their articles. The whole issue of flash mob political action is what is fascinating me about Russell's film--that and the agendas that people have around both African politics and about social media. The Africans are uniformly lined up against Russell saying it is just another Western elitist attempt to control the narrative of African culture, defining it to their own purposes. Experts in political science don’t like Russell’s over-simplifications of the issues. Others resent his use of donated funds.

My feelings about Russell's film are close to what Russell intended them to be. Joseph Kony is the number one person posted on the International Court’s list of most wanted war criminals. Regardless of who else is responsible for crimes against humanity, we know he is a candidate. Russell was accurate about that. Three hundred thousand children have been affected. Russell got that right too. Those facts are true and Russell did not lie in the film. He simplified the issue: bad guys got a way with horrible things. Children suffered because of it and justice has not been done to a known perpetrator. Bringing attention to this issue will not discourage a better understanding of the political conditions in Uganda and the Congo even if the film doesn’t directly support one.

    There is a parallel issue to the one concerning Kony and it concerns digital media. Should flash mobs control or force political agendas? I think that is where the controversy is centered. Here I will admit to a gleeful enjoyment of watching the role of social media in the Occupy movement. It made me think about new possibilities--ways around the glacial pace of political change. I am also aware of how dangerous this phenomenon can be. Rule by the Mob is a constant fear by those who value rule by law. But at what point do horrific events like the massacre of thousands of children over a ten year period, become something that is everyone’s business rather than the property of a nationality or a board of experts? There are other issues concerning Uganda and the Congo, other war criminals, other victims. Let the critics of Russell make their own films]]> invisible children

My freshman art class approached me with Jason Russell’s film on Kony and wanted to do Shepard Fairy-esque posters and raise awareness. I had another unit planned so the discussion was about: do you want to learn to paint apples from direct observation or help catch a serial killer. We're doing the unit on Kony so I read up and was surprised at the amount of negative press Russell's film is getting. Former colleagues from the International School of Prague who are better informed than I am, responded to my Facebook wall with their articles. The whole issue of flash mob political action is what is fascinating me about Russell's film--that and the agendas that people have around both African politics and about social media. The Africans are uniformly lined up against Russell saying it is just another Western elitist attempt to control the narrative of African culture, defining it to their own purposes. Experts in political science don’t like Russell’s over-simplifications of the issues. Others resent his use of donated funds.

My feelings about Russell's film are close to what Russell intended them to be. Joseph Kony is the number one person posted on the International Court’s list of most wanted war criminals. Regardless of who else is responsible for crimes against humanity, we know he is a candidate. Russell was accurate about that. Three hundred thousand children have been affected. Russell got that right too. Those facts are true and Russell did not lie in the film. He simplified the issue: bad guys got a way with horrible things. Children suffered because of it and justice has not been done to a known perpetrator. Bringing attention to this issue will not discourage a better understanding of the political conditions in Uganda and the Congo even if the film doesn’t directly support one.

    There is a parallel issue to the one concerning Kony and it concerns digital media. Should flash mobs control or force political agendas? I think that is where the controversy is centered. Here I will admit to a gleeful enjoyment of watching the role of social media in the Occupy movement. It made me think about new possibilities--ways around the glacial pace of political change. I am also aware of how dangerous this phenomenon can be. Rule by the Mob is a constant fear by those who value rule by law. But at what point do horrific events like the massacre of thousands of children over a ten year period, become something that is everyone’s business rather than the property of a nationality or a board of experts? There are other issues concerning Uganda and the Congo, other war criminals, other victims. Let the critics of Russell make their own films]]> http://www.theweb3.com/web-2-0/kony-2012-flash-mob-political-action/feed/ 0 Talkbacks in the age of Facebook: Public Sphere 2.0? http://www.theweb3.com/social-networks/commenting-in-the-era-of-facebook/ http://www.theweb3.com/social-networks/commenting-in-the-era-of-facebook/#comments Sat, 25 Feb 2012 18:17:31 +0000 Fares Saeb http://www.theweb3.com/?p=598 Discourse

I must admit I place far too much importance on anonymous comments in news websites than they should get. Comments  left by visitors on news websites, to my opinion, do not represent thoughts of a majority although on many occasions they are considered as such.  I believe that comments and the discussions they sometimes create escalate the political, social and cultural discourse not necessarily in a positive manner.  Any discussion carried out in the public sphere is an important aspect of democracy, the discussion carried over the TalkBacks and comments in news websites however,  has recently moved towards a possibly negative place. In Israel, a country with a high rate of news consumption, these TalkBacks cause a political,  social and cultural discourse of an extremist minority to be over represented.  On Feb. 16th, several Palestinian pupils were killed in the West Bank when their bus hit a lorry, few weeks before this incident a rabbi was shot dead, also in the West Bank.  Following the majority of comments and TalkBacks left on news sites preceding those events and other related events concerning Palestinians or Israeli settlers, reveal a very disturbing phenomenon. The violent and raciest  comments left by extremists on facebook are an example on how this form of communication is pushing this type of discourse into the public sphere.  What people used to say under the cover of anonymity, they now write publicly on their facebook wall.     Unlike the academic world, politicians, advertisers, speakers and other professionals recognize the importance and the effect of these TalkBacks on public discourse.  Majority of them employ this platform to spread their messages and ideology or to promote products by paying for TalkBacks. The same goes to political parties and extremist minorities who utilize this platform to promote hate. The concept “public sphere” has been dependant both on the period and the society it is used in. Today, another variable has entered the equation, technology. The possibility to place comments and TalkBacks on news articles or any other political issue has allowed extremists and most fundamental opinions to enter the public sphere under the cloak of anonymity, these voices that once were marginalized became part of the daily discourse. This development places a certain pseudo power in their hands. The first to be influenced by these TalkBacks were politicians who considered them to be a form of  “public opinion”.  It is a sort of a none representative sample of thoughts and opinions, but for any politician it is a chance to bring their political views and announcements to the TalkBack level of discourse.  The once reletive anonymous discourse of TalkBacks on news websites has now moved to the walls of facebook. Talking place under articles shared on user's walls. This move is a fundemental one. We can see that the racism and violence transformed from anonymity to the public sphere. The question is will this new found publicity bring the discourse to a new equilibrium point?]]> Discourse

I must admit I place far too much importance on anonymous comments in news websites than they should get. Comments  left by visitors on news websites, to my opinion, do not represent thoughts of a majority although on many occasions they are considered as such.  I believe that comments and the discussions they sometimes create escalate the political, social and cultural discourse not necessarily in a positive manner.  Any discussion carried out in the public sphere is an important aspect of democracy, the discussion carried over the TalkBacks and comments in news websites however,  has recently moved towards a possibly negative place. In Israel, a country with a high rate of news consumption, these TalkBacks cause a political,  social and cultural discourse of an extremist minority to be over represented.  On Feb. 16th, several Palestinian pupils were killed in the West Bank when their bus hit a lorry, few weeks before this incident a rabbi was shot dead, also in the West Bank.  Following the majority of comments and TalkBacks left on news sites preceding those events and other related events concerning Palestinians or Israeli settlers, reveal a very disturbing phenomenon. The violent and raciest  comments left by extremists on facebook are an example on how this form of communication is pushing this type of discourse into the public sphere.  What people used to say under the cover of anonymity, they now write publicly on their facebook wall.     Unlike the academic world, politicians, advertisers, speakers and other professionals recognize the importance and the effect of these TalkBacks on public discourse.  Majority of them employ this platform to spread their messages and ideology or to promote products by paying for TalkBacks. The same goes to political parties and extremist minorities who utilize this platform to promote hate. The concept “public sphere” has been dependant both on the period and the society it is used in. Today, another variable has entered the equation, technology. The possibility to place comments and TalkBacks on news articles or any other political issue has allowed extremists and most fundamental opinions to enter the public sphere under the cloak of anonymity, these voices that once were marginalized became part of the daily discourse. This development places a certain pseudo power in their hands. The first to be influenced by these TalkBacks were politicians who considered them to be a form of  “public opinion”.  It is a sort of a none representative sample of thoughts and opinions, but for any politician it is a chance to bring their political views and announcements to the TalkBack level of discourse.  The once reletive anonymous discourse of TalkBacks on news websites has now moved to the walls of facebook. Talking place under articles shared on user's walls. This move is a fundemental one. We can see that the racism and violence transformed from anonymity to the public sphere. The question is will this new found publicity bring the discourse to a new equilibrium point?]]> http://www.theweb3.com/social-networks/commenting-in-the-era-of-facebook/feed/ 0 The propaganda of social networks http://www.theweb3.com/featured/the-propaganda-of-social-networks/ http://www.theweb3.com/featured/the-propaganda-of-social-networks/#comments Mon, 20 Feb 2012 20:46:02 +0000 Amit Louis http://www.theweb3.com/?p=558 social network

"What!?! you're not on facebook ?!?"  Why is that question so surprising? Whenever I encounter someone who doesn't have a profile on facebook I find myself wondering why. It seems to be such a trivial question these days. Where did it come from?  What attracts and keeps people connected to the social network? What is the motivation of people refusing to join?  The impact of social networks on everything from social, political to economic spheres is undeniable; we as users and active participants in this monumental experience are all too busy marveling at its beauty and functionality that it becomes easy to let our guards down and forget to examine the personal and social effects of this technological and social phenomena. Even more importantly, how did it become the status quo. The numbers are staggering, more and more people decide to join for a multitude of reasons. In 1965 Jacques Ellul published his brilliant book, simply titled, "Propaganda".  The introduction to the book, written by Konrad Kellen, gives the readers a glimpse of the main arguments posed by Ellul. One central thesis is that propaganda, is a social phenomena that cannot survive nor exist without the technological society and vice versa. In other words, Ellul claims that propaganda as a social phenomenon, is a Siamese twin of the technological society.  It is only by the effects of this propaganda can the technological society exist and flourish.   The supreme law of propaganda, to Ellul, is its effectiveness. Propaganda must be effective, if it is not, it is not propaganda. watching  people flock together to the social network, its popularity and ultimate grasp on our daily lives, seems to be like the result of a very effective propaganda. There are many definitions of the word "Propaganda", researchers, philosophers and many others each tried to come up with the ultimate definition.  Majority of them seem to agree that it constitute the use of deliberate actions   aimed at influencing audiences to change/maintain opinions and/or actions by use of psychological means.   This makes one wonder of the hypnotizing and extraordinary  grasp that social networks have on our lives.  Exploring the origins of the social networks and network society, many researchers including but not limited to: Manuel Castells, Scott Lash, Danah M Boyd, Nicole B Ellison and many others paint a magnificent picture of the factors that brought about this phenomena into existence. Today, many researchers, professionals and advocates hale and marvel at these great social phenomena that were able to flourish thanks to advancements in technology. Looking at the social network from a philosophical point of view, it may be seen as "god's gift" to democracy and freedom of expression. We are led to believe that the social network works for us. On the surface it may appear so: citizens have brought down regimes, activists have managed to take on multi-million dollar co-operations, families re-united, relationships are formed each and every day, and so on. The list of benefits is as endless as the network itself.  On the opposite side of the coin, it is no surprise that each user is also working for the network.  An effective propaganda is one that leads people for actions and make them think that it is for their own good, to be part of something greater than one self. The social network provides exactly that. A chance for the individual to feel part of something, to belong, while the propagandist is capitalizing on his success.  Do we need this propaganda to flourish? Do we require this propaganda to excel and develop further? For Ellul the answer is simple. Yes. "In my opnion, necessity never establishes legitimacy; the world of necessity is a world of weakness, a world that denies man"  Jacques Ellul (1962)]]> social network

"What!?! you're not on facebook ?!?"  Why is that question so surprising? Whenever I encounter someone who doesn't have a profile on facebook I find myself wondering why. It seems to be such a trivial question these days. Where did it come from?  What attracts and keeps people connected to the social network? What is the motivation of people refusing to join?  The impact of social networks on everything from social, political to economic spheres is undeniable; we as users and active participants in this monumental experience are all too busy marveling at its beauty and functionality that it becomes easy to let our guards down and forget to examine the personal and social effects of this technological and social phenomena. Even more importantly, how did it become the status quo. The numbers are staggering, more and more people decide to join for a multitude of reasons. In 1965 Jacques Ellul published his brilliant book, simply titled, "Propaganda".  The introduction to the book, written by Konrad Kellen, gives the readers a glimpse of the main arguments posed by Ellul. One central thesis is that propaganda, is a social phenomena that cannot survive nor exist without the technological society and vice versa. In other words, Ellul claims that propaganda as a social phenomenon, is a Siamese twin of the technological society.  It is only by the effects of this propaganda can the technological society exist and flourish.   The supreme law of propaganda, to Ellul, is its effectiveness. Propaganda must be effective, if it is not, it is not propaganda. watching  people flock together to the social network, its popularity and ultimate grasp on our daily lives, seems to be like the result of a very effective propaganda. There are many definitions of the word "Propaganda", researchers, philosophers and many others each tried to come up with the ultimate definition.  Majority of them seem to agree that it constitute the use of deliberate actions   aimed at influencing audiences to change/maintain opinions and/or actions by use of psychological means.   This makes one wonder of the hypnotizing and extraordinary  grasp that social networks have on our lives.  Exploring the origins of the social networks and network society, many researchers including but not limited to: Manuel Castells, Scott Lash, Danah M Boyd, Nicole B Ellison and many others paint a magnificent picture of the factors that brought about this phenomena into existence. Today, many researchers, professionals and advocates hale and marvel at these great social phenomena that were able to flourish thanks to advancements in technology. Looking at the social network from a philosophical point of view, it may be seen as "god's gift" to democracy and freedom of expression. We are led to believe that the social network works for us. On the surface it may appear so: citizens have brought down regimes, activists have managed to take on multi-million dollar co-operations, families re-united, relationships are formed each and every day, and so on. The list of benefits is as endless as the network itself.  On the opposite side of the coin, it is no surprise that each user is also working for the network.  An effective propaganda is one that leads people for actions and make them think that it is for their own good, to be part of something greater than one self. The social network provides exactly that. A chance for the individual to feel part of something, to belong, while the propagandist is capitalizing on his success.  Do we need this propaganda to flourish? Do we require this propaganda to excel and develop further? For Ellul the answer is simple. Yes. "In my opnion, necessity never establishes legitimacy; the world of necessity is a world of weakness, a world that denies man"  Jacques Ellul (1962)]]> http://www.theweb3.com/featured/the-propaganda-of-social-networks/feed/ 0 IBM 5 + 5 http://www.theweb3.com/information-society/ibm-5-5/ http://www.theweb3.com/information-society/ibm-5-5/#comments Fri, 27 Jan 2012 17:19:35 +0000 David Hewitt http://www.theweb3.com/?p=481 Digital future

Recently in the news India has announced that it will be using unique biometric identifiers (B.I.) for all of its 1.3 billion people.It is called the Unique Identification Authority. The proposed B.I. will consist of fingerprint scans for all ten fingers, iris scans for both eyes, and a picture of the face. Other types of B.I. available are voice pattern recognition, gait pattern recognition, hand geometry, palm vein authentication, and signature.  Biometrics are unique for every single person born, therefore eliminating risks of false copying, forgery and fraud. Additionally, these identifiers can never be lost or stolen. However, should we be concerned about the government's storage of these unique personal identifiers? What implications may this have on our privacy and the government's power to intervene in our private lifes? Around 440 million people in India live below poverty levels, surviving on social services and infrastructure. However, the vast majority of that 440 million people does not have ID's or bank accounts. Under the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), these B.I.'s will serve as signatures and ID cards. Some advocates concerned about privacy issues have however questioned whether this will lead to a Big Brother/Brave New World Control Grid, where the ubiquitous State controls, surveills, and monitors every facet of a person's existence. Coincidentally, IBM has released a new study revealing that the future of humanity is 5 in 5; passwords will become extinct (through B.I.'s), mind reading and mind/machine linkup will no longer be science fiction, and the "digital divide" (the gap between information-have's and have-not's) will cease to exist, among other things.     There are societal trends analyses that indicate that within the next five years 5.6 billion mobile devices will be sold to a global population of 7 billion people. This means that 80% of the global population will have access to the World Wide Web, Internet Semantic Web, and the Web 3.0. The technology of mind-reading machines is bio-informatics, and the technology already exists, albeit at somewhat of a rudimentary stage. The human brain operates on electrochemical signals, or electromagnetic frequencies. Thus it is possible to link computers to those electromagnetic signals and through sophisticated processes provide a direct mind-machine-computer link. Many science fiction movies and books have been written over the years exploring what the outcome of this mind-machine interface will mean for the human race. Will we become like the CY-BORGS of Star Trek fame? Will our humanity be erased, and will something new and alien emerge in our place? These are real issues that need to be addressed, for the technology is here and now. There is an interesting video out there in cyberspace entitled "Data Mining the Soul"; it is a very short, but very powerful visualization of an abstract concept of how much of our digital profile is being "mined" by various entities. In fact, some libertarians are decrying the India move to biometrically ID all their citizens as the proverbial "selling your soul to the Devil" for a Biblical "mess of pottage". Naturally that leads into the Christian concept of the infamous "Mark of the Beast" and 666 as portrayed in the Christian bible. Will the Universal Biometric System in fact be a fulfillment of Christian theology? Are governments and corporations our saviors, with only our best altruistic interests in mind? Or are there more nefarious and 'diabolical' motivations involved? The entire subject can be investigated in the area of "ponerology", or the nature of political evil. Some have portrayed this as "Snakes in Suits", a.k.a. psychopaths. Humanity is indeed at a crossroads, and 2012 may indeed prove to be that intersection of technology and spirituality; for good or for evil.]]> Digital future

Recently in the news India has announced that it will be using unique biometric identifiers (B.I.) for all of its 1.3 billion people.It is called the Unique Identification Authority. The proposed B.I. will consist of fingerprint scans for all ten fingers, iris scans for both eyes, and a picture of the face. Other types of B.I. available are voice pattern recognition, gait pattern recognition, hand geometry, palm vein authentication, and signature.  Biometrics are unique for every single person born, therefore eliminating risks of false copying, forgery and fraud. Additionally, these identifiers can never be lost or stolen. However, should we be concerned about the government's storage of these unique personal identifiers? What implications may this have on our privacy and the government's power to intervene in our private lifes? Around 440 million people in India live below poverty levels, surviving on social services and infrastructure. However, the vast majority of that 440 million people does not have ID's or bank accounts. Under the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), these B.I.'s will serve as signatures and ID cards. Some advocates concerned about privacy issues have however questioned whether this will lead to a Big Brother/Brave New World Control Grid, where the ubiquitous State controls, surveills, and monitors every facet of a person's existence. Coincidentally, IBM has released a new study revealing that the future of humanity is 5 in 5; passwords will become extinct (through B.I.'s), mind reading and mind/machine linkup will no longer be science fiction, and the "digital divide" (the gap between information-have's and have-not's) will cease to exist, among other things.     There are societal trends analyses that indicate that within the next five years 5.6 billion mobile devices will be sold to a global population of 7 billion people. This means that 80% of the global population will have access to the World Wide Web, Internet Semantic Web, and the Web 3.0. The technology of mind-reading machines is bio-informatics, and the technology already exists, albeit at somewhat of a rudimentary stage. The human brain operates on electrochemical signals, or electromagnetic frequencies. Thus it is possible to link computers to those electromagnetic signals and through sophisticated processes provide a direct mind-machine-computer link. Many science fiction movies and books have been written over the years exploring what the outcome of this mind-machine interface will mean for the human race. Will we become like the CY-BORGS of Star Trek fame? Will our humanity be erased, and will something new and alien emerge in our place? These are real issues that need to be addressed, for the technology is here and now. There is an interesting video out there in cyberspace entitled "Data Mining the Soul"; it is a very short, but very powerful visualization of an abstract concept of how much of our digital profile is being "mined" by various entities. In fact, some libertarians are decrying the India move to biometrically ID all their citizens as the proverbial "selling your soul to the Devil" for a Biblical "mess of pottage". Naturally that leads into the Christian concept of the infamous "Mark of the Beast" and 666 as portrayed in the Christian bible. Will the Universal Biometric System in fact be a fulfillment of Christian theology? Are governments and corporations our saviors, with only our best altruistic interests in mind? Or are there more nefarious and 'diabolical' motivations involved? The entire subject can be investigated in the area of "ponerology", or the nature of political evil. Some have portrayed this as "Snakes in Suits", a.k.a. psychopaths. Humanity is indeed at a crossroads, and 2012 may indeed prove to be that intersection of technology and spirituality; for good or for evil.]]> http://www.theweb3.com/information-society/ibm-5-5/feed/ 0