recentpopularlog in

robertogreco : peertopeer   13

The Creative Independent: On exploring how to be online in radical ways [interview with Tara Vancil, co-creator of Beaker Browser]
"Web developer Tara Vancil discusses the peer-to-peer web, the current state of self-publishing, and the future of the internet."


"[Q] I love that Beaker has a built-in editor. There’s this all-in-one feel to it where you can browse and publish websites from the browser. I was curious what self-publishing means for you and why it’s important?

[A] Well, there’s this myth floating around on the web that the very first web browser, it was called WorldWideWeb, made by Tim Berners-Lee actually had an editor built into it. Now, I’ve never been able to 100% confirm this with him, or anybody, but there’s kind of just the shared history that goes around on the web, so I’m willing to believe it. When I found that out, it was really interesting because we had been building the early prototype of Beaker and it was quite different from what it is now. It did have a button that let you create a website from the browser, so self-publishing was a part of Beaker very early on. But we didn’t fully understand how important facilitating self-publishing would be. It was fairly recently that we decided to put in an editor. We thought it would be too much work to maintain, we thought people wouldn’t care, we thought they’d prefer to use their own editors. And then one day, we just realized like, “You know what? No, a browser really should help people participate in the web.”

So self-publishing, for me, is not necessarily about owning your content. It’s not all about enabling creativity. There are other tools that enable creativity. I think it’s about creating opportunities for the widest swath of people to participate on the web. I think right now, there are so many barriers that can pop up at any given moment when you decide, “I want to make an app, I want to make a game, I want to publish my portfolio, or I want to create an interactive art piece.” With Beaker, self-publishing is about reducing as many of those barriers as possible, so that literally everybody can have some hope of meaningfully participating on the web. Because why not? That’s what the web is. It’s this really strange thing.

I like to call the web humanity’s shared language. We’ve all come together, by some miracle, as a society to define a set of rules and technical standards about how we will communicate, how our computers will communicate with each other, and people all over the world use this. I mean, that’s pretty miraculous that we’ve managed to do that. So why shouldn’t everybody be able to build stuff on it, and share things on it? It seems really sad that right now that’s not the case, and I think it’s also boring.

[Q] There seems to be a general feeling that HTTP doesn’t provide a productive space any longer. Recently there’s been a lot of interest in going offline or just slowing down. I wanted to get your thoughts on the offline first movement and if you align yourself with it?

[A] Offline first is a funny concept to me because it’s rooted in both very corporate ideology and very anti-corporate ideology. So there’s one meaning for offline first, I think it was coined by Google, and this was a way for building applications such that low-power devices in places that have really bad connectivity could cache an application’s or website’s assets so that it can still function well. I think this is an honorable effort to build applications with the expectation that we don’t live in an equitable world, but we have to remember that a corporation like Google is motivated to do that because they want to sell more devices, and they want to further the reach of Gmail and their other tools.

And then there’s the other side of the movement, where offline first means something very different to another group of people. If you’ve heard of Secure Scuttlebutt, it’s a peer-to-peer online friends space. It’s a place for people to post content and share things with their friends without having to connect through something like Twitter or Facebook. And a lot of the folks that participated there in the early days were really interested in finding ways to live a little more independently, to maybe not depend entirely on the electrical grid, or to be able to live on a boat, or to maintain their own garden. I think that reflects an interest in slowing down, and a reaction to the speed of consumption that the web of today demands of us.

So at the end of the day, I think offline first—by both definitions—is rooted in the observation that we don’t live in an equitable world, and modern applications do not serve everybody. They don’t serve every kind of lifestyle. I’m definitely interested in living in a home with electricity and modern amenities but I’m also really interested in doing that responsibly, and I care a lot about my own sanity and other people being able to maintain their sanity in this hyper-connected world. I think a lot of us are perhaps exploring how we do that for the long-term. So I like being online and I want to continue being online, but I think looking to these communities that are exploring how to be online in radical ways, is really important.

[Q] Beaker is a good example of that. In my own exploration of the peer-to-peer web, I’ve needed to either be sent a link directly from somebody, or be in connection with the HTTP web to find websites on the p2p web. I’m curious what the longer-term goals are? Is it sort of like in tandem with the current web, or is the goal to replace HTTP with peer-to-peer protocols?

[A] Yeah, there’s an interesting effect on the peer-to-peer web where you kind of have to bootstrap your experience somehow. You either have to have a chat open with a friend so that you can send links between each other, or you need to have a curated list of websites and projects that you want to visit. And interestingly, I think that’s a problem that the HTTP web suffers from as well. It’s an aggregation problem. If you think back to the early days of the HTTP web, someone—or some company—had to go out there and crawl the web, and collect the links that they found, and then publish them somewhere. That’s just a fact of how networks work. It’s hard to aggregate content independently.

So I think what that means is that if the peer-to-peer web is going to become a part of the web as we know it, then so are search engines and aggregators. And maybe those search engines will use HTTP just because it’s easier for that purpose. Maybe not. I’m not sure that we need to replace HTTP entirely to fix what’s wrong with the web. I think we need to replace HTTP in cases where it encourages centralization of governance over our communities, and it discourages innovation and the ownership of our online experiences. That’s why I think it’s so important that people are able to publish their own websites, for example, because a website can be anything. It can be the place where you post your micro-blogs, like your tweets. It can be a place where you post blog posts, which is pretty obvious. It could be a place where you post photos or art projects, and I feel that the HTTP web makes it so difficult to do that right now. As a result, we’re cornered into the situation where we have to publish on Twitter, and Facebook, and Instagram. And that’s fine, those are pretty cool platforms, but they also constrain us, and I think we’re starting to understand the limits and the consequences of that.

[Q] It might be a positive thing that you can’t search the peer-to-peer web currently, in that it has to be such a personal connection where my friend will send me a link to a website. HTTP is a constant process of following links to other links. On the p2p web it’s more about accessing a page and then reading it to the end, and then maybe going offline after that.

[A] Yeah, there’s a certain finiteness to it, which is blissful at times. I’m not sure it’ll stay that way forever. There’s a lesson to be learned about how it feels to use the peer-to-peer web. I’ve found websites where I couldn’t believe I found them. It felt like I’d just stumbled upon a treasure. Like, “Wow, this person is out there and they’ve made this thing. I want to read everything they’ve posted,” and then that’s the end of it. It’s a really satisfying experience.

[Q] It also feels like you have to forget what you thought the web was when you’re approaching the p2p web. I find it pretty difficult to describe what the peer-to-peer web is, and I think maybe that’s not just me. It’s broad, it’s many different things, it’s multi-layered.

What does your ideal web look like?

[A] I want a web that I can build on. I love building on the web so much. To me, websites are my canvas. I grew up in a family that I think looked down on anything that smelled of creativity. I grew up hunting, watching football, and playing sports. There’s no creative exploration in that. I became exposed to the creative process fairly late in my life, and the canvas for me is websites. I love the feeling that I get when I sit down with a blank slate, and I know how to use the tools, I know how to wield HTML and CSS and bend it to my will. I want a web that is conducive to that, and I don’t want to just build standalone websites. I would love to build things that are meaningful to people, that have users, and then I want those users to be able to take what I’ve made and be able to shape it into something new.

On the web today, I feel like I can build something amazing, and I can go out and find people who want to use what I’ve built. But it’s a very rigid process. To build something, I first of all probably have to find investment because launching a service on the web, launching an app that’s actually going to get wide usage, is really, really expensive. So I think I want a web that makes that process cheaper, and distributes the cost of bandwidth and storage across its users. And then beyond that, I want a web that doesn’t try to lock down the experience of … [more]
beakerbrowser  taravancil  2018  publishing  self-publishing  online  internet  time  longevity  ephemeral  ephemerality  collaboration  technology  design  decentralization  radicalism  web  webdev  webdesign  seeding  p2p  peertopeer  http  dat  decentralizedweb  independence  hashbase  p2ppublishing  p2pweb  selfpublishing  distributed  dweb 
october 2018 by robertogreco
Beaker | An experimental P2P browser
"Beaker is a Peer-to-Peer Web Browser, made for users to run applications independently of hosts. Using P2P Hypermedia, Beaker separates frontend apps from backend services, so that users are completely in control of their software and data.

[video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bem9nRpyPEs ]

"Beaker is a Peer-to-Peer Web Browser which lets users build socially and publish independently. Using P2P web-hosting, Beaker separates the frontend app from backend servers, so that users are completely in control of their applications.

At a high level, Beaker introduces concepts from BitTorrent into the Web. Anybody can publish a site immediately, independently, and for free, using only their browser.

Sites can contain files, data, media, and fully-featured applications. Using them, users can publish content without ceding control of the content to either an app or service. There is no walled garden. The keys that control each site remain in the user’s browser.

Public Peer services provide optional cloud hosting, so users don’t have to keep their devices online to self-host. These services provide the uptime of a traditional host, but with no lockin; a user can migrate from one service to another without any disruption.

With forking, you can modify any site, and deploy it instantly. Users can rebuild applications to work exactly how they like. Our mission is to put the tools of creation back into the users’ hands. It will be weird, chaotic, and creative – just like the Web should be!

Beaker was forked from Chrome. It is free and open-source."

[Update: mentioned here https://www.are.na/blog/scene%20report/2018/08/13/decentralized-web-summit.html ]
browsers  peertopeer  p2p  software  mac  osx  applications  internet  web  online  chrome  opensource  webdev  webdesign  beaker  hashbase  dat  beakerbrowser  p2ppublishing  decentralizedweb  p2pweb  distributed  dweb 
january 2017 by robertogreco
Designing a space for self-directed learners — The experimental year — Medium
"Imagining the space
Without being too prescriptive yet about how it will converge or evolve, these are some abstract ideas:

Unstructured and non-linear
Most traditional learning journeys are structured in a very specific, deliberate manner, often designed to progress in terms of complexity. Self-directed learners may want to learn according to what provokes our curiosity instead, and that may mean starting from the middle and proceeding to pick out material in order of interest instead of what is being defined by a typical structure.

Design and curate our own learning experience
Related to the point above, we want to be able to decide how we want to learn, what is important to learn, how much we want to learn.

Tap into the collective wisdom
We want to learn widely and deeply, and that involves trying to access as much information as possible, from the widest variety of sources as possible. Somebody unexpected may suggest obscure that may never make it into a mainstream course but it may be a collective deep-learning experience for a few like-minded people.

Anyone can learn as a peer
The most ideal scenario will be a five year old learning astro-physics with a seventy-eight year old, with an astro-physicist providing feedback as they go along. Is that absurd? But why not?

Include the best learning sources: people and places
Apart from theory, people and places are the greatest sources of information. Imagine learning art history and being able to communicate with art historians, or get suggestions from the learning network where to visit in order to have an experiential learning experience.

Display connections and context
The fascinating thing about learning is that each learning node is connected possibly infinitely to others. An example:
…history-art-philosophy-politics-economics-sociology-psychology-neurology…

So, how can we visualize this network of relationships?

Allow for divergence or depth anytime
At any given point in the learning experience, we can diverge into a related subject or go deeper into the existing subject, with visible signposts to what is possible next.

Magical sorting
Any extensive network comes with a great amount of noise. Being able to find what we need with any given context from the widest sources possible is a huge challenge. I have not thought this through yet, but I imagine this to be a weightage compromising of relevancy, peer ratings (users of the same network), social-network relationships (people we know) coupled with other less obvious engagement metrics."

[later: https://medium.com/the-experimental-year/designing-a-self-directed-learning-network-work-in-progress-v0-1-ad6ba3b883b0#.x9prh7tp5

"Some basics I wanted to design around:

1. Mobile first. Anybody in the world can participate and learn on the go, especially emerging markets — people with low cost mobile phones but not the more expensive desktops.

2. It is a network of learning paths, each path is represented by a stack of cards. Each card would represent a node and they can be rearranged in any manner. Anybody can create or fork one.

3. The cards will be links to external content — there is great content out there, just not easily discoverable or strung together in a cohesive manner, or people may have specific learning preferences (disliking videos, for example).

4. The network is designed for the diversity of learning. It will be weighted according to the learner’s preferences — social trust or metrics, but the goal is not to reach consensus (like wikipedia). There should not be one top quality path on Philosophy for example, but a diversity of them, and ideally a way to visualize or track their divergences. There should not be one way to learn most things.



New constraints were set

1. It has to be a web app.

2. Tap only, no gestures.

3. To not rely on the browser tab bar for backwards navigation.

4. No complicated animations to load any interactions or screens.

5. Render information as quickly as possible, with the lowest bandwidth/processing costs as possible. (no zooms, I guess :~\)

6. Try to keep it simple stupid.

With these, I was free from thinking about the interaction patterns, and it brought me clarity on the areas I should focus on."]
winnielim  education  self-directedlearning  self-directed  linear  non-linear  learning  diversity  networks  webapps  web  online  internet  p2p  unstructured  unschooling  deschooling  peertopeer  lcproject  openstudioproject  linearity  nonlinear  alinear 
july 2016 by robertogreco
FutureEverything 2015: Alexis Lloyd & Matt Boggie on Vimeo
"From New York Times R&D Labs, Alexis Lloyd and Matt Boggie talk about our possible media futures, following the early days of the web - where growth was propelled forward by those making their own spaces online - to the present, where social platforms are starting to close down, tightening the possibilities whilst our dependency on them is increasing. Explaining how internet users are in fact participatory creators, not just consumers, Alexis and Matt ask where playing with news media can allow for a new means of expression and commentary by audiences."
public  media  internet  web  online  walledgardens  participation  participatory  2015  facebook  snapchat  open  openness  alexisloyd  mattboggie  publishing  blogs  blogging  history  audience  creativity  content  expression  socialnetworks  sociamedia  onlinemedia  appropriation  remixing  critique  connection  consumption  creation  sharing  participatoryculture  collage  engagement  tv  television  film  art  games  gaming  videogames  twitch  performance  social  discussion  conversation  meaningmaking  vine  twitter  commentary  news  commenting  reuse  community  culturecreation  latoyapeterson  communication  nytimes  agneschang  netowrkedculture  nytimesr&dlabs  bots  quips  nytlabs  compendium  storytelling  decentralization  meshnetworking  peertopeer  ows  occupywallstreet  firechat  censorship  tor  bittorrent  security  neutrality  privacy  iot  internetofthings  surveillance  networkedcitizenship  localnetworks  networks  hertziantribes  behavior  communities  context  empowerment  agency  maelstrom  p2p  cookieswapping  information  policy  infrastructure  technology  remixculture 
march 2015 by robertogreco
ind.ie — Designing Hope
"Our fundamental freedoms and democracy are under threat from the monopoly of a business model called corporate surveillance.

Corporate surveillance treats human beings as natural resources to be surveilled, studied, and exploited for profit.

It is the business model of offering you free and subsidised products in exchange for the right to mine your data and to profile you. In this relationship, you are the quarry being mined. Your data is the raw materials that corporations study to analyse, predict, and manipulate your behaviour and motivations.

Corporate surveillors strive to understand you better by creating a profile of you. This is a virtual you; a digital self. It is a simulation of you (your sim).

Corporate surveillors cannot keep your corporeal self locked up in a lab to study you and experiment on you to understand you better but there are currently no regulations against them doing that to your sim. In our current system of laws, although your corporeal self has rights, your virtual self — your sim — does not. (We must work to change this so that your sim is eventually afforded the legal rights of a person.)

The goal of these corporations is to eventually exploit what they learn about you for financial gain by influencing your behaviour to their actual customers.

Corporate surveillance is the dominant business model on the Internet today. It is the business model of huge publicly-traded transnational corporations like Google, Yahoo!, Facebook, and Twitter as well as many other venture-capital-subsidised smaller companies and startups that are currently looking for exits either to larger corporate surveillors or to the public in the form of an IPO.

Corporate surveillors tell us that if we do not want to be spied on, we do not have to use their tools, services, and platforms. They say that their products are optional, not essential.

This is not true.

The tools and services provided by corporate surveillors are essential to participating in modern life today and are becoming even more so with every day that passes.

The lack of viable alternatives to corporate surveillance leaves people with an unacceptable decision to make: either accept being spied on, studied, and manipulated for profit, or disconnect from modern life.

Corporate surveillors tell us that if we oppose their business model, we are Luddites who oppose technology, innovation, and the creation of jobs.

This is poppycock.

We oppose neither technology, nor innovation, nor the creation of jobs. We simply oppose their toxic business model of corporate surveillance that treats human beings as walking bags of mostly data and is detrimental to our fundamental freedoms and democracy.

As concerned individuals and organisations, we are working to change this status quo by shifting the ownership and control of consumer technology and data from corporations to individuals.

To achieve this goal, we will create new organisations that are independent, sustainable, design-led, and diverse.
Independent

We will not play in your gilded sandboxes.

We reject the myopic and destructive cycle of venture capital and exits that leads to the proliferation of ‘free’ services. We spend our time creating businesses that we love to work in, not dreaming up exit strategies. We are not sponsored by corporate surveillors. Our companies are sustainable businesses guided by the social mission in this manifesto. We fund our organisations in ways that help us to protect that social mission (e.g., bootstrapping, non-equity-based crowdfunding, revenue-based investment).
Sustainable

We are to corporate surveillance what organic farming is to factory farming.

We do not reject making a profit; we simply want to make an ethical, sustainable profit. We want to create successful, sustainable businesses that grow organically. We reject the excessive greed of the venture-capital-backed business model of corporate surveillance. We adopt alternate business models that are transparent, forthright, and easy to understand.

We sell products and we sell services that help people to maintain their tools and data. We sell seamlessness, we sell ease-of-use, we sell time saved.

We do not sell people. We will never build businesses that monetise people’s data or violate their privacy.

We start small and grow organically.
Design-led

We must design the organisation before we can design the product.

Design is not a layer, it is a cross-cutting concern. Design does not bubble up an organisation, it must trickle down from the top. Design begins at the business model and affects everything that comes after it.
Diverse

The problems of a diverse audience can only be solved by diverse organisations.

The problems we face are societal ones. They affect a diverse population and they require diverse, interdisciplinary teams to tackle them.

We will use these organisations to create a new category of consumer products that are beautiful, free, social, accessible, secure, and distributed.
Beautiful

We design for the whole-term.

We have a design vision for our products. We filter everything through this vision. We create beautiful defaults and we layer the seams. We understand that features are commodities. We understand that without a unified design vision, a product is far lesser than the sum of its features. We understand the difference between a component of a consumer product and a consumer product. We understand that we cannot compete with consumer products if we are making components of consumer products. We understand that a consumer product today is a combination of hardware, software, services, and connectivity that work seamlessly together to create a beautiful continuous experience. We compete on experience.

We design from first principles. We build focussed, beautiful experiences that give people superpowers. We don’t shy away from making tough decisions. We say ‘no’ a lot. We make every feature go through a trial by fire to earn its right to exist. We understand that design is not decoration.

We design iteratively; design leads development and development informs design. Our process is unapologetically and necessarily undemocratic. We do not design by committee. We listen to the community but we filter feedback and requests through our own design vision. We focus on making simple, beautiful products that work exceptionally well. If differences of opinion exist, others are welcome to fork our work and to take it in different directions. And we, in return, are free to pull that work back into our products if we eventually realise that it does, in fact, fit our design vision.

We make mistakes. We learn. We iterate.

Our products empower people in the short-term with great experiences and in the long-term by giving them ownership and control. We call this ‘design for the whole term’.
Free

Our licenses protect the freedom of our work and the freedom of the people who use it.

We license our work under free (as in liberty) licenses.
Social

We cannot cut people off from corporate surveillance, we must wean them off.

We do not cut people off from their existing networks, we wean them off by making the canonical location of their data a place that they own.

People use existing social networks and the tools that spy on them because they get short-term value from them. We cannot gain traction by ignoring this value or by cutting them off from their friends and their social spheres.

We must enable people to easily weave their existing networks and tools into their personal data stores. Inversely, we must also enable them to easily distribute their content to existing networks. When interacting with existing corporate surveillance networks, we must treat them as untrusted networks and strive to protect the privacy of the person to the highest degree possible.

A person using a tool that they own does not have to ask a corporate surveillor for permission to access and use data that should rightfully be theirs to begin with. We favour scraping over APIs. We understand that an ‘open’ API is just a key to a lock that can be changed at any time.

We must support the existing networks only so far as it is necessary to slowly wean people off them. We can only wean people off of corporate surveillance and retain them if we can create as great, if not better, consumer experiences.
Accessible

Accessibility is a core design concern.

Our products treat accessibility as a core design concern, not as an afterthought. Accessibility is simply usability applied to audiences with special requirements. To design accessible products, we must design accessible organisations that value diversity and equality.
Secure

Security must be seamless.

Encryption and security of people’s data cannot be an afterthought. We must include encryption at the core of our designs and make sure that it is as seamless and easy to use as possible.
Distributed

Making distributed systems seamless is one of the great design challenges of our time.

Our products will be distributed and peer-to-peer at their core. This will not be easy to achieve but it is the only way to ensure long-term structural change. We may support this core with centralised nodes that guarantee availability and findability in the short term. (Otherwise, we may not be able to match or exceed the user experience of current centralised systems.) But, if anything, we see this as part of the weaning process. Once our distributed networks have enough momentum, we can take the training wheels off.

We call this new category of technology ‘Independent Technology’.

We are tackling a societal problem that cannot be solved by technology alone but which also cannot be solved without the creation of viable technological alternatives. To tackle this societal problem, we must have a diverse, interdisciplinary base. We must be politically and socially active. We must avoid the pitfalls of technological determinism. We … [more]
mozilla  privacy  mobile  phones  surveillance  aralbalkan  2014  freedom  independence  technology  distributed  peertopeer  accessibility  security  corporatism  corporatization  corporatesurveillance 
september 2014 by robertogreco
a brief history of participation
"These activities were not always congenial to the program of government reform towards democratization. Many of them used participatory methods instead to net poor peoples into networks of debt and reliance on hierarchical authorities.

The reasons for the failures of participatory technology are actually quite specific.

Participation was appropriated during the 1970s as a means of cheap development without commitment of resources from above. The theme of participatory ownership of the city, pioneered in discussions about urban planning in the West, remained strong in the context of the developing world, and even grew in a context of spiraling urbanization. In India, the Philippines, and much of Africa and Latin America, postwar economies pushed peasants off of the land into cities, where the poor availability of housing required the poor to squat on land and build their own homes out of cheap building materials. At first, the governments of these towns collaborated with the World Bank to take out loans to provide expensive, high-rise public housing units. But increasingly, the World Bank drew upon the advice of western advocates of squatter settlements, who saw in western squats the potential benefits of self-governance without interference from the state. In the hands of the World Bank, this theory of self-directed, self-built, self-governed housing projects became a justification for defunding public housing. From 1972 forward, World Bank reports commended squatters for their ingenuity and resourcefulness and recommended giving squatters titles to their properties, which would allow them to raise credit and participate in the economy as consumers and borrowers.

Participatory mechanisms installed by the Indian government to deal with water tanks after nationalization depend on principles of accountability at the local level that were invented under colonial rule. They install the duty of the locality to take care of people without necessarily providing the means with which to do so.

We need developers who can learn from the history of futility, and historians who have the courage to constructively encourage a more informed kind of development. "
peertopeer  web2.0  joguldi  2013  conviviality  participation  participatory  government  centralization  centralizedgovernment  self-rule  history  1960s  democracy  democratization  reform  networks  mutualaid  peterkropotkin  politics  activism  banks  banking  patrickgeddes  urban  urbanism  urbanplanning  planning  self-governance  worldbank  dudleyseers  gandhi  robertchambers  neelamukherjee  india  thailand  philippines  gis  geography  latinamerica  1970s  squatters  economics  development  africa  cities  resources  mapmaking  cartography  maps  mapping  googlemaps  openstreetmap  osm  ushahidi  crowdsourcing  infrastructure 
march 2013 by robertogreco
Driving safely in the dark – BNO
"We are not in a recession", says John Thackara. "This is permanent. The industrial growth society is on its way out. The good news is that a new kind of economy is now emerging, and it's full of potential for design." For the jubileum of BNO, the professional association for Dutch designers, the self-styled 'optimistic doomer' will describe what he calls the restorative economy. 

"For life's real necessities, lighter alternatives are emerging," Thackara says. "This new economy is proof that we are creative enough to imagine sustainable and engaging futures - and take design steps to realize them".

In his lecture, John Thackara focused on inspiring stories from the new economy: peer-to-peer health care and i-medicine; product upcycling; ride-sharing platforms; alternative trade networks, transition towns, and digital local currencies. His talk concludes with provocative suggestions for BNO's next fifteen years - including a "BNO University".
2011  localcurrencies  digitallocalcurrencies  transitiontowns  alternativetradenetworks  ridesharing  upcycling  healthcare  peertopeer  economics  resilience  future  johnthackara 
january 2012 by robertogreco
Hello Etsy Berlin - Douglas Rushkoff on Etsy - Livestream
"Everybody thinks that because they can blog, they should blog."

"Why do I want to scale? The only reason to scale is to get out of the business I'm in."

"What would you rather do? Would you rather do something or would you rather manage people who are doing that thing?"

"perverse corporate capitalism of the 1990's, the Jack Welch, General Electric, Harvard Business School model, which is get out of any productive industry and become more and more like a bank"

"What Jack Welch realized is that Marx was right…whoever is creating the actual value through their labor is the slave"

"what you want to do is get as far away from those guys as possible and get as close to the bank funding that activity as possible."
douglasrushkoff  economics  p2p  work  labor  2011  etsy  currency  slavery  jobs  corporatism  history  banking  finance  digital  exchange  internet  peertopeer  capitalism  karlmarx  meansofexchange  hierarchy  localcurrency  biases  doing  making  facebook  social  advertising  jackwelch  ge  generalelectric  sharing  scale  scaling  growth  business  entrepreneurship  self-employment  creativity  management  middlemanagement  middlemen  addedvalue  localcurrencies 
september 2011 by robertogreco
Why I do not want to work at Google
"I believe that warehouse-scale client-server computing will, in the end, undermine the kind of democratic freedom of communication that we need to deal with today’s global menaces. It’s more practical than peer-to-peer computing at the moment, but that pendulum has swung back & forth several times over the decades…The proper response to the current impracticality of decentralized computing is not to sigh and build centralized systems. The proper response is to build the systems to *make decentralized computing practical again*.

Google is not institutionally opposed to this; they’ve funded substantial and important work on it. Nevertheless, because of their overall orientation toward centralized solutions with undemocratically-imposed policies, I believe working there would be a further distraction from that goal. Worse, with every advance that companies like Google and Apple make, the higher is the bar that decentralized systems must leap to achieve real adoption."

[via: http://www.odonnellweb.com/2011/08/is-google-becoming-the-next-iteration-of-aol/ ]
internet  web  media  google  peertopeer  p2p  decentralization  democracy  freedom  computing  decentralizedcomputing  kragenjaviersitaker  email  gmail  spam  control  2011  google+ 
august 2011 by robertogreco
P2PU (beta) | Learning for everyone, by everyone, about almost anything
"LEARN ANYTHING WITH YOUR PEERS. IT'S ONLINE AND TOTALLY FREE.

At P2PU, people work together to learn a particular topic by completing tasks, assessing individual and group work, and providing constructive feedback."

"The Peer 2 Peer University is a grassroots open education project that organizes learning outside of institutional walls and gives learners recognition for their achievements. P2PU creates a model for lifelong learning alongside traditional formal higher education. Leveraging the internet and educational materials openly available online, P2PU enables high-quality low-cost education opportunities. P2PU - learning for everyone, by everyone about almost anything."
education  learning  p2p  p2pu  hourschool  teachstreet  schoolofeverything  universities  highereducation  highered  peertopeer  teaching  unschooling  learningnetworks  networkedlearning  networks  lcproject  online  constructivecriticism 
august 2011 by robertogreco
HourSchool
"Welcome to HourSchool! We make small informal classes happen. To request a new class just type it into the box below, or browse our existing classes."

"Traditional classrooms facilitate one-way knowledge transfer, where students passively consume. We believe learning should be social, where students learn from, and with, each other.
Everyone has knowledge to share and the ability to share it. HourSchool facilitates friend-led knowledge sharing, in a fun, easy, and social way. Learn from your friends, one hour at a time."

[via: http://roitsch.tumblr.com/post/7613397853/love-the-idea-of-hourschool-hourschool ]
austin  education  learning  cooperative  exchange  peertopeer  p2p  networks  social  hourschool  deschooling  learningexchange  unschooling  sharing  small  informal  schoolofeverything 
july 2011 by robertogreco
Ubiquitous Learning - a critique - Wikiversity
"Ubiquitous learning as in situated learning, across platforms, devices, locations and jurisdictions, and including neglected historical references[1], ignored present initiatives[2], and acknowledging the risks of a darker future of corporate power over information, communication and medium[3].

So this is a critique of "Ubiquitous Learning", rejecting the notion as central content repository, or devices and software that favour such. Looking instead to that which supports and enhances peer to peer connection, contextualisation, localisation, device independence, and lowering barriers of cost, distraction, or central control."
leighblackall  ubiquitouslearning  conviviality  situatedlearning  contentrepositories  peertopeer  networks  networkedlearning  contextualization  distraction  centralization  localization  local  independence  unschooling  deschooling  critique  decentralization  software  communication  crossplatform  corporatism  information  control 
march 2011 by robertogreco

Copy this bookmark:





to read