P2P Foundation:Sandbox: Difference between revisions

From P2P Foundation
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
In the sandbox you can '''play''' with ''wiki syntax'' and more.
In the sandbox you can '''play''' with ''wiki syntax'' and more.
he sustainable is about time – time and space. You need to re-think your relationship to material possessions in terms of things that occupy your time. The things that are physically closest to you. Time and space.


In earlier, less technically advanced eras, this approach would have been far-fetched. Material goods were inherently difficult to produce, find, and ship. They were rare and precious. They were closely associated with social prestige. Without important material signifiers such as wedding china, family silver, portraits, a coach-house, a trousseau and so forth, you were advertising your lack of substance to your neighbors. If you failed to surround yourself with a thick material barrier, you were inviting social abuse and possible police suspicion. So it made pragmatic sense to cling to heirlooms, renew all major purchases promptly, and visibly keep up with the Joneses.
_Corporatisation of the Internet_


That era is dying. It's not only dying, but the assumptions behind that form of material culture are very dangerous. These objects can no longer protect you from want, from humiliation – in fact they are causes of humiliation, as anyone with a McMansion crammed with Chinese-made goods and an unsellable SUV has now learned at great cost.
Largely unsuspected by most of its users, the Internet is rapidly
changing from being a vast 'public sphere', with a fully public
ownership and a non-proprietary nature, to a set of corporatised
privately-owned networks.


Furthermore, many of these objects can damage you personally. The hours you waste stumbling over your piled debris, picking, washing, storing, re-storing, those are hours and spaces that you will never get back in a mortal lifetime. Basically, you have to curate these goods: heat them, cool them, protect them from humidity and vermin. Every moment you devote to them is lost to your children, your friends, your society, yourself.


It's not bad to own fine things that you like. What you need are things that you GENUINELY like. Things that you cherish, that enhance your existence in the world. The rest is dross.


Do not "economize." Please. That is not the point. The economy is clearly insane. Even its champions are terrified by it now. It's melting the North Pole. So "economization" is not your friend. Cheapness can be value-less. Voluntary simplicity is, furthermore, boring. Less can become too much work.
On the one hand, telecom companies are carving out the Internet into
privately-owned networks -- controlling the nature of transactions over
these networks. They seek to differentially charge content providers,
while also building wholly private networks offering exclusive content
relay services. Developments like video/TV over Internet Protocol and
the provision of controlled and selective Internet services over mobiles
are contributing to increasing network-operators' control over the
Internet, with a corresponding erosion of its public-ness.


The items that you use incessantly, the items you employ every day, the normal, boring goods that don't seem luxurious or romantic: these are the critical ones. They are truly central. The everyday object is the monarch of all objects. It's in your time most, it's in your space most. It is "where it is at," and it is "what is going on."


It takes a while to get this through your head, because it's the opposite of the legendry of shopping. However: the things that you use every day should be the best-designed things you can get. For instance, you cannot possibly spend too much money on a bed – (assuming you have a regular bed, which in point of fact I do not). You're spending a third of your lifetime in a bed. Your bed might be sagging, ugly, groaning and infested with dust mites, because you are used to that situation and cannot see it. That calamity might escape your conscious notice. See it. Replace it.


Sell – even give away– anything you never use. Fancy ball gowns, tuxedos, beautiful shoes wrapped in bubblepak that you never wear, useless Christmas gifts from well-meaning relatives, junk that you inherited. Sell that stuff. Take the money, get a real bed. Get radically improved everyday things.
On the other hand, the commons of the Internet is also being overwhelmed
and squeezed out by a complete domination of a few privately owned
mega-applications such as Google, Facebook, Youtube etc.


The same goes for a working chair. Notice it. Take action. Bad chairs can seriously injure you from repetitive stresses. Get a decent ergonomic chair. Someone may accuse you of "indulging yourself" because you possess a chair that functions properly. This guy is a reactionary. He is useless to futurity. Listen carefully to whatever else he says, and do the opposite. You will benefit greatly.


Expensive clothing is generally designed to make you look like an aristocrat who can afford couture. Unless you are a celebrity on professional display, forget this consumer theatricality. You should buy relatively-expensive clothing that is ergonomic, high-performance and sturdy.


Anything placed next to your skin for long periods is of high priority. Shoes are notorious sources of pain and stress and subjected to great mechanical wear. You really need to work on selecting these – yes, on "shopping for shoes." You should spend more time on shoes than you do on cars, unless you're in a car during pretty much every waking moment. In which case, God help you.
_Proprietarisation of standards and code that build the Internet_


I strongly recommend that you carry a multitool. There are dozens of species of these remarkable devices now, and for good reason. Do not show them off in a beltpack, because this marks you as a poorly-socialized geek. Keep your multitool hidden in the same discreet way that you would any other set of keys.
One of the main ways of appropriating the commons of the Internet is
through the increasing use of proprietary and closed standards and code
in building the Internet system. Such appropriation allows the extortion
of illegitimate rent out of the many new forms of commons-based
activities that are being made possible through the Internet.


That's because a multitool IS a set of keys. It's a set of possible creative interventions in your immediate material environment. That is why you want a multitool. They are empowering.


A multitool changes your perceptions of the world. Since you lack your previous untooled learned-helplessness, you will slowly find yourself becoming more capable and more observant. If you have pocket-scissors, you will notice loose threads; if you have a small knife you will notice bad packaging; if you have a file you will notice flashing, metallic burrs, and bad joinery. If you have tweezers you can help injured children, while if you have a pen, you will take notes. Tools in your space, saving your time. A multitool is a design education.


As a further important development, you will become known to your friends and colleagues as someone who is capable, useful and resourceful, rather than someone who is helpless, frustrated and visibly lacking in options. You should aspire to this better condition.
*_Embedding control points in the Internet_*
 
*A growing confluence of corporatist and statist interests has led to
the embedding of more and more means of control into the Internet in a
manner that greatly compromises citizens' rights and freedoms. Whether
it is the pressure on Internet Service Providers to examine Internet
traffic for 'intellectual property' violations; or imposition of
cultural and political controls on the Internet by states within their
boundaries; or ITU's work on IP trace-back mechanisms; or the tightening
of US control over the global Internet infrastructure in the name of
securing the root zone file and the domain name system, these new forms
of controlling the Internet are being negotiated among dominant
interests away from public scrutiny and wider public interest-based
engagements.*
 
* *
 
_Democratic deficit in global Internet governance_
 
The current global Internet governance regime -- a new-age privatized
governance system professing allegiance mostly to a single country, the
US -- has proven to be an active instrument of perpetuation of dominant
commercial and geo-political interests. Lately, OECD countries have
begun some work on developing public policy principles that, due to the
inherently global nature of the Internet, can be expected to become
globally applicable. It is quite unacceptable that OECD countries shirk
from discussing the same public policy issues at global public policy
forums like the IGF that they discuss among themselves at OECD meetings.
Apparently, developing countries are expected to focus on finding ways
to reach connectivity to their people, and not burden themselves with
higher-level Internet governance issues!
 
 
 
People's and communities' right to self-determination and participation
in governance of issues that impact their lives should underpin global
Internet governance.

Revision as of 20:53, 29 November 2008

In the sandbox you can play with wiki syntax and more.

_Corporatisation of the Internet_

Largely unsuspected by most of its users, the Internet is rapidly changing from being a vast 'public sphere', with a fully public ownership and a non-proprietary nature, to a set of corporatised privately-owned networks.


On the one hand, telecom companies are carving out the Internet into privately-owned networks -- controlling the nature of transactions over these networks. They seek to differentially charge content providers, while also building wholly private networks offering exclusive content relay services. Developments like video/TV over Internet Protocol and the provision of controlled and selective Internet services over mobiles are contributing to increasing network-operators' control over the Internet, with a corresponding erosion of its public-ness.


On the other hand, the commons of the Internet is also being overwhelmed and squeezed out by a complete domination of a few privately owned mega-applications such as Google, Facebook, Youtube etc.


_Proprietarisation of standards and code that build the Internet_

One of the main ways of appropriating the commons of the Internet is through the increasing use of proprietary and closed standards and code in building the Internet system. Such appropriation allows the extortion of illegitimate rent out of the many new forms of commons-based activities that are being made possible through the Internet.


  • _Embedding control points in the Internet_*
  • A growing confluence of corporatist and statist interests has led to

the embedding of more and more means of control into the Internet in a manner that greatly compromises citizens' rights and freedoms. Whether it is the pressure on Internet Service Providers to examine Internet traffic for 'intellectual property' violations; or imposition of cultural and political controls on the Internet by states within their boundaries; or ITU's work on IP trace-back mechanisms; or the tightening of US control over the global Internet infrastructure in the name of securing the root zone file and the domain name system, these new forms of controlling the Internet are being negotiated among dominant interests away from public scrutiny and wider public interest-based engagements.*

  • *

_Democratic deficit in global Internet governance_

The current global Internet governance regime -- a new-age privatized governance system professing allegiance mostly to a single country, the US -- has proven to be an active instrument of perpetuation of dominant commercial and geo-political interests. Lately, OECD countries have begun some work on developing public policy principles that, due to the inherently global nature of the Internet, can be expected to become globally applicable. It is quite unacceptable that OECD countries shirk from discussing the same public policy issues at global public policy forums like the IGF that they discuss among themselves at OECD meetings. Apparently, developing countries are expected to focus on finding ways to reach connectivity to their people, and not burden themselves with higher-level Internet governance issues!


People's and communities' right to self-determination and participation in governance of issues that impact their lives should underpin global Internet governance.

Retrieved from "https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=P2P_Foundation:Sandbox&oldid=25469"