not

An Introduction to Social Network Analysis —
* degrees– s kolkatimi ludmi som priamo spojeny, castokrat “the more connections, the better” pristup when one connects only those who are already connected to each other; what really matters is where those connections lead to — and how they connect the otherwise unconnected,
* betweenness– ludia na spojeniach medzi inak nespojenymi skupinami, bez nich by info medzi nimi netieklo,
* closeness– ak mam blizke spojenia s ludmi, som rychlejsie pri info, ale zase nie som s vela ludmi,
* boundary spanners– are well-positioned to be innovators, since they have access to ideas and information flowing in other clusters. They are in a position to combine different ideas and knowledge, found in various places, into new products and services,
* peripheral players– are often connected to networks that are not currently mapped, making them very important resources for fresh information not available inside the group,
* Network Centralization– a very centralized network is dominated by one or a few very central nodes. If these nodes are removed or damaged, the network quickly fragments into unconnected sub-networks,
* Structural Equivalence – determine which nodes play similar roles in the network,
* Cluster Analysis – find cliques and other densely connected clusters,
* Structural Holes – find areas of no connection between nodes that could be used for advantage or opportunity,
* E/I Ratio – find which groups in the network are open or closed to others,
* Small Worlds – find node clustering, and short path lengths, that are common in networks exhibiting highly efficient small-world behavior.

[5:00:47 PM] lucas kendo: :)
[5:32:23 PM] lucas kendo: preco lanierovi vadi anonymita
[5:32:25 PM] lucas kendo: ?
[5:32:44 PM] lucas kendo: “Don‟t post anonymously unless you really might be in danger.”
[5:32:57 PM] lucas kendo: prvy bod v suggestions ako zmenit status quo
[5:33:25 PM] dusanson: mozno dostava dirty maily od anonymov )
[5:33:35 PM] dusanson: neviem, cital som zatial len preface a reviews
[5:33:59 PM] dusanson: ale ten jeho plan je dost fail
[5:34:11 PM] dusanson: chce aby z kazdeho suboru bol len jeden kus
[5:34:17 PM] dusanson: teda aby sa veci nemuseli kopirovat
[5:34:52 PM] lucas kendo: hm no divne to znie cele.. najviacej mi vadi ze ini autori by si dali zalezat na tom zadefinovat pojmy ktore pouzivaju
[5:35:02 PM] lucas kendo: A similar campaign should be taking place now, influencing engineers, designers,
businesspeople, and everyone else to support humanistic alternatives whenever possible.
[5:35:06 PM] dusanson: jj, za to ho zdrbali vsetci
[5:35:08 PM] dusanson: ze pise esejisticky moc
[5:35:14 PM] lucas kendo: co je to humanistic v tejto vete ?????
[5:35:21 PM] lucas kendo: chapes,, ale on to tam vsade ma
[5:35:39 PM] dusanson: akoze sa vydal do boja proti web2 pliage
[5:35:47 PM] dusanson: ktora z nas robi zombikov alebo co
[5:36:21 PM] dusanson: ked ho zavolali na sxsw zrobit prednasku tak vsetkym povedal ze nech prestanu tweetovat a bavia sa f2f
[5:36:22 PM] dusanson: lol
[5:36:45 PM] lucas kendo: :))
[5:36:58 PM] dusanson: ako keby to neslo naraz
[5:36:59 PM] lucas kendo: preface bol super, ale dalsi text ma coraz viacej odradza
[5:37:14 PM] dusanson: jj, ten preface je asi jediny fajn na tej knihe
[5:37:15 PM] dusanson: :)
[5:38:55 PM] dusanson: kniha je najskor urcena pre starsich dobre situovanych panov, ktorym chybaju konzervativne argumenty proti web2 pliage co opantala mladez
[5:39:08 PM] lucas kendo: no ..
[5:39:37 PM] lucas kendo: no nic pise ze tie veci rozoberie v celej knizke tak snad najdem nejake argumenty ktorymi sa da naozaj nesuhlasit :)
[5:39:44 PM] dusanson: Lanier’s critique of online life has a strong whiff of the “false consciousness” dicta that gained currency in the aftermath of the New Left.
[5:39:55 PM] dusanson: par imo najdes
[5:40:06 PM] dusanson: pod bol z nej celkom uneseny
[5:40:55 PM] dusanson: si tam chcem pozriet co pise proti open sourcu
[5:41:35 PM] lucas kendo: tej vete nerozumiem
[5:41:38 PM] lucas kendo: co je to whiff ?
[5:41:42 PM] dusanson: He dismisses most modern culture as “retro” and “a petty mashup of preweb culture..It’s as if culture froze just before it became digitally open, and all we can do now is mine the past like salvagers picking over a garbage dump.
[5:41:45 PM] lucas kendo: co je to false consciousness ?
[5:42:12 PM] lucas kendo: a f.c. je reakcia na new left, alebo je to vlastnost pripisovana new left ?
[5:42:18 PM] lucas kendo: ah som blby :)
[5:42:56 PM] dusanson: no ze ked novej lavici dosiel dych tak sa vratila spat k boju dobra so zlom, kde za zle sa povazuju rozne ezotericke veci ako trh alebo kapitalizmus s nejakym privlastkom, a ze lanier sa uchyluje k podobnemu polarizovaniu
[5:43:39 PM] dusanson: ze osocuje tych ‘zlych’ a stoji na strane dobrych
[5:43:57 PM] dusanson: resp ze clovek ma skazene vedomie a potrebuje sa od niecoho ocistit
[5:44:59 PM] dusanson: k “false consciousness” sa uchylila ‘porazena’ new left
[5:45:52 PM] dusanson: Online culture “is a culture of reaction without action”
[5:46:05 PM] lucas kendo: jj to tam je
[5:46:23 PM] lucas kendo: v niecom kusok pravda ked sa zameras len nato ako je teraz popularne robit s klise
[5:46:30 PM] lucas kendo: ako zo zakladnymi blokmi nejakeho diela
[5:46:33 PM] lucas kendo: a metanaracia a tak
[5:46:43 PM] dusanson: klise tu bolo vzdy )
[5:47:30 PM] lucas kendo: inac ten gegen die wand je super
[5:47:48 PM] lucas kendo: sa mi pacilo jake tam silne veci setcia prezivali bez toho aby ten film sam o sebe bol pateticky
[5:47:57 PM] lucas kendo: teraz mame rozkukane to co natocil v 2007
[5:48:02 PM] dusanson: lanierov refren je volanie po ‘novom digitalnom humanistickom cloveku’, ktoreho nestrhne hlas masy …
new collectivist ethos — embodied by everything from Wikipedia to “American Idol” to Google searches — diminishes the importance and uniqueness of the individual voice, and that the “hive mind” can easily lead to mob rule
[5:48:05 PM] lucas kendo: soul kitchen su len ruske abo spanish ripy
[5:48:18 PM] dusanson: gegendiewand som videl snad v svetozore, sa mi pacil tiez
[5:48:26 PM] dusanson: som nasiel taliansky dvdrip
[5:48:39 PM] lucas kendo: no pokial to je bez titles tak nic moc
[5:48:45 PM] lucas kendo: akoze ja nemcinu davam
[5:48:47 PM] dusanson: uvidme
[5:48:57 PM] lucas kendo: a italian asi znamena dabovane nie ?
[5:49:04 PM] dusanson: dufam ze nieee
[5:50:46 PM] dusanson: Lanier argues for a third way, inspired by the Internet’s first visionary, Ted Nelson. Nelson created a proto-Web in 1960 called Xanadu that simplified the user’s experience. One password and fee to enter the world, and one logical copy of each file, instead of the endless file sharing that clogs our bandwidth and cheapens the discourse.
[5:51:04 PM] dusanson: to ale neni ani utopia, skor retroutopia
[5:51:16 PM] lucas kendo: no tak retroutopia je aj militant modernism
[5:51:20 PM] lucas kendo: a to je fasa
[5:51:54 PM] dusanson: hm, akurat keby prisiel s nejakou novou, nelsona poznam :(
[5:52:42 PM] lucas kendo: inac on tam mrte operuje singularitou ale pritom mne je cely ten new age hogwah dost vzdialeny ale aj tak som zastanca “openness” a citam boingboing
[5:53:21 PM] dusanson: neviem preco si mysli ze edge.org maju nejaky vpyv
[5:53:22 PM] dusanson: l
[5:54:19 PM] dusanson: aj ked osobnych hodnotovych rebrickoch zapalenych technoevangelistov v silicon valley asi maju..
[5:59:36 PM] lucas kendo: aaa
[5:59:38 PM] lucas kendo: uz som tam
[5:59:49 PM] lucas kendo: I say that information doesn‟t deserve to be free.
[6:03:13 PM] lucas kendo: aha
[6:03:21 PM] lucas kendo: tak on berie informaciu ako ulozenu experience
[6:03:27 PM] lucas kendo: nieco ako petencialna energia tehly
[6:03:32 PM] lucas kendo: ktoru nikto zdvihne a polozi na skrinu
[6:03:39 PM] lucas kendo: az ked ju posunies aby spadla tak sa ta energia uvolni
[6:03:50 PM] lucas kendo: takisto infoska musi byt prezita aby bola pouzitelna
[6:03:51 PM] lucas kendo: Information of the kind that purportedly wants to be free is nothing but a shadow of our
own minds, and wants nothing on its own. It will not suffer if it doesn‟t get what it wants
[6:04:10 PM] lucas kendo: a zevraj sucasny technokrati chcu aby informacia zila
[6:04:14 PM] lucas kendo: a presiel na turinga
[6:04:18 PM] lucas kendo: huh ?
[6:05:27 PM] lucas kendo: no nie
[6:05:49 PM] lucas kendo: a to ze infosky mozu byt zive je vraj sposobene tym ze ako turing trpel pred smrtou lebo musel brat zenske hormony aby sa vyliecil z homosexuality
[6:06:07 PM] lucas kendo: a vymyslel turingov test kde je pocitac posudzovany nezavisle na jeho fyzicne
[6:06:13 PM] lucas kendo: alebo teda druha strana – len na reakciach
[6:06:35 PM] lucas kendo: a ze toto bolo skrz jeho tuzbu aby aj on ako weirdo gaysky nebol posudzovany ako gay ale ako nejaka bytost
[6:06:46 PM] lucas kendo: no a turingov test potom ovplyvnil dalsie generacie a dal vzniknut tejto myslienke
[6:06:49 PM] lucas kendo: omg
[6:07:41 PM] lucas kendo: What the test really tells us, however, even if it‟s not necessarily what Turing hoped it
would say, is that machine intelligence can only be known in a relative sense, in the eyes of a
human beholder
[6:08:22 PM] lucas kendo: to je akoze pravda, ale tam skor ide o funkciu… ze je jedno aky je substrat, ak ho nevies odlisit od toho co pokladas za inteligentne
[6:08:58 PM | Edited 6:09:04 PM] lucas kendo: som zvedavy kedy vytiahne a misquotne searla
[6:12:19 PM] dusanson: protiargument je ze vyvoj prvych pocitacov znacne katalyzoval hon po fungujucej anti-aircraft masinke na zostrelovanie lietadiel, z coho vznikla teoria negativneho feedbacku, z ktorej vzisla kybernetika… tam slo o realny fyzicky svet, ziadne myslienkove virtualitky odtrhnute od hmoty..
[6:13:21 PM] lucas kendo: protiargument ku protiargumentu je ze
[6:13:25 PM] lucas kendo: (budem citovat)
[6:13:26 PM] dusanson: na tom pracovali nezavisle na sebe matematici v usa, ceskoslovensku, madarsku a rusku, o ktorych zatial viem
[6:13:42 PM] dusanson: z ktorych sa neskor stali kyberneticki pioneri
[6:13:47 PM] lucas kendo: Computers and chess share a common ancestry. Both originated as tools of war. Chess
began as a battle simulation, a mental martial art. The design of chess reverberates even further
into the past than that—all the way back to our sad animal ancestry of pecking orders and
competing clans.
Likewise, modern computers were developed to guide missiles and break secret military
codes. Chess and computers are both direct descendants of the violence that drives evolution in
the natural world, however sanitized and abstracted they may be in the context of civilization.
The drive to compete is palpable in both computer science and chess, and when they are brought
together, adrenaline flows.
[6:14:45 PM] dusanson: ku guide missiles a break codes pridavam este odstranovanie noisu z telefonov
[6:14:53 PM] dusanson: to su tri hlavne spustace ktore sa uvadzaju casto
[6:15:04 PM] dusanson: telefonneho signalu teda
[6:16:15 PM] dusanson: ano, je to strasne, pocitace nam dala vojna
[6:16:37 PM] dusanson: ako s tym suvisi ta turingova homosexualita?
[6:17:02 PM] dusanson: btw vojna nam dala aj UN resolution o ludskych pravach
[6:18:00 PM] lucas kendo: ^^ toto posledne je fajn
[6:18:13 PM] lucas kendo: no jeho homosexualita suvisi s tym tak ako som napisal
[6:18:34 PM] lucas kendo: ze on tuzil podla laniera aby sa ku inteligencii pristupovalo odfyzicnene ako ku nejakej cistej informacii
[6:18:40 PM] lucas kendo: bez konotacii ze je povedzme homosexualna
[6:18:49 PM] dusanson: inak vyvoj toho z coho mohli byt pocitace zastavila vojna napr v priprade Zuseho, Lebedeva a Atanasova
[6:18:50 PM] lucas kendo: a ze to bolo tym ze tak trpel a potom sa zabil kvoli tomu
[6:19:23 PM] dusanson: pracovali na protopocitacoch este v 30tych rokoch
[6:19:41 PM] lucas kendo: no a babbage dali dole okolnosti
[6:19:46 PM] lucas kendo: ten mohol by najskorsi
[6:19:58 PM] lucas kendo: s analytical engine
[6:20:03 PM] dusanson: tam je vtipna story
[6:20:11 PM] dusanson: s tym ze za nim prisla ada
[6:20:38 PM] dusanson: ktora chodila casto stavkovat na dostihy, ze vyratajme si sance a podajme to tak aby sme vyhrali
[6:20:53 PM] dusanson: mu pisala aj prednasky
[6:21:02 PM] dusanson: babbage ju zatienil, lebo bol o 1-2 generacie starsi
[6:21:18 PM] dusanson: pritom vela veci ma na svedomi ona :)
[6:22:18 PM] lucas kendo: hmm
[6:22:48 PM] lucas kendo: podla mna z tohto a leibnizovej storky pochadza cela ta fascinacia viktorianskou proto-tech dobou v steam-punkovej estetike
[6:23:01 PM] lucas kendo: ze co keby to akoze vyslo vtedy
[6:23:20 PM] lucas kendo: leibniz si tiez postaval masinu na ratanie integralov myslim
[6:24:18 PM] lucas kendo: aha nie .. len – + * /
[6:26:06 PM] lucas kendo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepped_Reckoner
[6:26:17 PM] dusanson: developed a ‘no-fail’ winning system for horse racing. Unfortunately, horses not being big on math, the system did fail, and Ada finished her life as a bankrupt laudanum addict, dying of cancer at the age of 36.
[6:26:47 PM] dusanson: Augusta Ada Byron was a complex, eccentric character, and it’s probable that none of her contemporaries ever really understood the woman who managed to combine an amazing intelligence with a supposed alcohol dependency and a drug-induced fixation on fairies.
[6:26:48 PM] dusanson: :)
[6:27:45 PM] lucas kendo: whoa no musela byt dost excentricka
[6:27:49 PM] lucas kendo: asi ako vdm
[6:27:50 PM] lucas kendo: a viac
[6:27:54 PM] dusanson: jj
[6:28:13 PM] dusanson: hura nasiel som ten clanok http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/issues/19/hunt.php
[6:28:15 PM] dusanson: si ho daj niekedy
[6:30:26 PM] dusanson: ajo tak tie dostihy nebola obsesia ale len sposob ako sa dostat k prachom

+

17:24 < gnd> ten druhy tribe co menuje lanier okrem weizenbauma co som cital
vobec nepoznam
17:24 < gnd>
the late Joseph
17:24 < gnd> Weizenbaum, Ted Nelson, Terry Winograd, Alan Kay, Bill Buxton,
Doug Englebart, Brian
17:24 < gnd> Cantwell Smith, Henry Fuchs, Ken Perlin, Ben Schneiderman (who
invented the idea of clicking
17:24 < gnd> on a link), and Andy Van Dam
17:26 < wao> http://www.mylocaltribune.net/
17:27 < gnd> nah ale namiesto 100 stran preco tito ludia (cybernetic totalists)
tvoria jednu skupinu a na com operuju odbije troma odstavcami …
17:27 < gnd> snad sa k tomu este dostane dalej v knizke
+
17:55 < gnd> he antihuman approach to computation is one of the most
baseless ideas in human
17:55 < gnd> history. A computer isn”t even there unless a person experiences
it. There will be a warm mass of
17:55 < gnd> patterned silicon with electricity coursing through it, but the
bits don”t mean anything without a
17:55 < gnd> cultured person to interpret them.
17:55 < gnd> This is not solipsism. You can believe that your mind
makes up the world, but a bullet
17:55 < gnd> will still kill you. A virtual bullet, however, doesn”t even exist
unless there is a person to
17:55 < gnd> recognize it as a representation of a bullet. Guns are real in a
way that computers are not.
17:55 < gnd> wtf ?

+

pod,

with reviews i prefer linking the small sites,
since the big ones usually cannot afford being honest
(the one in NYT mentions some catchy ideas, which is ok).
xlt review would get a link for sure! )
errr i should be linking reviews to more books,
but it’s just take too much time, wish there would
be some kind of a book review aggregator (which i’m sure
it is), any ideas? :)

btw
http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2010-03-18-lovink-en.html
lovink in this article mentions lanier, carr and schirrmacher,
although many times he tends to come up with too generalising
statements, which makes him feel prophetic, but they don’t even
have the poetic utopic potential, are just theoretical show-offs
which doesnt challenge anything, like eg. “It is no longer
necessary to approach the PC with a question and then dive
into the archive” etc.. same goes with lanier btw.
anyway, you can still find good insights (as with lanier too)

yea, if you think about what is lanier saying in the nutshell,
it doesn’t really makes sense.. ..or maybe i should better take him
seriously and stop using the cellphone since the network
is being ran by capitalist oligarchs, and sending short messages
and disembodily talking to people fucks up my true personality :)

btw i really like the preface of the book!

re monoskop linking
thx for asking, we like to be linked from the friendly sites!

ciao, d.

> i will for sure utilize for grabbing quotes…
>
> still not finished, and encountered lots of things i’m not sure i agree w/ …
> but very profound stuff all along the way…
>
> tech liberation is a compelling review w/ useful links so glad u posted,
> NYT is also quite good

– till early 60s: disciplinary Fordist regime; politics of identity reigned in subjectivity; rejection of a resonant body;
– then crisis – cultural movements called for “l’imagination au pouvoir”
– new: * flexible subjectivity; “counter-culture”; radical experimentation with modes of existence and cultural creation which shattered the “bourgeois” lifestyle at its politics of desire, with its logic of identity, its relation to otherness and its culture;
– today: we all now have available a flexible and processual subjectivity as instituted by the counter-cultural movements; In the present, the most common destiny of flexible subjectivity and of the freedom of creation that accompanies it is not the invention of forms of expression motivated by an attention to sensations that signal the effects of the other’s existence within our resonant body. What guides us in this creation of territories for our post-Fordist flexibility is an almost hypnotic identification with the images of the world broadcast by advertising and mass culture.
+
By offering ready-made territories to subjectivities rendered fragile by deterritorialization, these images tend to soothe their unrest, thus contributing to the deafness of their resonant body, and therefore to its invulnerability to the affects of the time that are presented within it. But that may not be the most deadly aspect of this politics of subjectivation, which instead is the very message that such images invariably convey, independently of their style or their target-public. At stake here is the idea that there exist paradises, that these are now in this world and not beyond it, and above all, that certain people have the privilege of inhabiting them. What is more, such images transmit the illusion that we could be one of these VIPs, if we simply invested all our vital energy – our desire, affect, knowledge, intellect, eroticism, imagination, action, etc. – in order to actualize these virtual worlds of signs in our own existence, through the consumption of the objects and services they propose to us.

What we are faced with here is a new élan for the idea of paradise developed by Judeo-Christian religions: the mirage of a smoothed-over, stable life under perfect control. This kind of hallucination has its origin in the refusal of one’s vulnerability to the other and to the deterritorrializing turbulence that he or she provokes; and also in the disdain for fragility that necessarily derives from such an experience. This fragility is nonetheless essential because it indicates the crisis of a certain diagram of sensibility, its modes of expression, its cartographies of meaning. By disdaining fragility, it does not call up the desire for creation anymore; instead it provokes a sentiment of humiliation and shame whose result is the blockage of the vital process. In other words, what the Western idea of a promised paradise amounts to is a refusal of life in its immanent nature as an impulse to continuous processes of creation and differentiation. In its terrestrial version, capital has replaced God in his function as keeper of the promise, and the virtue that makes us worthy of it now becomes consumption: this is what constitutes the fundamental myth of advanced capitalism. In such a context, it is at the very least mistaken to consider that we lack myths today: it is precisely through our belief in this religious myth of neoliberalism, that the image-worlds produced by this regime turn into concrete reality in our own existence.

This kind of pimping of the creative force is what has been transforming the planet into a gigantic marketplace, expanding at an exponential rate, either by including its inhabitants as hyperactive zombies or by excluding them as human trash.

The seducer conjures up a spellbinding idealization that leads the seduced to identify with the seducer and submit to him: that is to say, to identify with and submit to the aggressor, impelled by an inner desire, in hopes of being recognized and admitted into the seducer’s world.

even greater in the countries of Latin America and Eastern Europe which, like Brazil, were under totalitarian regimes at the moment when financial capitalism took hold. Let us not forget that the “democratic opening” of these countries, which took place during the 1980s, was partially due to the advent of the post-Fordist regime, whose flexibility could only encounter the rigidity of the totalitarian systems as an obstacle.

If we approach the totalitarian regimes not by their visible or macropolitical side, but instead by their invisible or micropolitical side, we can see that what characterizes such regimes is the pathological rigidity of the identity principle. This holds for totalitarianisms of the Right and the Left, since from the viewpoint of the politics of subjectivation such regimes are not so different.

For them, such a threshold does not summon up an urgency to create, but on the contrary, to preserve the established order at any price. Destructively conservative, the totalitarian states go much further than a simple scorn or censorship of the expressions of the resonant body: they obstinately seek to disqualify and humiliate them, to the point where the force of creation, of which such expressions are the product, is so marked by the trauma of this vital terrorism that it finally blocks itself off, and is thereby reduced to silence

It is not hard to imagine that the meeting of these two regimes makes up a scenario even more vulnerable to the abuses of pimping: in its penetration to totalitarian contexts, cultural capitalism took advantage of the experimental past which was exceptionally audacious and singular in many of those countries; but above all, it took advantage of the wounds inflicted on the forces of creation by the blows they had suffered. The new regime presented itself not only as the system that could welcome and institutionalize the principle of the production of subjectivity and culture by the movements of the 1960s and 70s, as had been the case in the United States and in the countries of Western Europe. In the countries under dictatorships it gained an extra power of seduction: its apparent condition as a savior come to liberate the energy of creation from its bonds, to cure it of its debilitated state, allowing it to reactivate and manifest itself again.

q: “where does power lie in the global network society?”
communication is the central power in contemporary society.
via power vs counter-power; multinational corporate media networks vs creative audience; biased/scandal media politics vs insurgent grassroots media politics.
[10] defines power in a Weber-inspired way as “the relational capacity that enables a social actor to influence asymmetrically the decisions of other social actor(s) in ways that favor the empowered actor’s will, interests, and values”

[42-47,418-420] 4 kinds of power in the network society:
* networking power –
* network power
* networked power
* network-making power: “paramount form of power in the network society”; held and exercised by programmers and switchers; analysed via power struggles between the global corporate multimedia networks and the creative audience (chapter 2), the development of media policies in the USA (chapter 2), framing and counter-framing in political campaigns, especially the framing of the US public mind before, during, and after the Iraq war (chapter 3); to scandal politics in Spain in the 1990s (chapter 4), media control and censorship in the USA, Russia, and China (chapter 4); the environmental movement, the global movement against corporate globalization, the spontaneous citizens’ movement that emerged in Spain after the al-Qaeda attacks in 2004, and the Barack Obama presidential primary campaign (chapter 5).

Fuchs about “new web“:
– Tapscott and Williams claim that the “new web” brings about “a new economic democracy (…) in which we all have a lead role“ (2007)
– Kelly argues that the “new web”, where people “work toward a common goal and share their products in common, (…) contribute labor without wages and enjoy the fruits free of charge” (Kelly, 2009, p. 118) constitutes a “new socialism” – “digital socialism”. The new socialism is for Kelly a socialism, in which workers do not control and manage organizations and the material output they generate. Therefore this notion of socialism should be questioned. For Kelly, socialism lies in collective production, not in democratic economic ownership. If “socialism seeks to replace capitalism by a system in which the public interest takes precedence over the interest of private profit“, “is incompatible with the concentration of economic power in the hands of a few“, and “requires effective democratic control of the economy“ (Frankfurt Declaration of the Socialist International, 19511), then Kelly’s notion of socialism that is perfectly compatible with the existence of Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, and other web corporations (as indicated by the fact that he lists Google, Amazon, Facebook, and YouTube in his history of socialism), is not at all a notion of socialism, but one of capitalism disguised as socialism. [critique also by Lessig: http://lessig.org/blog/2009/05/et_tu_kk_aka_no_kevin_this_is.html, http://lessig.org/blog/2009/05/on_socialism_round_ii.html ]
– Castells about ‘new web’ in a refreshing techno-dialectical way that avoids the deterministic pitfalls of technooptimism and techno-pessimism. For Castells, a novel quality of communication in contemporary society is mass self-communication. The three forms of communication (interpersonal, mass communication, and mass selfcommunication) coexist, interact, and complement each other rather than substituting for one another. Castells theorizes mass self-communication based on Eco’s semiotic model of communication as the emergence of “the creative audience” (pp. 127-135) that engages in the “interactive production of meaning” (p. 132) and is based on the emergence of the figure of the “sender/addressee” (p. 130). contemporary Internet = conflict bwn global multimedia business networks that try to commodify the Internet VS “creative audience” that tries to establish a degree of citizen control of the Internet and to assert their right of communicative freedom without corporate control.

Fuchs about autonomy of communicative subjects:
– autonomy in the sense of Kant, understood as the autonomy of the will as the supreme principle of morality (Kant, 2002, p. 58), the “quality of the will of being a law to itself” (Kant, 2002, p. 63)
– autonomy as “true individualism” that Hayek (1948) had in mind, in which capitalism is conceived as spontaneous order that should be left to itself and should not be shaped by political rules (Hayek, 1988)
– autonomy as freedom of speech, taste, and assembly – “the liberty of thought and discussion” – in line with the harm principle, as postulated by John Stuart Mill (2002)
– autonomy as the existence of functionally differentiated self-referential subsystems of society (Luhmann, 1998)
– autonomy in a less individualistic sense as the combination of individual autonomy, understood as subjectivity that is “reflective and deliberative” and “frees the radical imagination” from “the enslavement of repetition” (Castoriadis, 1991, p. 164), and social autonomy, “the equal participation of all in power” (Castoriadis, 1991, p. 136; see also Castoriadis, 1998)
– theoretically unreconciled relationship of private autonomy and public autonomy that Habermas (1996, p. 84) has critically examined
– dialectic of autonomy that Habermas has in mind when he speaks of a “cooriginality of private and public autonomy” (Habermas, 1996, p. 104) achieved in a “system of rights in which private and public autonomy are internally related” (Habermas, 1996, p. 280) and “reciprocally presuppose each other” (Habermas, 1996, p. 417)
– autonomy as the “status of an organized people in an enclosed territorial unit” (Schmitt, 1996, p. 19, for a critique of this approach see Habermas, 1989)
– autonomy as a postmodern project of plural democracy with a multiplicity of subject positions (Laclau & Mouffe, 1985)

For Castells, there are the following new aspects of media politics: the use of the Internet in political campaigns (p. 230), the multiplication of entry points of political reports, on which an interaction between mainstream media and the Internet is based (p. 234), an unprecedented prevalence and significance of scandal politics (p. 246), the easy and immediate diffusion of scandal politics over the Internet by everyone (pp. 247f), an increase of the publicity and perception of corruption and of the impact on public trust (p. 289). The result would be a worldwide crisis of political legitimacy, a decline in public trust, and a crisis of democracy. These crises could possibly, but not automatically result in depoliticization, and would in many cases also create a desire for insurgent politics, social movements, and new public spaces.