mind chatter

from thealgorthym.tumblr.com

uniqhero — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 05:41:17 +0000

“who is the first person to “find” something anyway? are YOU the person that made it viral or was it one of your rebloggers. can you really ever be sure?”

and ye,
you are called globe
and contingency by thy name
all in all
as water

lest ye cry
under the weight
of verse and form

form less verses than narrative

formless verses
then; narrative

piercing futures
chosen objects

and when i lost it

i lost it

(Malcolm) Gladwell vs. (Clay) Shirky

uniqhero — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 00:10:31 +0000

This past September i wrote on Gladwell and Shirky’s disagreement regarding social media and specifically social media activism. [as Sam Spade] I posted this to quora.com and basically opined that Gladwell was wrong. I summed up Gladwell’s piece thusly:

What I took away from the Gladwell essay is that he believes that “The platforms of social media are built around weak ties…weak ties seldom lead to high-risk activism…the evangelists of social media don’t understand this distinction; they seem to believe that a Facebook friend is the same as a real friend…A networked, weak-tie world is good at things like helping Wall Streeters get phones back from teen-age girls. Viva la revolución.”"

Recently I saw an article in Wired.com updating the topic called Gladwell vs. Shirky: A Year Later, Scoring the Debate Over Social-Media Revolutions.

What I wrote is below, and, while I agree with myself I think I lost my way in the last little bit of it.

“I don’t understand why Gladwell named his piece “the revolution will not be tweeted”. His superficial evocation of the powerful Gil Scott-Heron piece “the revolution will not be televised” is at odds with his argument. [http://www.gilscottheron.com/lyr...

What I took away from the Gladwell essay is that he believes that "The platforms of social media are built around weak ties...weak ties seldom lead to high-risk activism...the evangelists of social media don’t understand this distinction; they seem to believe that a Facebook friend is the same as a real friend...A networked, weak-tie world is good at things like helping Wall Streeters get phones back from teen-age girls. Viva la revolución."

Essentially Gladwell doesn't see Twitter as a firestarter. Twitter followers and Facebook friends are weak social bonds. Individuals aren't going to stick their necks out for someone they've never met before. He uses an american civil rights example to back up his point that "high-risk activism...is a “strong-tie” phenomenon."

I think that Gladwell is overlooking the ideological amplification capabilities of Twitter. While I don't have the case study prowess of Gladwell I wonder if Wikileaks is an example of an activist organization who's revolution actually was tweeted. The United States DOJ certainly felt there was twitter information worth seizing via a secret court order. [which twitter challenged and opened - http://www.wired.com/threatlevel...

There is no way I believe that @CheGuevara could be as convincing as meatspace-CheGuevara or that "I Have a Dream" could have been conveyed in 140 characters-or-less but I don't think that Gladwell necessarily "gets" twitter. It isn't apparent that he is an active twitter user in any case.

Twitter allows information to get out and potentially become amplified if it hits a tipping point. It is the place where salesmen, connectors and mavens meet. Heck, it might as well be the connector. From one to many. This is the strength of a network and if the information is compelling enough my gut tells me that people will band together. [is this just my wishful thinking?] Wouldn’t the image below convey the same emotion and information if it were attached as a twitpic?

The revolution definitely won’t be televised. Maybe the revolution won’t be organized by an actitwitst. But I have a feeling that the revolution will be hashtagged. In real time.

“the revolution will be no re-run brothers;
the revolution will be live”"

post script – A sidenote: My quora.com profile was restricted and I can’t edit because my name does not conform to the policies. It was a neat site though.

over two pints

uniqhero — Mon, 31 Oct 2011 06:25:47 +0000

my occupy rant

telephasic workshop – boards of canada [live]

uniqhero — Mon, 26 Sep 2011 22:02:25 +0000

Google+ comment on Danah Boyd+ post re: nymwars

uniqhero — Sun, 14 Aug 2011 01:50:04 +0000

i’ve had this conversation many times before, the most memorable being drunk walking through the rainy streets of boston. good times..

my +1 is for an unreal name policy

the mischief with the real name policy for me is that it forces my meatspace personality to be informed by my digital personality. i don’t want this. this is not because I am an “abusive person”. this is simply a privacy decision. i don’t want any potential employer to ever to read my blog or my twitter where i try to experiment with language and ideas. for instance, what if i’m interviewed by a grammar nazi who will not hire people that do not capitalize? further, my digital personality is only for likeminded individuals. this is where i am trying to engage with others. it’s where i’m being digitally social. i don’t care if i engage with a nym or a norm. all you ever are to me are words on a screen anyway. the one person i do NOT want to engage with is someone i don’t know using my shared information against me in the real world. paranoia? let’s just say i’m using the precautionary principle when it comes to online social media.

for those of you who might say that i’m missing the “point” of social media i say that it’s quite precocious to hold out that you can assess the point of social media. sure, maybe nyms don’t jive with G+’s purpose, but a purpose does not a point make. of course it’s better for google to associate digital information with a real world individual. the more information is used the more valuable it becomes and my real world name has been used quite often – especially as a consumer. my position is that the “point” of social media must be informed by the purpose and effects of social media. nyms can use social media to great and honorable effect. social media can amplify Good ideas. Good ideas do not only originate from “realname+”.

Ideas expressed by nyms can never be truly without oppression if they can be gathered and associated with a meatspace identity. do you truly believe that the phenomenon that was “mcarthyism” is just a historical relic? there is always that terrorizing other!

further, i am not just suggesting contemporaneous oppression, i am thinking about oppresion down the road. the sun never sets on the empire of the net. samuel spade+ has now written these words. it’s logged in those great celestial books stored in the towers of silicone valley.

THAT valuable social relationships online can’t be formed with deceptive monikers I say: “so what”. i might even throw back the “if you don’t like it, don’t use it” argument back the other way. i don’t want to be your facebook friend if you hold that opinion. this is because we have different principles or at the very least, values. if you don’t want to engage with me, don’t.

THAT nyms are abusive. tricky word. First, do you mean illegal? because if that’s what you mean then this argument has no merit. if a nym infringes copyright or defames someone the injured party may go to the court to get an order to the effect that the isp must disclose the nym-name. sometimes, you don’t even need the order if you ask politely! Second, do you mean merely abusive? Here are a few sentence fragments to consider. Freedom of expression includes the freedom to offend. Just because you disagree with someone doesn’t mean you should go ahead and censor them with a rule. the internet is open to the whole world, you are going to share digital space with children, imbeciles, trolls and general grumpy people who are going to rub you the wrong way. move on with your life instead of supporting policies that in purpose and effect restrain my self-fullfillment and (related) enjoyment of the online community!!

boy does this discussion burn me up…i’m trying not being inflammatory here. if you actually read this post (highly doubtful) i’m gonna stop here. you can read more on my blog where i was entirely more emotional and incoherent. visit if you were inflamed or if you agree and want to define me more. leave me a comment. be abusive if you cannot communicate otherwise. http://telephasicworkshop.wordpress.com/2011/07/25/im-mad-as-hell/

on the record. this G+ is a pseudonym. if this post disappears then 1 (attempted) reasoned argument, my personal time and effort, compiled curated information as words has been lost. i could only call that censorship.

sam spade over and out.

post script - if you think i’m an asshole nym visit my twitter check and me out (@languagegame). you can also check my good faith quora questions and answers before my account got suspended for having an unreal name.

post the post script - if you are a real name proponent please consider whether enforcing this policy (which in effect excludes me and these words) minimally impairs freedom of expression, is actually rationally connected to the purported goals of the policy and is ultimately worth it because this particular organization

————–end post

rejected (or, how you failed the bot check)

uniqhero — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 04:47:07 +0000

Dear Applicant,

Thank you for applying to Barbelith. I’m afraid that we are currently
having some problems processing applications – to the point at which,
right now, we cannot provide you with a login to the board. We hope to
resolve this issue, but right now I am afraid that the application
system is no longer functional.

At this point, I do not know if it will be possible to provide you, or
anyone else, with access to Barbelith. It may be that the admissions
system will be fixed at some point in the future, but I’m afraid I
cannot guarantee or predict when this may be.

Please do not feel that your email did not reach a necessary standard
- this is is not a rejection of you as an individual, but rather an
admission that the Barbelith code base is unlikely to be updated in
the future, and that this may well make it impossible to allow new
membership.

Thank you for your interest, and profound apologies for this
regrettable state of affairs.

Barbelith applications

bot chek 1,2 12 (an open electronic mail to apply.barbelith)

uniqhero — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 04:25:43 +0000

mostly i just wanted to make a post on this thread

i think it would have gone something like:

start of document_______________________________________

i was just looking for the exact same thing but couldn’t remember the phrase videophony. so i had to flip thru the damn book and now i tossed it into google and now,

here i sit at the doorstep of a Jan09 thread.

yo mistoffelees! we got the same edition.

_______________________________________end of document

i guess i’d like to offer an application now that i’m here

twitter = @languagegame
tumblr = thealgorhythm
wordpress = mindchatter

i’m mad as hell

uniqhero — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 00:47:27 +0000

this article combined with this article = oppression? coercion? implications for freedom of expression certainly.

and I don’t want to hear about the choice not to use the service. if you provide a platform freely you should provide a platform freely. honestly. i believe that terms of service that force you to use your name on the net really do not accord with the norms of the electronic ecosystem. or i mean, community standards of commercial morality. this sort of policy undercuts the net’s value and in effect censors what people share. i don’t know, i think this whole cloud buzz might just be a way to centralize information and shadow the end to end structure of the net. the structure of the net is its biggest advantage. when you screw around with the little nodes and make em one big node all you reflect is contingency, it might as well be an andy warhol screen print of a node. contingent mush!!

i’ll go there and add this link and you can decide if i’m way out in left field or not.

and I don’t want to hear about accountability. if pseudonyms do something illegal the isps can give ‘em up.

people need some anonymous culture votes but they aren’t gonna get em here. SamuelClemens+ can’t be +1-ing his google searches, linking social media to his blog, writing without pre-judgment or living without (blog)post-judgment. the “point” of social media is different depending on what side you are on. google wants to exchange a product with your information. they want to control it. the user wants to benefit from the other users, not from google itself. get me on diaspora…i’m disappointed over here.

I POUR SOME LIQUOR FOR:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silence_Dogood
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Eliot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stan_Lee
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maddox_(writer)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._K._Rowling

post script: to the internet and social media scroungers of my potentially future inchoate employers, clients, friends. ye who read this! i accept the fact that this is a certain and polarizing statement. you may not agree. when you meet me, i may not agree with the above-anymore-aNYway. this is merely a part of my online aggregate. these words don’t evolve over time. i do.

uniqhero — Thu, 07 Jul 2011 02:39:30 +0000

can you hear me?

#brutalism #brutalismo #postage paid

a response to http://bit.ly/articleonhipsters

uniqhero — Fri, 08 Apr 2011 17:38:10 +0000

“The fact is that consumers can now make choices that are not beholdent [sic] to notions that surround a particular music, but based on the actual music itself.”

you can’t ever step outside of the music’s contingency. the only thing we are beholden to is the contingency of signifier and signified.

“actual music itself”? there is no access to the actual music itself. there is only access to our observation.

i also entirely disagree with this: “We are entering an era where “way of life” music genres (genres which stand oppositional to other genres) are rapidly losing their hold over consumers’ aesthetic choices.”

all genres stand oppositional to other genres. that’s what makes a genre a genre. the relational aspect. if a song doesn’t fit any genre it starts its own genre. too electronic to be shoegazer?? shoegazer-electronica it is! so as far as i can tell this claim is that all genres are rapidly losing their hold over consumers’ aesthetic choices.

and what is an aesthetic choice in music? the choice to listen to something because it is artfully pleasing? or, really the choice to listen to music in order to look aesthetically pleasing to others? personally i think that this is closer to the definition of hipster. the hipster consumer makes aesthetic choices rather than utilitarian choices. the hipster that shops in thrift stores get a free pass on this one, at least they did some work to look cool.

I agree with dustin. while i don’t think anyone can step outside of the contingency of mass media, culture and societal norms, the hipster is certainly an obvious barometer for these influences.

we’re all in this together i’m not gonna fault someone for looking different. if everyone has “i am a beautiful and unique snowflake” tattooed on their arm however, they are no longer unique. they all become part of the same signifier. (above and beyond the bit about us ALL being decaying organic matter who kick inert symbols back and forth)

furthermore, i don’t find the “Hipster” to be very faithful to being postmodern, poststructuralist, antifoundationist ETC., ETC. they appropriate from the surface for the surface. but whatever, i’m not going to say that any one else can do any better, or that it’s the worst thing to do.

because what else is there than surface?