11 ms·

It would be interesting to ask whether or not Ted Nelson's vision for personal computing has been achieved. In the podcast, personal computing was to be the mea

It would be interesting to ask whether or not Ted Nelson's vision for personal computing has been achieved. In the podcast, personal computing was to be the means of liberation from a centralized priesthood on the one hand, and from ignorance (i.e., access to means of learning) on the other. Personal computers are now ubiquitous, and we've been liberated from central priesthoods which had restricted access to (expensive) computers in the past. But new forms of centralization emerge, whether they arise in the form of bloated, draconian corporate software foisted on workers within a company, or as public products such as Google and Facebook, which have been gobbling up the open web and replacing it with means of control and manipulation. [1] In fact, this latter concern of manipulation begs the question of what people really need computers for, and brings into question Ted Nelson's presumed answer to it: i.e., that people have an inherent need to use computers to facilitate their own creativity. But what about the possibility that the majority of people prefer to be passive consumers? Neil Postman warned that we would become a trivial society, rife with distraction, like in Huxley's Brave New World. [2] Perhaps computers have succeeded in universally capturing our imagination, but corporations (centralization!) have once again captured computing, and by extension our imagination as well, as Tim Wu laments [1]: am I more likely to open up my personal computer at odd moments of the day to check Facebook or Hacker News to momentarily capture my imagination? Or have I instead acquired the habit of pulling out a tablet to accumulate further progress in a creative work, which perhaps only requires internet connectivity for the purpose of reference? And if the answer is the former, is the reason because we don't have actual Dynabooks [3], but instead a more asymmetric device skewed toward consumption and away from creative expression? Or is it because the majority of people in fact prefer passive consumption anyway? [1] http://www.timwu.org/AttentionMerchants.html http://www.timwu.org/AttentionMerchants.html [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amusing_Ourselves_to_Death https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amusing_Ourselves_to_Death [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynabook https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynabook

Jedd 8y ago
It invites or raises the question rather than begs it, but your point is understood. You mention Tim Wu -- his book 'The Master Switch' focuses on the history of technologies as a cycle of invention --> egalitarian use & access --> centralised control and ownership by the elite. My feeling is that things like the trends away from net neutrality globally, and towards greater government surveillance / suppression of encryption, and corporate interest in encouraging consumption via technology rather than (as per your example) 'creative work', are fulfilling that prediction in both obvious and subtle ways.
- nicklaf 8y ago
  It invites or raises the question rather than begs it, but your point is understood. Hmm. I admit it's tenuously implied, but my thinking was that it does beg the question! Because what we're talking about is the ostensible resolution of Ted Nelson's dilemma of wanting 'generalized paper', but then observing that what people actually use it for in practice might lead us to question some of his original assumptions about what people need computers for after all. But OK, maybe this isn't quite correct usage of the term. Thanks a lot for pointing that out about The Master Switch, which I should probably read.
  - redwood 8y ago
    I'm impressed that you're both familiar with the rhetoric roots of the term
- noblethrasher 8y ago
  > It invites or raises the question rather than begs it, but your point is understood. By my reading, 'nicklaf used the phrase in the technically correct way. But, as a recovering philosophy major, I'll just point out that the phrase "begging the question" is just a bad 16th century English translation of the Latin phrase "petitio principii" that literally meant "requesting a postulate", and which itself was a medieval translation of the original Greek phrases "τὸ ἐν ἀρχῇ αἰτεῖσθαι" and "τὸ ἐν ἀρχῇ λαμβάνειν", which meant, respectively, "asking the original point" and "assuming the original point."[1] We say that the English translation is "bad" because the translators were jumping through hoops to avoid using the fancy Latin in favor of the vernacular (or vulgar) English. I caucus with the folks that say that we should just use the Latin phrase, "petition principii", as we do with other well-known fallacies. [1] http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2290 http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2290
- Obi_Juan_Kenobi 8y ago
  > trends away from net neutrality globally, and towards greater government surveillance / suppression of encryption ... Is that a trend? It strikes me that these are ongoing points of conflict, at least in particular with encryption. Whether it's illegal numbers, Wassenaar, or the UK sitting on a version of RSA for over two decades, keeping it top secret. Or the enduring controversy over TOR, a tool of government surveillance. I think the only thing that's changed is the degree and immediacy with which policy related to these issues affects the public. More generally, for all the 'consumption' Facebook and Instagram, you also have Arduino and 'maker' culture, Soundcloud rappers, Youtubers of all stripes (from the old dude in his garage machine shop, inexplicably addressing an audience of tens of thousands a few times a week, to the flavor of the month pop-drama garbage), an endless list of self-directed learning resources, Wikis, etc. etc. I certainly see the merit in the 'Wu' observation, but it strikes me how robust and resistance the internet is -- has been -- to this erosion.
miguelrochefort 8y ago
The problem is that the computer doesn't help me figure out what to do next. It only provides a grid of icons, through which I cycle repeatedly until the real world grabs my attention. What we need is an OS designed to help people get things done. The best such framework is probably Getting Things Done [1]. Build the 5 steps (Capture, Clarify, Organize, Reflect, Engage) right into the system, and you'll have a winner. I've been repeating this idea for the past decade. Perhaps I should implement it myself. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getting_Things_Done https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getting_Things_Done
- wool_gather 8y ago
  Interesting though. Home assistant devices (Echo/Google Home) might be a first step in this direction, since they're entirely task-oriented. Not quite the same as a GTD system, of course: they just do a thing immediately. But the non-visual interface means that you can't idly flip through Facebook posts even if you tried. On the other hand, they don't have any support for in-depth tasks. If the things you wanted to get done were writing a letter or editing a photo, you're not going to get far without a screen.
  - mwcampbell 8y ago
    > you're not going to get far without a screen. Tell that to blind people. Not for editing a photo, of course, but they can certainly do other in-depth tasks without a screen.
    - wool_gather 8y ago
      Sure, but for a sighted person used to interacting with things visually, this is learning some entirely new mode of control. One of the strengths of computer GUIs is that they heavily leverage humans' most favored sense (for those of us that can use it).
8bitsrule 8y ago
whether or not Ted Nelson's vision for personal computing has been achieved. If you listen to one of Ted's recent videos, you'll find the answer in the weeping and gnashing of teeth. (The dumbing down of what could-have-been.)
- cornholio 8y ago
  A reference is appropriate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDrHkNgGQDs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDrHkNgGQDs
- bborud 8y ago
  The impression I got is that he is more of a technology philosopher than an actual technologist. He dreams up things, but he doesn't realize them and he hasn't managed to convince others to implement his vision either. In terms of software there is precious little to show for 50 years of thinking about this. And it isn't like this is some recent brainwave. By the time the web rolled around he'd had 30 years to do something. And as the web came into being he had an excellent chance to make it a vehicle for his ideas, but he didn't. One thing I remember from a (longish) chat I had with him is that some elements of his ideas exist today, but perhaps not where you would think about them. For instance in non-destructive media editing software you have concepts that remind me of some of his ideas. I think the one key takeaway I got from his talk and the chat afterwards is that only what you do really counts. Ideas really are worth less though not worthless.
  - AndrewKemendo 8y ago
    only what you do really counts. Ideas really are worth less though not worthless. It's a matter of degree right? So for example Erdos didn't actually do anything - in the sense that we're talking - such as creating products or works of physical art. His mathematics are ideas. Which people then used, but critically referenced Erdos as their originator. From what I can tell of Ted Nelson, the design and cybernetics ideas were obvious enough that many other people thought of them also, or were not so obscure as to be canonical. So like many ideas without fathers, it's whomever can create a product around them which get the credit. So for example "Steve Jobs invented the iPhone." Anyone with even a shallow historical understanding of handheld computing knows that this statement isn't true in any concrete sense, but because Apple, under Jobs' management, popularized the smartphone the attribution goes as such. Many people thought of, and wrote about or made in science-fiction the smart phone - so it was an obvious enough idea (by then) that execution is what mattered. Interestingly, if you push all the way back to writers like HG Wells, they predicted much of the technology we see today including smartphones, but they aren't credited with "inventing" them or even being important in their development really. So the right time, right place, right idea is still the combination needed to stand out.
delbel 8y ago
> But new forms of centralization emerge, whether they arise in the form of bloated, draconian corporate software foisted on workers within a company, or as public products such as Google and Facebook, which have been gobbling up the open web and replacing it with means of control and manipulation. [1] This reminds me of a book that came out in 1996 called Silicon Snake Oil: Second Thoughts on the Information Highway by Clifford Stoll. In it, he predicted, the internet will all turn into crap. At the time it was the most contrarian view point ever, I can't help to think I need to find a copy now in light of what facebook and mobile phones and their negative effect on society has done. He wrote an amazing book called the Cuckoo's Egg before that, basically everyone in silicon valley has probably read and can relate to if you are from that era.
- nicklaf 8y ago
  > This reminds me of a book that came out in 1996 called Silicon Snake Oil: Second Thoughts on the Information Highway by Clifford Stoll. In it, he predicted, the internet will all turn into crap. At the time it was the most contrarian view point ever, I can't help to think I need to find a copy now in light of what facebook and mobile phones and their negative effect on society has done. Very interesting. The book certainly sounds like something I ought to read. In fact, perhaps while simultaneously reading David Gelernter's 1992 book, Mirror Worlds: or the Day Software Puts the Universe in a Shoebox...How It Will Happen and What It Will Mean, whose optimistic vision of an immersive virtual reality out of networked computers would make for a rather stark contrast!
  - ataturk 8y ago
    David Brin was pretty on the mark with "Transparent Society" as well. Brin had more optimism than what came to be, but he nailed the "cameras everywhere" status quo where people whip out smart phones to capture footage of an event now. It's just that he also nailed the Orwellian side of it, too.
- KC8ZKF 8y ago
  I remember reading that book in 1996 and finding it incredibly elitist. His alternatives to the internet were visiting libraries, book stores, art film theaters, going to concerts, strolling through parks... But, he was living in Berkeley! The internet was a god send to most of the population who didn't live in the intellectual centers of world. Still is.
deegles 8y ago
> computers have succeeded in universally capturing our attention This seems so ominous to me. It’s the end goal of the “attention economy,” right?
jdietrich 8y ago
>But what about the possibility that the majority of people prefer to be passive consumers? By any reasonable measure, we're in a renaissance of creativity. Most people in the creative industries are complaining of a total oversaturation of talent - too many bands, too many authors, too many artists, too many indie game developers, too many stand-up comedians. Maker culture and 3D printing has created a consumer market for CAD/CAM software, which no-one in the industry foresaw even a decade ago. By some measures, musical instruments and recording equipment are a bigger market than the recording industry. It has never been cheaper or easier to turn an idea into reality; there's abundant evidence that people are grabbing that opportunity with both hands. YouTube is full of crap, but it has also revealed a huge amount of demand for deep and meaningful content. My YouTube subs box is full of artisans, mathematicians, poets and monks. Some of them have seven-figure subscriber counts and five-figure Patreon revenue, some of them upload simply for the joy of sharing something that they love. It's easy to be cynical, but YouTube is a place of boundless magic and wonder. The internet isn't perfect, but it's not all doom and gloom either. The internet is full of assholes calling each other nazis, but it's also full of people sharing skills and making meaningful connections. Sturgeon's Law isn't going away, but we really have removed the stultifying layer of gatekeepers that controlled access to the media. There's an uncomfortable degree of consolidation and centralisation on the modern internet, but MySpace and Snapchat stand as testaments to how fickle and fragile that power is. To quote Ted Nelson in this interview: "The computer is a projective device, it is a Rorschach test. Anyone will see in it that which is of the most concern to him." If we choose to spend our time on the internet decrying the negative rather than contributing to the positive, we will get exactly what we deserve.
- WJW 8y ago
  Interestingly, both problems could be happening _at the same time_! If before (say) 1% of all people got a chance to publish their work and the internet has increased that tenfold, there is still space for 90% of the population to be passive consumers. That 10% might still be 'too much' for some types of content of course (how many bands, standup comedians or indie game developers do you need before you hit diminishing returns anyway?) In fact, I suspect that most people fall into both groups: They might be 'creators' for some types of content and only 'passively consume' some different types. For example, I sometimes contribute to OSS but have never uploaded a Youtube video in my life.
KirinDave 8y ago
> In fact, this latter concern of manipulation begs the question of what people really need computers for, and brings into question Ted Nelson's presumed answer to it: i.e., that people have an inherent need to use computers to facilitate their own creativity. But what about the possibility that the majority of people prefer to be passive consumers? Neil Postman warned that we would become a trivial society, rife with distraction, like in Huxley's Brave New World. We're in a novel time to be introspective about the use of computers because in a very real sense, accessible information systems that treat all information equally have brought about an information overload apocalypse. With accessibility and creativity everywhere, we're starting to see what happens when any group of people can assemble social campaigns (bot networks spreading lies in social media frameworks) and achieve parity with the former "information priesthood" of centralized media. It's so easy to make and share information that people are inundated with the material of ethos (with the lies it cherishes and truths followers cling to), language, and creed. While other culture shock events have occurred in history, there is a fundamental difference in the recent decade has been the lack of any central actor for legacy power systems to coerce or stomp out. And because of this, we're having to find ways to cope at the individual level with an excess of information, even unwanted information that we don't even realize we're consuming. I'm not sure Nelson or even Huxley truly foresaw this. To someone who has not grown up in a sea of information with algorithms helpfully (and even desperately) shoving information into our faces to try and satisfy our needs before we realize we have them, it's difficult to describe the idea of struggling not to be manipulated by subtle bias. Prior to the information saturation we enjoy now, such attempts to totally control information tended to look a lot more like North Korea's press. Aspects of this even exist in less centralized media, such as when and where western press decides to "tell both sides of the story" as opposed to simply informing a position as fact. Counter to Huxley's rather puritan vision of us medicating and fornicating into irrelevance (which we've always done, let's be real), the idea that a minority view point (e.g., "America should be racially motivated literal monarchy") can be given the optics of having parity with ideas actually held by tens of millions of people seems to have energized people. Folks see a venue for increased social importance and control, and they're seizing it.
twic 8y ago
> It would be interesting to ask whether or not Ted Nelson's vision for personal computing has been achieved. Well: I DON'T BUY IN The Web isn't hypertext, it's DECORATED DIRECTORIES! What we have instead is the vacuous victory of typesetters over authors, and the most trivial form of hypertext that could have been imagined. http://essaysfromexodus.scripting.com/tedNelsonWebHypertext http://essaysfromexodus.scripting.com/tedNelsonWebHypertext

Jedd 8y ago

It invites or raises the question rather than begs it, but your point is understood. You mention Tim Wu -- his book 'The Master Switch' focuses on the history of technologies as a cycle of invention --> egalitarian use & access --> centralised control and ownership by the elite. My feeling is that things like the trends away from net neutrality globally, and towards greater government surveillance / suppression of encryption, and corporate interest in encouraging consumption via technology rather than (as per your example) 'creative work', are fulfilling that prediction in both obvious and subtle ways.

nicklaf 8y ago
It invites or raises the question rather than begs it, but your point is understood. Hmm. I admit it's tenuously implied, but my thinking was that it does beg the question! Because what we're talking about is the ostensible resolution of Ted Nelson's dilemma of wanting 'generalized paper', but then observing that what people actually use it for in practice might lead us to question some of his original assumptions about what people need computers for after all. But OK, maybe this isn't quite correct usage of the term. Thanks a lot for pointing that out about The Master Switch, which I should probably read.
- redwood 8y ago
  I'm impressed that you're both familiar with the rhetoric roots of the term
noblethrasher 8y ago
> It invites or raises the question rather than begs it, but your point is understood. By my reading, 'nicklaf used the phrase in the technically correct way. But, as a recovering philosophy major, I'll just point out that the phrase "begging the question" is just a bad 16th century English translation of the Latin phrase "petitio principii" that literally meant "requesting a postulate", and which itself was a medieval translation of the original Greek phrases "τὸ ἐν ἀρχῇ αἰτεῖσθαι" and "τὸ ἐν ἀρχῇ λαμβάνειν", which meant, respectively, "asking the original point" and "assuming the original point."[1] We say that the English translation is "bad" because the translators were jumping through hoops to avoid using the fancy Latin in favor of the vernacular (or vulgar) English. I caucus with the folks that say that we should just use the Latin phrase, "petition principii", as we do with other well-known fallacies. [1] http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2290 http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2290
Obi_Juan_Kenobi 8y ago
> trends away from net neutrality globally, and towards greater government surveillance / suppression of encryption ... Is that a trend? It strikes me that these are ongoing points of conflict, at least in particular with encryption. Whether it's illegal numbers, Wassenaar, or the UK sitting on a version of RSA for over two decades, keeping it top secret. Or the enduring controversy over TOR, a tool of government surveillance. I think the only thing that's changed is the degree and immediacy with which policy related to these issues affects the public. More generally, for all the 'consumption' Facebook and Instagram, you also have Arduino and 'maker' culture, Soundcloud rappers, Youtubers of all stripes (from the old dude in his garage machine shop, inexplicably addressing an audience of tens of thousands a few times a week, to the flavor of the month pop-drama garbage), an endless list of self-directed learning resources, Wikis, etc. etc. I certainly see the merit in the 'Wu' observation, but it strikes me how robust and resistance the internet is -- has been -- to this erosion.

miguelrochefort 8y ago

The problem is that the computer doesn't help me figure out what to do next. It only provides a grid of icons, through which I cycle repeatedly until the real world grabs my attention. What we need is an OS designed to help people get things done. The best such framework is probably Getting Things Done [1]. Build the 5 steps (Capture, Clarify, Organize, Reflect, Engage) right into the system, and you'll have a winner. I've been repeating this idea for the past decade. Perhaps I should implement it myself. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getting_Things_Done https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getting_Things_Done

wool_gather 8y ago
Interesting though. Home assistant devices (Echo/Google Home) might be a first step in this direction, since they're entirely task-oriented. Not quite the same as a GTD system, of course: they just do a thing immediately. But the non-visual interface means that you can't idly flip through Facebook posts even if you tried. On the other hand, they don't have any support for in-depth tasks. If the things you wanted to get done were writing a letter or editing a photo, you're not going to get far without a screen.
- mwcampbell 8y ago
  > you're not going to get far without a screen. Tell that to blind people. Not for editing a photo, of course, but they can certainly do other in-depth tasks without a screen.
  - wool_gather 8y ago
    Sure, but for a sighted person used to interacting with things visually, this is learning some entirely new mode of control. One of the strengths of computer GUIs is that they heavily leverage humans' most favored sense (for those of us that can use it).

8bitsrule 8y ago

whether or not Ted Nelson's vision for personal computing has been achieved. If you listen to one of Ted's recent videos, you'll find the answer in the weeping and gnashing of teeth. (The dumbing down of what could-have-been.)

cornholio 8y ago
A reference is appropriate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDrHkNgGQDs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDrHkNgGQDs
bborud 8y ago
The impression I got is that he is more of a technology philosopher than an actual technologist. He dreams up things, but he doesn't realize them and he hasn't managed to convince others to implement his vision either. In terms of software there is precious little to show for 50 years of thinking about this. And it isn't like this is some recent brainwave. By the time the web rolled around he'd had 30 years to do something. And as the web came into being he had an excellent chance to make it a vehicle for his ideas, but he didn't. One thing I remember from a (longish) chat I had with him is that some elements of his ideas exist today, but perhaps not where you would think about them. For instance in non-destructive media editing software you have concepts that remind me of some of his ideas. I think the one key takeaway I got from his talk and the chat afterwards is that only what you do really counts. Ideas really are worth less though not worthless.
- AndrewKemendo 8y ago
  only what you do really counts. Ideas really are worth less though not worthless. It's a matter of degree right? So for example Erdos didn't actually do anything - in the sense that we're talking - such as creating products or works of physical art. His mathematics are ideas. Which people then used, but critically referenced Erdos as their originator. From what I can tell of Ted Nelson, the design and cybernetics ideas were obvious enough that many other people thought of them also, or were not so obscure as to be canonical. So like many ideas without fathers, it's whomever can create a product around them which get the credit. So for example "Steve Jobs invented the iPhone." Anyone with even a shallow historical understanding of handheld computing knows that this statement isn't true in any concrete sense, but because Apple, under Jobs' management, popularized the smartphone the attribution goes as such. Many people thought of, and wrote about or made in science-fiction the smart phone - so it was an obvious enough idea (by then) that execution is what mattered. Interestingly, if you push all the way back to writers like HG Wells, they predicted much of the technology we see today including smartphones, but they aren't credited with "inventing" them or even being important in their development really. So the right time, right place, right idea is still the combination needed to stand out.

delbel 8y ago

> But new forms of centralization emerge, whether they arise in the form of bloated, draconian corporate software foisted on workers within a company, or as public products such as Google and Facebook, which have been gobbling up the open web and replacing it with means of control and manipulation. [1] This reminds me of a book that came out in 1996 called Silicon Snake Oil: Second Thoughts on the Information Highway by Clifford Stoll. In it, he predicted, the internet will all turn into crap. At the time it was the most contrarian view point ever, I can't help to think I need to find a copy now in light of what facebook and mobile phones and their negative effect on society has done. He wrote an amazing book called the Cuckoo's Egg before that, basically everyone in silicon valley has probably read and can relate to if you are from that era.

nicklaf 8y ago
> This reminds me of a book that came out in 1996 called Silicon Snake Oil: Second Thoughts on the Information Highway by Clifford Stoll. In it, he predicted, the internet will all turn into crap. At the time it was the most contrarian view point ever, I can't help to think I need to find a copy now in light of what facebook and mobile phones and their negative effect on society has done. Very interesting. The book certainly sounds like something I ought to read. In fact, perhaps while simultaneously reading David Gelernter's 1992 book, Mirror Worlds: or the Day Software Puts the Universe in a Shoebox...How It Will Happen and What It Will Mean, whose optimistic vision of an immersive virtual reality out of networked computers would make for a rather stark contrast!
- ataturk 8y ago
  David Brin was pretty on the mark with "Transparent Society" as well. Brin had more optimism than what came to be, but he nailed the "cameras everywhere" status quo where people whip out smart phones to capture footage of an event now. It's just that he also nailed the Orwellian side of it, too.
KC8ZKF 8y ago
I remember reading that book in 1996 and finding it incredibly elitist. His alternatives to the internet were visiting libraries, book stores, art film theaters, going to concerts, strolling through parks... But, he was living in Berkeley! The internet was a god send to most of the population who didn't live in the intellectual centers of world. Still is.

deegles 8y ago

> computers have succeeded in universally capturing our attention This seems so ominous to me. It’s the end goal of the “attention economy,” right?

jdietrich 8y ago

>But what about the possibility that the majority of people prefer to be passive consumers? By any reasonable measure, we're in a renaissance of creativity. Most people in the creative industries are complaining of a total oversaturation of talent - too many bands, too many authors, too many artists, too many indie game developers, too many stand-up comedians. Maker culture and 3D printing has created a consumer market for CAD/CAM software, which no-one in the industry foresaw even a decade ago. By some measures, musical instruments and recording equipment are a bigger market than the recording industry. It has never been cheaper or easier to turn an idea into reality; there's abundant evidence that people are grabbing that opportunity with both hands. YouTube is full of crap, but it has also revealed a huge amount of demand for deep and meaningful content. My YouTube subs box is full of artisans, mathematicians, poets and monks. Some of them have seven-figure subscriber counts and five-figure Patreon revenue, some of them upload simply for the joy of sharing something that they love. It's easy to be cynical, but YouTube is a place of boundless magic and wonder. The internet isn't perfect, but it's not all doom and gloom either. The internet is full of assholes calling each other nazis, but it's also full of people sharing skills and making meaningful connections. Sturgeon's Law isn't going away, but we really have removed the stultifying layer of gatekeepers that controlled access to the media. There's an uncomfortable degree of consolidation and centralisation on the modern internet, but MySpace and Snapchat stand as testaments to how fickle and fragile that power is. To quote Ted Nelson in this interview: "The computer is a projective device, it is a Rorschach test. Anyone will see in it that which is of the most concern to him." If we choose to spend our time on the internet decrying the negative rather than contributing to the positive, we will get exactly what we deserve.

WJW 8y ago
Interestingly, both problems could be happening _at the same time_! If before (say) 1% of all people got a chance to publish their work and the internet has increased that tenfold, there is still space for 90% of the population to be passive consumers. That 10% might still be 'too much' for some types of content of course (how many bands, standup comedians or indie game developers do you need before you hit diminishing returns anyway?) In fact, I suspect that most people fall into both groups: They might be 'creators' for some types of content and only 'passively consume' some different types. For example, I sometimes contribute to OSS but have never uploaded a Youtube video in my life.

KirinDave 8y ago

> In fact, this latter concern of manipulation begs the question of what people really need computers for, and brings into question Ted Nelson's presumed answer to it: i.e., that people have an inherent need to use computers to facilitate their own creativity. But what about the possibility that the majority of people prefer to be passive consumers? Neil Postman warned that we would become a trivial society, rife with distraction, like in Huxley's Brave New World. We're in a novel time to be introspective about the use of computers because in a very real sense, accessible information systems that treat all information equally have brought about an information overload apocalypse. With accessibility and creativity everywhere, we're starting to see what happens when any group of people can assemble social campaigns (bot networks spreading lies in social media frameworks) and achieve parity with the former "information priesthood" of centralized media. It's so easy to make and share information that people are inundated with the material of ethos (with the lies it cherishes and truths followers cling to), language, and creed. While other culture shock events have occurred in history, there is a fundamental difference in the recent decade has been the lack of any central actor for legacy power systems to coerce or stomp out. And because of this, we're having to find ways to cope at the individual level with an excess of information, even unwanted information that we don't even realize we're consuming. I'm not sure Nelson or even Huxley truly foresaw this. To someone who has not grown up in a sea of information with algorithms helpfully (and even desperately) shoving information into our faces to try and satisfy our needs before we realize we have them, it's difficult to describe the idea of struggling not to be manipulated by subtle bias. Prior to the information saturation we enjoy now, such attempts to totally control information tended to look a lot more like North Korea's press. Aspects of this even exist in less centralized media, such as when and where western press decides to "tell both sides of the story" as opposed to simply informing a position as fact. Counter to Huxley's rather puritan vision of us medicating and fornicating into irrelevance (which we've always done, let's be real), the idea that a minority view point (e.g., "America should be racially motivated literal monarchy") can be given the optics of having parity with ideas actually held by tens of millions of people seems to have energized people. Folks see a venue for increased social importance and control, and they're seizing it.

twic 8y ago

> It would be interesting to ask whether or not Ted Nelson's vision for personal computing has been achieved. Well: I DON'T BUY IN The Web isn't hypertext, it's DECORATED DIRECTORIES! What we have instead is the vacuous victory of typesetters over authors, and the most trivial form of hypertext that could have been imagined. http://essaysfromexodus.scripting.com/tedNelsonWebHypertext http://essaysfromexodus.scripting.com/tedNelsonWebHypertext