7 ms·

I might add that Silicon Valley et al has not simply cleverly redefined the meaning of ’sharing’ to cover their rental practices, but even the meaning of commun

by qubex 8y ago

I might add that Silicon Valley et al has not simply cleverly redefined the meaning of ’sharing’ to cover their rental practices, but even the meaning of community has been totally warped out of shape. A community used to be a group of geographically proximate people whose collective survival depended on getting over their sometimes conflicting mutual interests and opinions in order to survive; now we use the term ’community’ to cover collections of isolated loners who are on average many hundreds of kilometres apart but are united by a common and often generally speaking controversial opinion that puts them at odds with their actual neighbours. The Information Superhighway was meant to usher in the Global Village but instead it begat a landscape of virtual ghettoes.

atomi 8y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperreality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperreality
_bxg1 8y ago
I disagree that community requires geographical proximity, but I definitely agree that it's on the list of positive terms co-opted by internet companies to disguise their profit-driven motives. Community requires compassion and shared interest; these days it's applied to any and every kind of human connection, with no regard to whether that connection is beneficial or even wanted.
- Kalium 8y ago
  I would even go so far as to say that "community" has come to mean "group of people who have some common characteristic". No actual interaction or bonds between any of them is required. The word loses meaning as the actual human connections involved are removed.
Kalium 8y ago
Personally, I view this as a distinct upgrade. Instead of being coerced into lots of interaction with people I may have nothing in common with except vague geographical proximity, I have the option of interacting with people who actually share my interests or concerns or hobbies. To me, this isn't isolated loners. It's the first real community I've ever known. The first one I've ever actually felt like I was a part of, where I was always welcome and could always rely on finding people like me. I understand that some people dislike this shift. It's easy to see where it might be inconvenient for local communities that used to depend on coercing membership to exist. It used to be easy to erase those who were alone in the crowd. You're absolutely right. We didn't get a Global Village. Instead, we have a network of Global Villages. They are many and diverse and offer genuine community to everyone in ways that the old approach no longer did. This is beautiful and terrible - it's a shift from surviving to thriving. We finally get to see that there's an option other than ghettos run by the tyranny of geography.
- caust1c 8y ago
  I used to think the same as you, but I realized that I was putting no effort into my local communities. Once I started to start putting more effort into the local community, I began to appreciate geographic proximity much more. That said, as all things, there's a balance. The Internet is a great tool for bringing people virtually close together and spreading ideas. Sharing those ideas is a great way to enhance your local community. > tyranny of geography Haha. We're a long way from being omnipresent so you better get used to having neighbors. ;-)
  - Kalium 8y ago
    Can we just agree that it's not evil that people get a choice now where they didn't before? You're very right! Sharing ideas to enhance your local community can be incredibly valuable and rewarding! However, some people occasionally find that their local communities do not always uniformly and enthusiastically welcome the ideas they want to share. Some people, faced with such experiences and fears, might consider that analog and digital communities offer different tradeoffs.
    - pathseeker 8y ago
      > Can we just agree that it's not evil that people get a choice now where they didn't before? It depends. I find the fact that people can isolate themselves into communities where it's very easy to censor out any possible dissenters and dissenting opinions to be pretty damn damaging to our society.
      - Bjartr 8y ago
        This is the balance on enabling people to escape from communities in which they are censored, to allow those ostracized for their beliefs can find those who will respect them despite, or even because of, the beliefs they hold. I believe that our tendency to view unpopular beliefs a stain upon a person's immutable character is a more fundamental (as in, earlier in the causal chain) cause of the damage to society you describe.
      - 8y ago
uRreading2slow 8y ago
> Unreason and anti-intellectualism abominate thought. Thinking implies disagreement; and disagreement implies nonconformity; and nonconformity implies heresy; and heresy implies disloyalty — so, obviously, thinking must be stopped. But shouting is not a substitute for thinking and reason is not the subversion but the salvation of freedom. -- Adlai Stevenson, "A Call to Greatness" (1954) > The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place. -- George Bernard Shaw

by qubex 8y ago

atomi 8y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperreality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperreality

_bxg1 8y ago

I disagree that community requires geographical proximity, but I definitely agree that it's on the list of positive terms co-opted by internet companies to disguise their profit-driven motives. Community requires compassion and shared interest; these days it's applied to any and every kind of human connection, with no regard to whether that connection is beneficial or even wanted.

Kalium 8y ago
I would even go so far as to say that "community" has come to mean "group of people who have some common characteristic". No actual interaction or bonds between any of them is required. The word loses meaning as the actual human connections involved are removed.

Kalium 8y ago

Personally, I view this as a distinct upgrade. Instead of being coerced into lots of interaction with people I may have nothing in common with except vague geographical proximity, I have the option of interacting with people who actually share my interests or concerns or hobbies. To me, this isn't isolated loners. It's the first real community I've ever known. The first one I've ever actually felt like I was a part of, where I was always welcome and could always rely on finding people like me. I understand that some people dislike this shift. It's easy to see where it might be inconvenient for local communities that used to depend on coercing membership to exist. It used to be easy to erase those who were alone in the crowd. You're absolutely right. We didn't get a Global Village. Instead, we have a network of Global Villages. They are many and diverse and offer genuine community to everyone in ways that the old approach no longer did. This is beautiful and terrible - it's a shift from surviving to thriving. We finally get to see that there's an option other than ghettos run by the tyranny of geography.

caust1c 8y ago
I used to think the same as you, but I realized that I was putting no effort into my local communities. Once I started to start putting more effort into the local community, I began to appreciate geographic proximity much more. That said, as all things, there's a balance. The Internet is a great tool for bringing people virtually close together and spreading ideas. Sharing those ideas is a great way to enhance your local community. > tyranny of geography Haha. We're a long way from being omnipresent so you better get used to having neighbors. ;-)
- Kalium 8y ago
  Can we just agree that it's not evil that people get a choice now where they didn't before? You're very right! Sharing ideas to enhance your local community can be incredibly valuable and rewarding! However, some people occasionally find that their local communities do not always uniformly and enthusiastically welcome the ideas they want to share. Some people, faced with such experiences and fears, might consider that analog and digital communities offer different tradeoffs.
  - pathseeker 8y ago
    > Can we just agree that it's not evil that people get a choice now where they didn't before? It depends. I find the fact that people can isolate themselves into communities where it's very easy to censor out any possible dissenters and dissenting opinions to be pretty damn damaging to our society.
    - Bjartr 8y ago
      This is the balance on enabling people to escape from communities in which they are censored, to allow those ostracized for their beliefs can find those who will respect them despite, or even because of, the beliefs they hold. I believe that our tendency to view unpopular beliefs a stain upon a person's immutable character is a more fundamental (as in, earlier in the causal chain) cause of the damage to society you describe.
    - 8y ago

uRreading2slow 8y ago

> Unreason and anti-intellectualism abominate thought. Thinking implies disagreement; and disagreement implies nonconformity; and nonconformity implies heresy; and heresy implies disloyalty — so, obviously, thinking must be stopped. But shouting is not a substitute for thinking and reason is not the subversion but the salvation of freedom. -- Adlai Stevenson, "A Call to Greatness" (1954) > The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place. -- George Bernard Shaw