Warlords, Priests, Merchants, Media......Internet
If the idea that the various ages of Power have ranged down from tribal warlords (Kings) to priests ("The Church") to merchants (exemplified by the Venetians) to the media (CNN being the archetype)...is it any stretch to say that the internet ("The People) is the newest power broker on the scene?
Comments
Originally posted by drewprops
If the idea that the various ages of Power have ranged down from tribal warlords (Kings) to priests ("The Church") to merchants (exemplified by the Venetians) to the media (CNN being the archetype)...is it any stretch to say that the internet ("The People) is the newest power broker on the scene?
No.
Okay, don't call the internet "The People". But it isn't the King, it isn't the Church, it isn't the Merchants and it isn't the Media. It's all of them PLUS the people. Maybe a grand convergence. Like ShawnJ, I don't know...but...
Do any of you guys strictly rely on getting your facts from newspapers and television anymore? If there's a teaser on the news for some event that catches your opinion do you sit there and wait for them to tell you the story or do you head for Google? (admittedly a convergence of ALL media outlets)
There's an article in the latest WIRED where one of the guys from moveon.org says that the internet has artificially increased his perceived IQ by 20 points...the accuracy of the number he uses notwithstanding, I'd hazard a guess that all of the smart cats on this board would be a lot less prepared if the internet went on vacation. Howard Dean's strangely powerful (yet vaporous) seemed born of the net. Relational database sites are growing in size (Xanga, Friendster, etc).
FARK (and other sites like it) rapidly dispense news stories, a kind of rabid parallel processing of odd and interesting news stories. Blogs have gained acceptance and even a growing reverence, even among those in the traditional media.
Perhaps the torch hasn't truly been passed from the Media to the internet yet, and the Merchants certainly never went away, but I'd assert that the internet has introduced a new eccentricity into the process.
Maybe it's universal information.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Three cheers for the internet!
FREE PORN! FREE PORN! FREE PORN!
A bureaucracy is what characterizes power. Power accumulates in a bureaucracy. "The Internet" does not act collectively, therefore your whole thesis is meaningless.
I stick by my assertion, not to be pulled off course by your strangely personal assaults. The internet IS a tool, the USE of the internet is something more that I didn't dream up all by myself....for reference I refer you to the last ten years of WIRED magazine. The article to which I referred earlier is just one of a bazillion stories about how the USE of the internet is empowering people more than ever before.
The availability of information and the ability to cross-reference that information is something that people have never had until this age. I'd certainly say that the people have been empowered by the use of the internet.
So, I'm having a discussion. If you want to win something you're playing with the wrong person. And keep your drugs to yourself.
Yeah drewprops I'm with you but I think the Net has a long way to go in becoming a counter to existing power structures (I'm thinking another 20 - 50 years of maturation). But it has taken a few stumbling steps. P2P networks made the RIAA sit up and take notice. Traditional media outlets regularly pick up on stories derived from the (non-media) internet. Even something as banal and relatively pointless as googlebombing exemplifies the potential for a type of collective action hitherto unseen. Perhaps most significantly, it's making keeping things a secret more and more difficult. I imagine all politicians secretly loathe the Net.
But I think historically, these are such early days that where it all ends up and how people exploit the Net's potential (for good or bad) is pretty much anybody's guess (and there are plenty of anybodies trying to guess).
Once people literally start living and dying by the Internet, you'll probably be right.
But I guess as a interactive/communication/educational tool it works in some ways. My friend is getting his degree through an online college course.
And free porn rocks. The freedom of choice too.
Originally posted by drewprops
If the idea that the various ages of Power have ranged down from tribal warlords (Kings) to priests ("The Church") to merchants (exemplified by the Venetians) to the media (CNN being the archetype)...is it any stretch to say that the internet ("The People) is the newest power broker on the scene?
You know, I think it's a gross simplification to attribute power in a society to a few groups in overall society.
Some more food for thought: politicians, religious leaders are business owners are all people. Just not everybody. Same with the internet, not everyone is online - saying the internet is "the people" is about as accurate as saying the communist party is the people.
Further down the road, what is the "power" these groups supposedly wield? The influence they gain over other people's (law-makers, for example) choices perhaps? If so, the "internet" thus far has not been very successful in stopping the RIAA et al.
Sorry about all this bullshit philosophy, but it's a very vauge thread
Barto
I don't think that it is at all incorrect to suggest that the Internet will be (or already has been) added to the list by historians and sociologists. I also don't think I'd be incorrect in saying that the topic lies beyond the interest of you guys.....I don't think the topic is vague, I think that it's just too boring for you guys