by nz on 11/12/21, 1:15 PM with 16 comments
by wrs on 11/13/21, 6:16 PM
by codeulike on 11/13/21, 10:59 PM
That key bit about the person-hours in Wikipedia always stuck in my head - 100 million hours to build wikipedia, versus 200 billion hours per year watching TV.
And when people panic about kids amount of screen time these days, I think 'well at least it involves making choices' - which link to click, which tweet to like, which bit of candy to crush etc. Whereas in the decades that our societies spent glued to tv, a handful of massively centralised outfits somewhere got the privilege of beaming their own curated stuff straight into millions of peoples faces. They chose the content and the schedule and millions of people just turned up every day and sat infront of it.
Broadcast TV is a really weird phenomenon, looking back on it from here.
by Lammy on 11/13/21, 8:20 PM
“The way you explore complex ecosystems is you just try lots and lots and lots of things, and you hope that everybody who fails fails informatively so that you can at least find a skull on a pikestaff near where you're going. “
by milesvp on 11/13/21, 6:25 PM
Was gilligan a genius? So many attempts to get off the island were completely hare brained, maybe only he could see it. Lovable sabotage can be an effective tool to help save an org from itself.
But the more important thought, I’m reminded of all the works of Luis von Ahn who was trying to capture this surplus. He had a talk talking about the number of hours spent playing soltaire, and used the unit of empire state buildings built and it was some staggering number of units. It was a very compelling idea about the same time as this article. It’s a shame so much of that surplus has gone towards solidifying several tech giants rather than more things like Gary’s Mod.
by carbonguy on 11/13/21, 5:34 PM
I wonder now what other "Wikipedia"-type projects have arisen since 2008 to serve as similar public goods. GitHub? Maybe YouTube, if you squint hard enough?
by ImaCake on 11/13/21, 9:50 PM
The projects that fit this social surplus model that are doing good are often happening quietly. Those that are negative uses of social surplus are loud. Don’t let that fool you into thinking good projects are less common or hopeless causes.
by wayanon on 11/13/21, 5:05 PM
by 0x4d464d48 on 11/13/21, 5:37 PM
This is from 2008 and hindsight is 20/20 but theres a couple of disturbing omissions that have started making themselves apparent.
The piece emphasizes how all of this "cogitive surplus" is going to promote sharing and in the hands of good actors that's fantastic.
E.g.
"Just to pick one example, one I'm in love with, but it's tiny. A couple of weeks one of my students at ITP forwarded me a a project started by a professor in Brazil, in Fortaleza, named Vasco Furtado. It's a Wiki Map for crime in Brazil. If there's an assault, if there's a burglary, if there's a mugging, a robbery, a rape, a murder, you can go and put a push-pin on a Google Map, and you can characterize the assault, and you start to see a map of where these crimes are occurring."
But now for the other side of the coin. What happens when the people providing and sharing content are _bad_ actors?
E.g.
https://www.theverge.com/2016/3/24/11297050/tay-microsoft-ch...
Further, you're always assuming the provided data is accurate. It mandates a level of trust with the data provider. Sure, there may not be much incentive to provide fake data to a simple crime map but this can change quite readily when commercial interests are involved or some coordinated group of malicious actors. My mind jumps to small business owners being 'brigaded' on Yelp and state funded troll farms.
One final piece that I found particularly disturbing.
"Media that's targeted at you but that doesn't include you may not be worth sitting still for."
It's hard to argue that finding a niche for oneself is bad but I don't think that there are many intelligent people left that would argue media bubbles are a force for good. That's not to say the author would disagree but this is not an endorsement it seems to border on sympathetic.
I don't learn and grow from media that targets me. If anything it's antagonistic to that. Media that targets me makes me feel comfortable. It promotes narrative formation over reality testing.
Media not targeted for me, or that doesn't include me on the other hand, requires analysis. It requires comparison and contrast to my ideals and beliefs. It requires assessing why that media _doesn't_ target me and understanding who it's intended audience is and why _they_ consume it.
/rant
Felt the need to work on my writing this morning.
by flerovium on 11/13/21, 10:31 PM
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/28q7l5/how_m...