[top-politics] Re: Openness

echarp — 2006-11-01 00:05:23+0100

> Difference I am talking about is there is no place for usurpators that > anyone has to listen becuase he is at position. In this free process > person gets to any position because I want him to be there. Of course, > I am talking as a microelement of the large political picture.

The net and networking in general are changing the old pyramids. Let’s hope it goes all the way to a great upheaval of the whole specie.

Yeap, I am ambitious that way…

Yet I’m also confident in the fact there will always be usurpators, and that they will be heard from their position.

Read more… / Lire plus…

> > > I am looking at metastructure where everyone knows everyone through 7 > > > people. The whole is completely networked even today. With one global > > > network. That network has whole political influence of the World. I am > > > not interested in clusters, as long as clusters do not have political > > > power. Network has. > > > > A trust network generally is not considered to encompass all of > > society… > > Why not?

The word society is already used to describe… society :)

A trust network is generally used to describe something else. A group of people who share some kind of confidence among themselves. And I can tell you, some groups don’t include me, this is a fact.

You are unnecessarily complicating the discussion here.

> > > > Global? Your reputation is based on many things, and among it are > > > > prominent political figures. > > > > > > Do not worry about them. They have setted their reputation trough old, > > > not TOP system. The influence they set is an influence of the glass > > > legs. It is the forum where through reputation sets. So, when big heads > > > come to forum, they become much smaller then when we imagine them > > > through media set myths. When you can touch your god, it is not your > > > god any more. The same thing is with the transmited reputation that has > > > its worthiness based on TOP only. > > > > What you are describing is not an innate power of online politics, but > > merely the fact that current politicians don’t really use the internet > > and are not fond of it. > > > > Of course, the consequence is that online their presence does not carry > > as much power as in the traditional places. But this will change. > > On TOP they can not BS around as they regularly do. So, if they are > good at TOP where facts follow them, as long as TOP “remembers” and > works on principle “you can fool some people some time…” if they can > keep their reputation on TOP, I see no problem with that.

Are you telling me there won’t be bullshit anymore? :)

> Yet. As long as their political power origins at closed paradigm, lets > call it machiavelism, where manipulation, lies and imposture are common > principle of gaining poliical position, disclosure process in TOP is > something that puts them rather behind in comparison to some novice.

TOP or not, I can already tell you there will be lies and impostures. Like with newspapers, we can hope more and more will be exposed.

Democracy requires vigilance.

> > There you go. This is politics. In a forum, online or not, this has > > consequences. For example that you will be heard or not. > > Yes. So? BTW, you have to keep in mind that it is YOU who decide whom > you are going to listen to. It is your position in network that gives > you inputs for what would you find relevant and what is not. As you > know, I am not supporter of rough quantification in a process of > setting quality standards. I find quality standards need qualitative > principles for set up. > > Or to look at Leparlament, I am not interested in common arithmetical > middle that will say to me what is interesting and what is not, but > simmilar thinkers I did notice who can reccomend me whom to listen. The > same thing as with music. > > I do not follow popular charts, but people I consider to have good > music. In that way, no torture of majority is possible and I find it > very important, especially as long as in that way usurpators based on > popularity are not possible. They are by passed by network itself. They > have no influence at my opinion at all.

You are not speaking of democratic decision making there… But of communication, of influence :-(

Of course deliberation is a component of democracy, yet by itself it is not sufficient.

> > Can one person be responsible, can a couple, can a small group…? > > Yes. Why not? You do not think so?

Of course I do, I am a democrat. I just felt you had troubles with the concept of group responsibility.

> > > > Not very considerate of democracy… :-( > > > > > > In a way you see it, you are probably right. In a way I see it, what > > > you call democracy is just a mockery. I am looking for real democracy. > > > > Which is one where one vote matters enough for you to use it? Or one > > where you will be heard by everybody? > > Participation is the essence of democracy, not mere voting.

Democratic decision making requires some kind of voting…

echarp – http://leparlement.org/Features_request

[top-politics] Re: Openness

Gordan Ponjavic — 2006-10-31 19:56:04+0100

echarp wrote:

> > > > > You also accept the fact that in a popular forum, filters will be used, > > > > > and that many posts will be discarded by many users. > > > > > > > > Nevertheless, if we based openness with equality standard, we could > > > > solve that problem out. > > > > > > Equal in what ways? This need to be defined. > > > > > > The right to be equally heard? :) > > > > Equal possibility is the most we can do and I think also the best we > > can do. This means, no division among user rights. If someone has some > > rights, everyone has to have them. If one can moderate, everyone can. > > If one can erease, everyone can and so on…. > > I’m definitely cool with that. Is it part of “Open” or of “Public”? I > would says it’s an element of the "Public"’s definition.

I do not know. You might be right, though. Even it could be open if we set principle of openness in such manner as long as openness defines third entity engagement.

> Equality does not imply being heard.

Read more… / Lire plus…

Indeed. I do believe that if we enable natural process going smooth, that such process makes politics cool thing. I see not natural thing that some off topic lunatic has as much space in front of me as some cool person. I do not want it. I want info flow to be the best for me, with no need for “political correctness”. After all, culture comes out of societal autopoiesiss, not out of tight ass.

> > OK. I have nothing against their decision. If third party is not > > dependent on filters of her leader, then its all right with me. Open > > info flow is enabled, third party has chance to notice me and i have > > the possiblity to gain my deserved reputation that would make me > > interesting or not interesting to be listened. But this fact wont be > > dependent on a prominent figure but on the trust network that is not > > controled by anyone. > > A trust network is free from influence? Politics don’t apply on it? > Reputation and power are absent?

No. No. No.

Difference I am talking about is there is no place for usurpators that anyone has to listen becuase he is at position. In this free process person gets to any position because I want him to be there. Of course, I am talking as a microelement of the large political picture.

> > I am looking at metastructure where everyone knows everyone through 7 > > people. The whole is completely networked even today. With one global > > network. That network has whole political influence of the World. I am > > not interested in clusters, as long as clusters do not have political > > power. Network has. > > A trust network generally is not considered to encompass all of > society…

Why not?

> And of course, you can be expelled from one.

“No man is an island”. No cluster is an island. We might talk about one forum where I was banned. Or about two. But I am rather regular person in Croatian cyber politics. When protagonists of banning come to other places, their deed is considered to gain them bad reputation.

Their influence is not base on small clusters, but on Croatian social network as whole. So, what does it mean if Mirko and Marko decide to ignore me? They are irrelevant if their opinion is not popular among hundreds and thousands. So, they can “expel” me, but what does that actually mean? Looking from the place of Croatian cyber politics, it means nothing to me, but much more to them.

> > > A forum is a political playground. You want to remove politics from it? :) > > > > ??? > > > > A forum is a place where there are politics. Don’t I make sense?

I do not understand you. I use forum for my political agenda. How could I remove politics from it?

> So much so that the first democrats used to deliberate and decide in a > forum!

See?

> > > Global? Your reputation is based on many things, and among it are > > > prominent political figures. > > > > Do not worry about them. They have setted their reputation trough old, > > not TOP system. The influence they set is an influence of the glass > > legs. It is the forum where through reputation sets. So, when big heads > > come to forum, they become much smaller then when we imagine them > > through media set myths. When you can touch your god, it is not your > > god any more. The same thing is with the transmited reputation that has > > its worthiness based on TOP only. > > What you are describing is not an innate power of online politics, but > merely the fact that current politicians don’t really use the internet > and are not fond of it. > > Of course, the consequence is that online their presence does not carry > as much power as in the traditional places. But this will change.

On TOP they can not BS around as they regularly do. So, if they are good at TOP where facts follow them, as long as TOP “remembers” and works on principle “you can fool some people some time…” if they can keep their reputation on TOP, I see no problem with that.

Yet. As long as their political power origins at closed paradigm, lets call it machiavelism, where manipulation, lies and imposture are common principle of gaining poliical position, disclosure process in TOP is something that puts them rather behind in comparison to some novice.

> > Why should I? I also have respect to the people who IMO deserve it. And > > they are superior to those who can not gain respect, at least from my > > point of view. I have no problem with that. I have no problem with > > others who have their own lists also. > > There you go. This is politics. In a forum, online or not, this has > consequences. For example that you will be heard or not.

Yes. So? BTW, you have to keep in mind that it is YOU who decide whom you are going to listen to. It is your position in network that gives you inputs for what would you find relevant and what is not. As you know, I am not supporter of rough quantification in a process of setting quality standards. I find quality standards need qualitative principles for set up.

Or to look at Leparlament, I am not interested in common arithmetical middle that will say to me what is interesting and what is not, but simmilar thinkers I did notice who can reccomend me whom to listen. The same thing as with music.

I do not follow popular charts, but people I consider to have good music. In that way, no torture of majority is possible and I find it very important, especially as long as in that way usurpators based on popularity are not possible. They are by passed by network itself. They have no influence at my opinion at all.

> > > Newspapers. Internet. Media. > > > > You really think newspapers and Internet are the same thing, looking > > from a political perspective? > > I think that one encompass the other. Newspapers brought the same kind > of political revolution as the net will.

Lets see.

> > > > What do you think about it? > > > > > > I think that the whole point of DD is that the demo is responsible > > > for its decisions. > > > > Demo has its names and surnames. Yes? > > Sorry: the point is that it is the demo which is responsible.

If we base system on equality, than there is no other but demo anyway.

> Do you understand that point? What is so complex about it?

OK.

> Can one person be responsible, can a couple, can a small group…?

Yes. Why not? You do not think so?

> > I want to be heard and I want to hear also. These things are rather > > important if you want to realise your interests. I suppose you do not > > have problems with the fact I admit I am political being. Yes? > > No. But I fear you may dismissing what democracy is about, concentrating > on your political activism and not on decision making by a group.

I am not calling you to join ME. I am not calling you to support ME. What I want to say is that my general agenda is actually not of your business. If you can find things where we can collaborate, great. If not, too bad. You and me will probably survive it.

What I am offering to you right now is just an introspective of “cyber” politician. Something that has sustainability and something that is more and more popular in Croatia these days.
You can use it if you like and if it makes sense to you.

> > > Not very considerate of democracy… :-( > > > > In a way you see it, you are probably right. In a way I see it, what > > you call democracy is just a mockery. I am looking for real democracy. > > Which is one where one vote matters enough for you to use it? Or one > where you will be heard by everybody?

Participation is the essence of democracy, not mere voting.

ATB,
Gale

> > echarp – http://leparlement.org/Features_request

[top-politics] Re: Openness

echarp — 2006-10-29 11:04:30+0100

> > > > You also accept the fact that in a popular forum, filters will be used, > > > > and that many posts will be discarded by many users. > > > > > > Nevertheless, if we based openness with equality standard, we could > > > solve that problem out. > > > > Equal in what ways? This need to be defined. > > > > The right to be equally heard? :) > > Equal possibility is the most we can do and I think also the best we > can do. This means, no division among user rights. If someone has some > rights, everyone has to have them. If one can moderate, everyone can. > If one can erease, everyone can and so on….

I’m definitely cool with that. Is it part of “Open” or of “Public”? I would says it’s an element of the "Public"’s definition.

Equality does not imply being heard.

> OK. I have nothing against their decision. If third party is not > dependent on filters of her leader, then its all right with me. Open > info flow is enabled, third party has chance to notice me and i have > the possiblity to gain my deserved reputation that would make me > interesting or not interesting to be listened. But this fact wont be > dependent on a prominent figure but on the trust network that is not > controled by anyone.

Read more… / Lire plus…

A trust network is free from influence? Politics don’t apply on it? Reputation and power are absent?

> > You can be part of one network yet be expelled from another one, this > > should be enough for a demonstration. > > I am looking at metastructure where everyone knows everyone through 7 > people. The whole is completely networked even today. With one global > network. That network has whole political influence of the World. I am > not interested in clusters, as long as clusters do not have political > power. Network has.

A trust network generally is not considered to encompass all of society…

And of course, you can be expelled from one.

> > > If we define this thing properly, they wont be in position to control > > > the space. > > > > A forum is a political playground. You want to remove politics from it? :) > > ??? >

A forum is a place where there are politics. Don’t I make sense?

So much so that the first democrats used to deliberate and decide in a forum!

> > > If we base system on equality standards and I asume that has to be > > > basic thing for TOP software, then they wont be able to control > > > anything. They might manipulate, but in TOP system such thing becomes > > > obvious. In the same time, my reputation is not based on them, but on a > > > global trust network. > > > > Global? Your reputation is based on many things, and among it are > > prominent political figures. > > Do not worry about them. They have setted their reputation trough old, > not TOP system. The influence they set is an influence of the glass > legs. It is the forum where through reputation sets. So, when big heads > come to forum, they become much smaller then when we imagine them > through media set myths. When you can touch your god, it is not your > god any more. The same thing is with the transmited reputation that has > its worthiness based on TOP only.

What you are describing is not an innate power of online politics, but merely the fact that current politicians don’t really use the internet and are not fond of it.

Of course, the consequence is that online their presence does not carry as much power as in the traditional places. But this will change.

> > > Seems as we have to develop filtering software based on eqaulity soon > > > as possible. By making such thing be done, noone is superior any more, > > > so free market takes it place. > > > > Reputation, that can make one person superior to another in a political > > context. You think you can remove it? ;) > > Why should I? I also have respect to the people who IMO deserve it. And > they are superior to those who can not gain respect, at least from my > point of view. I have no problem with that. I have no problem with > others who have their own lists also.

There you go. This is politics. In a forum, online or not, this has consequences. For example that you will be heard or not.

> > > My firm belief is that informed people generally make better decisions > > > for the common good. I suppose this is what every democratic mind > > > believes also. > > > > Newspapers. Internet. Media. > > You really think newspapers and Internet are the same thing, looking > from a political perspective?

I think that one encompass the other. Newspapers brought the same kind of political revolution as the net will.

> > > Yes, of course. Politics is not playing video games. Bad politics can > > > easily ruin whole society. It can send people to die for nothing, to > > > loose basic human rights etc. So, why should we accept irresponsible > > > behaviour in such serious matter? Such opinion makes no sense to me. > > > > > > Of course. I do understand that in todays pseudodemocracy political > > > irresponsiblitiy is being apologized in order of giving free hands to > > > oligarchy. Yet, in some future system, in true democracy, > > > responsibility is what I conseder to be easily recognised as common > > > good. > > > > > > What do you think about it? > > > > I think that the whole point of DD is that the demo is responsible > > for its decisions. > > Demo has its names and surnames. Yes?

Sorry: the point is that it is the demo which is responsible.

Do you understand that point? What is so complex about it?

Can one person be responsible, can a couple, can a small group…?

> I want to be heard and I want to hear also. These things are rather > important if you want to realise your interests. I suppose you do not > have problems with the fact I admit I am political being. Yes?

No. But I fear you may dismissing what democracy is about, concentrating on your political activism and not on decision making by a group.

> > > To be more precise, I havent been at elections for several years. And I > > > do not find it be bad thing. My vote did not matter and even if it did > > > matter, I did not have anyone to vote for. > > > > Not very considerate of democracy… :-( > > In a way you see it, you are probably right. In a way I see it, what > you call democracy is just a mockery. I am looking for real democracy.

Which is one where one vote matters enough for you to use it? Or one where you will be heard by everybody?

echarp – http://leparlement.org/Features_request