I’m in the process of putting together a project in which I will attempt to articulate the understanding I’ve come to about what we are currently experiencing in the US (and beyond) - one element I want to include is a glossary of terms, as I find these so helpful and such an underutilized tool for building shared understanding. In my glossary are a number of terms that others in this community might be able to help define - I would be tremendously grateful for that help. I am a synthesizer by nature and can read well across disciplines but would not claim expertise in most.
I’m including the full list below - as you’ll see, some are clearly tech terms, some are related and some are from other disciplines. This community has amazing people, so I won’t guess which terms folks can help define - hence the full list.
One note - I want to define these terms in ways a lay person can understand - that is, with clear language that doesn’t use other technical terms. If anyone wants to correspond offline, my personal email address is karenhkey@gmail.com. Thanks for considering this request - I will of course share the product of this work with this community. Here’s the list of terms:
Glossary (definitions to follow)
Kompromat
Kleptocracy
Oligarchy
Autocracy
Fascism
Cut out
Artificial Intelligence
Algorithm
Computational Propaganda
Propaganda bot, bot networks, and trolls
Attack surface
Cyber warfare (see also cyber psychological warfare)
Social norms engineering
Dystopia
Attention merchant
Surveillance machine (see also surveillance capitalism)
It was discussed on this forum a glossary would not happen, but I lost the specifics on that thread… Do you remember @aschrijver where people would be directed for this?
Thanks for the question - and I did go back and find the thread you mentioned. My intention is to use it as part of a writing project I’m embarking on - and I intend to share it here as well, as a tool. It looked like from the thread that the original idea was similar to mind, but then it went off into the capabilities of the forum to use something like this (which I’ll admit lost me).
I read a lot of policy papers and other similar kinds of literature, and when I find a glossary offered as part of the document I find it to be of tremendous value. So often we have conversations where we don’t even realize that we’re not talking about the same thing, because we haven’t defined our terms.
I’ve tried to read what you’re sharing about #GlobalDebout and admit I can’t make heads or tails of it, which may just be about me. Is there a document you can point to that articulates what #GlobalDebout is in lay person’s terms? Apologies, but I haven’t found the links you’ve shared accessible to me as a reader.
Thank you - Tech is not my field so for a non tech person a glossary of terms in a tech paper makes your reader audience bigger- great ideas anywhere. Just depends on who you want to read and comprehend the topic. It makes reading faster and is sensitive to readers time too- if things get too technical I usually bail reading- it takes time to Wikipedia many terms.
Thank you for responding. It is not just you that expect to learn about #GlobalDebout in lay persons terms. Most people do.
Maybe the dated (from June 2017) post Six potential insights from TC1 — Original intended to give the key bones of the structure of knowledge flows terms might be a good introduction.
As there are no roadmaps yet, it is critical to have an architecture that allows new elements (and their terms unknown yet) emerge later on that fit nicely into the structure. When you write of a full fixed list you make the assumption that there is a roadmap available.
Thanks - and I will look at what you’ve shared. Let me just say that I don’t expect a roadmap - I’m really just trying to understand what you’re saying, and what this is about. A series of hashtags literally means nothing to me, as I abhor Twitter.
OK! Thanks again. It is clear we are not on the same page yet.
Even if you don’t expect a roadmap, when you say “I’m including the full list below,” by default you are under a roadmap in which the future is a continuation of the past. To understand what I am saying, readers need to change their mindset to one without a roadmap for which the future is no longer a continuation of the past.
Ok - I think we’re misunderstanding each other, and that’s ok. The glossary has huge value for me - and not for you. I’m not interested in debating about Twitter. Perhaps others here will understand and can respond to what you’re posting about. This is my last post on the matter - hope you get responses that are helpful / valuable to you.
This is meant to be very respectful. What if I am not misunderstanding you at all? Thanks for wishing responses, which I hope give opportunities not just to me, but to many others citizens the world over.
I guess we need an effective glossary that has huge value to others too. I am not interesting in debating either, as long ago I centered my effort into generative dialogues (the shared image says only dialogue) that help enable opportunities.
It’s not possible for you to assess whether you are understanding me, as you don’t have access to my intention. I am very familiar with the difference between debate and dialogue. I asked you for help understanding what you were posting, and what you offered was not helpful to me - that is a statement I can make because it is about me, not about you or your intention.
Again, here’s hoping others - on this forum and beyond - find a dialogue on what you’ve posted helpful and valuable. I respectfully ask you not to continue this thread with me.
I will try to find the glossary I put together which defines most of the terms you listed. In the meantime, I saw an article from last Sunday’s New York Times magazine by Nicholas Confessore that, while a bit long, just kept getting better and better, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/14/magazine/facebook-google-privacy-data.html
The most frightening fact in the article is that Google and Facebook spend more on lobbying Congress than any other organizations have in history! And unfortunately, it has been very sucessful for them.
@khkey exactly- you communicate this concept so well. I believe this is the foundation for connecting us all so we can solve problems together. Otherwise it’s a unidirectional process- a global problem needs to reach many many people.
