Organization after Social Media

I found this interesting resource for the CHT:

Our projects evolve around digital publishing, alternative revenue models, online video and design, digital counter culture and much more.

Geert Lovink (founder) and Ned Rossiter just published an interesting paper:

Exploring the politics of networks through and beyond social media

Organized networks are an alternative to the social media logic of weak links and their secretive economy of data mining. They put an end to freestyle friends, seeking forms of empowerment beyond the brief moment of joyful networking.

Their 182 page publication can be freely downloaded as PDF, and is available in book form (ordered directly) in stores from September (182 pages, 5.5 x 8.5, UK: £16 / US: $24 — ISBN 978-1-57027-338-4)

A central theme of the book is this question, which is being answered:

What can replace the corporate walled gardens such as Facebook and Twitter? Our answer
to this question is a firm and open one: a federation of organized networks, sustainable cells that operate as secret societies.

I have yet to read this document, and am intrigued with the “secret societies” part, but it seems to align with my idea that we need to have an interlinked cooperating grid of many independent grassroots initiatives, that can coexist and thrive in parallel with our curently economic systems that are unsustainable, and will lead to disaster if not changed. These initiatives are ‘secret’ in that they are privacy-first designs and not surveilled by data harvesting, extractive companies.


I have not read the document either. However, “secret societies” is found 3 times, “secret society” 2 and “techno-secret society” 1. The most telling of them says:

“The mass introduction of cryptography is a reassessment of the secret society as a cultural technique. Invisible and secret organizations have been accused of the “terror of the informal,” which is reprimanded for not being accountable. This politically correct rhetoric needs to be countered with the argument that organized networks are not public organizations or state bodies. The trick is to achieve a form of collective invisibility without having to reconstitute authority. Organized networks are not vanguard parties. The party in its original sense claims to articulate the general interest and will of the people.”

As short run financial capital is the main source of unsustainable institutions, please consider this long run production capital post Let’s replace with institutional innovations for #GlobalDebout a rule-based disorder.

You’ve cited your article several times. I attempted to read it but couldn’t get very far. I imagine the same is true for other people. If you want your ideas to be understood, you’ve got to express them in plain, layperson’s terms: no hashtags, no academic language, no abstract terms.

Use common terms, simple syntax, and concrete examples. Thank you :slight_smile:

Thank you for kind response. You are right when you say “I imagine the same is true for other people." However, I want to start a dialogue with you to see if we might get to the same page.

I guess I am repeating for the second time this post: Can #SocialBusiness3DoC disable #FakeNews? Please concentrate only on the two images of the post for the time being.

Is it possible that you are expecting that ideas to be presented to a layperson in a linear sequence instead of being hyperlinked with terms that are not yet common for which I use Hashtags?

Do you see any benefit of going beyond the limit of the Second Degree of Clarity?

Might there be a Fake News trap when we "express them in plain, layperson’s terms: no hashtags, no academic language, no abstract terms.“?

Maybe the story Might this be Keynes’ advice to madmen in authority? be closer to what laypersons are expecting. Is that so?

That is less abstract and obscure, yes, but still not what I would call layperson’s language.

Happy Birthday and thanks a lot.

Then, there must be no disagreement, as it is impossible to introduce innovations with layperson’s reductionist thinking language, when deep thinking is required. As you can see in that post, even heads of national states, like Emmanuel Macron, which is not a layperson, are wasting the crisis we live today by remaining in problem solving mode (with non laypersons “wicked” problems) when we need to change to the opportunities mode (that dissolve - not need to solve - those “wicked” problems).

Even the Fortune Magazine’s Change the World report, released today, centered in problem solving might be written with laypersons language, which forecloses the opportunities to really change the world.

Thank you for considering revising your approach. It is good of you.

And many thanks for the birthday wishes too :sunny:

You are welcome! I guess you have misinterpreted me. I am not revising my approach. On the contrary, I am very happy to inform the Humane Tech Community response in Is it possible that this community is dealing with a **wicked** problem?, which confirm the validity of my heuristic methodology of systems architecting approach that’s not for laypersons.

As you wish. I meant “consider” in the sense of “entertain, however briefly.”

We can measure the success of our attempts to communicate in many ways. Here is just one.

Thanks once again!

I don’t see why I should object to your measure of success. It is similar to those emotional and addictive #SocialMedia oriented measures of success of Facebook and Twitter. Should I be happy of being read much more?

However, under the deep thought #SocialBusiness3DoC oriented measure of success, the one I am promoting is to help emerge a much needed roapmap to the future that is sharply different. It comes, for example, in response to Margaret Thatcher’s There Is No Future to Neoliberalism narrative, as the narrative “There Is Alternative” #GlobalDebout #TIA_GD Narrative — Narrativa “Hay Alternativa, whose introductory image is next.

Thank you for your attempts to communicate. I appreciate your intention and recognize your sincerity.

I could be wrong–moderators, please correct me if so–but I think “Read” refers to what you have read. Not how many people have read you.

You are not wrong. It is “post read.”

You are welcome. I am trying to communicate with a select group of potential leaders.

Thanks a lot for being so patient.

As a thought experiment on a very important concept of the Computing Big Shift, that is analogous to what I am doing beyond the Printing Big Shift, please tell me what you think about this Entropy (information theory) Wikipedia item that starts with:

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page . (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)

This article may be too technical for most readers to understand . Please help improve it to make it understandable to non-experts, without removing the technical details. (November 2017)

This article needs additional citations for verification . (April 2012)

It is too difficult for me to understand. I assume the same would be true for most of the forum members.

Sorry, I don’t know what else to say.

I don’t think that it is too difficult to understand.