You can read it here:
He goes on to mention a handful of countries who are “looking at” reforming some of their laws to clamp down on blogs and wants the same in Canada. An interesting stance for someone who in the same letter makes the plea to “pity the author of a different view”.Alan Barth once said that “Criticism and dissent are the indispensable antidote to major delusions”. Social media is just the delivery method for that antidote. People are free to chose the specific delivery method of their choice ranging from little unknown pill, syringe or enema, as community discussion boards, web pages, blogs, instant message boards do not conform to a single cold mediocre experience. What makes each one valuable is the individual expression found in each. If on your travels of, as Sher calls it: ” our new internet world” you find something you disagree with, than by all means ignore it. If you do not agree with the source of the information, by all means question it. Or if you seek to change it than invest the time to participate in the commentary. But don’t be so naive to believe that a social media outlet will simply go away if attempts to induce libel chill or outright censor the author’s freedom of speech are brought to bear. John Gilmore, co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation made the observation that “The Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.” Information wants to be free, and that must be why we are witnessing as Douglas Rushkoff puts it : an “information arms race”. Mr. Rushkoff has a fantastic piece of the same title on pagws 82-86 of “The Disinformation Guide to Media Distortion, Historical Whitewashes, and Cultural Myths”
http://www.amazon.com/You-Are-Being-Lied-Disinformation/dp/0966410076 There is also a sequel titled : You Are STILL Being Lied To: The NEW Disinformation Guide to Media Distortion, Historical Whitewashes and Cultural Myths : http://www.amazon.com/You-STILL-Being-Lied-Disinformation/dp/1934708070 Both books are fantastic reads, but I gravitated to this entry specifically given of disconect some of our community members have regarding communications and communication theory. I have included sections below that I find relevant for discussion, and highlighted the sections that seem to contradict the Phyllist-ines arguments against blogging.
Today, “communications” is the science of influence. Mass communication is the study of how governments and corporations can influence their populations and customers—the so-called “masses.” The tools they employ are rhetoric, the ancient art of influence,1 and information, the modern science of control.But wherever real communication is occurring, there is life. Like the new buds on a tree, the places where communication takes place are the most effective leverage points in a culture from which to monitor and direct new growth. Those hoping to direct or, as is most often the case, stunt the development of cultural change, focus on these points. By imitating the qualities we associate with living communication, and then broadcasting fixed information in its place, the mass media manipulator peddles the worldview of his sponsors. Because television is not a communicator’s medium but the programmer’s (why do you think they call the stuff on TV “programming” anyway?), it depends on a passive, captive audience. There is no room for interaction, or the programmer’s advantage will be lost. As more people turned off their TVs and migrated online, the question for influence professionals became clear: How do we turn this communications nightmare into a traditional, dead, and controllable mass medium?
Their great trick was to replace communication with information. It was not about information at all, but relationships. We were not interacting with data, but with one another. The enemy of the coercer is change. Coercion and influence are simply the pushing of a fixed point of view. In this sense, the coercer is promoting death. The messy fertility of a living system is the information coercer’s greatest obstacle. But it is also our greatest strength as a developing culture. Finally, the conflict between “them and us” is fictional. The culture war is just a battle between those who see the need for change, and those would hope to prevent it. Those in power, obviously, seek to preserve the status quo. The only time they feel the need to make an adjustment is when they are hoping to absorb a unique new population, or when the populations already under their control have grown immune to the current styles of influence. Since the chief agents of change are interaction and communication, these will be the activities that the enemies of evolution will want to keep in check. But when an overwhelming proportion of our world community seeks a referendum on the human project, we must not allow our efforts to be derailed by those who would prevent such a movement by any means necessary.
An open mind is one of those means.And everyone that I have spoken to with an open mind is actively pursuing venues of change. Mediocrity and the status quo that is a clear enemy to this change has had a firm grip on council for the last 4 years can howl all it wants but it will not be part of Aurora’s future. We’ll make sure of that on Oct 25th.