![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
conrad p. straw posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsThe technology of so-called information age is rather a pretext to restrict freedom of expression than a mean to develop and enhance it.
How much freedom of access and getting substantial information and of forming related independent individual opinions one enjoys, depends from resources, potentials and means of enforcement of the own opinion and of repression of free intellectual competition, independent from any sway from finance or else, of unlimited variety of different opinions and views, in such high a degree that reality is rather a feudal system of propitiously tolerated expression (resp. a kind of licenced privilege of uncensored expression) than a democratic system of free expression.
The feudal character and state of conditioning collective habits of determination of the content of communication and the manners, means and ways of expression manifests already just by reference to clauses and provisions of Terms of Service which absolutely do not care about principles of civil law, forget bill of rights, and by the totally partial manner the user regularly gets shanghaied, euchred resp. compelled to "accept".
Major portion of those Terms of Service are regularly unintelligible if not even absurd to the average user, the user normally having no funds to pay for defense of his rights in case of dissent about the absurdity of the clause in case.
Just appointing a lawyer to review the content of such ToS simply cost several hundred USD, forget the costs of a lawsuit.
The average user is compelled to comply with the contempt of his basic rights by the author of the ToS, he is totally at the mercy of the provider.
What else than feudalism is this?
And You know what? The authors of the ToS justify the bias and incomprehensibility of their texts with technical difficulties and marketing requirements.
The former feudal masters referred to divine necessities as described in the bible, which was not understandable to illiterates, even was forbidden to subjects to read by themselves, under penalty of death.
Feudal systems always and mainly are based on advance in - real or just pretended - knowledge of the masters as against the subjects (common people).
And it still works - not only and mainly but even in ToS as well, what samples and reveals how much modern societies are controlled, on many levels and in many ways, by feudal systems rather than democracy.
How much freedom of access and getting substantial information and of forming related independent individual opinions one enjoys, depends from resources, potentials and means of enforcement of the own opinion and of repression of free intellectual competition, independent from any sway from finance or else, of unlimited variety of different opinions and views, in such high a degree that reality is rather a feudal system of propitiously tolerated expression (resp. a kind of licenced privilege of uncensored expression) than a democratic system of free expression.
The feudal character and state of conditioning collective habits of determination of the content of communication and the manners, means and ways of expression manifests already just by reference to clauses and provisions of Terms of Service which absolutely do not care about principles of civil law, forget bill of rights, and by the totally partial manner the user regularly gets shanghaied, euchred resp. compelled to "accept".
Major portion of those Terms of Service are regularly unintelligible if not even absurd to the average user, the user normally having no funds to pay for defense of his rights in case of dissent about the absurdity of the clause in case.
Just appointing a lawyer to review the content of such ToS simply cost several hundred USD, forget the costs of a lawsuit.
The average user is compelled to comply with the contempt of his basic rights by the author of the ToS, he is totally at the mercy of the provider.
What else than feudalism is this?
And You know what? The authors of the ToS justify the bias and incomprehensibility of their texts with technical difficulties and marketing requirements.
The former feudal masters referred to divine necessities as described in the bible, which was not understandable to illiterates, even was forbidden to subjects to read by themselves, under penalty of death.
Feudal systems always and mainly are based on advance in - real or just pretended - knowledge of the masters as against the subjects (common people).
And it still works - not only and mainly but even in ToS as well, what samples and reveals how much modern societies are controlled, on many levels and in many ways, by feudal systems rather than democracy.
(no subject)
Date: 19/6/14 02:33 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/6/14 09:17 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 21/6/14 22:14 (UTC)"We are the telephone company. We are omnipotent."
(no subject)
Date: 19/6/14 10:08 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/6/14 10:27 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/6/14 12:11 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/6/14 10:33 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/6/14 12:15 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/6/14 14:50 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/6/14 15:25 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/6/14 15:40 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 1/7/14 20:15 (UTC)Hi friends !
I am truly pleasantly surprised by the rich harvest of inspiring comments ALL of You gave me, in a wide diversity of individual views.
I am not accustomed to such. It's the very first time in a couple of years I got such vivid and spicy reactions.
An endless cascade of incidents setting unexpected priorities was hindering me all the time to answer quickly.
Please understand I cannot reply every comment in detail. I endeavour to answer to ALL of You by the following :
Everyone of Your comments projects, from it's unique perspective, a truly illuminating spotlight on what I tried to expose but left many aspects of in dead darkness. So I honestly can advice everyone of You to read and consider each of all the comments if s/he really wants to understand better what I meant.
I agree that I was slightly miffed about having detected another sample of those uniformly texted and legally useless ToS, even though I disclosed my mood to be calm.
Actually, the topic is an outgrowth of the basic issue : the unconsciously, carelessly and unwanted normative effects of generally used technology due to it's economical, commercial, logistical and practical prerequisites of common simple and unsuspecting application and use.
I personally suspect but cannot provide stringent evidence of the above mentioned "common simple and unsuspecting" application and use of technology resp. of whatever methods commonly accepted to be the main matrix of often unwanted but effective repression of whatever kind.
And this, I estimate, will require quite some analysis and thinking to get cleared and to find solutions to the better. I am afraid, I can't find such solution myself alone, especially if it should be a solution serving all.
Look at the 1. picture yes_justice posted!
Meditate about it - no joke! It fits perfectly what I tried to tell.
Then click yes_justice's post with the headline "And we dance" and while listening the music, read my text You have commented, in the pace of Vivaldi's music. Maybe this kind of Follia helps to better understand - if not find a solution! ;-)
(no subject)
Date: 1/7/14 18:54 (UTC)It is to be taken as it is resp. as You can and want to see it.
The reality is : there is an undefinite multitude of actual and possible perspectives and not every image displayed by any optical arrangement or system fits - without mediation and/or translation to a most likely common level - with any different one.
There remains immense work to be done - work there is no market for, which in turn mustn't mean that it is not beneficial at the end for all, in many unexpected ways.
I just imagine possible enhancements and evolutions - and? - I can't see any necessity to keep satisfied with the status quo just because I got educated resp. drilled to keep accustomed to it.
(no subject)
Date: 1/7/14 22:03 (UTC)