Talk:142.177.X.X: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
m (Faction == Consortium ?? or what) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
Could we please stick to English that the majority of people understand, because developing [[Consumerium]] is not about feeling extrovert elite-digi-intellectualism, but creating information tools for [[consumer]]s | Could we please stick to English that the majority of people understand, because developing [[Consumerium]] is not about feeling extrovert elite-digi-intellectualism, but creating information tools for [[consumer]]s | ||
:Consumers do not see this level, it is just for reconciling different levels of trust in different sources, and concern about different kind of problems. If someone registers concerns about "Green" things ([[deforestation]]), "Red" things ([[union made]]), "Pink" things ([[sweatshop-free]]), etc., then they will get a personal mix of other concerns based on how much others who share thos concerns care about related things. Those who throw the bricks and use the term [[syndicalised anarchism]] will argue about the shades of it and register different levels of concern with different things. It is necessary to have this level, otherwise each [[faction]] goes to create its OWN Consumerium!!! Bad idea. | |||
---- | ---- | ||
[[Faction]]: 13 links (position nro. 1 on the wanted pages). I think that I understand the consept of faction, but originally in my mind factions were something that would emerge in a self-organizing manner, not by some developers dreaming up boxes we can put people in and then define what they are interested in and how they participate. I mean: just get the infrastructure available that tight or loose [[consortium]]s can start to form and let the consortiums define their (extended FOAF-style) relationships to each other... | [[Faction]]: 13 links (position nro. 1 on the wanted pages). I think that I understand the consept of faction, but originally in my mind factions were something that would emerge in a self-organizing manner, not by some developers dreaming up boxes we can put people in and then define what they are interested in and how they participate. I mean: just get the infrastructure available that tight or loose [[consortium]]s can start to form and let the consortiums define their (extended FOAF-style) relationships to each other... | ||
::Yes, agreed, they will form bottom-up. But to help them form we must establish FIRST what complexity they resolve for us SECOND how we expect them to present their shared priorities to the system to help them prioritize themselves and THIRD what parts of our own [[glossary]] are up to them not us to define. | |||