The “next level” of social control

The title of the Italian newspaper Repubblica.it about the alleged end of the sentimental engagement between Cooper and Shayk (…Social Network users to dream about a liaison with Gaga) is a microscopic but interesting sign of how, in the blurred head of gossipers, the conviction of being able to direct the life choices of the victims of their peepingtomish attitude makes its way.
In the show business, many artists are involved in fake scandals and media combine, and it is not a bad thing if for once it is not they who organise the “scam”.
It is interesting to note, however, the tendency according to which a group of (reciprocal) strangers who gather through a social network pretend to heterodirect the choices of someone else, transforming themselves into a “collective” that writes the texts of their very personal reality show.
Maybe Gaga and Cooper will be involved in the same wedding without the “help” of gossipers. But if this happens, no one will take from their mind the conviction of having played a role in the story (with the “s” in the subscript).

The Hypocritical Correctness’s Taxonomy

A short list of the hypocrisy disguised as “human right protection” that floods the Internet:

  1. Privacy is a fundamental right,
  2. Weapons are evil,
  3. Web giants too are evil,
  4. We must fight to stop climate change,
  5. I work for the “enemy” not because of the fees, but because I will make him a better self,
  6. I don’t do it for money, but for “the Principle”,
  7. Trust me, even if it is gratis,
  8. China is dangerous,
  9. Exchange ideas is better than being paid with money
  10. He/She

Taxonomy of a conference or: on the distillation of knowledge

A researcher has an idea. He shares it with his colleagues, they start brainstorming together and present it in a “geek-only” seminar.

A journalist stumbles upon the idea. He understands little and nothing about it, but writes a column about it because he is “the one who deals with innovation” and interviews the “expert”.

The “expert”, who has been answering whatever question in the same way for thirty years, explains to him that there are also “legal problems”.

A legal scholar reads the journalist’s article and the “expert” statement, understands about it  even less, but decides that he “knows best” and organizes the conference “legal aspects of XXX”.

A politician is invited to the conference. Until a minute before, he was dealing with something else, but he understands that this can lead to votes. He decides to jump on the subject and invites the legal scholar, the expert and the journalist (but not the researcher who had the idea) to join the “steering committee for XXX” – which worth nothing, but looks “cool” – and presents a bill.

Meanwhile, the researcher notices that his idea had some flaws. He tries to contact the journalist, the expert, the legal scholar and the politician, but nobody answers him. They can’t admit that they didn’t know s…omething.

No, information are not the new gold

 

A New York Times article complains about “surveillance capitalism”  by re-repeating the usual “crying wolf ” lines: Facebook and Google surveil us, our behaviour is analyzed way more than “just” for marketing purposes, insurance companies might want to access our information and so on…

This article seems to support mantra such as  “information are the new gold”, “Information are the new crude” that keeps resonating in social network platform, digital world (self-professed) “experts” and traditional media.

But is this a correct assumption? Continue reading “No, information are not the new gold”