Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News

CNET Interviews John Perry Barlow 158

Posted by michael from the dead-again dept.
slothdog writes: "CNET has published an interview with John Perry Barlow. He talks about the evils of corporate totalitarianism (Microsoft, et al), the tech industry implosion, and the DMCA."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

CNET Interviews John Perry Barlow More

CNET Interviews John Perry Barlow

Comments Filter:

  • Corporate evilness? Microsoft market controlled corporate state evilness?

    Could someone please take the Captain America comics out of the hands of the /. articles crew?

    Thank You.
    • Damn that was quick. You beat me to it.

      So, what d'you figure? M$ will sue for defimation of Corporate character?

  • Articles need to try harder to hit mainstream (Score:5, Insightful)

    by spaten-optimator ( 560694 ) <arich.arich@net> on Saturday February 23, 2002 @03:28AM (#3056306) Homepage
    I was fascinated by this article, as I like to hear anyone's opinion and gather further fodder in my ongoing anti-M$ (et al.) quest.

    But when article writers repeatedly use loaded words like "totalitarianism," which we as savvy minds comprehend to be the same as "virtual monopoly by way of market cornering," they are limiting their column to a small demographic (the savvy people listed above). It is equivalent to writing in some form of geek-code that only other geeks understand.

    Basically, you limit the scope of your audience by your use of vocabulary. (IE, you will only reach other geeks by speaking in lingo.)

    I'm just wondering who benefits from an article of this type - the nerds all know it, the non-nerds won't even understand it.
  • To quote:

    Presumably, you'll do more and more purchases online, and presumably, Microsoft will make it more inconvenient for you--unless you provide your consumer data to Passport (the company's database of customer information). At some point, are you going to cave and provide Microsoft your credit card and other data?

    I don't know. (Long pause. Heavy sigh.)

    I'm really worried about this, and I keep praying for guidance. These are really dark times. On practically every front that I care about, the voices of the foes are winning. I have a beleaguered optimism that this isn't going to continue to be the case, but this is a time to have your faith tested, that's for sure.

    The solution is simple. Turn off your computer, and do your shopping and socializing the old fashioned way. The Internet is only popular while we, the collective, see it as a required part of our life. This is a lie that we have told ourselves repeatedly.

    If you wish to have your life revolve around the computer, or around the media, then you choose to be a part of this 'mass hallucination'.

    My grandmother taught me a valuable lesson: Believe none of what you hear, half of what you read, and all of what you see.

    Oh, I forgot. Conspiracy theories are the in thing in this new Millenium......

    • Then you become a passive citizen.

      Where would we be now had it not been for monopolistic labor unions fighting standard oil et al. in the late 1800's?

    • The solution is simple. Turn off your computer, and do your shopping and socializing the old fashioned way. The Internet is only popular while we, the collective, see it as a required part of our life. This is a lie that we have told ourselves repeatedly.

      If you wish to have your life revolve around the computer, or around the media, then you choose to be a part of this 'mass hallucination'.

      The Internet is not the problem. The problem is Microsoft (or anybody else) having centralized control of everybody's information. The choice should not be use Passport or become one of the cash-only hippies living up in Humbolt County. We should be able to use the Internet in a free (as in speech), open (as in standards and availability), and private (as in we get to choose who gets our information) manner.

      There is no fallacy. Be a bit more discerning and try not to have such a dichotomous view of the world.

    • FYI (Score:1)

      by fluxrad ( 125130 )
      It's "Believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see"

      ;-)
    • That's like saying that if early car manufacturers had totally ruined the car industry through their antics that we could say - "oh well, you can always walk."

      While this statemenet is true, the benefit of the automobile to society at large is great enough that it should continue to exist. Same with the internet. It is true that you don't need it but it could become something positve in life. Especially in the future - who knows what the internet could enable in 50 years.

      I think the crowd that says that the internet is not a basic right and fundementally unnecessary are simultaneously correct and short-sighted.

    • To a certain extent, I agree.

      On the other hand, I never used to have a credit card. I never wanted one because I consider it to be a borrowing tool, and I have never been in the position where I needed to buy something which I could not afford (not that I am rich, I just don't buy it if I don't have the money).

      There are two major problems with not having a credit card: 1.) I live in SF, and my family lives in MA. In order to buy plane tickets, I need a credit card (or else I have to borrow a friend's credit card). 2.) Since I never borrowed money, I had no credit record whatsoever. This could eventually prevent me from being able to buy a house that I could afford. It made it very difficult for me to get a credit card in the first place. They offer credit cards to students (worst case: mom and dad will pay), people with good credit (they will get their money back), and people with bad credit (they will get lots of money in interest payments).

      So the problem arises when they make things that you really "need" contingent on participation.

  • Maybe I'm just tired... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Xenopax ( 238094 ) <xenopax.cesmail@net> on Saturday February 23, 2002 @03:31AM (#3056314) Journal
    but it seems to me that a lot of sites are running many stories that slashdot can get hyped about. Linux on the desktop, microsoft is evil, DMCA is drawn and quartered in court. In a previous thread someone said that slashdot was played for fools and that the linux desktop thing was to get more ad impressions, I'm beginning to think he was right.

    Of course all this insane, conspiracy bumbling I'm doing might just be alcohol induced paranoia. Maybe I should goto bed.
    • I think that's a sound theory, the only problem is that, if you look at the number of posts which are never accepted (how many times have you tried?), it would be a true art-form to properly /.-snipe. (That is, create a good enough story to garner /. attention.)

      So, it is an interesting idea, but in reality, it would be too time-intensive to tailor a story in the hopes that it will be /.-posted, just to earn a couple of ad bucks.

      Then again, some [x-10.com] people will stop at nothing to make a friggin buck.
    • Suppose it is economically helpful to manipulate your stories for the purpose of attracting slashdot eyes. This would mean that slashdot's readership is manipulating the press. But there's more.

      Eventually, non-slashdot readers would find themselves innundated by exactly the material that slashdot readers wanted to see. I expect the result would be the majority of these non-slashdot readers aligning their opinion with the slashdot faction (if it's said/written enough times, it must be true!).

      This seems pretty far-fetched, but maybe the computer/technical world is 1) cliquish enough and 2) so sheep-like that it could happen. However, I expect that editors don't conciously try to create stories which attract slashdot readers. I think publishing firms prefer to take their bribes up front.

      -Paul Komarek
    • all this insane, conspiracy bumbling I'm doing might just be alcohol induced paranoia.

      You ought to consider submitting a few stories yourself.

  • Q. To play devil's advocate, isn't Microsoft simply selling a product that millions of people are willing to purchase at their own will?

    A. <snip> In fact, it's become totally diabolical.

    Q. If Windows is so bad, why does Apple have a meager 4 percent market share?

    A. Four? Really? Jesus.

    Hmm... Who said religion and computer science don't mix? :-)

    ---
    Celebrate "crash Windows XP with printf" week here [zappadoodle.com].
    • Apple may have four percent of the desktop market, but here Barlow is not thinking logically. But to be fair, few people think this out.

      Apple is NOT shrinking or losing by having a four percent market share. Think about it: they sell far more PCs to far more people than they ever have. They are a raging success.

      What happened here is that the number of PC owners has grown by orders of magnitude since the eighties. Wintel grew, Apple grew. Both paradigms are successful.

      By its very nature, Apple cannot succeed in the corporate world. It's about flair, being original, being artistic, being different. Since most of you do work corporate office jobs, you you that anyone showing such traits are not going to make it big -- conformity in large groups is essential to avoid conflict.

      Yeah, a Mac is just a PC, but the idea is what counts. Try dropping an iMac into a Wintel office. Not conforming, not goodnik.

      So before Barlow goes religious, he out to think of numbers of Macs used, not the proportion of the total PC base.
  • I think Barlow has alot of it slated down pretty well. The internet is becoming less free and more commercialized. Ads are worse [ign.com] than ever, and we're seeing a return to something I think we left off in the 80's. It's not who you are, but what you buy.

    I especially hope that people will start to reflect a bit more on theiropinions [kuro5hin.org] of the music industry now that JPB has said it. Royalties are bullshit. Pay for the performance, not the music.

    All in all, an excellent review. I just hope this reaches more eyes than the /. community.
  • I spent many years as a dead head, though a somewhat mainstream one (IE. i maintained a job but had a fair bit of time to tour with em as well). And then a big part of the EFF...

    i mean there is no way i couldn't like or support him, you would think...

    But frankly he looks like he is gettin just a little exxagerated with his claims now, i love what he stands for and all, but you will never appeal to a broad audience making such off the wall claims (even if there is some basis for a bit of it). He could serve his position much better by making very rational points supported with good fact, rather than just saying all the things he speculates could *possibly* happen someday

  • We're the com in com.com (Score:3, Funny)

    by cobar ( 57479 ) <maxwell@101freeway.com> on Saturday February 23, 2002 @03:52AM (#3056346) Homepage
    Since when did CNet buy com.com. I can see it now - "We're the com in com.com"
  • This guy mentions the word "evil" as much as president Bush does :)

    The only smart quote that I noticed in the interview was : "To have a whole bunch of money at a really young age and see how completely useless it is--it trains a lot of folks in the real value of things."

    The rest is not worth reading.

    • Re:Bush has met his match (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Catbeller ( 118204 ) on Saturday February 23, 2002 @05:53AM (#3056544) Homepage
      After 20 years of watching the ongoing corporatization and the creation of a conservative media hegemony, I think the word "evil" applies.

      Bush has had a revelation from God. He believes that he has been charged with eliminating evil-doers from the planet -- not a joke --by God Himself. If you read what he says, he is on a holy war. Any formerly Commie country, except China of course, is evil. Anything that embarassed his daddy was evil. Anything Clinton did... never mind. Saudi Arabia was the source of the terrorists for the most part, but curiously our oil sources don't seem to be evil.

      Barlow, on the other hand, sees a real evil: the almost absolute monopolization, coming Real Soon Now, of all news media outlets by mega-giga-corps, leading to the pasteurization of human thought on the planet. Dead real truth. Current forerunner of such: the almost complete adoration of the current president, and the complete lack of criticism of his past, his current policies, or his actual words. This is a top-down move from the highest levels of the corporations such as AOL-TW and GE and Disney. And across the country, in many city papers, editors and reporters that aren't toeing the line are being canned. Think about it: how many reporters and editors were fired for critizing Clinton? Interesting dynamic there, dontcha think?

      Barlow is right, as should be obvious. We're being sewn up into a certalized corporatocracy by the day, and no one is noticing. MS will use .Net to own everyone's transactions. And maybe BillG doesn't care about your private life, but what about future BillGs twenty years from now, or forty? Absolute power is being channeled into boardrooms that have no government oversight of their actions. Enron shows us how intertwined the power/money brokers are with the government. They've become inseparable. And these characters are going to decide what we see and hear on the net and any other channel of info?

      Listen to Barlow.
      • Don't get carried away here, cowboy. When government-supported death squads show up to rape your wife and butcher your kids because you've been running Linux, then we've got a real comparison. Take a look at the actions of US oil companies in, say, Nigeria or Myannmar, and then tell me that AOL or MS is "evil". Even these are nothing in comparison with the "Axis of Evil". I realize living in one of the most liberal countries on earth makes some of us forget what real oppression is, but it's hard to compare media conglomeration with the gassing of minority civilians. As far as China- it's now what, 1.2 billion? I'm graduating from college in three months, and would rather not be drafted to fight the Red Army.

        Your comments on conservative media are interesting. The New York Times, one of the most widely respected news sources, has regularly ripped into Bush on the editorial page. I don't have to look hard to find views opposing the administration's actions. Do you live in the Deep South or something?

        Finally, *mainstream* writers have been predicting the rise of fascism in the US for a century- Jack London and Sinclair Lewis come to mind. The fact that so far none of this has come to pass would be indication to most sensible Americans that although continued vigilance against possible tyranny is important, our system is generally both resistant and resilient. We've survived worse in the past.

        • Take a look at the actions of US oil companies in, say, Nigeria or Myannmar, and then tell me that AOL or MS is "evil".

          Perhaps if the major media spent more time pointing out those atrocities, not to mention the fact that Bin Laden and co. would be nothing without money and weapons from the west (mostly from selling oil and being strategically valuable because of that same oil), the people might force change.

          Who do you suppose is managing to consistantly fail to report on corperations slowly but surely becoming a law unto themselves but never missing a good car crash or apartment fire?

          If MS and AOL get their way, all hope of peolpe waking up to these evils may go away.

          • AOL and Microsoft will always have competition.

            So what if AOL owns CNN. Or that Microsoft has a stake in MSNBC. News still gets out through independent sources. Not to mention FOX News.

            The Slate has been somewhat critical of Microsoft, in fact. And they're owned by Microsoft!

            • AOL and Microsoft will always have competition.

              Less and less, it seems. At one time, every single newspaper was independant, as was every radio station (and they all had news). Given that, without even having to think hard I can justify a claim of an order of magnitude less diversity than there once was.

              Of those that are left, most seem to have been tamed by the corperates they used to watch.

              For a good view on the quality of news these days, catch 2 or 3 different news broadcasts in a couple of hours (local news seems to be the scariest). At least here in Atlanta, I have seen the 5,5:30 and 6P.M. news on different channels unable to even agree on a person being alive or dead (dead at 5, in critical condition by 6!)

              It's not just the consolidation that's a problem, but the slow transition from hard news to 'infotainment'.

      • After 20 years of watching the ongoing corporatization and the creation of a conservative media hegemony, I think the word "evil" applies.
        I agree that corporatization is a huge problem, but the media are anything but conservative. Most of the larger media companies are liberally biased.

        Current forerunner of such: the almost complete adoration of the current president, and the complete lack of criticism of his past, his current policies, or his actual words.
        I don't know what media you've been reading, but I see plenty of criticism of Bush. Some of it well deserved, some not.

        This is a top-down move from the highest levels of the corporations such as AOL-TW and GE and Disney.
        Do you have any evidence of this grand conspiracy you're suggesting? Some source inside these companies with access to "the highest levels" as you put it?

        And across the country, in many city papers, editors and reporters that aren't toeing the line are being canned. Think about it: how many reporters and editors were fired for critizing Clinton?
        All across the country, huh? Do you have any evidence for this?
      • The news media outlets are controlled by Bush and the far... RIGHT? Why don't they tell me when they change the conspiracy theories around here?

        The US media has been for a long time biased to the left. Of course, only in the controlled, sanitized, topperware-packaged way that you can see every morning on the Benneton ads you pass by. This has little to do with a right-wing conspiracy (or left-wing conspiracy, for that matter) and a lot to do with the actual nature of their left-wing bias: a matter of aesthetics that shifts, but does not shape, business.

        The main reasons they're giving G.W.Bush a break are two:
        - A national emergency (the terrorist attacks, not the war) means support the national leader.
        - The President's lack of depth is not big news. Clinton was a regular scandal factory.

        Even so, criticism of Bush and the Republican Party abounds. It's just not as entertaining as Clinton, and there are better, juicier things to put in the front-page.
        • The US media has been for a long time biased to the left

          Really? Give me one example. Calling the media left is the great lie of the right. They figure if they keep calling the media liberal enough times people like you will believe it. Sure enough they were right (pun intended).

          By calling the media liberal over and over again, what inevitably begins to happen is the media becomes more and more right than it already was in the first place. Now the media is nothing but a mouthpiece of the "evil" corporatized hegonomy. And with recent consolidation being made possible by Powell's son, this will only get worse.

          ASk yourself this question, "If the media has been so liberal - where are all the pro-marijuanna commercials?".

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
        Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Perhaps he now want *more* Government intervention (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mrgrumpy ( 26629 ) on Saturday February 23, 2002 @04:14AM (#3056379) Homepage

    As a self confessed libertarian, it's odd now that he's talking about the dangers of a free market economy. A place where corporations can run rampant, free of the restrictions of legislation.

    Maybe he's come to realise that, yes, we do need Government. We do need a protector of our basic rights. It's a shame George W. doesn't look like the man to do it.

    • Or maybe, just maybe, he's an hypocrite. he'll only support government intervention if he can use it to his advantage.
    • There are many interpretations of the word "Libertarian", with the greatest variance found among the interpretations of those who use it to label themselves.

      Some libertarians believe in a place for government. Some do not.

      Some libertarians fear a corporation acting as government (a monopoly regulating the market, as Microsoft has done with their OEM contracts, for example). Others are willing to give corporations the same trust they deny the government.
    • and giving them the same rights and freedoms as human beings was a mistake made by the government in 1886 in a Supreme Court decision called Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad. Had that mistake not been made, we would have a totally different society today. For more info, check adbusters [adbusters.org] article on "The Corporate I".

      Libertarianism talks about the rights and freedoms of humans. Nothing about it says that abstract constructs like corporations should get the same rights. Wanting to curb corporate power is entirely consistent with libertarianism, as far as I can tell.

    • As a self confessed libertarian, it's odd now that he's talking about the dangers of a free market economy.


      Right, and he slightly misses the point. He talks about totalitarianism being caused by "corporate capitalism in a completely unregulated environment", but excessive regulation is precisely the problem. Without government guns enforcing the DMCA, the Sonny Bono Infinite Copyright Act, UCITA, and other consumer-hostile legislation, these corporations would not anywhere near as much a threat to liberty as they are.

  • Someone should make a theme song about the DMCA. Call themselves the Shire Persons and do stupid gay dances while singing it. Dress up like various Tolkien characters. Yeah.

    Ever notice how Mr. Barlow looks like Jonathan Frakes (Star Trek TNG's 'Number One') is gonna look in about 20 years?
  • It isn't paranoia if these companies really are trying to 'take over the world', but still, I think that Mr. Barlow could have chosen some more conservative wording to avoid looking like a member of the archetype "paranoid anticorporate radicalist." Hopefully his many, many accomplishments and reputation will help the more skeptical to realize that there is some real meat to what is being said.
    • He's understating the problem, if anything else. It illustrates what he is saying: any point of view not held by the majority, such as his, are "paranoid anticorporate radical", and will be discounted, marginalized, and eventually, erased from mainstream media entirely. He is right in all he is saying, but the rather patronizing representative of the conservative majority interviewing him practically giggles at him.
  • From the article...
    What dissenting stories aren't getting published? [in reference to the corporate mass media]

    Yeah, and CNet is a local non-profit collective.

    • The tone of the article was aloof and slightly patronizing. The quote:

      "the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), a 1998 agreement that banned online distribution of companies' intellectual property"
      tells you which side CNET is on.

      When he passes from the intellectual scene, there will be no more dissenting voices in his league left to interview. And so his observation is correct: eventually, given the arch questions in the article by the reporter, CNET and similar corporate-owned outlets will not interview such "flakes" as he. His (accurate) observations will no longer be part of public discussion, and one tone, one philosophy will prevail: corporate absolutism, with one or two conservative behemoths owning all the news media that matter.
    • You forgot Barlow's answer:

      > That's just it: We don't know. We've reached a point where the
      > media are so owned by the large corporations and they live in this
      > tight loop where practically all they can convey is what is already
      > believed.

      While I believe corporations have more power in US life more than the Federal & local governments (the later are too easily compromised by the former), Barlow is overstating the influence of corporations on the Internet.

      A quick google on the topics ``white power" brought up over 3 million hits; one on ``us labor party" brought up over a million -- & none on the first page mentioned Lyndon Larouche's fringe group.

      Anyone can put up a web site, or contribute to Usenet - that's a freedom that I haven't heard has been compromised, although there have been a few cases. (And Barlow should have mentioned these cases & why they may pose a dangerous precedent.) The problem is getting people to read these websites with divergent points of view.

      Google helps to bring visibility to these websites, & the commnities associated with them. But a better tool would be for more people to cease relying on Microsoft or Time-Warner to advertise these communities, & for them to talk to each other, to create their own links amongst themselves.

      Geoff
  • From the article: "the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), a 1998 agreement that banned online distribution of companies' intellectual property"

    How's that for oversimplification?

    I guess it's better than the constantly repeated line, "the utilities are facing bankruptcy due to California's failed energy deregulation experiment." The deregulation experiment (crafted by the utilities) was a total success. They wanted to see if they could rob CA blind, and they did. Nothing failed about that experiment. If you live in CA then you heard that quote approximately 1.2 billion times.

    There is also the one you always hear to the effect that the judge invalidating Thomas Penfield Jackson's remedies found that MS should not be broken up. I don't think that this is true. I believe that the judge found that the circumstances rendered the judgement invalid, and the remedies had to be decided in an unbiased manner, but never said that they were the wrong remedies.

    And one more disturbing collapse of journalistic integrity - keep an eye on the bold quotes in the sidelines of BBC online articles. They will "quote" someone (no brackets to indicate paraphrase or elipses to indicate omissions), but when you read the quote in the article it it slightly different. I haven't seen any that twist the meaning, but a quote is a quote - you said it or you didn't. It prevents you from using it as a source for exactly what someone said.

    Sorry to rant, but it pisses me off when journalists act like idiots.

    • I guess it's better than the constantly repeated line, "the utilities are facing bankruptcy due to California's failed energy deregulation experiment ." The deregulation experiment (crafted by the utilities) was a total success. They wanted to see if they could rob CA blind, and they did. Nothing failed about that experiment. If you live in CA then you heard that quote approximately 1.2 billion times.

      California deregulated the wrong end of the business (or they should have dereg'd the whole shebang). And then the increase in demand while there was a steady refusal to increase supply... what else could be expected?

      And one more disturbing collapse of journalistic integrity - keep an eye on the bold quotes in the sidelines of BBC online articles. They will "quote" someone (no brackets to indicate paraphrase or elipses to indicate omissions), but when you read the quote in the article it it slightly different. I haven't seen any that twist the meaning, but a quote is a quote - you said it or you didn't. It prevents you from using it as a source for exactly what someone said.

      That's more of an editorial function. The quotes get your attention. Since the goal of any writer who is writing for others to read is to get your attention so you read they're writing, this tactic has been used since the dawn of print. Pick up any magazine and you'll see quotes from people and tidbits from the article emphasized off to the side.

      Is it dishonest? In most cases, I think not. As long as the meaning is not changed, it's a side effect of the human desire to be heard, imo. YMMV.

      • PG&E restructured itself just to take advantage of the loopholes which they had written into deregulation. They knew what was going to happen the whole time. It was a total scam. Also, the increase in demand was mostly an illusion created by the manipulation of supply.

        My point about the quote is that they modify it without notation. The quotes in the sidebar have always been there, but usually they match up with the actual quote or else there is notation to indicate paraphrase or omission. The BBC is just modifying the quotes with no indication that they are not really quotes. This means that if I say, person X said, "blah," and you say, no they actually said, "foo," we can both go to BBC online and find evidence for the accuracy of our version of the quote. This means that you can't verify what someone really said, which is important.

        The other issue is that people have a right not to be misrepresented. Changing quotes like this amounts to putting words into someone's mouth, potentially diluting or changing their meaning. They would be justified to react with total outrage - "that's not what I said!" The journalist may not understand the subtleties of the quote, and may destroy the meaning inadvertently. At least with a real quote you can go back to it and say, "this is what he said exactly - make your own judgement about what it means."

        • My point about the quote is that they modify it without notation. The quotes in the sidebar have always been there, but usually they match up with the actual quote or else there is notation to indicate paraphrase or omission. The BBC is just modifying the quotes with no indication that they are not really quotes. This means that if I say, person X said, "blah," and you say, no they actually said, "foo," we can both go to BBC online and find evidence for the accuracy of our version of the quote. This means that you can't verify what someone really said, which is important.

          Generally in print, ellipses and other means of indicating editing of the quote aren't included in those excerpt/quote boxes that pepper the layouts. Hell, the New York Times does this. PC Mag does it to Dvorak. The fact is that journalists are very similar to trolls (at least most journalists are). They go for shock. Why? It gets you to read them. If they can post a quote like "We knew about the security flaw." off to the side, it gets your attention. I'm not saying it's a great thing to do, and it does raise a lot of questions (such as what editing went on), but it's a journalistic fact of life. And it happens in non-profit publications, so it's not a profit thing. It's most likely a desire to be heard.

          Caveat lector!

          • I agree, I just think that it is a very, very bad thing to do which they are taking very lightly from a journalistic point of view. Whatever their intentions (and I agree that sensationalism is a big cause) they are actually lying by misquoting this way.

            I will also say that I see ellipses and brackets in those side boxes all of the time.

  • Not to bad had some really good comments, OTOH some of his ideas should have died with garcia though....

  • Who is "John Perry Barlow"? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Tony.Tang ( 164961 ) <slashdot&sleek,hn,org> on Saturday February 23, 2002 @04:55AM (#3056442) Homepage Journal
    He's the co-founder of Electronic Frontier Foundation [eff.org]. You can read some of the thing's he's written [eff.org].

  • What San Francisco is HE living in? (Score:4, Informative)

    by andaru ( 535590 ) <andaru2@onebox.com> on Saturday February 23, 2002 @05:54AM (#3056545) Homepage
    "San Francisco is one of the most pathological cities on earth. The people who live here lost their sense of human connection (in the '90s). The city was completely emptied of diversity at a certain point, and the entire population that came in were suburban kids who had never lived in any city or town or community in their whole lives. They had no sense of community. It's now a place where if you give eye contact, you get maced.

    Wow, that sure is totally off-base from my perspective. I have a great community of neighbors (who are adults who have mostly lived here for a while). They bring over fresh vegetables. We give each other copies of our house keys in case we get locked out. People watch out for potential break-ins at each other's houses.

    Our neighborhood has great diversity. There are many ethnic families around who have been in the neighborhood for more than a decade. I recently read a report which demonstrated (and yes, maybe the report is BS) that the decrease in diversity was grossly overestimated. From what I can see with my own eyes, this appears to be true.

    I make eye contact with people all of the time, all over the city, and often end up talking with strangers and making new friends (I got a free painting this way). I have never had the slightest problem here resulting from making eye contact (except maybe downtown, sometimes the tourists think you are going to rob them if you make eye contact - but notably, the business and financial people (who live here, as opposed to the tourists) don't seem to respond that way).

    "But I really don't like the society that has grown up around the dot-communists, who are all products of suburbia and television."

    There was a big problem with the manners and morality of a lot of "dot commers". People who had lots of money, but no concept of tipping were threatening to drive the cappucino-makers out of the city. It was really getting to the point where the "dot commers" were going to have to make their own cup of coffee, because no one working at a coffee shop could afford to live here without tips hat they weren't getting. I know of one group of individuals who went to the local shop every morning and often had meetings there. They would each get a beverage and breakfast and leave no tip whatsoever.

    On the other hand, I spent a short time as a San Francisco "dot commer" myself, and I do not own a television, never mind cable TV. The majority of the professionals I worked with were intelligent, critical thinkers who, although they read the CNN website, didn't mindlessly believe everything that they read. They were not frivolously spending on the latest stupid gadget that the media told them to buy. They were polite and mature, and had insightfull views about the world.

    My point is that saying that all "dot commers" are evil is totally false and prejudicial. Just think of all of the statements that have been made about all hippies. This guy should know better than to criticize based on stereotype.

    • hmm...From what I understand it San Francisco is unlivable(ie way too expensive) for average working citizens - teachers, government employees, cab drivers, etc. So it must be a place where the people who live there are served by a lower class that can't even afford to live in the city they work in and must commute to serve the elite that lives there.

      Compare that to the SF of the late 60s where it was a bohemian paradise and had real culture there.
      • I've lived in San Francisco since 1994. I grew up in white bred (and bread) Orange County. When I was 5, my conservative parents took me to San Francisco (they had never been there, and fisherman's warf sounded fun to them). I remember driving with them through the city, the tenderloin, south of market, and embarcadero (which was really, really different then). I was fascinated by it. I came back once or twice with them while growing up, and every time loved the city. The contrasts, the strangeness, the acceptance. I got it in my head that I would like to live there some day. 8 years ago, I made the move, and I love it here.

        Which is not to say that the city is without problems. But one thing about this city - here there is a chance of SOLVING those problems. Unlike southern california - many people (not all) are very accepting of people. It's like the homeless thing. SF has far more homeless than Southern California because we (often reluctantly) tolerate them and even support them. In LA, they're thrown out of town or into jail or whatever it takes to get them off the street. Sometimes, they're confined to one or two blocks in a run down section of downtown that no one except the lost and the adventerous drive through.

        Yes, things are more fucked up now, but they're starting to change for the better. Prices are starting to come down again. There is a massive glut of commercial real estate out there and landlords are starting to get desperate to rent it. If you want to live in a warehouse, it's easy to do it now. (Forget the whole live/work space scandal, that was just a way for our corrupt mayor's friends to get rich quick and bypass the planning process.) You can't "live" in your warehouse, but you can have a kitchen, a bathroom, tub/shower. You can have 24 hour access, you can sleep there. Just don't tell anyone you're *living there* and you'll be fine.

        This city has cycles, ask old timers and they'll tell you that. Half of my neighbors have lived on our street for 25 years or more. The woman across the street has lived in her house for almost 50 years. Our neighbors talk to each other, we watch out for each other and MOST OF ALL we're tolerant of each other.

        Here's where part of the problem lies: in the late 90s, during the dotcom boom, the carpetbaggers arrived looking for the big bucks.

        It's getting better. Real estate prices are getting normal. Greedy landlords are thinking twice after seeing lots of their greedy peers get fucked by dead dotcoms. You can go to a nice place to eat now for $10-15 a person. Artists can actually afford to live here agaom. (And some were savvy enough to not piss off the dotcom carpetbaggers but instead turn them into customers. Exploit the evil yuppies! Corrupt them! Drag them to an underground party and dose them and change their worldview.)

        But I'm rambling. I'm sick of the "San Francisco Sucks" mentality. What sucked were a bunch of people who came here with a get rich scheme and nothing else. But they're going now. They're chasing the dollar someplace else. Really. Look around, look deep.

  • Great Article (Score:2, Interesting)

    by t_allardyce ( 48447 )
    I agreed with everything that article said, its nice to know that other people can see the light. The only problem i had with it is that he didn't come across too well. To me it sounded fine, but to others, i think he would probably sound like just-another-nutcase-conspiracy-theorist.

    I especially liked the Microsoft theory - that they would try something stupid, it tied in with the whole raw-sockets thing, where MS would prove that the internet is not strong enough, and would try and implement its own closed system. The internet is definately closing - Flash, Passport, non-W3C compatable web pages. But he sounds way too confident that the corporations will loose.

    IMHO, unless the mass public is very well educated about these issues, freedom will die. (no, slashdot is not the mass public, more like 0.00000001%)
    • Flash,

      Flash, as I understand it, is actually a totally open format called SWF. It's true that Macromedia's product called Flash isn't open, but they seem to have taken the strategy that they'll make money by creating the best tool for making SWF files, but leave the format open. PHP, among other languages, has a facility for generating SWF.

  • If Windows is so bad, why does Apple have a meager 4 percent market share?

    Four? Really? Jesus. They really blew that one.

    Allow me to put John's remarks into a little greater perspective...

    John isn't just a Mac user, he's an Applemaster. [apple.com]


  • Royalties are things that get paid to organizations and institutions that have thieved royalties from human beings. The idea that royalties need to be there to "incentivize" creativity is pretty abstract these days.

    What you get paid for is the delivery of service. If you're talking about services, it's best not to view what is being served as a form of property.

    Wow, that has to be by far the most intelligent quote I've seen in a while on the state of IP. I don't necessarily agree with everything he said in the article but the above quote is dead-on target.

  • Ok first, as a Deadhead - and someone who likes SCI for that matter - the statement, "I'm writing now for String Cheese Incident, which is like Grateful Dead 2.0..." is just ridiculous. I don't think the most diehard SCI fan would agree with that. SCI is a fun little jamband, the Dead was the focus of many people's lives. They're not in the same league at all.

    Having said that, the problem with John Barlow is that he can't answer any questions. The interviewer was extremely friendly, led him a lot, and he still couldn't make many points.

    It's easy to say now that Microsoft will be able to keep doing well because of their market share, but how did they get that in the first place? Barlow has no answer. "[Apple] blew that one," is not much of a response.

    I like the guy. I like some of his ideas. Interviews like that though, only harm his cause.
  • I've encountered Mr. Barlow many times over the years, and his rhetoric is, alas, long on sound bites but lacking in practicality. His call for populism certainly fits with the Zeitgeist as we enter a new Gilded Age. However, most of the measures which Barlow proposes to stop a "corporatocracy" -- e.g. the total elimination of copyright -- would in fact hurt the little guy far more than they would corporations. While inflicting minor wounds on the giants, his proposals would wipe out the small artist, programmer, and author. In short, he (like others) has identified some real threats, but is aiming his blunderbuss so badly that his ideas threaten to kill, via friendly fire, those whom he claims to be defending.

    In my conversations with Barlow, I've found it difficult -- in fact, impossible -- to break through and explain to him that reality, for ordinary, mortal non-celebrities, isn't at all like what he experiences. Barlow is able to champion the abrogation of intellectual property because -- having been the exponent of a wealthy ranching family and graced by the sheer good luck of falling in with the Grateful Dead via a high school acquaintance -- he has never had to struggle to earn a living. He hobnobs with "big names" (such as the Kennedy family) to whom few others have access. And he has never wanted for attention, popularity or adulation.... Wherever he goes, Deadheads fall at his feet, begging him to autograph T-shirts and other objects. He is thus utterly unable to understand the artist who struggles mightily -- and perhaps produces much better work that Barlow ever has or will -- but was not struck by fortuitous lightning. Barlow has plenty of money in the bank, and is paid outrageous sums to write articles and give speeches which are barely original (most merely repeat the same things he's said before, and/or borrow shamelessly, and often without attribution, from the work of others). Never having truly worked in his life, he finds it easy to say that artists should work for "tips." In short, he's out of touch with reality, and probably wouldn't find it pleasant if he had to contend with it.

    John Perry Barlow is at times entertaining. But his sweeping, ex cathedra pronouncements should be interpreted with these things in mind, and taken -- by the critical reader -- with a few tons of NaCl.

    --Brett Glass

  • Holy cow, as a believer in many things free, let me just say i believe he not only does not represent many people in the EFF, but he may actually alienate a fair amount of them with the hard line he does take. Obviously, it's his right, but i don't put MS anywhere near the totalitarian regime he describes, and I do not place them in the AOL/TW, Vivendi, Newscorp group at all. For better or worse, MS does not have the capability to influence the message in the world (barring some simplistic alterations of the message based on the browser). AOL/TW has the power to make news go away. MS is just a software company, they don't control any kind of reporting.

    Though I prefer avoiding using labels, he seems a lot more communist/socialist than I feel comfortable with, and it annoys me when movements get painted with the views of some of their more extreme members. My $0.02.
  • "Which companies or organizations constitute this totalitarian regime?"

    When I read this I thought it said prostitute instead of constitute. I laughed to myself over my error until I realized that prostitute was probably a more accurate word to use in this case...

Slashdot Top Deals

Our OS who art in CPU, UNIX be thy name. Thy programs run, thy syscalls done, In kernel as it is in user!

Close