Stoll excoriates "cyberpunks," virtual vandals who abuse the openness of
scientific computing environments. Their unsportsmanlike conduct spoils the
information game, necessitating cumbersome restrictions on the free flow of
data.
Orthodox McLuhanite doctrine holds that "every form,
pushed to the limit of its potential, reverses its characteristics" (Laws of
Media viii).
Who decides what information "belongs" to whom? Stoll's "popular elite" is
restricted to academic scientists, a version of "the people" as
nomenklatura, those whose need to know is defined by
their professional affiliation.
The telos of the electronic society-of-text is anarchy in its true sense: local
autonomy based on consensus, limited by a relentless disintegration of global
authority. Since information is now virtually an equivalent of capital, and
since textuality is our most powerful way of shaping information, it follows
that Xanadu might indeed change the world.
Electronic information, as Stoll sees it, lies in strict analogy with material
and private property.
"Cyberspace. A consensual hallucination experienced
daily by billions of legitimate operators, in every nation... A graphic
representation of data abstracted from the banks of every computer in the human
system" (Gibson 51).
The vision of Xanadu as cyberspatial New Jerusalem is conceivable and perhaps
eligible, but by no stretch of the imagination is it inevitable.
But it seems equally possible that our engagement with interactive media will
follow the path of reaction, not revolution
can't find the original post with the tweet list but this is a cool example of the format news takes in the digital age. LOOK at all those links and it's short and concise with lots of little lists and such.
Evgeny Morozov, a blogger for Foreign Policy magazine and a fellow with the Open Society Institute, discusses the role of Twitter and other social-networking services during the Iranian elections.
Marginalia was more common in the 1800s. Samuel Taylor Coleridge was a prolific margin writer, as were William Blake and Charles Darwin. In the 20th century it mostly came to be regarded like graffiti: something polite and respectful people did not do.
Paul F. Gehl, a curator at the Newberry, blamed generations of librarians and teachers for “inflicting us with the idea” that writing in books makes them “spoiled or damaged.”
Studs Terkel, the oral historian, was known to admonish friends who would read his books but leave them free of markings. He told them that reading a book should not be a passive exercise, but rather a raucous conversation.
marginalia enriched a book, as readers infer other meanings, and lends it historical context. “The digital revolution is a good thing for the physical object,” he said. As more people see historical artifacts in electronic form, “the more they’re going to want to encounter the real object.”