[iDC] Will you delete your Feedburner account?
sbasbaum at gmail.com
Mon Jun 11 10:57:40 EDT 2007
hank you Geert for this very clarifying message. For me, it seems,
particularly regarding all digital media problems, that those big-shark
technological companies plan they moves according to projections of the
future, according to landscapes carefully debated. We only have access to a
certain technological solution years after it`s been developed.
Seems like we should be able to create landscapes of future wich could
compete with the future these companies offer and advertise with high-budget
campaigns. This is something very relevant when we think of artworks that
celebrate this or that technology -- Eduardo Kac would be a classic case in
point -- as THE future. Which future? Certainly, future is not done and is
up to us to able to propose somekind of different landscapes that can
capture the imagination of users and consumers in different directions,
directions able to challenge those powerful landscapes of future offered by
Today, mainly for users AND consumers, youtube, google, yahoo, myspace,
secondlife, amazon, e-bay, are reality itself, and they don't seem to feel
the need of much more.
In time, thank you all for interesting talking.
best from Brazil
On 6/11/07, Geert Lovink <geert at xs4all.nl> wrote:
> > Changing the rules is easy. Changing Entrepreneurs is easy too: simply
> > change the customer and the entrepreneur will follow. That is what
> > Entrepreneurs do: satisfy customer demand. Can you change customer
> > demand?
> Throughout your postings you confuse users and customers. That's the
> core problem since 1992 when the Internet opened up. Users are an odd
> new category, half producers, half consumers, or some mix of them. They
> do not go to MySpace to buy a product. We all know that. What's not
> understood here is the element of the social. Of couse the social can
> be commodified, but as a model of explanation what's actually happening
> online the economic reading is a poor one.
> And sorry about the confusion between IPO and sell out. With sell out I
> mean selling your company and getting out completely after a while.
> This is what mostly happens. Of course Microsoft, Google and Yahoo have
> gone public but the founders did not sell out and left the scene. Quite
> the opposite, they are still in control.
> > Conclusion: what we are doing here is debating the rules of the game.
> > And that is great. Rules should be challenged, broken en revised all
> > the time. My idea is that you don't need extra rules (not less either,
> > don't get me wrong) to protect the customer. They don't want it and
> > they don't need it. They have the biggest stick to hit any business
> > with: They can simply choose not to be a customer anymore.
> > This is something that every business-owner, small or big, fears the
> > most.
> And that's why it is so good to call for a feedburner boycot all
> together. Let's punish the founders for selling their company to
> Google. Many feel that Google is rapidly becoming way too powerful. Why
> support yet another monopolist? Why can't feeburner thrive as an
> idendepent company? The very logic that there is some natural law that
> they have to sell out or IPO NOW has to be challenged. This hasty
> behaviour is silly. The notion that there was no time has been the most
> ridicuous element of the dotcom religion. If you want to criticize
> 'hype' you have to start with criticizing the very notion that
> companies 'have no time'. This only creates imaginary frontiers that do
> not exist.
> iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity (
> iDC at mailman.thing.net
> List Archive:
> iDC Photo Stream:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the iDC