Comments on: Those who cannot remember Web 1.0 are condemned to repeat it

By: LZZR » Internet States of Presence

LZZR » Internet States of Presence — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 08:40:24 +0000

[...] States of Presence So picking up from where we left off in the post on the Internet History let us summarise in condensed form what we may take from there and use in our further [...]

By: LZZR

LZZR — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 14:51:21 +0000

I gather you define the subject relative to Ego - hence Actor rather than User whilst I'm trying to look at the subject-system relationships, so User is a necessary and sufficient term to describe this. on the subject of WWW as a whole I beg to differ - at least in its Web 1.0 version it is primarily an enormous collection of structured and sometimes cross-referenced narratives and only now through Web 1.5 phase it gradually transforms to a state in which conversational context is going to become predominant. Are you sure that performance is what defines the content rather than the subject in our case?

By: zeroinfluencer

zeroinfluencer — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 21:54:38 +0000

You’re welcome.

Just to chip in the notion of role again; the ‘user’ is within a morphology of contexts within web2.0ness – the ever moving flow of data will change the affordances of the users actions; this is something new compared to the clunky portal publishing model of web1.0.

The WWW as a whole is neither narrative, though it persists as an archive within Google/Internet archive, nor a platform – which is about conversation. The form is akin to ‘real time stories’ which does lend itself to standup comedy instead of classical acting; regardless the (shifting) contexts enables the user to perform, within the confines of language (the basis to code).

But I’m interested in reading your forthcoming posts, and I will get around to the identity post at some point, work is dominating most of the hours at present.

By: LZZR

LZZR — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 16:20:21 +0000

Thanks David!
On two bits I was able to grasp:
1) HTML/HTTP compound is as antuquated as 286 processor thing that are happening right now on the Web had outgrown it long time ago and eventually this compound will be replaced by a much more workable combination (more on this in one of my next posts).
2) With User I’ll stick to my guns. I considered using the term Actor but finally rejected it for two reasons: if it is about “acting” as in “take action” than it is too vague and does not describe the specific role user has within a system but if it’s “acting” as in “stage acting” it brings a bunch of misleading connotations hinting that our user “performs” whilst online and I am not sure that it is so as it is perfectly possible to keep consistent self without the kind of detachment that is always present between an actor and a charachter he or she plays.
As for the rest, game theory is not really my cup of tea but I would still argue that the WWW is primarily textual activity only complimented by things like video and audio content and this is what makes what it is. Besides I don’t see language as being a constraint for creativity, but rather as one of its tools.
Once again, thanks for your feedback and please, find some time to produce a piece on identity/self/representation etc. There is much to discuss there!

By: zeroinfluencer

zeroinfluencer — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 15:40:53 +0000

Looking forward to parts 2 & 3.

The alloy of HTTP/HTML are a workflow methodology, yes, akin to publishing instead of what Information Theory demotes as the creative oppotunities noted as the ‘problems with noise’, but regardless the asymetrical nature of communication is embraced by the said above alloy.

Also, ‘users’ is a misconception of role within a system. Just as UML is a tough broker for software design, like the HTTP/HTML alloy, the role of the participant is ‘actor’ (or actress – as I know Lora will be reading this!). This ‘playing a part’ in collaboration is an ‘instance’ of identity of the participant – it is neither the person or their online identity, merely a part in a production – an actor on a stage – the software’s logic is the ‘remote’ director.

The joys of web2.0 have unleashed a myriad of roles – many people being assigned the role of an ‘extra’ in a sitcom or hollywood motion picture. Social objects like facebook/twitter/youtube et al, are fueling notions of identity which lead to panic room projects like Data Portability. Collaborative projects are designed around the acquisition of live data by inducing a user centric proposition that involes ‘role’.

Taking from game theories, the goal driven modality of software design designates the particpant as another object with the game; ultimately this produces non-zero strategies resulting in competition, not collaboration. Collaboration without wins (or losses) is possibly the route to build systems that support substainability, which is a principle required for Berners-Lee’s GGG (Giant Global Graph).

Creativity and Software have yet to be joined under a principle of non-zero gain that constructs reusable semantic concepts, because language trims the affordances of possibilities, thus narrowing identity to a role of persona.

Therefore, the semntical web can never be based on language but purely creativity, leaving participant’s egos behind in the ‘i’m here doing this’ of the web2.0 wake.