Twitter, Facebook, and social activism At four-thirty in the afternoon on Monday, February 1, 1960, four college students sat down at the lunch counter at the Woolworth’s in downtown Greensboro, North Carolina. They were freshmen at North Carolina A. & T., a black college a mile or so away. “I’d like a cup of coffee, please,” one of the four, Ezell Blair, said to the waitress. “We don’t serve Negroes here,” she replied. The Woolworth’s lunch counter was a long L-shaped bar that could seat sixty-six people, with a standup snack bar at one end. By next morning, the protest had grown to twenty-seven men and four women, most from the same dormitory as the original four. By the following Monday, sit-ins had spread to Winston-Salem, twenty-five miles away, and Durham, fifty miles away. The world, we are told, is in the midst of a revolution. These are strong, and puzzling, claims. Some of this grandiosity is to be expected. What makes people capable of this kind of activism? This pattern shows up again and again.
On religion - Confessions of a (former) Lab Rat Blog | Nature Publishing Group We are social creatures. No doubt there are evolutionary reasons why this is so and why it persists, although I’m not qualified to do more than speculate. However, it seems self evident that there are advantages to acting as a group, from care and feeding of young all the way up to coping with environmental challenges and defending against predators, meteorites and space aliens. Being social has its own challenges. Those who for whatever reason fail to learn these mores can not only fail to fit in but also become actively excluded. People with Aspergers, who find it difficult to pick up on and interpret cultural osmosis cues, can end up incredibly isolated and vulnerable. Unfortunately, while this family brought a sense of belonging, much of the instructional imperative of a more immediate, physical family was lost. The sort of example I mean? I’ve been exchanging DMs with somebody with professional psychological experience. Don’t misunderstand me. Bullshit. We knew, didn’t we?
1996: where the online music revolution began › Science Features (ABC Science) In Depth › Science Features The music industry has undergone massive change since the arrival of the internet, and most of those changes were predicted in a funky little TV show called " In 1996 the ABC produced a short TV series about internet culture, with the then obscure name " The show didn't just examine possibilities of the online world, it used subliminal text to give viewers a taste of hypertext. Back then, more people had access to a VHS video recorder than to the internet, so the program encouraged viewers to record the show in order to play back and use 'pause' to read additional text information that had been embedded within video frames at various points in the story. This episode, entitled Global Groove, was about musicians from around the world using the internet to connect and form "virtual" bands, playing together and sharing ideas to create something new. It was an exciting time. ^ to top 2015 Update More Videos from the Vault...
Are we on information overload? The last two decades have completely transformed the way we know. Thanks to the rise of the Internet, information is far more accessible than ever before. It’s more connected to other pieces of information and more open to debate. Organizations — and even governmental projects like Data.gov — are putting more previously inaccessible data on the Web than people in the pre-Internet age could possibly have imagined. But this change raises another, more ominous question: Is this deluge overwhelming our brains? In his new book, “Too Big to Know,” David Weinberger, a senior researcher at Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society, attempts to answer that question by looking at the ways our newly interconnected society is transforming the media, science and our everyday lives. Salon spoke to Weinberger over the phone about the rise of the information cloud, the demise of expert knowledge, and why this is the greatest time in human history. Yes. Yes, exactly. OK. It’s both good and bad.
The False Poles of Digital and Traditional Activism Digital activism has been construed as its own movement, a new wave of organizing unique to the 21st century digital world. In fact, digital tools are complementary to “traditional” activism, for a number of reasons: They allow organizers to quickly mobilize large numbers of people; they help draw media attention to causes, and quickly; they allow for a centralized portal of information. But by drawing a distinct line between “traditional” and “digital” (or online and offline, if you prefer) activism, pundits and journalists are doing a disservice to both the utility of digital tools and to the resilience of traditional advocacy. “Offline versus Online” are False Poles Renowned writer Malcolm Gladwell, in this week’s New Yorker, argues that the “weak ties” of “digital activism” cannot remotely compare to the strong ties of traditional activism, using the American Civil Rights movement as a baseline. Certain Support Ensures Weak Ties Building a New Narrative
Open High is a school built entirely on open source | NetworkWorld.com Community The term "open source" is being stretched pretty broad these days. Even the Tea Party wants a piece of it. But when a Utah high school named itself Open High, it deserved the moniker. Not only does the school rely heavily on open source technologies, but it is one of the first secondary education schools worldwide crafting an entirely open source curriculum to be shared freely with others. Meaning: you want to rip that page out of the textbook and give it someone else? Go on. Because everything is open source, the school is eager to modify lessons to the individual student's needs, reports Mike Esser on Red Hat's OpenSource.com site. Open High School is a public charter school. As the parent of a high school kid, I think this video is inspiring.
Six degrees of aggregation (about Huffington Post) Of the many and conflicting stories about how The Huffington Post came to be—how it boasts 68 sections, three international editions (with more to come), 1.2 billion monthly page views and 54 million comments in the past year alone, how it came to surpass the traffic of virtually all the nation’s established news organizations and amass content so voluminous that a visit to the website feels like a trip to a mall where the exits are impossible to locate—the earliest and arguably most telling begins with a lunch in March 2003 at which the idea of an online newspaper filled with celebrity bloggers and virally disseminated aggregated content did not come up. The invitation for the lunch came from Kenneth Lerer. He was 51 and casting about for something new, having recently left his position as executive vice president for communications at AOL. He brought the book with him and Watts would recall that the copy was dog-eared, the flatteringly telltale sign of a purposeful read. 1. 2. 3. 4.
Do We Need Doctors Or Algorithms? Editor’s note: This is Part II of a guest series written by legendary Silicon Valley investor Vinod Khosla, the founder of Khosla Ventures. In Part I, he laid the groundwork by describing how artificial intelligence is a combination of human and computer capabilities. In Part III, he will talk about how technology will sweep through education. I was asked about a year ago at a talk about energy what I was doing about the other large social problems, namely health care and education. Later, I got to cogitating about what I had said and why, and how embarrassingly wrong that might be. Assessing Current Healthcare Let’s start with healthcare (or sickcare, as many knowledgeable people call it). The entire encounter should take no more than 15 minutes and usually takes probably less than that. So what’s wrong with this situation? Looking at this, I cannot help but think that this is a completely antiquated system (regardless of whether it is healthcare or not)! Envisioning Future Healthcare