5 Links aus meinem niu.wsScope-Channel (RSS), einem Mobile-Service für kuratierte Longreads und Zeugs.
Zufällige Unzufälligkeiten: A Bird’s-Eye View of Nature’s Hidden Order: „Scientists are exploring a mysterious pattern, found in birds’ eyes, boxes of marbles and other surprising places, that is neither regular nor random.“
Arguably, we are living [Alvin] Toffler’s future today. Many of us are in a state of shock as social media enables the rise of political figures who we could never imagine as viable presidential candidates, software eats people’s jobs (according to some), massive data leaks allow loosely organized networks of journalists to uncover stories of global crime and corruption, and surveys consistently point to the loss of trust in most institutions across the globe. We are quick to marvel at Toffler’s foresight. I would argue, however, that our “future shock” is highly unevenly distributed. I’m not referring to science fiction writer William Gibson’s comment that “The future is already here — it’s just not evenly distributed.” Rather, “future shock” is unevenly distributed in that pockets of our society are not only well prepared for the future but are, in fact, actively and consciously building their desired futures. For them, futures thinking has become an everyday reality, something deeply embedded into their lives, a process in which they have real agency.
As we can see from the past, the old gatekeepers were also capable of great harm, and they were often imperious in refusing space to arguments they deemed outside the mainstream political consensus. But without some form of consensus, it is hard for any truth to take hold. The decline of the gatekeepers has given Trump space to raise formerly taboo subjects, such as the cost of a global free-trade regime that benefits corporations rather than workers, an issue that American elites and much of the media had long dismissed – as well as, more obviously, allowing his outrageous lies to flourish.
When the prevailing mood is anti-elite and anti-authority, trust in big institutions, including the media, begins to crumble.
Post Aesthetics was critical about online content. Entire groups emerged just to critique it! All of the members recognized they’d made a community that was actually worth preserving in some reasonable way, and fought hard, though unsuccessfully, to see their visions through. I asked Corey Blackburn if he thought it was ultimately possible to govern an online community as large and dynamic as Post Aesthetics. “Absolutely,” he said, “but governing it with explicitly democratic ideals and maintaining an open-ended environment and maintaining safe space policies and not pissing off weirdos who would want to harass you in ways that might affect your real life? Not possible.”
“But,” he added, “I don’t know if I’d want to be in a group where it is.”