Personal Democracy Forum 2008
Note by David GalielDavid_Galiel:
(Notes by DavidGaliel, not jonmandell, this tool seems not to save "tweak" settings even when "save" clicked between sessions)
Esther Dyson - concern about over emphasis about "live" - business has become obsessed with stock prices, daily fluctuations, quarterly returns rather than long term planning - concerned that the same thing may be happening with politics.
Scoble demonstrates qik.com
People behave differently on camera - but as cameras get smaller, will be more "gotcha" moments, as people who don't realize they are being recorded, are not necessarily "on" with their message, get caught on-screen.
Candidates now have to act as if they are always "on", 24/7, never can let their guard down. Esther wonders if this promotes more artificial behavior - or, if, conversely, when cameras are everywhere, all the time, will people start forgetting about them and ignoring them and developing a higher tolerance for being exposed, care less about public image, and have less sensitivity to being "blackmailed".
(my note - we're still in the "more is better" phase of communication and content. We'll need to graduate to discernment (both developing the skill and providing the tools) and economies of attention.
Max Hout, demoes Mogulus, transition from canned to live video, democratizing broadcast and production.
Keith McSpurren - live blogging. CoverItLive. real time commentary, polling, response to broadcast speech, for example. Designed to be author's tool, not collaborative reader's tool.
Esther keeps probing for reflection about the social implications of the tools, not sure panelists want to weigh in on that. McSpurren seems most skeptical about wisdom of the crowds, more advocate for mediating, filtering and interpreting content for audience - strikes me as more of a traditional media mindset, just using different tools with shorter turnaround time.
(Reminds me of blogs - folks who use them without comments enabled are essentially broadcasting with a cheaper printing press, not engaging in interactive media. Nothing wrong with that, but the distinction is important, leads back to Peter Dau's question in plenary, whether we're looking at just more, quicker, cheaper top-down media (Peter raised particularly in the context of campaigns), vs. changing the dynamic and power balance of the conversation.)
(my take - not either or, it's both; new tools and technologies provide new means to communicate in old ways, *and* create new dynamics that (if deliberately architected) can democratize the conversation.)
Switching to ONFFline break-out session, to much product demo orientation here.
(Showing my age, but bemoaning a bit the complete obliteration between commercial and social interest; I don't expect to attend product demos or product cheerleading in these sessions, they have product tables for that outside (and clearly labeled "how to" sessions are fine). Expect speaker in sessions to provide broader perspective, engage deeper questions, share experience, insight. Sounds a little like the candidates who plug their website every five minutes. More democracy at the conference might produce better results in terms of empowering participants to promote personal democracy.
Live question tool had promise, but should have disallowed anonymous comments to keep the conversation constructive and civil, and should have foreseen voting snafu - and there should have been a mechanism for speakers to receive the results in real-time. Not a trivial problem to solve, but an important one. Conferences like this should be test-beds for the technology and social architecture we want to encourage "out there". )
Esther Dyson - concern about over emphasis about "live" - business has become obsessed with stock prices, daily fluctuations, quarterly returns rather than long term planning - concerned that the same thing may be happening with politics.
Scoble demonstrates qik.com
People behave differently on camera - but as cameras get smaller, will be more "gotcha" moments, as people who don't realize they are being recorded, are not necessarily "on" with their message, get caught on-screen.
Candidates now have to act as if they are always "on", 24/7, never can let their guard down. Esther wonders if this promotes more artificial behavior - or, if, conversely, when cameras are everywhere, all the time, will people start forgetting about them and ignoring them and developing a higher tolerance for being exposed, care less about public image, and have less sensitivity to being "blackmailed".
(my note - we're still in the "more is better" phase of communication and content. We'll need to graduate to discernment (both developing the skill and providing the tools) and economies of attention.
Max Hout, demoes Mogulus, transition from canned to live video, democratizing broadcast and production.
Keith McSpurren - live blogging. CoverItLive. real time commentary, polling, response to broadcast speech, for example. Designed to be author's tool, not collaborative reader's tool.
Esther keeps probing for reflection about the social implications of the tools, not sure panelists want to weigh in on that. McSpurren seems most skeptical about wisdom of the crowds, more advocate for mediating, filtering and interpreting content for audience - strikes me as more of a traditional media mindset, just using different tools with shorter turnaround time.
(Reminds me of blogs - folks who use them without comments enabled are essentially broadcasting with a cheaper printing press, not engaging in interactive media. Nothing wrong with that, but the distinction is important, leads back to Peter Dau's question in plenary, whether we're looking at just more, quicker, cheaper top-down media (Peter raised particularly in the context of campaigns), vs. changing the dynamic and power balance of the conversation.)
(my take - not either or, it's both; new tools and technologies provide new means to communicate in old ways, *and* create new dynamics that (if deliberately architected) can democratize the conversation.)
Switching to ONFFline break-out session, to much product demo orientation here.
(Showing my age, but bemoaning a bit the complete obliteration between commercial and social interest; I don't expect to attend product demos or product cheerleading in these sessions, they have product tables for that outside (and clearly labeled "how to" sessions are fine). Expect speaker in sessions to provide broader perspective, engage deeper questions, share experience, insight. Sounds a little like the candidates who plug their website every five minutes. More democracy at the conference might produce better results in terms of empowering participants to promote personal democracy.
Live question tool had promise, but should have disallowed anonymous comments to keep the conversation constructive and civil, and should have foreseen voting snafu - and there should have been a mechanism for speakers to receive the results in real-time. Not a trivial problem to solve, but an important one. Conferences like this should be test-beds for the technology and social architecture we want to encourage "out there". )
