[governance] Re: How can we effectively discuss current issues? (SOPA, webinars, questions)

[Aldo Matteucci]

*Ginger Paque : Personally, I disagree, because when an online
communication gets 'too interactive', we have chaos, and I think that
short, pithy comments or questions are preferable in a webinar. Bandwidth
limitations must be taken into consideration as well. This is one advantage
to an email list like the IGC: it allows for full multi-party discussion.*

*Ricardo: i do agree that short communication works better. Of course, it
should be well sistematized (is this the right word? Hehe) and everyone on
the webinar should agree with a document on a wiki or pad, *

* *

Dear Ginger and Ricardo:

I have raised an issue in my blog (The twitter is the message), on which I
invited you all to reflect. What I got back was two votes (see above):
yours, with a “vote explication” that was no more than an assertion.

Of course short is better than long. My issue was whether the twitter
format was structurally so short as to stifle the very essence of a
dialogue – which is to deliberate.

Paul got the message, but then drifted into a different – though very
noteworthy issue – that of reception. In his framework length of reply is
irrelevant. Money determines who gets the message. And indeed – in the
future governments will no longer shut people up; they’ll just render them
ineffectual. When was it last time a soapbox man in Hyde Park started a
revolution?

Democracy ought to be deliberative. By rushing to vote (agree/disagree)
even before having taken the time to reflect, you have terminated the
discussion. The rest of the group stood in silence – and I presume they
agreed with you (qui tacet consentire videtur). It was in ways a plebiscite.

Coming back now to my point: take any of Plato’s great dialogues and
replace all the entries in it (but those of Socrates) by a twitter message.
Then tell me whether you think it has improved the symposion text.

My blog very imperfectly pointed to the essence of being human (you know
that latest of the tailless apes) – their ability to have common goals, and
to create new ones by deliberation. The Western idea of the (intellectual)
hero who points to the way forward and is followed by group is historically
inaccurate. Because deliberation is oral and cannot be remembered, we
ascribe the outcome to a superior person.

Twitter-style discourse tends to reduce the interaction to a vote –
democratic for sure. Better than a decision from on high by the elite. It
comes at a price, however: it negates the very essence of a deliberation:
the common reflection and input from various points of view. The
intellectual “trial and error” that allows the best idea to survive.

James SUROWIECKI in *The Wisdom of crowds – Why the many are smarter than
the few* makes precisely this point: when people deliberate (i.e. reflect
for themselves), the outcome is – taking the long view – better than that
of any expert or elite. When people influence each other, rather than
reflect independently, one gets hysterias and manias.
In the past elite did the thinking, and compliance by the majority was
secured by (moral) authority. I see no improvement in having the celebrity
of the day do the same as the elite, and her opinion being subject to
plebiscite by twitter. Except that there is a huge turnover in celebrities.
Aldo

On 27 January 2012 14:30, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi there,
>
> Aldo, Diplo's resident contrarian, criticises Diplo's webinars and modern
> communication, asking 'Is the medium the twitter?' at
> http://deepdip.wordpress.com/2012/01/27/the-medium-is-the-twitter/ He
> argues that the way in which the Chinese 'Party universities', among
> others, discuss issues, is conceptually and practically more effective (and
> congenial) than modern webinar/Twitter-technique communication. Personally,
> I disagree, because when an online communication gets 'too interactive', we
> have chaos, and I think that short, pithy comments or questions are
> preferable in a webinar. Bandwidth limitations must be taken into
> consideration as well. This is one advantage to an email list like the IGC:
> it allows for full multi-party discussion.
>
>  Please let us know your views about this dilemma as we both try to
> improve our communication, and explore the topic as a concept for improved
> e-participation. You can also join us for the next webinar and see the
> potentials and limitations of this medium, as we discuss SOPA, PIPA and the
> recent online blackout activities:
> http://www.diplomacy.edu/calendar/copyright-infringement-sopapipa-megaupload
>
> Personally, I am wondering if the push to stop SOPA has strengthened ACTA.
>
> Best, Ginger
>
>
> Ginger (Virginia) Paque
> Diplo Foundation
> www.diplomacy.edu/ig
> VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu
>
> *Join the Diplo community IG discussions: www.diplointernetgovernance.org*
>
>
>


-- 
Aldo Matteucci
65, Pourtalèsstr.
CH 3074 MURI b. Bern
Switzerland
aldo.matteucci at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120130/73d8c56c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t