What has happened in Iran, in Egypt, in Tunisia—and what will happen in other societies over the next few years—demonstrates the enormous political and social importance of social networking. But everything we know about technology tells us that the current forms of social network communication, despite their enormous current value for politics, are also intensely dangerous to use.
They are too centralized, they are too vulnerable to state retaliation and control. The design of their technology, like the design of almost all unfree software technology, is motivated more by business interests seeking profit than by technological interests seeking freedom.
As a result of which, we are watching political movements of enormous value, capable of transforming the lives of hundreds of millions of people, resting on a fragile basis, like, for example, the courage of Mr. Zuckerberg, or the willingness of Google to resist the state, where the state is a powerful business partner and a party Google cannot afford frequently to insult.
Is the Microsoft-Nokia deal the death of the MeeGo dream: a cross-device GNU+Linux-based FOSS ecosystem?
Oh Nokia, what have you done? You made a lot of mistakes in the past. And after you started making the right decisions for a short while, you screwed it up again — but this time: the big time. You hired a Trojan-CEO, who only (or at least mainly) acts in the interest of his […]
In diesem Blogposting lege ich dar, warum es meiner Meinung nach für eine demokratischen Gesellschaft nicht nur einem Mindestmaß an politischer, historischer, philosophischer, sowie gesellschafts- und „geisteswissenschaftlicher“ Allgemeinbildung bedarf, sondern auch einem Minimum an technischem Grundwissen und Bewusstsein im Umgang mit Computern und dem Internet, wenn es eine digitale Gesellschaft ist.