Editorial

Too much technology: Was Obama right?

“And with iPods and iPads; and Xboxes and PlayStations -- none of which I know how to work -- information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation.”

US President Barack Obama spoke these words at a graduation speech to the Hampton University class of 2010. It only took a day for the World Wide Web to erupt, in typical hubris, with criticisms of the president for being old-fashioned and neo-Luddite; for succumbing to technophobia in a world where movements are brought to life and struck down on the Internet and where Facebook and Twitter control global news cycles. For the most part, the negative reactions are plausible. Xbox and Playstation aren’t necessarily information gathering tools, and iPods are primarily for music. It’s true that the criticisms against the information overload aren’t unique and can be used across history for any form of mass media. It’s also true that maybe information as distraction isn’t a purely evil creature. However, these critiques are all missing the point.

The Internet is changing. What once used to be a manageable construct of abstract logical connections between PCs across the globe has become more like a vast repository of data about everybody and anything, accessible to all who are looking, and at a very reasonable cost. This was started by the Internet phenomenon the marketing types like to call Web 2.0. Web 2.0 was when the Internet became open to expansion and modification by the common user. Websites were built on user input and thrived on the amount of data collected instead of the quality. The business model that Google popularized, focusing on traffic and clicks rather than quality of content, became the de facto modus operandi for profit-seeking web startups. What transpired was astronomical growth in the sheer amount of readily accessible, searchable, and aggregated data, and that data continues to grow exponentially. A report put out by market-research firm IDT in 2008 highlights the amount of data in existence.

The idea of information overload is a very real one. There comes a point where the amount of data flooding into our capable but fallible minds becomes too much to handle. We may not have gotten to that point yet, but some would argue that we reached that point generations ago. Oscar Wilde once said “It is a very sad thing that nowadays there is so little useless information.” And that was long before Twitter. There is a point where the law of diminishing returns comes into play, where the amount of usefulness you get out of data is no longer proportional to the amount of data to be had. If the Internet is only going to get bigger, and the availability of data connections is only going to grow, and if the Web 2.0 platform is becoming a detriment to the information society, where do we go next?

President Obama’s critique of the information age as it stands is simply a rephrasing of the above question.  In a world where we are overwhelmed with data, and devices with which to access that data, how are we going to be able to filter through the data efficiently enough to counteract the law of diminishing returns? Information is great, but too much information is ultimately counterproductive. The answer to this question is that the internet will evolve into Web 3.0. Just like all versions of mass media before it, the Internet will ultimately adapt and shape itself in a way that using it will be productive and profitable.

Web 3.0 will be all about filtration. Connectivity is at a point where we can be constantly connected to an ever-flowing and ever-growing body of information. The activity of “surfing the web” has now become a passive event of data flow. The connected person simply does nothing and the information still flows. The only way to effectively use this flow of data is by constantly filtering and making educated opinions on all the information being thrown at you. The startups of Web 3.0 will be all about data filtration services. The companies that thrive will flourish based on their ability to consistently pluck out the information you need from the exponentially growing body of chaff data.

In criticizing Obama’s comments, many aren’t reading the rest of the speech. In fact, the very next sentence pretty much brings home the point concerning the responsibility we, as educated users of mass media, have to ourselves and to the entire digital world.

“Class of 2010, this is a period of breathtaking change, like few others in our history.  We can't stop these changes, but we can channel them, we can shape them, we can adapt to them.  And education is what can allow us to do so.  It can fortify you, as it did earlier generations, to meet the tests of your own time.”

He was never criticizing the digital population for being too connected. He was pointing out the dangers of the unfiltered and unstructured Internet that many people depend on for their information needs. He was bemoaning the ability of our current systems to handle the flow of information efficiently. The message President Obama was trying to impart to the graduates of Hampton University Class of 2010 was not one of rear-facing nostalgia, but one of forward-facing progress. He asks how we’re going to achieve efficiency with the new Internet, and the answer is clear. We adapt, and Web 3.0 is born.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft confirms October release for Natal

Next Story

AMD Fusion will ship this year?

108 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

What I took from his speech is that we have too many sources of information for him to be able to control what he wants us to hear. They want the media to be filtered by the White House to ensure his message goes out and is the only one we get.

The whole tech comment was a red herring. The message was about information...specifically we "the proletariat" have too much, and can be easily confused by it. We need him to sort it out for us, and tell us what is right and what is wrong. It was, in my mind, a very frightening speech and should be to anyone who is a student of history.

Unless the standards changed, those measurements are wrong. Just replace every 1000 you see with 1024. Hard drive manufacturers round it down to rob you of space by advertising one thing and delivering another. That's why 1 TB drives only average about 930 GB when you actually hook them up. 80 GB drives get cut down to about 73 GB, etc.

And I agree with the president 100%.

"Currently too big to imagine." Imaging one Yottabye is similar to imaging how large one Googol actually is, inconceivable, but can be subconsciously written down without really thinking about it.

Well the thing is that most americans arent that bright. You can overdo things. Doing 120 hours of gaming cant be good. Same goes for working 120 hours or sporting 120 hours a week. Obama is right with channeling. sure gaming can be ok but there should be limits. To bad most americans dont know the line. But anyone denying they want healthcare cant be smart.

From the article: "The business model that Google popularized, focusing on traffic and clicks rather than quality of content, became the de facto modus operandi for profit-seeking web startups."

People prefer Google becuase of the quality of content accessible compared to other search providers - not in spite of it. If someone else becomes better at linking consumers to quality content than Google, it will no longer be relevant.

Also, most web startups are profit-seeking. Not many startups have become household names without seeking a profit - and the ones who failed at profiting are no longer with us.

Right, wrong, does it matter? What difference does it make if technology has become entertainment? I don't think we have enough technology. The latest episode of Fringe more accurately portrays the level of technology we SHOULD have right now, in my opinion.

Solid Knight said,
When are they going to release Web 3.0?

what is Web 2.0 and why is Web 3.0 already out? What version of the internets am I runing now?

He either said that because he cannot control what is said on the web or its a case of a person growing up before having what we have today. Kind of like getting an older parent or grandparent to use an game console, computer, etc. They can't usually figure it out and at that point, cannot handle it. People hate things they cannot handle. Either scenario is very plausible here. Political reasons is why #1 is plausible and personal experience is why #2 is plausible.

That aside. Personally, I don't buy into the notion of info overload. Seriously....are people so inept at life that they cannot determine what is relevant to them or just trivial stuff? I'm not, I read tons of stuff everyday, a lot is trivial and a lot is important. Trivial stuff, I tend to forget about in short order. If a person cannot do as such, then simply put, there is something wrong with them. That said, don't hate on technology or data for their shortcomings. Also, I sure don't like someone telling me what they think is trivial or relevant to me....they're not me, they don't know.

Another really good statement. Evolution doesn't go backwards, children in school are required to learn a lot more than they did fifty years ago. Were starting unravel key pieces of our existence, life in this day in age is a information overload. The way we entertain ourselves is crucial to our evolution.

I just read the part where he says " I don't even know how to turn on an xbox "...why would we want a president thats not capable of running something so simple as an xbox when he is in charge of our nuclear weapon arsenal.

More importantly why are we to accept "his" opinion on such technology when he doesn't even use it, or apparently know how to.

Edited by Haegr, May 16 2010, 7:29pm :

im sick of all of this talk of too much tech. the president needs to stop worrying about pointless things. he needs to focus on bringing jobs back the the US. too many people are out of work including me and i see no signs of anything getting better.

fixxxer2010 said,
im sick of all of this talk of too much tech. the president needs to stop worrying about pointless things. he needs to focus on bringing jobs back the the US. too many people are out of work including me and i see no signs of anything getting better.

+10000

fixxxer2010 said,
im sick of all of this talk of too much tech. the president needs to stop worrying about pointless things. he needs to focus on bringing jobs back the the US. too many people are out of work including me and i see no signs of anything getting better.

That would require him to have a plan that goes beyond "bailouts" of his corporate backers, and actually caring for creating jobs and not creating a class of Citizens that need to Gov to survive.

So far from what I can see it aint gonna happen in this administration

fixxxer2010 said,
im sick of all of this talk of too much tech. the president needs to stop worrying about pointless things. he needs to focus on bringing jobs back the the US. too many people are out of work including me and i see no signs of anything getting better.

Then quit spending time on Neowin, go look for a job, and stop blaming the government for your laziness. :-)

For all of you guys that think "Obama is the 'great' thinker of the future" are like sheep going in for the slaughter. If your games become a distraction...don't play them. If you find your calling in sick to work cause your playing your XBOX than maybe you should get rid of the XBOX...but for the rest of us that are capable of juggling real life and mindless entertainment, games are a really good escape goat. Especially if you have had a bad and daunting day.

A lot of people want to go back to a simpler time, but remember the simpler life is easier...until it becomes complicated.

He says you are all idiots, you can not figure out what is true and what isn't, and you lack the capability to find out the truth for yourself and we are so happy to hear that. Aren't we a happy bunch ? Who knew xbox and playstation were sources of information ?

The only idiots are the ones who would think he's saying we're all idiots. Now go back to watching Hannity and thinking only elitists use spicy mustard.

Great speech and great article. I'm all for Obama and I think he is a great thinker of the future. This article and comments have gave me a lot of info since I wasn't really around when the web was first started, I know see that it was kind of a better place even without the services so depend on now. I just wish I could go back and see the past of the web. Hopefully Obama is right that we can filter it because most things that I have been seeing are just garbage but around that garbage are some very hidden but amazing jewels that are a fun and great part of the web to explore.

Haegr said,
I fail to see how an Xbox is any more distracting than a book. What an ignorant fool.

Wowww that's a messed up comment. The sort you'd expect from, you know, those people who, when filling out a profile and are asked "Favorite movies/music/books?", list their favorite movies and music.

Obama is a socialist and he or not government administration has the governing right to tell free citizens without infringing on their liberty and freedom that they can't or shouldn't use those devices because it's a distraction. It's a distraction from what? Learning the truth of Obama's socialist policies that he doesn't want mainstream America to know about?

modem said,
Obama is a socialist and he or not government administration has the governing right to tell free citizens without infringing on their liberty and freedom that they can't or shouldn't use those devices because it's a distraction. It's a distraction from what? Learning the truth of Obama's socialist policies that he doesn't want mainstream America to know about?

You're a dummy.

mdunner28 said,
You're a dummy.
-1. The hope that everyone will suddenly stop surfing the internet, exactly as Obama can and does on his Blackberry, and stop using iPods, such as the one his administration gave to the Queen of England, is all a misguided lie to stop bad press.

"Don't look over there: my 'transparent' government is just holding another closed door meeting for the people. As long as you only watch the evening news that loves me because YOU cannot handle the other information, then you'll be sub-servant and happy."

This is one time where Obama got it right. Information/data overload is a real problem. Yes, there is a lot of good information out there; but it gets totally overwhelmed by the junk. Who has the time to sort out the good from the junk? Look to mass mailings and telephone soliciting as examples.

TsarNikky said,
This is one time where Obama got it right. Information/data overload is a real problem. Yes, there is a lot of good information out there; but it gets totally overwhelmed by the junk. Who has the time to sort out the good from the junk? Look to mass mailings and telephone soliciting as examples.

It isn't about processing it all yourself. The more information the better. What will happen is people will find sites that process and summarize the information for us. It will be up to us to choose these portals based on our trust of who is digesting the information for us. Plus if we ever want to dig deeper on an issue we can.

¿How can people still trust or believe in words of a puppet with a teleprompter?.

Just like all versions of mass media before it, the Internet will ultimately adapt and shape itself in a way that using it will be productive and profitable.

MO' Money MO' Money.

This may be a little off topic, but it was related to this speech. I for one know that I shared these opinions in the past. However, as of recently, I've begun to have a change of heart. It is on the level of education required to get and maintain a job in American.

We have gone from a society that encouraged a high school degree to now seeing a bachelors degree as the bare minimum level of education to enter the job market. As of recently, however, I have begun to see entry level jobs that require a master's degree. Not a post graduate certificate, but an actual M.A. or M.S. degree to make about $30,000 plus a year (some are even so bold as to offer a high hourly wage). This is pretty disturbing because what it shows is that we as the lower echelon seem to be completely expandable. I will lump anyone who works for a living into this tier, no matter the degree (BS, MS, PhD or JD/MD/MBA).

I will admit that this is a bit hypocritical of me to turn because I come from a family with almost all members having at least a college degree, a high percentage with master levels degrees and many with professional degrees (lawyers and doctors seems to be the trend). However, again, what should the necessary education level be to enter the job market and expect to make a good enough salary to own a home, a car and be able to raise two children?

Where I currently live, this would be two working professionals with full professional degrees. Our unemployment rate is almost 10%. The jobs that are for basic education often have 200 applications, if not more. Those that look for a BA/BS degree are less contested, but seem to still have two dozen or more applicants. All for entry level positions.

As a trend, I know that the movement from a BA/BS to MA/MS began in the early 90s, but it seems since about 2004 it has begun to get a little bit out of control. Just some rambling thoughts...

bluarash said,
This may be a little off topic, but it was related to this speech. I for one know that I shared these opinions in the past. However, as of recently, I've begun to have a change of heart. It is on the level of education required to get and maintain a job in American.

We have gone from a society that encouraged a high school degree to now seeing a bachelors degree as the bare minimum level of education to enter the job market. As of recently, however, I have begun to see entry level jobs that require a master's degree. Not a post graduate certificate, but an actual M.A. or M.S. degree to make about $30,000 plus a year (some are even so bold as to offer a high hourly wage). This is pretty disturbing because what it shows is that we as the lower echelon seem to be completely expandable. I will lump anyone who works for a living into this tier, no matter the degree (BS, MS, PhD or JD/MD/MBA).

I will admit that this is a bit hypocritical of me to turn because I come from a family with almost all members having at least a college degree, a high percentage with master levels degrees and many with professional degrees (lawyers and doctors seems to be the trend). However, again, what should the necessary education level be to enter the job market and expect to make a good enough salary to own a home, a car and be able to raise two children?

Where I currently live, this would be two working professionals with full professional degrees. Our unemployment rate is almost 10%. The jobs that are for basic education often have 200 applications, if not more. Those that look for a BA/BS degree are less contested, but seem to still have two dozen or more applicants. All for entry level positions.

As a trend, I know that the movement from a BA/BS to MA/MS began in the early 90s, but it seems since about 2004 it has begun to get a little bit out of control. Just some rambling thoughts...

It's called *requirement inflation*, and started during Reagan's second term. As the physical numbers of high-school and college graduates (notice I didn't say "percentage"), employers at all levels started using education as a screen-out factor. (Notice this was at the same time that we were largely transitioning from an industrial economy to a services economy in the United States.)

Also, attention *must* be called to exactly WHICH unions largely backed Obama - the semi-skilled and unskilled trades and labor unions (especially SEIU and a large portion of the Teamsters). These are the very unions MOST vulnerable to requirement inflation and/or shifts toward a more educated workforce in general. (Note again that these labor groups, especially with the impact of requirement inflation, are also under attack via illegal immigration, especially in right-to-work states; why are these same unions NOT angry over his failure to curb such immigration?)

PGHammer said,

It's called *requirement inflation*,

Well, here is another take. It's called the devolution of education. I work in education, so here is what's going on. Money, is required to pay for everything. The states require the educators to comply and adhere to a growing set of rules and state wide standards. Some areas are poor, some have money. The poor areas are expected to somehow pay teachers the same amount as the rich areas, and they are expected to accomplish as much somehow. Grade schools are pushing kids on even though they should not be going to the next grade. This catches up with them in middle school, and high school. Some of them are pushed out of high school, but they make it and then college sounds like fun, or at least better than work, with more possible game time. So they pay their money for college, and the colleges (setup somewhat different) must graduate a set percent (most of the time), or pay more and take a risk of not being accredited. The schools (the 90% that are not in rich and/or high tax areas) are failing fast. So a 2 year degree is worth (all things being equal) a high school degree of 10 years ago, and a 4 year degree is really about the same as a 2 year degree at this point.

I got to agree with Obama, in other words he said that unethical and non auto profit information is driven with the interactors of the web; bad quality information that doesn't give the user enough abilities to develop on his or her own. He said in other words that Facebook and Twitter (he took these because these are the most popular ones) are being used in such way that they have become drugs themselves, and create an addictive attachment to the user, provoking less interaction with the real world. Plus the bad quality text is written in these sites.

Or that's what I understood

Web 3.0? Oh, please, no! Nobody even knows what Web 2.0 is/was yet!

I think you give Obama too much credit. He was reading a speach written for him that he probably had little to no input on. And (like many of his speeches) he brings up the issue, but gives absolutely no suggestion as to how to address the problem.

Nothing was said about filtering, or Web 3.0, or needing to improve the quality of information, or anything of the sort. He said it was an issue, and then moved on to how everything's changing, again, not saying how or when, just that there are problems in our country, and it's changing.

It's an effective speech tactic; simply bring up issues that nobody can deny, then say we must change. Don't bother saying how, as then you'll likely get opposition. Differing opinions are rarely found in what should be changed, but rather in how that change should take place. It leaves your audience in total agreement with you, feeling like they've left with a unified mindset.

The truth is, however, no matter how much a group of people can agree that something should change, until someone is willing to rock the boat and actually put forth ideas for how to bring about that change, nothing will ever happen. That's where, thus far, Obama's administration has failed to communicate with the American people. Oh, his administration definitely has ideas, but they're rarely shared openly with the people until after the legislation has already been forced through in record time; seemingly to avoid details getting out and starting discussions - and in turn opposition - that might slow the enacting of his administration's change.

Even though these discussions, differing opinions, and varying ideas may slow progress, they are vital to ensuring that progress is made in the right direction. Change is good, but only if good changes are made. So far we've been told to forego the discussion and trust that those in power are making good changes. That is not how this government was formed, it's not how we've prospered, and it's certainly not going to bring about the change we need.

At the beginning of his term Obama promised a more open Washington. That lasted all of a matter of weeks, and since then it has been one of the most closed administrations we've seen yet. The truth is, Obama's administration is afraid of open information; information forms opinion, which breeds opposition - not something you want when your entire platform is built on the bringing of "change."

JonathanMarston said,
Web 3.0? Oh, please, no! Nobody even knows what Web 2.0 is/was yet!

I think you give Obama too much credit. He was reading a speach written for him that he probably had little to no input on. And (like many of his speeches) he brings up the issue, but gives absolutely no suggestion as to how to address the problem.

Nothing was said about filtering, or Web 3.0, or needing to improve the quality of information, or anything of the sort. He said it was an issue, and then moved on to how everything's changing, again, not saying how or when, just that there are problems in our country, and it's changing.

It's an effective speech tactic; simply bring up issues that nobody can deny, then say we must change. Don't bother saying how, as then you'll likely get opposition. Differing opinions are rarely found in what should be changed, but rather in how that change should take place. It leaves your audience in total agreement with you, feeling like they've left with a unified mindset.

The truth is, however, no matter how much a group of people can agree that something should change, until someone is willing to rock the boat and actually put forth ideas for how to bring about that change, nothing will ever happen. That's where, thus far, Obama's administration has failed to communicate with the American people. Oh, his administration definitely has ideas, but they're rarely shared openly with the people until after the legislation has already been forced through in record time; seemingly to avoid details getting out and starting discussions - and in turn opposition - that might slow the enacting of his administration's change.

Even though these discussions, differing opinions, and varying ideas may slow progress, they are vital to ensuring that progress is made in the right direction. Change is good, but only if good changes are made. So far we've been told to forego the discussion and trust that those in power are making good changes. That is not how this government was formed, it's not how we've prospered, and it's certainly not going to bring about the change we need.

At the beginning of his term Obama promised a more open Washington. That lasted all of a matter of weeks, and since then it has been one of the most closed administrations we've seen yet. The truth is, Obama's administration is afraid of open information; information forms opinion, which breeds opposition - not something you want when your entire platform is built on the bringing of "change."

+ 10

I couldn't add anything else to your post JonathanMarston. There are too many feeble young minds here that are getting worked up in the 'rah-rah-rah' of an Obama quote. It's a pity, I thought it was dying down.

The internet was fine as long as he was running for the Presidency, now he has "issues" with it because he can't control the message on something like the Internet, so he needs to rile against it

z0phi3l said,
The internet was fine as long as he was running for the Presidency, now he has "issues" with it because he can't control the message on something like the Internet, so he needs to rile against it

+1

z0phi3l said,
The internet was fine as long as he was running for the Presidency, now he has "issues" with it because he can't control the message on something like the Internet, so he needs to rile against it
+1

I agree with the others that the piece is well written However, I must disagree with any notions of information overload. Those who can handle the information overload will reap the sucess of tomorrow and those that cant will fall by the wayside where they belong.

Good OP, it was well thought out and to the point, Obama's comments were also a good starting point and the piece as a whole really does make you think where we are heading with information overload and how we handle this.

REM2000 said,
Good OP, it was well thought out and to the point, Obama's comments were also a good starting point and the piece as a whole really does make you think where we are heading with information overload and how we handle this.

+1

Eddo89 said,

Maybe the sentence structure of this post reinforces why the internet is not so glorious anymore, as said earlier.....

+1

deuz said,
i didn't know op pieces where front page news stories now....

Maybe the sentence structure of this post reinforces why the internet is not so glorious anymore, as said earlier.....

Eddo89 said,

Maybe the sentence structure of this post reinforces why the internet is not so glorious anymore, as said earlier.....

Sorry grammar king. I don't spell and grammar check my posts because i assume people can understand my post without it being 100% correct.
Just so you can understand it.
'I did not know that opinion pieces were front page new stories now.'
Reply if i made a mistake or if you can't comprehend what it means. I read somewhere that humans can comprehend words even if they spelt incorrectly. If you still don't understand my comment. My comment meant that 'I thought the front page was for news stories'. It would seem that it is not the case anymore. Again reply, if you dont understand what i mean. I will type it in more simpler terms, because i don't want the internet to not be glorious anymore

deuz said,
i didn't know op pieces where front page news stories now....

Maybe if you spent a little more time actually reading things and paying attention to the data/information that is thrown at you, you would notice that Neowin occasionally posts editorial pieces to the front page. I apologize on behalf of the author for forgetting the graphic that is required to make the obvious more palatable for readers that cannot make such connections themselves

Furthermore, more opinion pieces would be greatly welcomed around this community as news can be aggregated from any number of sources but great writing and constructive balanced editorials have been sorely displaced since the move to a wider, greater Web 2.0; as it were.

Edited by Brian, May 16 2010, 10:11am : Added an additional point for clarity and reasoning

Brian said,

you would notice that Neowin occasionally posts editorial pieces to the front page.

A simple 'neowin have been doing this for a while would suffice', i haven't read much of the first page for quite sometime(only reading main articles. i come here more for the forum rather than the news...) (i guess the word Obama caught my eye..). Rather than answer my question a user decided to question my grammar(because that more important than anything else..right?).
You also could of answered me in one sentence, but more power to you, your high horse looks might fine up there

Brian said,

Furthermore, more opinion pieces would be greatly welcomed around this community as news can be aggregated from any number of sources but great writing and constructive balanced editorials have been sorely displaced since the move to a wider, greater Web 2.0; as it were.

+1

deuz said,

A simple 'neowin have been doing this for a while would suffice', i haven't read much of the first page for quite sometime(only reading main articles. i come here more for the forum rather than the news...) (i guess the word Obama caught my eye..). Rather than answer my question a user decided to question my grammar(because that more important than anything else..right?).
You also could of answered me in one sentence, but more power to you, your high horse looks might fine up there

Your tone seemed rather critical of the idea that Neowin posts opinion pieces to its front page, which I can assume is why Brian responded the way he did. He could've put it nicer, I agree, and I apologise for what might seem like a harsh reply from him, but your post earlier:
My comment meant that 'I thought the front page was for news stories'. It would seem that it is not the case anymore.

seemed sarcastic and rude, as if you don't want opinion pieces on the front page. As it's relevant to the current events in the tech world, it definitely deserves to be on the front page, and our writers put a lot of time and effort into writing these pieces, so it's understandable that they might get a bit defensive when members tell them that they shouldn't be expressing their opinions. Anyway, I agree that the whole grammar thing may have been a bit out of line.

Hope that's cleared things up a bit

Purple Haze said,
I like Obama, but considering he had to beg to keep a Blackberry after being elected.......

I don't think that falls into the "information overload" category. It's a form of direct communication with his staff, not something he uses to browse through pages of lolcats.

We shouldn't filter the internet, that's what makes the internet what it is, anybody can say anything and no one controls whats on it.

murkurie said,
We shouldn't filter the internet, that's what makes the internet what it is, anybody can say anything and no one controls whats on it.

We should filter the internet, that's what makes the internet what it's not, nobody can say nothing and someone controls whats off it.

murkurie said,
We shouldn't filter the internet, that's what makes the internet what it is, anybody can say anything and no one controls whats on it.

I think you misunderstood what is meant by "filtering". It's not filtering at the source level (e.g. censorship). It would be sites learning about you and your habits and bringing information that would be interesting/important to you to the top.

murkurie said,
We shouldn't filter the internet, that's what makes the internet what it is, anybody can say anything and no one controls whats on it.

Years from now, when quotes from the web, are past quotes from the web, from past long gone quotes from the web. No books (cost too much at some point), just an electric library full of everything we have now (in web format) plus billions upon trillions of thoughts on the subject. That (what 5 percent of useful information that we have today?) could be a billionth of a percent at some point. Idiocracy the tech version.

What is wrong with being able to get information about any topic from any point of view. When you filter the data with a "Web 3.0" service you get exactly the same thing as TV, somebody telling you what is correct and relevant. The world already bombards us with enormous amounts of "data", even without the internet. It is part of being a functional person that you can ignore and filter irrelevant, incorrect, or uninteresting "data" so that you can focus on what is relevant.

Even with all this data most people can handle it and it only becomes detrimental when it starts to expose people for who they really are.

Oh and you miss quoted Obama, its supposed to be "...rather than the means of epantsapation."

westonb_2005 said,
What is wrong with being able to get information about any topic from any point of view. When you filter the data with a "Web 3.0" service you get exactly the same thing as TV, somebody telling you what is correct and relevant. The world already bombards us with enormous amounts of "data", even without the internet. It is part of being a functional person that you can ignore and filter irrelevant, incorrect, or uninteresting "data" so that you can focus on what is relevant.

Even with all this data most people can handle it and it only becomes detrimental when it starts to expose people for who they really are.

Oh and you miss quoted Obama, its supposed to be "...rather than the means of epantsapation."

One thing you have to understand, people who don't deserve a computer are all over the place. And there's a point where sites that say the earth is still flat, and say the moon is made of cheese, need to be stomped out to stop ignorance and miss information.

westonb_2005 said,
, somebody telling you what is correct and relevant. functional person that you can ignore and filter irrelevant, incorrect, or uninteresting "data" so that you can focus on what is relevant. Even with all this data most people can handle it and it only becomes detrimental when it starts to expose people for who they really are.."

The problem with that is that if you start from this point, how do you know the difference? What Obama and many others are saying, is how do you "know" what the (5 percent, is that close) of useful information is, and then how do you find it? Then, how do you get the right or ability to portray that as being correct? Then, will money win out even at the cost of needed data for controlling purposes? Will we have 200 more Wikki webpages where Uncle Henry can tell about what he has learned from another webpage that is long gone? I really would like to see an Idiocracy movie based on the the possible future web.

"You see, a pimp's love is very different from that of a square."
"And there was a time in this country, a long time ago, when reading wasn't just for fags and neither was writing. People wrote books and movies, movies that had stories so you cared whose ass it was and why it was farting, and I believe that time can come again! "
"We're gonna take you back, to the year 1939 when Charlie Chaplin and his nazi regime enslaved Europe and tried to take over the world...But then an even greater force emerged, the U.N...and the un un-nazied the world - forever"

Why pay millions of teachers? Why not just broadcast what the state approves for every student, then at some point why pay all of those states doing different things when every person can learn the exact same things? It's cheaper and more direct. The reason why is that we are not all the same, but all generations need tools to build on. If those tools are garbage, you will only get garbage as a possible affordable outcome. Nature AND nurture.

Gargamel1984 said,
yes we can CHANGE!
I love this guy:)

He's not perfect you know.

Change is not a good thing necessarily. Let's all change into slugs (evolution right?).

Edited by LaserWraith, May 16 2010, 9:06pm :

LaserWraith said,

Change is not a good thing necessarily. Let's all change into slugs (evolution right?).

Well, that's what happened to the Combine in Half-life 2

i thought web 3.0 was the cloud as a service....

This is why things dont get done, everyone is trying to make new buzzwords and trying to do new things.

'Do old things better' not 'Do old things differently' Do we really need a new way to video chat? Do we need all applications/services moved to the web. At this point people are making things for technolagy sake instead of making things to use them.

I have more to say but at this time it sounds like incoherant babbling

Einlander said,
i thought web 3.0 was the cloud as a service....

This is why things dont get done, everyone is trying to make new buzzwords and trying to do new things.

'Do old things better' not 'Do old things differently' Do we really need a new way to video chat? Do we need all applications/services moved to the web. At this point people are making things for technolagy sake instead of making things to use them.

I have more to say but at this time it sounds like incoherant babbling

Web 3.0 does not have defined direction at this point. Some tells it more like 3D world. More semantic ideas will be introduced into Web 3.0, which is not humans but for machines. The idea is connection between the data, the reason they are connecting. Those bindings will allow machines to understand the information and it flow a lot better. In other worlds, the data bindings will make internet more complicated, but for end user better and more accurate information.

Cloud Computing is Web 2.0 thing.

Einlander said,
i thought web 3.0 was the cloud as a service....

This is why things dont get done, everyone is trying to make new buzzwords and trying to do new things.

'Do old things better' not 'Do old things differently' Do we really need a new way to video chat? Do we need all applications/services moved to the web. At this point people are making things for technolagy sake instead of making things to use them.

I have more to say but at this time it sounds like incoherant babbling

Cloud computing is not web 3.0. Its actually a very old idea.
When computers started out they were time shared devices since they were so expensive, people would queue up to run their programs, then came the personal computer.
Then came thin clients when computing power was again removed from the desktop, eventually returning to the desktop again as the requirements outstretched what could be done cost effectively.
Now Cloud computer again promises to take computing off of the desktop, I kinda expect it will only go so far and come back around.

Web 3.0, where everything old is new again.

david13lt said,

Cloud Computing is Web 2.0 thing.

I believe that cloud computing (as it's most useful possible state) will "need" a new web delivery standard. The reason for this is the possible home vs business ping times. It's less difficult to make a cross section web for scattered home users, than it is for existing businesses. As far as the "I" in IT goes, I have had this saying for years, "What is better, disinformation or no information?" As far as the "T" goes, it is just a tool, and can be used for anything, positive or negative.

Well... I agree that the internet is not anymore what it used to be... it was a really glorious place back then...

vice le von said,
Well... Tell me how is it not glorious now...?...

It will sound a little bit elitist... but not anyone has access to the network, so very educated people was in it, I remember when I used to pass almost 4 hours daily just speaking with such people, It was fun , nowadays is pretty difficult to do that... in a chat room.

Arceles said,
Well... I agree that the internet is not anymore what it used to be... it was a really glorious place back then...
Wooo! Bring back gopher searching!

Arceles said,
Well... I agree that the internet is not anymore what it used to be... it was a really glorious place back then...

well its not just the internet the whole world was a glorious place back then...

onTh said,

well its not just the internet the whole world was a glorious place back then...

Always someone thinking the grass was greener, and the part on the other side of the fence is boring too.

Edited by LaserWraith, May 16 2010, 9:09pm :