Natali Del Conte

Wow. You're the second person today that has given me permission to leave work early. The first one was so I could go to the beach. Anyway, I was mulling over the larger concept of what you just dumped on us. Sharing information has its benefits and problems. I think in certain areas the sharing and collaboration of ideas will work and is a good thing. But I find that there has to be a balance when it comes to areas touching business and economics. The spirit of capitalism thrives on competition, and a limit has to be placed on how much and what types of information can be shared freely. My corporation permits and encourages the use of Social Networking and Instant Messaging as a way of positively affecting our enterprise, but there are also limits concerning our communications in regard to product detail and company policy. I think though in your case as a journalist, where the sharing of information is part of the ultimate "utopian" goal, this plays very well for you. I'm writing this though at 4:30pm and my brain is close to a liquid state from working all day already, so it may be somewhat discombobulated. I'm going to drink some sweet iced tea when I get home.

Well I think it is a bit overly optimistic to have companies within the same space talking over their plans for each other. I think there are two reward points in the current business model, those being 'first' and 'best'. So if you talk to the other guys and give away your 'first' or 'best' plans, you may be in trouble.

But I do take your point and think it's a good one. But how to actually go about integrating it is probably the hard part.

Think macro, act micro? Doesn't have the same ring as 'think global, act local' huh?

So what were some speakers whose talks you enjoyed? I tend to think that even if the GOP had shared it's strategy with the public, it still wouldn't have helped enough for them to win, but that's just my opinion. I saw David Almacy speak a few months ago, and while I don't agree with his politics, I thought he was a very good speaker and quite in tune with technology and how to best take advantage of it.

Well done NDC! I watch...and I'll keep watching. Great to hear such well put words. I think the Amercian public should start a News Channel and call it TBOC...Take Back OUR Country! TBOC.tv Just a thought! :)

Something interesting about the idea of businesses sharing information more. One of the big constraints is legal - going back to Adam Smith, there's been this idea that if you get two businessmen into a room, they will start a conspiracy. At my office we get training every year about anti-trust, which basically centers around the idea of "don't talk business to anyone else in the industry."

Now, the interesting part is how this is founded on the premise of secrecy. So what happens if you allow people and businesses to interact with one another, but through public forums where there is implicit trust. I mean, will our legal system (which ultimately reflects our values) conclude that conspiracies can't take place in the public square?

If so, there could be some exciting possibilities for communication. The technology is certainly there to connect almost any business function in any company to one another. But in a world where my saying that "yeah we didn't buy from company X" is treated as anticompetitive behavior against company X, all the technology and democracy in the world won't enable real idea sharing.

Thanks for the post :-)

Jeff

Natali,

You have touch on many topics, evolution of new media, information overload, fragmentation, accountability of government, transparency, technology as a platform for democracy, in short the Digital revolution. (in its social sense).

It's true, technology does bring forth amazing possibilities, it enables ways to share, connect and express, never known before to mankind, sadly enough still not known to much of mankind, actually only 27 to 30% of the people in 1st world countries and some emerging economies have access to broad band and even then a significantly less number actually relate and understand, how to put to use these technologies.

For example not sure if you have seen this: http://tinyurl.com/nfhub6

Ergo, it's not an easy proposition, you have so many social outlets, that contest with the thing I like to call "Social Intelligence", that which is created when we all add up to the sum of a greater thing than ourselves, that which represents the road for the greater good.

Connecting, and interacting is important how we do it?, and how long it lasts? is vital, we have so minimal attention spans that everything is focused on a fast paced not to deep experience. And yes quite fragmented.

Nevertheless its proven than when exposed to audio, video and interaction, retention of data is not only enhanced but augmented by 3 fold, thus of course we are on the verge of a new way of being, but the issues arising from the digital divide, create the sort of back log that we carry around. And it is a heavy weight to lift.

Until we are able to use all of this technologies to educate, and propagate, a common base of knowledge (democratizing the access to wealth and knowledge), and thus allow to open the eyes of the many to the limitless possibilities of technology, we will not evolve as fast or as steady as is required to support a real implementation of the Human 2.0! (singularity any one?)

Anyway this is a topic that could span for pages and pages, it is deep and transcendental and should be followed up and expanded in the debate to as many minds as possible in order to illuminate a new way of thinking, communicating and being, a true 21st century realization of who? and what? we are as a specie and where? should we all aim to be at in the future of the future that we all hoped to live and are in now but lacks the hope we once had for it.

That hope has its torch in persons like you and so many other untold heroes in the new media arena, that march on breaking barriers, not afraid to explore and venture into a better tomorrow.

Cheers

Natali,

You have touch on many topics, evolution of new media, information overload, fragmentation, accountability of government, transparency, technology as a platform for democracy, in short the Digital revolution. (in its social sense).

It's true, technology does bring forth amazing possibilities, it enables ways to share, connect and express, never known before to mankind, sadly enough still not known to much of mankind, actually only 27 to 30% of the people in 1st world countries and some emerging economies have access to broad band and even then a significantly less number actually relate and understand, how to put to use these technologies.

For example not sure if you have seen this: http://tinyurl.com/nfhub6

Ergo, it's not an easy proposition, you have so many social outlets, that contest with the thing I like to call "Social Intelligence", that which is created when we all add up to the sum of a greater thing than ourselves, that which represents the road for the greater good.

Connecting, and interacting is important how we do it?, and how long it lasts? is vital, we have so minimal attention spans that everything is focused on a fast paced not to deep experience. And yes quite fragmented.

Nevertheless its proven than when exposed to audio, video and interaction, retention of data is not only enhanced but augmented by 3 fold, thus of course we are on the verge of a new way of being, but the issues arising from the digital divide, create the sort of back log that we carry around. And it is a heavy weight to lift.

Until we are able to use all of this technologies to educate, and propagate, a common base of knowledge (democratizing the access to wealth and knowledge), and thus allow to open the eyes of the many to the limitless possibilities of technology, we will not evolve as fast or as steady as is required to support a real implementation of the Human 2.0! (singularity any one?)

Anyway this is a topic that could span for pages and pages, it is deep and transcendental and should be followed up and expanded in the debate to as many minds as possible in order to illuminate a new way of thinking, communicating and being, a true 21st century realization of who? and what? we are as a specie and where? should we all aim to be at in the future of the future that we all hoped to live and are in now but lacks the hope we once had for it.

That hope has its torch in persons like you and so many other untold heroes in the new media arena, that march on breaking barriers, not afraid to explore and venture into a better tomorrow.

Cheers

Ed Sussman writes on "Now that Twitter is Writing the First Draft of History, Where Does that Leave Journalists?"

He concludes that broadcast media should become curators of social media. If found this a compelling article and thought it very relevant to this discussion:

http://edsussman.wordpress.com/2009/07/01/now-t...

You are correct about the notion that sometimes companies need to share what is going on within their niches. I work for a bank data processing company that is a member of AFT http://www.aftweb.org/ Association for Financial Technology. We routinely share insight and information with our most fierce competitors through this association and as a whole our industry has benefited immensely. Sometimes covering up your failures or not sharing your successes can damage the niche you are working with as a whole thus stifling innovation and creativity.

In Brazil, during the month of June, 2009, the Government extinguished the profession of Journalism.

In Brazil, a Journalist Blog can be the difference between life and death for a Journalist, because, by way of his own Blog, a Journalist has the HUMAN RIGHT TO WRITE.

Congratulations for your Freedom to Write.

At the same time, as you are a Journalist, and thanking you in advance for your kind attention, I would like to inform you about the following subject, since it already affects Latin America, as a whole:

"On behalf of the Constitution of Honduras, is this complaint signed by this Journalist in the FBI against Barack Hussein Obama:

Barack Hussein Obama, in full knowledge of his falsity, and in reckless disregard of the Constitution of Honduras - BY WAY OF WHICH ZELAYA WAS IMPEACHED;

Barack Hussein Obama, in full knowledge of his falsity, and in reckless disregard of the Constitution of Honduras - AFTER ZELAYA IMPEACHMENT - publicly stated:

- 'Zelaya is the President of Honduras' -

Barack Hussein Obama, in full knowledge of his falsity, and in reckless disregard of the Constitution of Honduras,

FROM THEN ON supports Zelaya inconstitutional and ilegal presidency.

Barack Hussein Obama, in full knowledge of his falsity, and in reckless disregard of the Constitution of Honduras, - FROM THEN ON IMPEACHED THE CONSTITUTION OF HONDURAS."

I admire your struggles with how journalism is going to be able to apply its true value, consolidation of information and impartial perspective (I know the cynics among us scoff at the idea of impartiality), in the age of instant information and 5 second attention spans. How can you gather bits from sources , filter it of misinformation and consolidate it back into new that is useful before the crowd moves on? Are we going to be stuck with AP posts and off the cuff commentary? Can we really communicate to much, the internet creates so much noise. I doubt you remember the old "Max Headroom" series but we are very close to that horrible vision of the future where news is about creating more news (and viewers). Fortunately we seem to have some very thoughtful professional working their way through the maze, you and Dwight Silverman come to mind. Keep up the good work! Do people still scoff?

Yes, it would be utopic for journalism. No matter what industry or organization you're in, most businesses and institutions must live on profit or just float on revenue despite the benefits and services they provide to citizens. Otherwise, they simply float and rely on the state or federal taxes we contribute every year.

If immediate sharing of information between networks were permitted to support the concept of being open, this could negatively impact the most profitable network as they would no longer have exclusive information that sets them apart from other networks. Financial supporters would have no need to pay a premium for a network that performs and provides services just as equally as the rest.

Of course, a non capital-based society could resolve this dillema.