[iDC] Michael Jackson and the death of macrofame
stephen at downes.ca
Mon Jul 6 20:06:59 UTC 2009
Dean, Jodi wrote:
> Hubs are not primarily a matter of centralized content management. They occur through growth and preferential attachment.
In human society, hubs don't "occur", they are created.
Individuals and businesses that make money through centralized content
management create hubs by promoting growth through preferential attachment.
This is not some natural state of affairs, as the comment implies. It is
a deliberate policy undertaken in order to maximize their personal incomes.
> From: idc-bounces at mailman.thing.net [idc-bounces at mailman.thing.net] On Behalf Of Stephen Downes [stephen at downes.ca]
> Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 3:20 PM
> Cc: idc
> Subject: Re: [iDC] Michael Jackson and the death of macrofame
> So long as there are power laws, there will be macro-celebrities.
> [cid:part1.02090307.00010709 at downes.ca]
> Should the network reshape into a mesh, we will see a decline of macrocelebrities.
> [cid:part2.08070708.00060404 at downes.ca]
> Traditional publishers and their ilk are working very hard to preserve the centralized tree-shaped network, because this is how they make their money. It comes, for the rest of us, at the cost of our voice. Others of us are working to evolve beyond centralized content management. http://www.downes.ca/presentation/225
> -- Stephen
> Dean, Jodi wrote:
> It seems to me that thinking about the ways that neoliberalization and financialization have changed capitalism since Marx's initial analysis is important.
> Didn't Kevin Kelly talk about the winner take all society? or the change in market practices such that there are a very few big winners and a large number of
> losers (80/20 rule?)? I think I recall as well sociological analyses (Sassen?) exploring the way that former divisions between occupations/professions are now
> divisions within them--so, there are high-powered lawyers and then lawyers who are basically piece-workers as well as those who are just mini-cogs in law
> factories. The same holds in academia--tenured full professors at one end, adjuncts struggling to teach 6-7 courses in order to make a living at the other end.
> I think it is useful to think today in terms of the production of debt--the US economy doesn't produce much stuff anymore (we import it); but we do produce
> (sell/export/commodify) debt. Stuff (that we get from elsewhere) is the vehicle/raw material for the initial production of debts that can then be combined,
> bundled, tranched, valued, sold, insured. Some companies that get involved in this fail. Some are too big to fail. Some individuals successfully produce a
> great deal of debt (Michael Jackson), some produce smaller amounts, although this may still incase them in servitude.
> Does it make sense today to speak of right-wing or bourgeois consciousness? What about ideology and ideological practices in which we all persist (I know, but
> nevertheles...ala Zizek rather than the older notion that implies a division between ideology and science or true and false consciousness)?
> Stephen Downes ~ Researcher ~ National Research Council Canada
> http://www.downes.ca ~ stephen at downes.ca<mailto:stephen at downes.ca> ** Free Learning
Stephen Downes ~ Research Officer ~ National Research Council Canada
http://www.downes.ca ~ stephen at downes.ca __\|/__ Free Learning
More information about the iDC