 |
 |
 |
|
Re: Re:mail...;-D
Doc, wrote this last Saturday, iirc. Wanted to actually do a bang-up job, and proof and edit the thing... Didn't happen. So here it is. Btw, speaking of top-quality, that'd be re: the whole weblogs debacle. Your "friends", Chris Locke and Shelley Powers and Jeneane Sessum, Dean Landsman and all them.. ..well, Chris Locke may have extentuating circumstances, and I didn't read Landsman's piece, just a snippet. But the two are putrid pieces of shite. Bitch-and-moan.. bitch-and-moan.. just to feel pumped up about how they're "saving the world". Pompous-ass mother fuckin' book-burner's, who'll delete anything that even has a whiff of truth in it. And if you don't think a "lady" can be a bully?? Ah well.. Same-ole same-o, and mebbe the below is just more-o-same-o... ~~ "A mail of any kind is welcomed either because the reader knows the writer, or because both share a social millieu within which greetings between two people who don't know each other are permitted or even encouraged." My Mom was actually in the air, (on and re: inter-relating on 9-11,) over to Instanbul, Turkey. Long story, already told... She went on a tour of the Mediterranean, re-visiting the haunts of the Odyssey. She made it back, and explained the Oddyssey as largely a story of Xenos, and that a people were known primarily, back in the day as today, by their Xenos. Which you describe here. Which is a part-and-parcel of marketing. "Mail is, essentially, personal. That it also carries invoices and other necessary institutional correspondence does not make it less so. Institutions (such as public utilities and government agencies) are social millieus too. As a form of mail, e-mail is also, essentially, personal. And when people correspond with any persistence, they don't just converse. They relate." This points to the fact that institutions are personal-entities, yet in a non-personal way (just like people have both personal and non-personal ways!)... As I'm reading the web-board of the discussion last year, I observe same as I did when I saw this diagram, initially: Rather, marketing is what falls between the two-tiers, as has always been done in the past. The problem of "Each relationship is conducted on the supplier's terms" is due to the EULA's of Google and EVERYBODY else (BigCo and otherwise). Which can be changed at the supplier's discretion (normally with or without notification), uni-laterally. My lame understanding of contract law is that nullifies the transactions from being contractual. But that's the way most activity on the Net is anyway, right? Non-binding contractually, and/or/both/neither, or uni-laterally un-binding. I think it works same, legally, as it does socially pretty much.. currently. Point is, the balance between consumer and producer is in neither's hands entirely. Neither is the power, I would think it'd be obvious. Consumers get a whole lotta choice, about whether or how much to pay for ANY thing (except if it's "Open Source", and similar exceptions.. which is an entirely different tangent...)-;... Btw, since "one-sided" relationships necessarily abound along with "authority/parental/control" type-a issues, there's a falsehood floating around that the primary issues are all real new things to deal with. http://www.searls.com/doc/didw2003keynote/source/2003didw_13.htm In the graph above, there are two fundamental issues that I see amongst all this. Which is flexible privacy (which necessarily includes actual-compliance) and self-delegating feedback-mechanisms. The latter of which is the bane of all humanity, not just marketers. Btw, since "one-sided" relationships necessarily abound along with "authority/parental/control" type-a issues, there's a falsehood floating around that the primary issues are all real new things to deal with. I got this far, Doc, but could go no further: http://www.searls.com/doc/didw2003keynote/source/2003didw_15.htm As you see above, I’m not in favor of appears-to-be-free. As in the falsehood-meme of Free Culture. Not buyin’ that bull. But this is one area where I think actually-free is the only way it’ll work. There are responses to this message:
|
