The other day a news item appeared detailing a  drunken internet conversation between an irate tech blogger and Steve Jobs. The actual content of the experience is linked below. I posted the following response as I believe that this scenario is a perfect example of the disconnect between the individuals who essentially comprise the feudal serfs in the digital domain of consumer culture, who are serving the lords of the feudal technocracy.

http://gawker.com/5539717/steve-jobs-offers-world-freedom-from-porn

Dear Mr. Tate,

Seems to me that you had an opportunity to really explore some cool ideas, with one of the Feudal lords of the technocracy, and you wasted it on non-issues.

The iPad is obviously not a revolution, nor is any aspect of corporate america, not just apple, that interested in transforming the world or a revolution or being Green, unless you count “Benjamins” as Green. A true revolution would re-distribute the apple cart, no pun intended here, and rip the status quo a new ass*@*&, which would in turn force a re-invention or re-model of a consumer based mentality that constantly looks to distracting technological modalities to spur true innovation, rather then nurturing and fostering real critical thinking, artistry and craftsmanship.

Corporate feudalism and maintaining the status quo is an inherent aspect of a consumer based technocracy. Disseminating information and the means of distribution regarding art, images, words, music, etc…and the tools that are being used to deconstruct the already destabilized and failing economic modality, through marketing strategy and re-packaging of old ideas, is a much more pressing arena for discussion then a commercial advertising campaign and an idiotic and obviously non-sequitor based marketing campaign.

From WIKI: “Friedrich Hayek argues for the classical liberal view that market economies allow spontaneous order; that is, “a more efficient allocation of societal resources than any design could achieve.”[4] According to this view, in market economies sophisticated business networks are formed which produce and distribute goods and services throughout the economy. This network was not designed, but emerged as a result of decentralized individual economic decisions.”

Jobs nailed it when he responded you can simply choose NOT to participate and let the technology evolve as it will, you responded with a certain kind of sophomoric belligerance that again ignored the historical precedent and missed the true opportunity for a meaningful dialog.

You had an opportunity to discuss real concerns like; the re-allocation and distribution of intellectual property and the destabilization of the economics of individuality and the artist. The actual impact that that has on true revolution. You had an opportunity to bend the ear of a corporate feudal lord who has single handedly been responsible for a large amount of the re-distribution of tremendous resources and economic attributes, away from the individuals and true revolutionary thinkers and artists out there, and diverting those precious resources into his own coffers, and instead you whined about non-issues that are self-resolving as the historical imperative of techno-evolution so clearly points out. Do you even remember Beta video tape?

…or what about the environmental impact that 1 million IPads produce? How is that a revolution? How is he able to maintain the moral highground when kids in China are disassembling old Macs for trace elements in incredibly toxic work environments? Planned obsolescence and environmental impact are much more significant issues from a true revolutionary point of view. Revolution sees the inequity in the status quo and seeks change along lines that the powers that be resent. You could have pointed out that inherent contradiction as a basis for argument rather then a pissing match over a few lines of code.

You wrote that you were engaged in a Flaming dialog, but your flame was seriously tepid given the scope of the opportunity.

The details of how a specific disseminating technology evolves are meaningless, the bigger issue is the reductivist attitudes of the noblesse oblige corporate mentality. You had one good point; that it is not within his corporate pervue to determine global moralities, but he actually answered you in a meaningful way by calling into question your ability and history to innovate and create, as opposed to just critiquing others. Which, by the way, you did not respond to.

Given the opportunity, I would have had  a completely different conversation.

Advertisements