That’s brilliant, I got to get me one of those, and only $300,000? I guess Thorstein Veblen’s whole idea of conspicuous consumption has never been more relevant, and the idea of capitalism premised on some kind of enlightened/rational thought can’t account for how truly irrational people can be when it comes to refining distinctions.

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2008/04/25/the-300000-watch-that-doesnt-tell-time/

Randy and Gardner have it right. And there are a few more levels beside connectivity and access (you point to one of them, which you call access but I think is something different).

Connectivity as impoverishment has a nice, counter-cybercultural sound but I don’t see a lot of “there” there beyond the standard call to consciousness and paying attention.

I, like you, wanted to hear the audio again before I posted about this, but impatience got the better of me. I may be re-framing his ideas, and I freely admit that. Although, I did like the way a very simple thought brought so many of my own assumptions about connectivity, power, uneven development, and the poverty of networks into yet another light. I don’t think he meant “connectivity” in the broad sense I am using it here, he even noted that his twitter audience was a far better audience than the one at SXSW. However, within that thread there was also some deep misgivings about the whole idea of audience now, which is yet another interesting frame here.

But to your points, the Grameen Bank would be a perfect example of how that impoverishment of connectivity is not unilateral, which can be applied to OERs for “developing nations.” Connectivity is in many ways not the issue, the digital divide along the lines of bandwidth does exist, or imagining of it didn’t account for the mobile revolution (one which you have been talking about brilliantly for years, and that the US is a poor frame for). In other words, it makes total sense the Grameen Bank would be depending on a Mobile Infrastructure, and that suggests the fact that connectivity is available in these alternate (or possible dominant) forms and for us to think (us here refers to the US p.o.v.) about access to networks as a figure of cable model privilege may be all wrong. Rather it’s increasingly a necessity for the impoverished, and along those lines frames a whole different understanding of the connotations of being connected—-is it a luxury?—or is it in many ways a necessity for re-imagining infrastructure. And if some who depends upon it? Does this make any sense?

And the question of power relations is definitely at the heart of this question, and I think in many ways the pervasive ideology of the individual has obscured many of the ways we think through this idea of power. So often we understand our idea of networks as a singular point emanating many connections, we’re the hub of our own idea of network. But I wonder if this very idea is dangerous in that it assumes those power relations as a kind of will to engage or be present. There’s a kind of mythos emerging online with all this individual branding and micro global brands that seems very much in line with the unique figure in history, which ignores the social and power relations that makes this possible. And there are nodes of pwoer in these networks that often try to elide that very reality. And none of this is aided by the fact that so many of our tools are sharecropped by large, mega online corporations.

The individual as a figure of power in this space almost often precludes the possibility of some kind of collective action—but that is over statement. I just think that the figure of the network as it has been theorized has some real questions that arise around many of those issues of power and how it can be “leveraged”

I hesitate to say much, now, without having access to Chairman Bruce’s text. As one should expect from provocative talks, I have lots of pushback in mind. How would Sterling see Grameen Bank projects, which increasingly depend on mobile phones for infrastructure – impoverishment, or the opposite? Why does he conflate all kinds of connectivity, when the gap between highspeed and lowspeed is so large and determining? Steven Egan hits this.

And, of course, much to agree with. As D’Arcy puts it, wealth won for itself the privilege of being disconnected (which means hiring people to be connected for you) (and helps explain my hotel internet law). Randy names it rightly as a question of power.

I have yet to make it to a SXSW, but what I’ve heard of this year’s somewhat cools my ardor to do so next year.

Connectivity can lead to the empowerment needed to improve ones connections and become unconnected to the normal people. That’s what I get out of this. The massive number of active connections is a reaction to the individual’s need (poverty). Those who are blessed and use their connections well (along with a bunch of other things, can become empowered (rich). Once empowered they refine (limit) their connections, because doing and connecting both take time and effort. When doing becomes more valued than connecting, doing takes up more time. Some however get to the point where their reputation gets them in like time and dedication do for most.

So, the power of the person could be compared to potential connections, the power of their network, while the need/poverty of a person can be compared to the abundance of active connections.

This is a good comparison to learning. When learning you make connections to empower yourself. Teachers, faculty, communities and more are all added to your active connections, because you have needs that drive you to make connections. After learning, you don’t need the massive number of connections to be active, just potential. So, you look into refining your active connections to just those that don’t waste your time and are the most beneficial. You cut yourself off from the distractions. You do. Then, your reputation increases your potential connections, if things went well.

I agree with you agreeing with Randy, and I think the relationship between connectivity and access is a murky one, and the tension between the two may be a generative space to think through some of these questions of empowerment, “liberation,” and control online. It’s cool because the whole idea of connectivity as poverty, or access as power was for me a revelatory moment at SXSW, and it actually put many of these questions in some kind of momentary focus.

As for Twitter, I don’t necessarily have an issue with it, I just have an issue with the way people (particularly at SXSW this year) were so reverent of the whole space and idea. It was kind of scary to think that what the technology enable (and it enables a lot) is immediately reduced to how it can be monetized and used for “personal marketing,” online branding and the lie. I just think it sucks so much of the power an life out of these tools. Not to mention the fact that there is a real element of data sharecropping going on as D’Arcy notes about Twitter ans o many of these sources. And I am not trying to be a TEOTWAWKI freak by any means, but I think a lack of any critical examination of these relationships is frightening. We are handing over all sorts of power in the form of access, rights, and ownership to mega corporations, and they may not necessarily be “evil”—but the idea of access and connectivity are the crux of this relationship we have willing jumped into.

As for using Stephen’s homegrown system as opposed to Twitter at the EDUPUNK panel, I agree, that was a mistake—but I also think the audience back channel gripes were a larger incarnation of the vision of entrepreneur as savior and technologist as visionary. It’s a problematic idea, and I don’t think that there was much in the way of real thought about the implications of using the master’s tools. That said, the problem of building your own is just as fraught with issues, and it puts us in a very particular moment. One of the promises of Web 2.0 in my mind was the multiplicity of possibilities, and the idea that while nothing was ever certain, the idea of consolidation and centralization of all this data was not of issue—however, that has increasingly become the case as a couple of companies own basically all the tools I use online. That is of concern to me, and it seems like to embrace SPLJ, you have to let go of that. But are we really still in a moment of SPLJ? I’m not sure, cause while we still have the loose, the pieces ain’t that small anymore, they are part of a larger engine of online corproate consolidation. WordPress is one of the few apps that I use that I still feel like I have some control over, and that is one of almost 10–not a good ratio.