seize the means of connection
@neil Something Lenin fully appreciated the importance of, FWIW:
@neil Lenin, "First you take the telegraph".
I ran across my earlier mention of this elsewhere:
"'The Bright Tomorrow' -- Growing up in Brezhnev-era Russia"
Cool, thanks for that. I like how the word connection is polysemic here - I kind of sort of meant it in the sense of our social connections, but knowing it is a bit ambiguous and easily translates to the infrastructure, network connections, etc. And these days the two are so heavily intertwined, and you can't have one without the other.
Both very heavily mediated and often used against us.
Article looks interesting too, what happens in a revolution gone awry.
@neil I need to re-read that piece, it's been a few years.
The morphological similarity of interconnection-based systems is a deep and profund concept that most people don't appreciate. In my #TechOntology I've included #networks as one of the nine fundamental mechanisms by which technology operates.
A network being any physical or logical set of nodes and links through which matter, energy, people, and/or information flows. Relationships are a form of information.
Physical comms and ...
@neil ... transport links absolutely impact social relationships.
And any centrally-located / low-cost link between multiple nodes becomes a control hub. Whoever / whatever controls what does or doesn't flow through that hub, has control over the network as a whole, or at least a large chunk of it.
So yes, your little quip is quite profound, whether intentionally or not.
@dredmorbius Do you have a resource with more details about your tech ontology?
@neil Thought you'd never ask ;-)
It's still pretty loose, though mentions here:
And a longer though slightly stale version (re-structured a few categories, basic concepts are largely intact), here:
The first link shows the current classifications.
@neil There are also some relationships to concepts of industrial / economic sector classifications. The mapping is a bit rough, but should be reasonably apparent:
> "Technology" is a word about as specific as "sports" or "food" or "animal".
Hell yes. Your ontology looks very useful for framing thoughts, thanks.
@neil I'd *really* appreciate critiques or feedback.
Still kicking that around, but I've found it an exceedingly useful classification tool. Particularly where considering various arguments / technologies, and thinking "how does this work? what are the mechanisms?"
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!