This post inspired me to turn these ideas inward to theatre and my own company – link posted here:

http://fluxtheatreensemble.blogspot.com/2009/11/conversation-vs-information.html

Looking forward to learning more about how you’re moving this forward.
Best,
Gus

You talk about reformation instead of revolution. I’m not sure if that will get the support of the wider populace. AS it is, the majority of people are not concerned, or don’t know about net neutrality for example. The freedom of information and communication enabled by the web is not apparent to them. Then there are those who would point to dangers of the decision making process being hijacked by people with vested interests (and this is something that needs to be looked at closer). Add to this the mentality of many commenters on Youtube and you have a lot to consider.

My feelings are that the internet can be used for democratic means. It can serve an important purpose in decision making in local communities and to harmonise an international voice, a human voice. It needs to be inclusive rather than exclusive. Simple, not complicated.

I do feel though that revolutionary steps need to be taken to fix this. The seeds could take the form of an unstoppable response online to something “done in our name”. This something would quickly overflow into the world outside the internet. I believe it takes something really big to happen to break apathy.

New ways of doing things are already emerging online. “Trust networks” are the way forward as they encourage community interaction in the real world with real benefits. The economic crises could be readily solved by embracing new interactions as such.

By the way, an interesting film project which deals with this is “Us Now”….

http://www.usnowfilm.com/

…however, that echo chamber (the sense of community you spoke about on the panel) will essentially be the motivation to keep us all going when the goings get tough.

100percent agree with this sentiment. I personally think the term “social media” has been discussed to death at events such as 1pound40 – it needs to be put through a historical, social, political and economical filter to lessen the chance of inoculation from the previous sets of technophiles – my reasoning?

Well, as Toby says we are of the 10 percent that “get it” and as much as it is fantastic to be in a room full of like-minded individuals (some I’ve met, some I would like to meet but don’t think official events give me enough time to meet them properly) – we ALL KNOW THAT WE GET IT. I’d say either 1)let those who can, go away and create concrete evidence and methods in which to help educate and influence 2)those that are essentially “media professionals in a box” should continue to do what they do (there is a great talent in being able to talk to everyone and provide multimedia content, but not for everyone) – otherwise we are all going to end up meeting, to talk to each other through digital audio files and poor quality video streaming (thanks to our pitiful attempts at providing broadband access) – we don’t want to be ending up speaking in public persona buzzwords and essentially isolating ourselves from the rest of the population.

This sort of amplification should not be confused with the act of getting things done on a larger scale nor providing enough reasoning to influence those who, unfortunately, play the game and rule the discourse (the majority being powerful, uninterested people) Pick a project that so far removed from the social media bubble and try working with it – it doesn’t take long before you encounter bloody Luddites who will go out their way to dampen the conceptual ideas of social media. That balance is what will help the community succeed.