version

Well-known member
The Byung-Chul Han interview I've posted in 'Dematerialisation' covers a fair few recent topics on here;

"I think trust is a social practice, and today it is being replaced by transparency and information. Trust enables us to build positive relationships with others, despite lacking knowledge. In a transparency society, one immediately asks for information from others. Trust as a social practice becomes superfluous. The transparency and information society fosters a society of distrust."
 
  • Like
Reactions: sus

Clinamenic

Binary & Tweed
If/when cryptocurrency becomes more mainstream, these dynamics of trust will be impacted even more. The whole protocol erases the need for counterparty trust, and largely erases the need for trust in supervisory human institutions, hence the term "trustless" system.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sus

catalog

Well-known member
It's an interesting one isn't it. Like my train station supervisor said, people used to borrow things from one another. One set of ladders, one pair of garden shears, was enough for the whole street.

Now we all have to buy our own things. We don't really lend one another stuff anymore. And that lending process I think can engender trust.

Digital is infinitely copyable, but we have to manufacture a way to make it scarce, so there's a business model, but it's total bullshit cos no one owns anything.
 

woops

is not like other people
It's an interesting one isn't it. Like my train station supervisor said, people used to borrow things from one another. One set of ladders, one pair of garden shears, was enough for the whole street.

Now we all have to buy our own things. We don't really lend one another stuff anymore. And that lending process I think can engender trust.
yeah! and you could leave your back door open and let your kids play in the woods at midnight without any fear. everyone was living happily ever after.

lending can just as easily destroy trust past the point of any repair!
 

catalog

Well-known member
i know it's a bit rose-tinted but i also think it's broadly true.

what happened woops did you lend dots and loops to your mate and never got it back? we've all been there. my mate lent me jeff mills live at the liquid room tokyo and i kept it so long he had to buy another one.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Leo

version

Well-known member
There's a short article in The Guardian at the moment with a writer discussing her newfound appreciation for privacy after a lifetime of oversharing on social media.

Wonder whether there's a change in the air.
 

version

Well-known member
This is an interesting angle,

"In the novel's imagining thus far, surveillance harms by alienating. It does not violate or threaten privacy but rather, in the case of Fred and Bob, creates a grim scenario of self-alienation, of too much privacy. Rosen and Santesso's literary history of surveillance highlights the co-constitutive relation between privacy and surveillance. In Dick's novel, surveillance and privacy are similarly non- oppositional, for it is the excess of privacy, not its loss, that marks the tragedy of Fred's and Bob's fates. Surveillance--through the anonymizing and desubjectifying scramble suit, the scripted public relations appearances, and the protagonist's mandatory self- surveillance--produces social and ethical alienation, constructing an isolating privacy from others and from the self. Privacy is not oppositional to, outside of, or threatened by surveillance. Rather, privacy, in the form of institutionalized anonymity, undercover operations, and the protagonist's split identities, is an essential component of the surveillance apparatus. Working in concert, surveillance and privacy alienate and deaden."

-- Surveillance and Counter-Surveillance in PKD's A Scanner Darkly - Jennifer Rhee
 

sufi

lala
There's a short article in The Guardian at the moment with a writer discussing her newfound appreciation for privacy after a lifetime of oversharing on social media.

Wonder whether there's a change in the air.
Reprogramming yourself is a fascinating exercise. The urge to share is most insistent when I’m alone, prompting the horrific realisation that somewhere along the way, my brain has been trained to process reality through an audience
 

shakahislop

Well-known member
It's an interesting one isn't it. Like my train station supervisor said, people used to borrow things from one another. One set of ladders, one pair of garden shears, was enough for the whole street.

Now we all have to buy our own things. We don't really lend one another stuff anymore. And that lending process I think can engender trust.

Digital is infinitely copyable, but we have to manufacture a way to make it scarce, so there's a business model, but it's total bullshit cos no one owns anything.
it's also i think coz the price of material goods is so low now. it's another one of those medium-sized social changes that goes a bit unnoticed i think. stuff is really cheap
 

sufi

lala
dematerialisation of value innit?
your fancy new phone is free every year, your shoes which cost next to nothing to create are top price because of the words written on them
all those (free range and battery death camp) chickens coming home to roost now tho
 

Clinamenic

Binary & Tweed
Digital is infinitely copyable, but we have to manufacture a way to make it scarce, so there's a business model, but it's total bullshit cos no one owns anything.
Enter web3, where, if anything, we will err in the opposite direction.

Someone recently put it like this:

Web1: Read
Web2: Write
Web3: Own
 
Last edited:

sus

Well-known member
The Byung-Chul Han interview I've posted in 'Dematerialisation' covers a fair few recent topics on here;

"I think trust is a social practice, and today it is being replaced by transparency and information. Trust enables us to build positive relationships with others, despite lacking knowledge. In a transparency society, one immediately asks for information from others. Trust as a social practice becomes superfluous. The transparency and information society fosters a society of distrust."
If/when cryptocurrency becomes more mainstream, these dynamics of trust will be impacted even more. The whole protocol erases the need for counterparty trust, and largely erases the need for trust in supervisory human institutions, hence the term "trustless" system.
Dan Davies on fraud is a must here.

High-trust nations (e.g. Canada) have the highest rates of financial fraud, low-trust nations (e.g. Greece) the lowest.
 

sus

Well-known member
Which is the bigger problem, financial fraud or living in a low-trust society?
Living in a low-trust society, because you can't do business with anyone who isn't family/good friends

The relatively high rates of fraud in global 1st world finance sector is ~considered part of the price of doing business and built in via insurance structures
 
Top