I do beg issue with the second mandate. Not with decentralization itself but the negating prefix of de. This strict negativity casts a gloomy shadow over otherwise worthy ambitions. Certainly there comes a time for demolition, but it must be purposed by new construction. We can decentralize organizations, but not without accepting their responsibilies.
Wiki leaks and wistleblowers alike gather attention because exposing secrets is sexy and appealing. But when this exposure dominates the informational canvas we are left only with the erotic. I challenge hacktivists to continue exposing government secrets, but to also equally expose their good deeds. Not so easy is it? Exposing good deads has little sex appeal, but a healthy society requires it.
Good point. As a society, we need to praise good things instead of only caring about the bad or extreme things that happen.
ReplyDeleteCan I just add that news media could use an equally healthy dose of this?
ReplyDeleteOh, and one more thing: scandals are guarded because they're "private data". In many cases, good things are guarded from sharing too - by copyright, which puts us in a whole other can of worms.
Good post, though!
I find that blame is often misplaced. There is no individual responsibility when negative information comes out. We here that "the NSA" is evil, but never that it is evil because persons X,Y, and Z are influencing it in such and such a way. It's difficult to change the behaviors of an organization, but easy to change who is allowed to force those behaviors.
ReplyDelete