February 19, 2007 at 19:04Is this paranoia?
It’s possible that paranoia is with me. However, I am still socially safe ...
But what is the outcome of the initiative of the Chicago authorities , proposing to ban access to social networks from public libraries and school locales?
1. A drop in library attendance => a slight decrease in general education.
2. An increase in the cost of enforcing this law => either an increase in the expenditure side of the budget, or a truncation of part of the school expenses.
3. To communicate on social networks, adolescents will visit places where it is much easier to “push” drugs and alcohol - cafes and bars
3.1. Or sit from home, which increases disconnection
3.2. Or use mobile access from laptops (yeah, the first ears stick out from behind the scene: mobile providers increase traffic, which is fully consistent with the principle of “Qui prodest?”)
It is doubtful that this will come in handy to save library traffic (where mega downloads often -pdf of national legislation or scans of ancient documents), since 75-80% of traffic on social networks is still blogs. Well, even 50%. All the same, this is not more than 20% of additional traffic.
But the concept of the confrontation between capitalism and netocracy completely fits: creating additional difficulties (ill-conceived, hastily), capital is trying to stop the expansion of social networks.
However, the fact that such initiatives instantly gain wide resonance is against capital.
Is the confrontation flaring up?
But what is the outcome of the initiative of the Chicago authorities , proposing to ban access to social networks from public libraries and school locales?
1. A drop in library attendance => a slight decrease in general education.
2. An increase in the cost of enforcing this law => either an increase in the expenditure side of the budget, or a truncation of part of the school expenses.
3. To communicate on social networks, adolescents will visit places where it is much easier to “push” drugs and alcohol - cafes and bars
3.1. Or sit from home, which increases disconnection
3.2. Or use mobile access from laptops (yeah, the first ears stick out from behind the scene: mobile providers increase traffic, which is fully consistent with the principle of “Qui prodest?”)
It is doubtful that this will come in handy to save library traffic (where mega downloads often -pdf of national legislation or scans of ancient documents), since 75-80% of traffic on social networks is still blogs. Well, even 50%. All the same, this is not more than 20% of additional traffic.
But the concept of the confrontation between capitalism and netocracy completely fits: creating additional difficulties (ill-conceived, hastily), capital is trying to stop the expansion of social networks.
However, the fact that such initiatives instantly gain wide resonance is against capital.
Is the confrontation flaring up?