Shouldn’t it should be mandatory for web companies such as Google and Facebook to provide an easy-to-use index for their user-side switches that allow one to do various things such as regulate how people interact with their service? I know Facebook has recently moved in this direction. The Internet was once likened to “the wild west”—where lawlessness had ample reign. While I’m all for net-neutrality, I’d also like to see more of certain types of controls placed on the major companies.
What’s wrong with getting the companies to provide a complete, coherent index of their offered features? Maybe some haven’t yet had the time to do this. Others though, likely hate the idea of giving over control to “lead their users”—back to the users themselves. After all, the users might want to cut through all of the more commercial vectors and avoid certain elements the providers want them involved with.
I’m not against the websites making money and using advertizing—the way it’s done here at DK is a good model. If you send Daily Kos money they will turn off all of the advertisement. While I can’t believe I’m actually saying something good about advertizing, I realize that a bit of it has value to me. Maybe if I sent in some money they would let me have control over what type of commercials I might want to see?
Suggesting a mandatory index of features and how to use them might cause some ridicule. Some might say in an arrogant way that the web isn’t for unsophisticated dummies; that I should just take the time to sufficiently explore all of the features myself. Why should websites be responsible for helping out some of the slower folks? Well, it’s good sense because it makes people like the provider’s service.
Also, it forestalls the vast 99% from re-taking the Internet from the corporate elite. I’m predicting that the Occupy Movement will eventually do just that. What’s always important to keep in mind is that companies such as Google and Facebook have no real basis for a monopoly unless they subscribe to the abandonment of “net neutrality”. They don’t own all of the steel (although Google does have a lot of servers)! While I actually like these companies, they must be reminded constantly that they are easily displaced if the 99% looses respect for them.
And what causes such a loss of respect is something called, “one version of the truth”. This is not to be confused with “The Truth, The Whole Truth, and Nothing but the Truth” –-that is the attempt to Occupy the Truth. This “one version of the truth” instead attempts to lead one down a specific vector in the larger pattern of value that makes up the Whole Truth.
The seemingly endless array of cheap-jack con deployed by corporate bimbos to lead people through their “one version of the truth”—is so tiresome to me. Quality gets respect, bullshit gets displaced. The companies that have Quality products actually prefer The Whole Truth over the limited edition of “one version of the truth” in the same way a goldfish prefers a larger tank—it allows for more growth.
Still, there is mockery for people who want more then a world of cheap-jack cons. Some years back I saw a commercial that subtly mocked the notion of forthright honesty and discloser. It was put out by the late, not-so-great, Washington Mutual.