Comments on: Bread and Games 2.0 (guest article) http://www.philippmueller.de/bread-and-games-20-guest-article/ www.philippmueller.de Mon, 05 Sep 2011 16:47:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: sadfasd http://www.philippmueller.de/bread-and-games-20-guest-article/comment-page-1/#comment-305 sadfasd Sat, 08 Aug 2009 10:33:40 +0000 http://www.philippmueller.de/?p=285#comment-305 This is great! Now I want to see your ways for us readers to become more involved! Expect an email later today.|*|wow <a href="http://gold%7C*%7Chttp://www.wotlkgold.net" rel="nofollow">gold|*|http://www.wotlkgold.net</a> This is great! Now I want to see your ways for us readers to become more involved! Expect an email later today.|*|wow gold|*|http://www.wotlkgold.net

]]> By: Sebastian Haselbeck http://www.philippmueller.de/bread-and-games-20-guest-article/comment-page-1/#comment-177 Sebastian Haselbeck Mon, 20 Apr 2009 10:08:40 +0000 http://www.philippmueller.de/?p=285#comment-177 I see what you mean. I guess I was mostly referring to overly optimistic or naive views of 2.0 usage in politics. Some people see it as the ultimate solution that will make democracy truly democratic while first of all it's just another medium that is being used - and misused - for interests..... but I absolutely agree with you also I see what you mean. I guess I was mostly referring to overly optimistic or naive views of 2.0 usage in politics. Some people see it as the ultimate solution that will make democracy truly democratic while first of all it’s just another medium that is being used – and misused – for interests….. but I absolutely agree with you also

]]> By: Sebastian Haselbeck http://www.philippmueller.de/bread-and-games-20-guest-article/comment-page-1/#comment-1620 Sebastian Haselbeck Mon, 20 Apr 2009 10:08:00 +0000 http://www.philippmueller.de/?p=285#comment-1620 I see what you mean. I guess I was mostly referring to overly optimistic or naive views of 2.0 usage in politics. Some people see it as the ultimate solution that will make democracy truly democratic while first of all it's just another medium that is being used - and misused - for interests..... but I absolutely agree with you also I see what you mean. I guess I was mostly referring to overly optimistic or naive views of 2.0 usage in politics. Some people see it as the ultimate solution that will make democracy truly democratic while first of all it’s just another medium that is being used – and misused – for interests….. but I absolutely agree with you also

]]> By: Justus Lenz http://www.philippmueller.de/bread-and-games-20-guest-article/comment-page-1/#comment-176 Justus Lenz Mon, 20 Apr 2009 09:09:57 +0000 http://www.philippmueller.de/?p=285#comment-176 Hey Sebastian, I think you’re making an important point. But you fail to see the bigger picture in my opinion: Politicians are of course trying to use the new tools to their advantage. They have every reason to do so. Why should they start to employ the new tools to their “real purposes”? What is their real purpose anyway? Empowering the citizens? Hell no! This would make their lives much more complicated. From the logic of politicians (and other actors) keeping “the citizens at bay” is exactly what these tools are designed for. The question we have to ask how high the chance is that they’ll prevail. My take on this is that it is not very high. There are enough examples that the distribution of (potential) power has shifted significantly. The citizens’ (or for companies the customers’) costs of voicing their complaints and of organizing have decreased significantly. Politicians will never lift the closed curtains at free will – they have to be forced because it is against their interest. The interesting question is therefore not whether politicians (and public agencies and companies) will start to use the new tools to empower the citizens – the interesting questions is whether the citizens will start to empower themselves. Justus Hey Sebastian,

I think you’re making an important point. But you fail to see the bigger picture in my opinion:

Politicians are of course trying to use the new tools to their advantage. They have every reason to do so. Why should they start to employ the new tools to their “real purposes”? What is their real purpose anyway? Empowering the citizens? Hell no! This would make their lives much more complicated. From the logic of politicians (and other actors) keeping “the citizens at bay” is exactly what these tools are designed for.

The question we have to ask how high the chance is that they’ll prevail.

My take on this is that it is not very high. There are enough examples that the distribution of (potential) power has shifted significantly. The citizens’ (or for companies the customers’) costs of voicing their complaints and of organizing have decreased significantly. Politicians will never lift the closed curtains at free will – they have to be forced because it is against their interest.

The interesting question is therefore not whether politicians (and public agencies and companies) will start to use the new tools to empower the citizens – the interesting questions is whether the citizens will start to empower themselves.

Justus

]]> By: Justus Lenz http://www.philippmueller.de/bread-and-games-20-guest-article/comment-page-1/#comment-1619 Justus Lenz Mon, 20 Apr 2009 09:09:00 +0000 http://www.philippmueller.de/?p=285#comment-1619 Hey Sebastian, I think you’re making an important point. But you fail to see the bigger picture in my opinion: Politicians are of course trying to use the new tools to their advantage. They have every reason to do so. Why should they start to employ the new tools to their “real purposes”? What is their real purpose anyway? Empowering the citizens? Hell no! This would make their lives much more complicated. From the logic of politicians (and other actors) keeping “the citizens at bay” is exactly what these tools are designed for. The question we have to ask how high the chance is that they’ll prevail. My take on this is that it is not very high. There are enough examples that the distribution of (potential) power has shifted significantly. The citizens’ (or for companies the customers’) costs of voicing their complaints and of organizing have decreased significantly. Politicians will never lift the closed curtains at free will – they have to be forced because it is against their interest. The interesting question is therefore not whether politicians (and public agencies and companies) will start to use the new tools to empower the citizens – the interesting questions is whether the citizens will start to empower themselves. Justus Hey Sebastian,

I think you’re making an important point. But you fail to see the bigger picture in my opinion:

Politicians are of course trying to use the new tools to their advantage. They have every reason to do so. Why should they start to employ the new tools to their “real purposes”? What is their real purpose anyway? Empowering the citizens? Hell no! This would make their lives much more complicated. From the logic of politicians (and other actors) keeping “the citizens at bay” is exactly what these tools are designed for.

The question we have to ask how high the chance is that they’ll prevail.

My take on this is that it is not very high. There are enough examples that the distribution of (potential) power has shifted significantly. The citizens’ (or for companies the customers’) costs of voicing their complaints and of organizing have decreased significantly. Politicians will never lift the closed curtains at free will – they have to be forced because it is against their interest.

The interesting question is therefore not whether politicians (and public agencies and companies) will start to use the new tools to empower the citizens – the interesting questions is whether the citizens will start to empower themselves.

Justus

]]>