A game that gives you increasingly absurd trolley problems.
Help humanity solve philosophy by solving all the trolley problems.
« Salut, j’ai un article à te commander pour la semaine prochaine, 60 euros, dis moi si c’est bon pour toi☺ Un article sur l’adhésion du Montenegro à l’OTAN qui suscite de plus en plus de polémiques. Il faut que l’article soit neutre et journalistique tout en développant que le Monténégro est trop corrompu et victime de trop de crime pour adhérer à l’OTAN. Ne pas parler de la Russie. »
Comment j’en suis arrivé là, à 30 ans passés ? A écrire des articles bidon pour flatter l’égo ou servir les intérêts des riches et des puissants ? C’était clairement pas dans mes projets, en sortant de l’école de journalisme…
[L'article] a été publié sur Contrepoints.org [...] Pour rendre crédible ce faux article, bricolé en quelques heures, on fait donc croire aux lecteurs que l’auteur vit dans le pays…
je commence à mieux comprendre les méthodes employées par l’Agence : j’ai mis le doigt, et même tout le bras, dans une agence de lobbying tous azimuts qui infiltre la presse…
Je me renseigne sur l’Agence, ses gérants, et tombe sur une enquête du Journaldunet.com. Elle dévoile les pratiques d’une agence, iStrat : faux articles, photos trafiquées et infiltrations des médias en ligne… Pour brouiller les pistes, les dirigeants d’iStrat ont plusieurs fois changé le nom de leur boîte, fusionné avec d’autres, pour former au final « Maelstrom Media ». Comme le fameux MM, à qui j’adresse mes factures ? Oui, c’est bien eux : Public Relations Agency n’était qu’une façade, et le siège a même été déménagé du XVIe à Paris vers Bratislava. En Slovaquie ! Je continue à creuser. Je découvre que les mêmes dirigeants ont fondé Avisa Partners
Note de la rédaction : On s’est rendu compte, peu après la parution de l’article dans notre édition papier (Fakir n° 103) que iStrat, l’agence de lobbying numérique, a été codirigée de juin 2013 à 2014 par… Olivia Grégoire, l’actuelle porte-parole du gouvernement (la page d'Olivia Grégoire sur Wikipedia)
FROM sebsauvage
Really nice read, that gave me some food for thought and includes a nice summary of the Open Source vs Free Software history.
Some hand-picked quotes:
Fuzzy, contentious, and complex ideas have been stripped of their subversive connotations and replaced by cleaner, shinier, and emptier alternatives; long-running debates about politics, rights, and freedoms have been recast in the seemingly natural language of economics, innovation, and efficiency.
Stallman’s may not have been the best software on offer, but some sacrifice of technological efficiency was a price worth paying for emancipation.
Any move to subject the fruits of developers’ labor to public regulation, even if its goal was to promote a greater uptake of open source software, must be opposed, since it would taint the reputation of open source as technologically and economically superior to proprietary software.
As O’Reilly put it in 2010, “the art of promoting openness is not to make it a moral crusade, but rather to highlight the competitive advantages of openness.”
It seems that anyone who wanted to claim that a revolution was under way in their own field did so simply by invoking the idea of Web 2.0 in their work: Development 2.0, Nursing 2.0, Humanities 2.0, Protest 2.0, Music 2.0, Research 2.0, Library 2.0, Disasters 2.0, Road Safety 2.0, Identity 2.0, Stress Management 2.0, Archeology 2.0, Crime 2.0, Pornography 2.0, Love 2.0, Wittgenstein 2.0. What unites most of these papers is a shared background assumption that, thanks to the coming of Web 2.0, we are living through unique historical circumstances. Except that there was no coming of Web 2.0—it was just a way to sell a technology conference to a public badly burned by the dotcom crash.
Some words—like “law”—are particularly susceptible to crazy talk, as they mean so many different things: from scientific “laws” to moral “laws” to “laws” of the market to administrative “laws,” the same word captures many different social relations. “Open,” “networks,” and “information” function much like “law” in our own Internet discourse today.
O’Reilly admitted that he was the one to edit the Wikipedia page for the book. O’Reilly is perfectly positioned to control our technology discourse: as a publisher, he can churn out whatever books he needs to promote his favorite memes—and, once those have been codified in book form, they can be easily admitted into Wikipedia, where they quickly morph into facts. What’s not to like about “collective intelligence”?
As long as this “open data” was liquid and reusable, others could build on it. Neither the political process that led to the release of the data nor its content was considered relevant to openness. Thus, data about how many gum-chewers Singapore sends to prison would be “open” as long as the Singaporean government shared it in suitable formats. Why it shared such data was irrelevant.
O’Reilly deploys the highly ambiguous concept of openness to confuse “transparency as accountability” (what Obama called for in his directive) with “transparency as innovation” (what O’Reilly himself wants).
If Participation 1.0 was about the use of public reason to push for political reforms, with groups of concerned citizens coalescing around some vague notion of the shared public good, Participation 2.0 is about atomized individuals finding or contributing the right data to solve some problem without creating any disturbances in the system itself.
In 2011, Cameron’s government released a white paper on “Open Public Services” that uses the word “open” in a peculiar way: it argues that, save for national security and the judiciary, all public services must become open to competition from the market.
Raymond writes in The Cathedral and the Bazaa [...] that “one may call [Linux hackers] motivation ‘altruistic’, but this ignores the fact that altruism is itself a form of ego satisfaction for the altruist.” If it sounds like Ayn Rand, that’s because Raymond explicitly draws on her crazy talk.
- Trouver votre livre dans une librairie locale : Librairiesindependantes.com vous permet de savoir si le livre recherché est disponible dans une librairie indépendante près de chez vous. ll cherche simultanément sur plusieurs sites, notamment PlaceDesLibraires et Lalibrairie.com.
- L’acheter d’occasion au meilleur prix : Chasse-aux-livres.fr couvre quasiment tous les sites web de vente de livres d’occasion en France.
- Pour les BD, le spécialiste BDfugue se revendique entreprise française, indépendante et militant pour développement de la bande dessinée.
Il existe aussi Les libraires ensemble, leslibraires.fr et OriginalComics géré par la librairie parisienne du même nom
The Open Source movement has always been focused on code. The result is a system that sadly neglects people. Many maintainers find themselves in a curious place. On one hand, we have people who regret seeing their code used for unethical purposes, but, because of the Open Source values they previously embraced, are unable to do anything except watch their code become weaponized. Others, perhaps not grasping that the gift economy has been usurped by more powerful forces, struggle to figure out how to make ends meet even as their labor creates immense value for others. We find ourselves in this position because the key Open Source values exacerbate an existing injustice: Because the OSI definition of Open Sources values the consumers of code over creators, Open Source helps concentrate power in the hands of already powerful actors at the expense of maintainers. I feel that not only could we do better, we have a moral imperative to find better development models.
Les enseignes vivent à l’heure des soldes et de la consommation frénétique. En négligeant les impacts sociaux et environnementaux de l’industrie mondiale de l’habillement, dont la production a doublé depuis l’an 2000.
js;dr = JavaScript required; Didn’t Read.
Many reasons to disable Javascript:
- Professionalism
- Security
- Tracking
- Resilience
- Performances
- Business & Ethicds: Are we creating a Wealthy Western Web ?
- Accessibility
- Empathy
"The mistake of scientism is to elevate scientific knowledge and data crunching to a level of certainty and competence they most definitely do not have, while at the same time dismissing every other approach as obsolete nonsense."