Perspective

pioneers are never the typical end users
70's programmers are programmers
90's communicators are communicators
what do people do?

Who are we?

From programmers to communicators?

Pioneers are not usually the typical end users. The Internet pioneers did the founding work on the '70s, soon almost thirty years ago. I don't know much about them even though I once had the joy to share the same dance floor with the famous Vint Cerf and have been hanging around ISOC a while. I wonder, how do they use the net? Have they ever studied it? Do they think of it?

Those creators were/are engineers and programmers. I quitted programming five years ago, mostly because of the Internet. Suddenly there were people behind the screen and the computer itself vanished, I hardly ever think of them anymore. The net was there ready for us with all these wonderful services and programs evolving.

I think of communication, or interaction in a broader sense, a lot and that's what the net most of all is about. That is also what I do for work - communication and communication systems for other people to use. Perhaps I could be called a communicator, like people sometimes are (the edge digerati).
(...)
 

Post-Computer?

I haven't really had a computer in ages. Why would I need one? The net is much nicer! 
common knowledge,
from the U.S.A.:  "a PC without the net is like a car without a road"
an/amsterdam,
Europe: "I need no car but prefer walking, cycling and public transport"

On or for and from (...) the net?

Sometimes I see a difference between people, who use the net, and net people who are on the net and perhaps grown up there, from the net. The net is same for all of us and we use pretty much the same tools but it seems, however, that we have some differences in our perspectives.

Is it that we are another generation of net pioneers and live not only on it but also for it? I mean that we use and promote the net perhaps more than it would deserve to push it forward. But why?

We are dependent

I guess we must admit that our lives are really dependent on the net. It is where we work, even so that it is perhaps the only thing that we know well enough to be able to make a living. Many have skipped school and don't progress in their studies being so busy learning the net and working there.

Furthermore I'm afraid that our social relationships are relay on it more than we realize. Like the people in Helsinki I used to live with at the L16 net community are now more spread all over and I don't even know where some of them live. Yet we spend a lot of time every day chatting on IRC and feel togetherness almost like then when we lived in the same building. What would happen to us if the net would collapse? I don't even have the money to travel there .. I couldn't be able to live in Amsterdam, the town I love, but still spend the days together with my friends in Helsinki and in tight contact with the company, people and family back in Oulu etc. Where would I locate in this triangle of cities without loosing too much?

So we are extremely dependent and pioneers and probably can't be used as an example when visioning what the typical future user will be like? I don't think I have a clue of that.
 

What is home, where's the surf and excitement?

As we were grown up with the net it's ways of doing often feel more familiar than those of the outer world. For most people, I mean just normal people, this is still quite the opposite as they are often even afraid of computers and can't often really understand what's going on the net behind them.

The adventurous are encouraged to buy a computer with a modem in search for excitement. Ads and campaigns in the old media (TV, radio, paper etc) keep hyping, talk about web surf emphasizing all the dangers. The Information Revolution comes up in table discussions and the New Economy buzzes economists. Gee.

The people (I know) on/from/for the net couldn't care less. Many of them work around it and do concern it important and follow what's going on but are fascinated about quite different things. The net was always there and doesn't really seem to change. Even the small improvements we've had during the last couple of years were known well before and the only surprise seems to be how slowly everything happens. But as the tools are pretty ok already it doesn't really matter that much 'cause we can happily use them.

"For us the net is not about surfing but a cozy place where we like to be.
Home. It is not at all exiting or fun but totally normal, just necessary.
The world outside is wild and exotic, perhaps scary, but full of
adventures!"

Is it the dealing with the real/old world: paper, snailmail, travelling, body .. is where we find the adventures? For some of us it definitely is but not always in a positive sense. My most terrifying experiences come from paper bureaucracy and many people simply hate telephones, not to mention TV.  Joy is in dance. Importance in people, togetherness. Excitement in fishing?
 

Examples

("everybody" stands for "typical user")

Creating and putting the work on-line:

Everybody usually puts their stuff on-line after writing, presenting or by other means finishing it. Our work seems to have a different approach: it's born on-line, in discussions, grown with comments and formed on the net. The peak of it's presence might be some publication (speak, article in a newspaper) but even though those moments and delivering  are important they are only short moments, dots in a lifeline. ... after which the creation itself continues to exist on the net (virtually) forever, accessible from anywhere.
--
information overload.. [the peaceful media column -stuff]
are we immune?
(...)
 

"Source critique" (lahdekritiikki in Finnish) and lack of context

A classical example about people from the old world is the way they emphasize the importance of (something that is called "lahdekritiikki") critical way of reading everything they find on the web.

They say: "you never know who's written it, some school kid or a respected researcher", "there is nothing to signify the context".

I would believe that people who are used to it know very well the different contexts and sources of information even on unfamiliar sites. URLs and other addressing tells often quite a lot, usually also the design style of a page (which can, of course, be faked) but most importantly it is easy to get the same information from different independent sources and to learn which ones you can trust and when. These are really the basic skills that evolve. Furthermore they are assumed naturally - of course you must be aware of who you're listening to!

On the net the possibility of disinformation and numerous contradictions are so obvious that it is accepted as a part of communication. People used to the polished safe old media who want to benefit from it need to get used to it.

And, most importantly, I'd say that people grown on the net realize that the whole world is like that and don't necessarily take the stories on TV and magazines so seriously either. It is always only one point of view after all. This is common knowledge but in some discussions some friends have been pointing out how natural it is for net people and I quite agree.
 

What are the (data - information - knowledge?) networks

The 'net is not (only) about knowledge, even information.

Background

In Finland there has been a lot of discussion and critics concerning the development of Information Society by driving the Internet and computers etc.

The Finnish word for information is "tieto" so the information society is called "tietoyhteiskunta". "Tieto" means (loosely) also knowledge and even, on the other opposite, raw data. A data file is called "tiedosto" (~ a piece of "tieto") and the Internet and other computer based networks are called "tietoverkko" (data/information(/knowledge) network).

It is often claimed that computer networks are only data networks that don't necessarily support information and more importantly knowledge networks at all -- even though the word "tietoverkko" would suggest so. The critics say that a  lot of knowledge is still better presented in books and journals when Internet appears to be filled with disinformation and other meaningless data.

Opinion:

I'd say that the critics are right in their perceptions but think that it's more a benefit than a drawback. These network's capabilities of carrying all kinds of data is just what makes them so flexible!

There's a more to life than information or knowledge. What appears irrelevant to those big minded thinkers might be essential for someone else's life. (there's one new book titled "moral, beyond knowledge" that might say something?)

These I quite new thoughts for me. I've always been the one wondering why and how some people can spend their lives just taking care of bits' welfare. I've felt it more important to look at what's there, in the meanings, and what new services we could develop. I guess that is also important but ... (dunno)

So "data" and "bits" cover a lot more than "information". Perhaps they are even capable of carrying atmospheres and feelings at least in some way, (...)

But not even bits - being digital - is the key. I don't even want to be digital, analog is often great! It is not the issue at all. What then?

Networks!, I hear already. Ok, the distributed parallel amoebae like nature of these new structures is important. That is the technology and said to be the politics too. I've been wondering about social structures, so called networked (distributed?) social relations and got to even hear about this study about Network Families.

Some discussion about new netty social structures: (in Finnish only, sorry)
http://an.org/tunnustelua/0049.html
http://an.org/tunnustelua/0056.html
http://an.org/tunnustelua/0059.html

But, sigh, even networks aren't everything. Wonder if I used to think so?

There's lots of them everywhere, though, economy and everything. One of my favorites is language, the new visual thesaurus by PlumbDesign  <URL:http://www.plumbdesign.com/thesaurus/ > demonstrates it in quite a nice way, as does also WebSom in Helsinki http://websom.hut.fi/

Still they are just .. networks. Some people don't care of them too much but concentrate on .. just some specific nodes on them? My node I mean for example a person or some other entity (family) on a social network or perhaps some special culture or style from some other aspect (music or whatever). ...

I can say I'm one of Net People, a person perhaps. I think I know what it stands for and am proud of it. It is not about computers, bits, data, information, knowledge or even networks although I guess I'll have to admit that they're related. Perhaps .. perhaps the essence is in attitude .. I'm quite satisfied with what it stands for as being (often) the a of an. Attitude meaning the way to relate to things, way of thinking and especially doing.

Tapscott's book seems to have a grip on this. I hate the name, though, and some of the approach. http://www.growingupdigital.com/

Support

Said aloud in a party Friday night:
"Internet is the Best Support
to get Real World Experiences."
(Which are what we're running after)
 
What makes me insists such things?
Is it true?

I guess I had arguments: "It's the best place to know what's going on and where and how to get there and who's doing what who to meet and what to say and do."

But if it means ending up spending half of your time on-line wouldn't it be just
better to (Mike Oldfield, Ommadawn, song three) go to people and live with them and whatever?

And get drown in paper and fascinated by
telephones? No thanks.
 


moved from background...
 

Filling the void

Doing the World Surf

Internet exploded and suddenly the world was a like a void that needed us desperately. So we got involved in all kinds of projects, met many people and started travelling around teaching, consulting and helping companies and other organizations to build new systems. Mostly we were around Finland, that was our world.

While staying in Helsinki I felt pretty much the same: I could do anything I wanted to, go wherever I felt like and meet and talk with whoever. That came up to mean people from important companies, politicians, artists, writers ...

Then I wanted to go to Malaysia to Inet'97 to check what ISOC and the world out there looked like. Some planning and e-mailing and that was it (well, ok, it was quite hard and troubleful but still). Arranging the stay in Amsterdam was, say, trivial. Some mailing, checking things on the web and then the flight.

What have we learned?

There was a tremendous free space for us to explore for the last five years. In the end life started to feel like world surf. Is that what we've learned? Change context in a flash? Understand aspects? Know what's needed and where? Learn fast and forget even faster?

..?
 

Home on the net?

home, screen
home
Of course nothing of this would be possible without something stable behind.

We need something to attach to and the Internet seems to be perfect - it's always there. I'd guess that's the reason it seems like a good thing to live around and where to build a home. It makes me feel secure. No matter where I am I can always log on and my friends, family, work - basicly everything is there.
 

Is our time out?

Last five years have been crazy. Yet many say that the true boom is still ahead. Will the next five years need us?

Did I come to central Europe to win time? They are behind in the development so
it's even easier to be an evangelist here.

I've already been bored since the net has become so established. Money, world politics .. that's not us. Is our time already over before it really started?

-

Sometimes I dream of being a musician who can go anywhere, just any place, and
just take his guitar, play a nice song for the people there and make a nice
atmosphere for everyone to enjoy. Did this dream become true on those travels?
Is it braking now? Or have I become a storyteller .. can I learn music to fulfill
my stories? (bjork)