As long as ‘we the creators’ fall into the trap of using low cost, homogenous, non-descript words like ‘content’ to describe our work, our soul, our beliefs our passion, our effort, then our work will continue to be viewed as ’free–to–cheap–to–low–cost’, homogenized, non-differentiated, interchangeable fodder and we will only have ourselves to blame as the payment for our art, our thinking, our ideas continues to race to the bottom.
Music – Art – Thought – Books – Philosophy – Travel – Politics – Science – Film … sometimes in that order, sometimes not. And there’s more. This is a more complete list and no, you still won’t find ‘sport’ listed there
If you want to start at the beginning and understand why even a date is such a hot bed of debate, misunderstanding, inconsistency and irregularity, then go read D is for Dangerous. If you consider yourself to be someone who is part of the data industry, you might find this a little light .. so move on. But first .. if you think you know that Samuel Morse died on 04/02/72 … you might want to dip in and check your facts.
A is for Articulate provides a little history of how we came to understand the building blocks of the world we live in. Data is not the central theme but is a necessary part of the series because it connects to and provides some context for part 4.
Since 2006, the world has suffered (and I do mean ‘suffered’) through a series of analogies as people have attempted to describe data as the ‘new
’. T is for Terminating Analogies kills off oil, soil, water and music analogies. Data is not the new anything … it just IS, which I get to in …
Part 4 – A is for Another Way Of Looking At Data – a new way of thinking about data (no spoilers) but does start to explain why Data ‘Lakes’, ‘Warehouses’, ‘Mountains’ and ‘Farms’ are probably the wrong way of approaching the challenge, let alone the thinking!
Imagine if every single person on the planet had their own dashboard that allowed them to indicate their needs, desires, wants and flag it so that anyone who felt that they could satisfy those needs, desires and wants could respond with an offer human-readable terms of the contract, pricing, expected timelines, etc. (Source)
This reminds me James Bridle’s discussion of metaphors in New Dark Age. This is also a topic that Kin Lane has been exploring lately, reflecting on surplus, ownership, the emotional trap and what goes unseen.
From experience, when people bypass the AI or properly filtering the various applications, they fall back on who they know, which sometimes promotes certain types over others.
There has to be a better way, just not sure what it is.
The word ‘content’ is an example of the corporate hijacking of language to further business centric agendas at the cost of people’s value.
My ah-ha moment … was understanding that the technology makers recognize the need to cross the chasm – but all seem to be building from the ‘Tech Side’. People First is building the bridge from the ‘People Side’.
We put people at the center of ‘The Business Equation’ because ‘The Future Of Work’ is only part of the problem, the bigger problem is ‘The Future of Business’.
To me, the ‘owning your own IP’ (because at the end of the day that is what it is, your Intellectual Property) is the key.
Do you own it? Is it protected? Can someone lift this entire article and post it as their own? THAT’S the ownership debate.