> Key to Supiot’s legal philosophy is the distinction between government by men—typical of the feudal period, with its personal allegiances and ties of dependence—and government by law
I would frame this using "government by men" speaking words at each other in contrast with "government by laws" i.e. men writing legally between them... i.e. orality vs literacy
This is important because of the relation between literacy and computability
> Bosses may have had a role under Fordism, but modern cognitive workers need them no more
in summary your boss was a man, then it became a written document (laws), and now it's become a computer run algorithm
> Techno-féodalisme argues that the rise of intangibles, usually concentrated at the most profitable points of the global value chain, led to the emergence of four new types of rent
two of them are more difficult to understand (I paraphrase):
innovation rents, which refers to valuable data sets that are the exclusive property of these firms
the technological capabilities to make this non-exclusive is here
and intangibles-differential rents refers to the ability of firms inside a single value chain to scale up their operations
If I understand correctly, this is possible because internet infrastructure is already non-exclusive
At the root of the issue, pretending that "intangibles"" are commodities and thus to enforce that they are treated as exclusive physical artifacts (merchandise) is to waste the potential of the internet (or, more cynically, to make a play to capture it privately)
This issue is even more complicated due to the distinction (or lack of) between "exploiting" and "harvesting" (with the assumption that one harvests what one has sown) digital assets; specifically "co-created" (i.e. aggregated) data of the like that gives facebook and google such a strong position in the "competitive market".
Why should "big tech" be allowed to keep their vast data troves private?
On one hand, there's no real technological limitation to the exclusivity of their intangible data-troves.
On the other hand, there's something to notice about how such exclusive concentration of data/knowledge generates a great amount of social and political power.
IMO, this is the strongest reason behind the drive to keep intangibles as exclusive; the power generated by their exclusivity and the use of such power to capture (privatize) energy and resources.
this is why sometimes I think that all of culture (specially contemporary academic culture) is but an elaborate ploy to rationalize away the grim realities of extractive post-imperialistic societies (states)
Finally, I argue my position that it's now crucial to deeply question old historical positions around the nature of property (and ownership); and hence, of markets and society, based on the magnitude of what the computer revolution truly entails. In my mind (biased by me being a millennial), computers are an innovation on the scale of writing (and thus, of law). The only other innovation I can think of in an even larger scale is that of ownership over land (which I consider as civilization itself).
I would frame this using "government by men" speaking words at each other in contrast with "government by laws" i.e. men writing legally between them... i.e. orality vs literacy
This is important because of the relation between literacy and computability
> Bosses may have had a role under Fordism, but modern cognitive workers need them no more
in summary your boss was a man, then it became a written document (laws), and now it's become a computer run algorithm
> Techno-féodalisme argues that the rise of intangibles, usually concentrated at the most profitable points of the global value chain, led to the emergence of four new types of rent
two of them are more difficult to understand (I paraphrase):
innovation rents, which refers to valuable data sets that are the exclusive property of these firms
the technological capabilities to make this non-exclusive is here
and intangibles-differential rents refers to the ability of firms inside a single value chain to scale up their operations
If I understand correctly, this is possible because internet infrastructure is already non-exclusive
At the root of the issue, pretending that "intangibles"" are commodities and thus to enforce that they are treated as exclusive physical artifacts (merchandise) is to waste the potential of the internet (or, more cynically, to make a play to capture it privately)
This issue is even more complicated due to the distinction (or lack of) between "exploiting" and "harvesting" (with the assumption that one harvests what one has sown) digital assets; specifically "co-created" (i.e. aggregated) data of the like that gives facebook and google such a strong position in the "competitive market".
Why should "big tech" be allowed to keep their vast data troves private?
On one hand, there's no real technological limitation to the exclusivity of their intangible data-troves.
On the other hand, there's something to notice about how such exclusive concentration of data/knowledge generates a great amount of social and political power.
IMO, this is the strongest reason behind the drive to keep intangibles as exclusive; the power generated by their exclusivity and the use of such power to capture (privatize) energy and resources.
this is why sometimes I think that all of culture (specially contemporary academic culture) is but an elaborate ploy to rationalize away the grim realities of extractive post-imperialistic societies (states)
Finally, I argue my position that it's now crucial to deeply question old historical positions around the nature of property (and ownership); and hence, of markets and society, based on the magnitude of what the computer revolution truly entails. In my mind (biased by me being a millennial), computers are an innovation on the scale of writing (and thus, of law). The only other innovation I can think of in an even larger scale is that of ownership over land (which I consider as civilization itself).