Permita-me que o convide a uma breve reflexão sobre estas maravilhas de nosso século. Falo daquelas lâminas delgadas e luminosas que nos prometem o mundo, ou antes, os mundos todos que a palavra escrita já concebeu. A sapiência de Alexandria na palma da mão; que ambição! E com que facilidade nos rendemos a ela. O toque de um dedo, um estalido invisível, e eis que um novo volume se acrescenta à nossa coleção. Sentimo-nos mecenas, bibliófilos de uma nova era.
A sensação, digo-lhe, é a da compra, da posse, do domínio. Mas as sensações, como bem sabemos, são as mais astutas das trapaceiras. Escondida nas letras miúdas de um pacto que ninguém lê — pois a pressa é a moeda corrente destes dias — jaz uma verdade de todo desconfortável: não comprastes o livro, amigo meu. Alugastes, quando muito, o privilégio de o folhear em vossa tela.
Enquanto a polêmica
... show more
Meu caro leitor,
Permita-me que o convide a uma breve reflexão sobre estas maravilhas de nosso século. Falo daquelas lâminas delgadas e luminosas que nos prometem o mundo, ou antes, os mundos todos que a palavra escrita já concebeu. A sapiência de Alexandria na palma da mão; que ambição! E com que facilidade nos rendemos a ela. O toque de um dedo, um estalido invisível, e eis que um novo volume se acrescenta à nossa coleção. Sentimo-nos mecenas, bibliófilos de uma nova era.
A sensação, digo-lhe, é a da compra, da posse, do domínio. Mas as sensações, como bem sabemos, são as mais astutas das trapaceiras. Escondida nas letras miúdas de um pacto que ninguém lê — pois a pressa é a moeda corrente destes dias — jaz uma verdade de todo desconfortável: não comprastes o livro, amigo meu. Alugastes, quando muito, o privilégio de o folhear em vossa tela.
Enquanto a polêmica entre os antigos e os modernos se perde em questiúnulas sobre o aroma do papel ou a fria conveniência do vidro, o cerne do drama passa ignorado. Falo da posse, esse direito tão caro ao homem. Na vossa estante de jacarandá ou de pinho, sois o soberano de vossos domínios. Cada volume ali é um súdito leal. Na biblioteca etérea do vosso aparelho, contudo, não passais de um inquilino. E o senhorio, um ente distante e sem rosto, reserva-se o direito de vos despejar a qualquer capricho.
Dos Grilhões Invisíveis e Seu Nome Bárbaro O algoz desta nossa servidão atende por um vocábulo bárbaro: DRM — Digital Rights Management. A um ouvido ingênuo, soaria como a justa gestão dos direitos do autor, e quem de nós não preza o labor do escritor? Na prática, entretanto, a coisa é outra. É um ferrolho, um mecanismo de controle férreo sobre aquilo por que já despendestes vosso dinheiro.
Um livro de papel, esse objeto palpável, traz consigo um séquito de liberdades. Podeis emprestá-lo a um amigo, gesto que cimenta as mais sólidas amizades; podeis vendê-lo a um sebo, dando-lhe nova vida e recuperando alguns réis; ou podeis, num gesto de desapego, legá-lo aos vossos descendentes. O livro, em suma, é vosso. O tal do DRM, porém, aniquila estas liberdades comezinhas. O livro eletrônico não se partilha, não se revende, não se herda. Ficais cativo no feudo digital daquele que vo-lo vendeu, e a vossa biblioteca, que julgais vossa, pertence, em verdade, à plataforma.
Do Espectro na Biblioteca, ou o Livro que se Esfuma O mais assombroso corolário desta ausência de posse é a impermanência. A obra digital, que hoje adorna vossa coleção, pode amanhã, por um arbítrio remoto, sumir-se no nada, sem vos pedir licença.
Não é teoria da conjura o que vos narro, mas episódio verídico, e de uma ironia que faria sorrir o próprio destino. Há alguns anos, a grande companhia que vende estes aparelhos — a Amazon, para que não nos faltem os nomes — removeu dos leitores de seus clientes as cópias de “1984” e de “A Revolução dos Bichos”, do finado Orwell. Sim, o leitor não se engana. A empresa, exercendo um poder digno do Grande Irmão, apagou a obra que precisamente denunciava o poder totalitário. Uma peça que a vida, essa velha dramaturga, nos prega para nos lembrar de sua natureza farsesca.
O recado foi límpido como a água: vossa biblioteca não é um santuário, mas um serviço. Disputas de contrato, uma falência, uma simples mudança nos termos de uso podem fazer com que vosso tesouro intelectual e financeiro se dissipe como fumaça. Tal ameaça é impensável para o livro físico. Nenhuma corporação ousaria adentrar vossos aposentos para subtrair um volume de vossa prateleira.
Da Verdadeira Liberdade de Ler A conveniência destes modernos e-readers, confesso, é inegável. Mas o preço que se paga por ela é a nossa própria autonomia. Ao aceitarmos este modelo de licença, abdicamos de um conceito de propriedade que, por séculos, definiu a relação do homem com a sabedoria.
A escolha pelo livro de papel, portanto, é muito mais que um saudosismo estéril. É uma declaração de princípios. Um ato de resistência contra estes feudos invisíveis que nos querem tornar meros usufrutuários do saber. É a afirmação de que uma obra, uma vez adquirida, deve pertencer, de corpo e alma, ao seu leitor.
Assim, da próxima vez que o dedo vos coçar para a “compra com um clique”, interrogai-vos, caro leitor: estais a adquirir um bem perpétuo ou um privilégio revogável? A resposta, quiçá, vos faça olhar com renovado apreço para a velha e fiel estante de madeira. Ali, cada lombada é uma certeza. Ali, a vossa biblioteca é, sem sombra de dúvida, vossa.
Chronicle of an Illusory Possession, or of the Book One Has Without Having.
My dear reader,
Allow me to invite you to a brief reflection on these marvels of our century. I speak of those thin, luminous pages that promise us the world, or rather, all the worlds that the written word has ever conceived. The wisdom of Alexandria in the palm of our hand; what ambition! And how easily we surrender to it. The touch of a finger, an invisible snap, and behold, a new volume is added to our collection. We feel like patrons, bibliophiles of a new era.
The sensation, I tell you, is that of purchase, of possession, of dominion. But sensations, as we well know, are the most cunning of deceivers. Hidden in the fine print of a pact that no one reads—for haste is the currency of these days—lies a truth that is utterly uncomfortable: you did not buy the book, my friend. You rented, at most, the privilege of leafing through it on yo
Chronicle of an Illusory Possession, or of the Book One Has Without Having.
My dear reader,
Allow me to invite you to a brief reflection on these marvels of our century. I speak of those thin, luminous pages that promise us the world, or rather, all the worlds that the written word has ever conceived. The wisdom of Alexandria in the palm of our hand; what ambition! And how easily we surrender to it. The touch of a finger, an invisible snap, and behold, a new volume is added to our collection. We feel like patrons, bibliophiles of a new era.
The sensation, I tell you, is that of purchase, of possession, of dominion. But sensations, as we well know, are the most cunning of deceivers. Hidden in the fine print of a pact that no one reads—for haste is the currency of these days—lies a truth that is utterly uncomfortable: you did not buy the book, my friend. You rented, at most, the privilege of leafing through it on your screen.
While the polemic between the ancients and the moderns gets lost in petty squabbles about the aroma of paper or the cold convenience of glass, the heart of the drama goes unnoticed. I speak of possession, that right so dear to man. On your rosewood or pine bookshelf, you are the sovereign of your domains. Each volume there is a loyal subject. In the ethereal library of your device, however, you are nothing more than a tenant. And the landlord, a distant and faceless being, reserves the right to evict you at any whim.
From Invisible Shackles and Their Barbarous Name The executioner of this servitude of ours goes by a barbaric word: DRM — Digital Rights Management. To a naive ear, it would sound like the fair management of the author's rights, and who among us does not value the work of the writer? In practice, however, it is quite different. It is a bolt, a mechanism of ironclad control over that for which you have already spent your money.
A paper book, that tangible object, brings with it a retinue of freedoms. You can lend it to a friend, a gesture that cements the strongest friendships; you can sell it to a second-hand bookstore, giving it new life and recovering some money; or you can, in a gesture of detachment, bequeath it to your descendants. The book, in short, is yours. However, this DRM thing annihilates these basic freedoms. Electronic books are not shared, not resold, not inherited. You remain captive in the digital fiefdom of the one who sold it to you, and your library, which you consider yours, truly belongs to the platform.
From the Specter in the Library, or the Book that Vanishes The most astonishing corollary of this absence of ownership is impermanence. The digital work, which today adorns your collection, may tomorrow, by some remote whim, vanish into nothingness, without asking your permission. This is not conspiracy theory, but a true story, and an irony that would make fate itself smile. A few years ago, the large company that sells these devices—Amazon, to name a few—removed copies of "1984" and "Animal Farm" by the late Orwell from its customers' readers. Yes, the reader is not mistaken. The company, exercising power worthy of Big Brother, erased the work that precisely denounced totalitarian power. A trick that life, that old playwright, plays on us to remind us of its farcical nature.
The message was crystal clear: your library is not a sanctuary, but a service. Contract disputes, bankruptcy, a simple change in the terms of use can cause your intellectual and financial treasure to dissipate like smoke. Such a threat is unthinkable for the physical book. No corporation would dare enter your rooms to steal a volume from your shelf.
On the True Freedom to Read The convenience of these modern e-readers, I confess, is undeniable. But the price we pay for it is our own autonomy. By accepting this licensing model, we relinquish a concept of ownership that, for centuries, has defined man's relationship with wisdom.
The choice of the paper book, therefore, is much more than sterile nostalgia. It is a declaration of principles. An act of resistance against these invisible fiefdoms that want to make us mere usufructuaries of knowledge. It is the affirmation that a work, once acquired, must belong, body and soul, to its reader.
So, the next time your finger itches to "buy with one click," ask yourself, dear reader: are you acquiring a perpetual asset or a revocable privilege? The answer, perhaps, will make you look with renewed appreciation at the old and faithful wooden bookshelf. There, each spine is a certainty. There, your library is, without a doubt, yours.
‘WE’RE SHUTTING IT DOWN’: COORDINATED ECONOMIC BLACKOUT SET FOR NOV. 25 – DEC. 2
Blackout The System has called for a nationwide boycott, urging participants to refrain from working or spending money from Nov. 25 to Dec. 2 as a protest against a damaged government and economic system.
You know lingoJam? ģ̷̨̨̧̛̛̛̛̛̛̗̫̦͍̫͔͍̭̝͔̦̼͖͔͔̱̥̭̥̱̤̻͉̲̤͖̫̝͙̖̞͕͎͙͕̘̺̩̭̫̫̗̫̙̺͇̻̰͉̬̦̲̯͖̰̟̅͐͐̓̈́̏͐̈̋̓̆̾̀̿̇̉̏̍̌̄̾̉́͂̄̄͌̎̆̄̽̋̈̆̾̄̈́̉̏̔̈̍̎̂̋̐̆̾̿͆̀͌̾̋̓̀̃̐̽̂̏͑͊̊̂̍̉́̇͌͊̆̐͋͋̇͌͌̐̈́̃͌̽̿̉̍̆̔̈́̍̇̌̚̚͘̚̚̚̚͜͜͠͝͝͝͝͝͝͠ͅͅͅ... show more
You know lingoJam? ģ̷̨̨̧̢̢̧̧̧̧̢̡̨̨̡̢̨̨̨̢̛̛̛̛̛̛̗̫̦͍̫͔͍̭̝͔̦̼͖͔͔̱̥̭̥̱̤̻͉̲̤͖̫̝͙̖̞͕͎͙͕̘̺̩̭̫̫̗̫̙̺͇̻̰͉̬̦̲̯͖̰̟̝̦̳̱̣̟̞̻̪̝̯̣̞̰̹̗̪̦͚̝̥̞͎̺͈͉͚̜̮̮̻̝̘͎̭̪̱͚̖͖̫̗̜̺̪͚̼̜̝͍̻͚͔͙͙̼̜͚̩̣̙͖̤͈̲̻͙̤̖͖͎͙͉̻͔̹̱̮̲͇̱͎͉̜̖̭̦̖͉͍̠̤̣͈̼̺̮͖̮̙͉̠̠̣̣̖̦̥̙̼̱̤̞̻̖̞̙̞̥̣̟̤̗̻̠̪̖̳̙̻͎̜̣̤̼̩̤͓̤̞͈͔̩͔̥̺͔̙̤̗̩̖͓̹͕̳̖̫̲̭͎̲̣͖͙͚̞̹̣̤͇͔͖̰̠͈̝̜̲̮̫̅͐͐̓̈́̏͐̈̋̓̆̾̀̿̇̉̏̍̌̄̾̉́͂̄̄͌̎̆̄̽̋̈̆̾̄̈́̉̏̔̈̍̎̂̋̐̆̾̿͆̀͌̾̋̓̀̃̐̽̂̏͑͊̊̂̍̉́̇͌͊̆̐͋͋̇͌͌̐̈́̃͌̽̿̉̍̆̔̈́̍̇̌̚̚͘̚̚̚̚͜͜͜͜͜͜͠͝͝͝͝͝͝͠ͅͅͅͅͅͅͅͅͅͅl̷̨̧̨̨̢̡̧̡̨̨̡̡̡̢̛̛̛̛̩̮͓̭͖̳͍͎̙͙̖̯̘͚̜̝̘̤̻̗͕̰̘̮̰̪̯̣̘̯̯̣̦͈͓̤̮̙̖̟̮̖͍͚̺͍̙̺͙̣̥̮͎̳̲̹̙̭̯͈͇̜̙̜̜̥͎͚͙̱͚͔̠̜͕̬̠͎͈̱̺̱̣̲͈͇̦̝̝̫̮̺̗̮̼̜̪̣̟̯̙̜̮̯͍̬͙̣̲̲͉̦̺͎̹̞̯̯̣̖͉̗̝̱̺̾̿͊̓̀̅͊̐͛̔̌̄̓̐̽̓͌̂̉͌͋̓͑̀̆̾̇͑͋̈́̔̋̈̏͒͆̃̅̈́̇̀̅̀͐̓̽̍͌̍̈̎̽̏̊̄͋͛̈́̈́̀̀͌̌̍̏͆͐̾̿̍̂͗̎͋̂͂͂̉͊̌́̇̉͐̌̍̈́͊͗̓̂̔̋͌͊̊̀͛̋̀̐̎̆̾̄̎̓̑̔̑̂́̎́͑̌̆͒͋̀̂̄̈́̉̐̈́̎̋͒͑̂͐̈́̇͑͆͘͘̚̚̚̚̚̚͘͘͝͝͝͝͝͝͝͝͝͝͝͠͠ͅȋ̸̢̢̧̨̨̨̧̨̨̧̡̢̧̡̡̡̢̧̡̛̛̛̛̜̹̙̠̝͉̮̖̪̩̻͍̦̹͙̯̩̲̤̺̙͓͓̲͍̜͓͎̻̟̮͙̜͍̣̗̻̹̥̞̰̤̜̺̝͓̬͈̘̞̗̗̖̺̳͇̪͇͔̱̟͕͍̪͉̹̭͉̩̟͈͓͚͙͎̲̹͖̟̱̝͈͖̙̼̤̼̥̦͓͚̝̠͎͉̥̖͚̱̪͈̠͓̹̠̦̮̣͉̫̮̳̤̥͇̖͎̘͎͓͈̥̻͉͙̰̣̫̜̮̼̟̪̫͕͎̯̼̻̺͓̱͎̞̱̗̦̜̖̖̩̝̩͎̦̭̙̭̜̰̺͈͉͕̳̼̦̟̤̘͇̭̲̩̼͎̪̦͍̗̼͙̲̳̹͖̲̤̟̮͚̣̙̖̯͓͉̤̻̭̻͍̯͕͇̹̦͓̝̥̙͍̪̣̰͙̰̟͇̜̭̮͖̺̞͖̤́̀̔͛̇̎͊̈́̍̆̂́̒̊͋̌̿̍̀́͗̈̽̽̎̍̾͆̋͗̀̉̿̄̇̃̐̄̍̿̃͛͂̿͛͒̾̓͂́̉̃͂̓̋͌̔̋͒̑̈́͂͑́̉̌͐́́̈̅͐̎̒̌͛̒̏͂̀̆́͗̈̿̈̇̓̍͒͂͛́̑̄̿̋̎̇͒͗̈́͂͊̉̉̾̎̾̄͋͛̾͐̉͊͌̒̍̇͋̂͑̏̓̓͒̌͑̽̐̊̄́̽̒̅̏̚̚̕͘̕̚̕͘͘̚̕͜͜͜͠͠͝͝͠͠͝͝͝͝͝͝͝͝ͅͅͅͅͅt̴̨̡̨̛̛̛̛̩̪̼̺̻̰̼͚̳̲̞͓͕̜̗̰̺̮̮͈̣̞͈͖͕̟̩͓͈̥̗̭̏̐̒̐͐͂̃̈̏̈́̉̄̈̒͒̽̽̐̌̑̽͆̀͆͒̈́̈́̄̒͗͋̀͋̔̃̍̌͑̆̀̄͂̔͑́̈́̒̐̔̑̇̑̓͐̀̀̒͑̈̐̇͋́̔̈́̾̈́͌̍̃͐́̄̄̌̽̆̿͛̈͒̂̐́̿̈̓͒̓͌̄̽̀̀̌̉͊̉́̏̀̋̎̕̕͘͘͘͘͘̚̚͠͝͝͝͝͝͠͠͠ͅͅc̴̡̧̢̢̡̧̧̢̨̨̢̡̧̡̢̡̨̢̨̨̢̢̨̧̛̛̛͖̩̱̗̗̥͙̯̲̭͙̳̙̪̝͚͖̫̬̮͈̖̬̯͇̫̲̼̜̙̝͍̖̣͔̱̝̦̦̯̦̜̠̲̯̠̮͖̙̫̞͇̤͈͔̳̠̯͚̘̮̺̜̣͚̠̳̹͎̭͕̦̗̩̟̻̬͍̺͍̣̲͙̥̙͙̣͉̝̼̰̖̲̯̱̟͓̱͙̦͈̫̻̭̝̝͈̫̝̣̭̤̲̪̦͓̭̦̼̘͙̬͉̳̜̙͇͖̞̝̪̝͇̜̥̙̖̱̥̮͉͈̼͍̼͓̥͙͚͍̝̘̭̟̫̦̠̘̟̗̣͚̘̻̹̳̝̙̭̤̮̲̤̹͕̮̻̭͉̗̺͉̜̟͓͉̳͈̲͖͕̩̫̱̟̙̥͍͎͔̗̽̔̃̄͛̌̔̓̈́̓̈̏̽̌̾̔̿͋̃̐͆̍̾̓́͒͑̃̿̇̎͐͂̏̈́̀̈̿̀̅̊̑͆̄̋͆̈́̈́̆̀̋̀̑͊́͋̎̿̽̃̋͂̄̐̒͗́̐̍͂̍̓͗̏̌͂͐̂̀̿͌́͌̌͆́̊͒̀̍͋̐̈̊̄̐̓́̐̾̃̓̊̿́̍͑̓̐̍͊̽̔̈́̈̍́̈́̄̍́̌̾̒͑͑̿̄̒͛̓̉̿̀̉͑̈́̀̃͆̈́̔̆̐̿̋́̔̔͌͐͐͛͆̓̄͊̀̈́͋̌̀̋̾̍̾̅̉̃̈́̄̈́̃̃̿͂̑̀̈̊̔͆̉̌͐͛̀̚̚͘͘̚̚͘̚͘̚̕͘̚͜͜͜͜͜͜͝͠͝͝͝͝͠͝͝͝͠ͅͅͅͅͅͅh̴̢̧̧̨̢̢̧̡̧̡̧̨̨̛̛̟͖͙͚̮͚͈̥̘̮̞̙̭̺̫͕̩̰̙̜̬̫̰̺̻͚̳̫̭̦̟͓̬͚̦͇̦̠̰͈̤͖̲̠̫̮̹͚͙̥̪̞̤̠͈̟̤̣̰̖̩͍̞̬̟̞̫̲͇͖͇̠͕̲̮̮͈̮͚͉̟̰̰͚̰͚͍̫̪̲͚͇͎̗̖̣͖̮̘̹̜̞͉̺̗̫͖̗̼̜̪̹̣̬̩̺̫̬̻̝͎̪͎̭͍͍̘͚͔̦̠̬͙̜͖̹̗̱̪͈̝̙̰̼̮͖̖̜͎̙̥̙̫̺̩̜̣͕̋̌͛̅̏̍̓̆͋͑̊̆́͌͒͋̋͊̾́̍̌̑̈́́̓̈́̂̐͗̇̿̊́̅̍̏̄̌̊̒͂̐̀́́̇͒̒̀͗̎̓̌͛̇͐̈́͑̋̂͛̆̆̏̏̑̽̇̅̔̈́͑̆̈́̃̐͑̌̋̎̈́̂́̇̍̅̉̄͑͘̕͘̕̕͜͜͝ͅͅͅͅ
@liv Admin knows them all, my knowledge is simple C and bash and Python bout network mostly rest is afaik Js? I hate it but know it> an all round boiled shadow
This #Halloween I miss the old Dr. Fear show (The Mysterious Lab of Dr. Fear) on the local cable channel. Yes, I can find it on YouTube but y'all know I can't go there because my ad blockers "are a violation of our Terms of Service" and I won't drop my ad blockers.
Those of you who still visit YouTube, do yourself a favor and find the one episode of The Mysterious Lab where Trinka Drakul sings her own words to Fur Elise. I have that video saved somewhere here and I always gotta hear that this time of year. #RIP Jaemi Young #TrinkaDrakul --Trinka the character's birthday is today.
Does your chewing gum lose its flavor on the bedpost overnight? If your ma says not to chew it, do you swallow it in spite? And it catches on your tonsils, then heaves 'em left and right? Does your ...
I did an experiment today because I wanted to see what 100g of protein (about 325g of cooked shredded chicken) looked like and if I could eat it in one sitting, to help me with my fitness goals. I cooked the chicken in my slow cooker the day before and then prepared it this morning with some home made bulgogi sauce, green onions from my garden, and sesame seeds. The results were very positive. I thought this would be far too much food for breakfast but it turned out to be perfect. It has kept me feeling full all day, my energy levels, focus, and mood have also all been great. I would like to repeat this experiment but try to do it much more economically. #cooking #recipes #fitness #food
@bobonthenet looks delicious indeed and budget friendly. I'm gonna try this warm full food at mornings instead 2 egg's in olive oil baked with pepper, Mineral Salt from Himalaya and curriculum and persil on a sandwich with a slice of smoked Salmon. Omega-3 and a lots of protein the egg's fat is ok as olive oil
Provided to YouTube by WAS Word and Sound Medien GmbHEisbär · GrauzoneEisbär℗ 2018 Electric Unicorn Music ProductionReleased on: 1981-01-01Music Publisher: ...
@liv @SuperDicq They full o protein bruh, if roasted 1st. Thu are on a Journey of life in fedi squatch> you'll see many racism, anti this anti that but in the end no one matters.
An LLM does no such thing. You are thinking of Corporations. An LLM (Large Language Model) is just an abstract of a neural networks. It learns by the information provided to it. Like human Intelligence, artificial intelligence is not perfect. It depends a lot on the information provided and how well it was trained (taught).
AI is like fire. Fire has burned down cities and it keeps billions of people warm and cooks there food. Neither is intrinsically bad or harmful. It is how it is used that can be bad or harmful. If you are upset at the way some people use AI then that is acceptable. I am as well. Though there is no reason to be upset with AI. Be upset with the Corporations and Governments that misuse AI and your grievances will be better grounded in my opinion.
From here you can connect to the whole fediverse, I hope you like it. There is larger text input and BBCode for color, code etc in markdown use the bracket [ ]
DISCLAIMER: At the time I attempted to play, Rogue's Project was down and so I posted on My Portal and those posts never got out to the Fediverse, so now that Rogue's is back up, I daresay that what I'm about to post will be duplications, so when My Portal gets around to federating, y'all are likely to be seeing double. Here goes:
Screw the Round Table and chivalry, I'm going fishing! --King Arthur
Screw the Round Table and chivalry! King Arthur and Sir Lancelot are screwing around so I'll be calling on Morgan le Fay because of guess what. --Sir Galahad
Apareixen les pancartes amb grans lletres de colors. S'anuncia amb gran fanfàrria una "consulta ciutadana històrica", un "procés participatiu sense precedents". Els governants municipals, somrient als mitjans, parlen de "democràcia directa", de "donar veu a la ciutadania". I després, quan s'acaba la foto i s'emporten les urnes de cartó, tot queda en un mer estudi, en un informe que s'arxivarà, en una excusa perfecta per no fer res.
És el gran engany de la participació d'aparell: convidar els veïns i veïnes a decidir sobre el que és transcendent per després ignorar-los amb una sofisticació que roba l'insult. S'activa tot el mecanisme—assajos, pàgines web, reunions—per crear la il·lusió que la ciutadania té el control, quan en realitat el control segueix estancat als despatxos de sempre.
El Guió Preestablert del Participacionisme
El guió és sempre el mateix i resulta ofensivament predictible:
El Gran An
... show more
Apareixen les pancartes amb grans lletres de colors. S'anuncia amb gran fanfàrria una "consulta ciutadana històrica", un "procés participatiu sense precedents". Els governants municipals, somrient als mitjans, parlen de "democràcia directa", de "donar veu a la ciutadania". I després, quan s'acaba la foto i s'emporten les urnes de cartó, tot queda en un mer estudi, en un informe que s'arxivarà, en una excusa perfecta per no fer res.
És el gran engany de la participació d'aparell: convidar els veïns i veïnes a decidir sobre el que és transcendent per després ignorar-los amb una sofisticació que roba l'insult. S'activa tot el mecanisme—assajos, pàgines web, reunions—per crear la il·lusió que la ciutadania té el control, quan en realitat el control segueix estancat als despatxos de sempre.
El Guió Preestablert del Participacionisme
El guió és sempre el mateix i resulta ofensivament predictible:
El Gran Anunci: Es presenta amb màxima esplendor un tema crucial: els pressupostos participatius, el futur d'un equipament, la remodelació d'una plaça. Es diu que "per primera vegada" la gent decidirà.
La Farsa Consultiva: Es dediquen recursos públics a muntar l'espectacle. Es fan formularis en línia, es recullen propostes, s'organitzen jornades. La ciutadania, il·lusionada, dedica el seu temps i il·lusió a pensar col·lectivament.
L'Etapa del "S'Estudiarà": Aquí és on s'aplica el frenet. Les propostes ciutadanes no s'apliquen; es "estudien". Es creen comissions d'"anàlisi". L'ajuntament al·lega "complexitat tècnica", "viabilitat jurídica" o "consistència pressupostària". És la fase de la procrastinació disfressada de rigor.
L'Arxivament i l'Oblit: Després de mesos o anys d'"estudi", les propostes moren d'inactivitat en un calaix o es dilueixen fins a ser irreconeixibles. L'única cosa que perduren són les fotografies dels regidors somrient al costat de les urnes, utilitzades com a prova del seu compromís democràtic.
La Motivació Real: La Propaganda
La raó d'aquest teatre no és la millora democràtica, sinó la propaganda. Un procés participatiu ofereix uns retorns immensos en imatge amb una inversió mínima en decisió real.
Rentat de cara: Permet als governs municipals mostrar-se com a oberts i moderns, encobrint així la seva pròpia inacció o manca d'idees.
Instrumentalització ciutadana: Es converteix la il·lusió de la gent en una eina de màrqueting. Les propostes ciutadanes es fan servir com a decorat per a les polítiques que l'ajuntament vol impulsar de totes maneres.
Descàrrega de responsabilitats: Quan una decisió és complicada o impopular, què millor que amagar-se darrere d'un "ho decidirà la ciutadania"? Després, si el procés fracassa o les propostes no són executades, la culpa és d'un procés "complex" o de la mateixa ciutadania per no haver sabut proposar solucions "viables".
Les Excuses Eternes
L'inventari de justificacions per a no fer cas és tan previsible com el guió inicial:
"És molt car": Es desestima una proposta popular al·legant costos desorbitats, sense presentar estudis econòmics detallats ni buscar alternatives de finançament.
"No és competent": Es dilueix la responsabilitat assegurant que el tema depèn d'una altra administració, mentre es presenta el procés com una gesta municipal.
"Ja ho tenim en compte": Les propostes es desnaturalitzen i es fonen en un projecte més ampli que les deixa irreconeixibles, però es ven com un "èxit de la participació".
Conclusió: Exigir Decisió, No Teatre
La veritable democràcia participativa no es mesura per la quantitat de consultes sinó per la qualitat de les seves conseqüències. No es tracta d'opinar per opinar, sinó de decidir per transformar.
És hora de cridar l'engany pel seu nom: paternalisme cínic. Els ciutadans i ciutadanes no són nens a qui cal distreure amb jocs de participació mentre els adults de veritat prenen les decisions. Són els protagonistes legítims de l'espai públic.
Hem de deixar d'aplaudir l'anunci i començar a exigir els resultats. La pròxima vegada que un ajuntament anunciï amb pompa un procés participatiu, la resposta ha de ser clara: "Molt bé. I quins mecanismes legals i pressupostaris garantiran que el que decidim es farà realitat?".
La participació no és un espectacle. És un dret. I deixar que es converteixi en pura escenografia és una traïció més a la confiança ciutadana.
Participation in Scandal: When Citizen Consultations are Just a Municipal Theatre
The banners appear in large, colorful letters. A "historic citizen consultation" is announced with great fanfare, an "unprecedented participatory process." The municipal leaders, smiling at the media, talk about "direct democracy," about "giving citizens a voice." And then, when the photo op is over and the cardboard ballot boxes are taken away, everything remains a mere study, a report that will be filed away, a perfect excuse for doing nothing.
This is the great deception of participatory apparatus: inviting residents to decide on what is transcendent and then ignoring them with a sophistication that steals the insult. The entire mechanism is activated—tests, websites, meetings—to create the illusion that citizens are in control, when in reality control remains
Participation in Scandal: When Citizen Consultations are Just a Municipal Theatre
The banners appear in large, colorful letters. A "historic citizen consultation" is announced with great fanfare, an "unprecedented participatory process." The municipal leaders, smiling at the media, talk about "direct democracy," about "giving citizens a voice." And then, when the photo op is over and the cardboard ballot boxes are taken away, everything remains a mere study, a report that will be filed away, a perfect excuse for doing nothing.
This is the great deception of participatory apparatus: inviting residents to decide on what is transcendent and then ignoring them with a sophistication that steals the insult. The entire mechanism is activated—tests, websites, meetings—to create the illusion that citizens are in control, when in reality control remains stagnant in the same old offices.
The Pre-established Script of Participatoryism
The script is always the same and is offensively predictable:
The Big Announcement: A crucial issue is presented with maximum splendor: participatory budgets, the future of a facility, the remodeling of a square. It is said that "for the first time" the people will decide.
The Consultative Farce: Public resources are dedicated to putting on the show. Online forms are created, proposals are collected, conferences are organized. The excited citizenry dedicates its time and enthusiasm to thinking collectively.
The "Will Be Studied" Stage: This is where the frenzy takes hold. Citizen proposals are not implemented; they are "studied." "Analysis" committees are created. The city council alleges "technical complexity," "legal feasibility," or "budgetary consistency." This is the phase of procrastination disguised as rigor.
Archiving and Forgetting: After months or years of "study," the proposals die of inactivity in a drawer or are diluted beyond recognition. The only thing that endures are the photographs of the councilors smiling next to the ballot boxes, used as proof of their democratic commitment.
The Real Motivation: Propaganda
The reason for this theater is not democratic improvement, but propaganda. A participatory process offers immense returns in image with minimal investment in real decision-making.
Face-washing: It allows municipal governments to present themselves as open and modern, thus covering up their own inaction or lack of ideas.
Citizen instrumentalization: People's enthusiasm is turned into a marketing tool. Citizen proposals are used as a backdrop for policies that the city council wants to promote anyway.
Discharge of responsibility: When a decision is complicated or unpopular, what better way than to hide behind "the citizens will decide"? Then, if the process fails or the proposals are not implemented, the blame lies with a "complex" process or with the citizens themselves for not having been able to propose "viable" solutions.
The Eternal Excuses
The inventory of justifications for ignoring it is as predictable as the initial script:
"It's too expensive": A popular proposal is rejected on the grounds of exorbitant costs, without presenting detailed economic studies or seeking alternative financing.
"He is not competent": Responsibility is diluted by ensuring that the issue depends on another administration, while the process is presented as a municipal feat.
"We already take it into account": The proposals are denatured and merged into a broader project that leaves them unrecognizable, but is sold as a "success of participation".
Conclusion: Demand Decision, Not Theater
True participatory democracy is not measured by the quantity of consultations but by the quality of its consequences. It is not about giving an opinion for the sake of giving an opinion, but about deciding in order to transform.
It is time to call deception by its name: cynical paternalism. Citizens are not children who need to be distracted with participation games while real adults make decisions. They are the legitimate protagonists of the public space.
We must stop applauding the announcement and start demanding results. The next time a city council pompously announces a participatory process, the answer should be clear: "Very well. And what legal and budgetary mechanisms will guarantee that what we decide will become reality?"
Participation is not a spectacle. It is a right. And letting it become pure stagecraft is yet another betrayal of citizen trust.
Amb la perspectiva del temps, el procés independentista del 2017 es revela no com una ruptura espontània, sinó com un complexíssim tauler d'escacs on tots els jugadors, voluntàriament o no, van complir una funció assignada. El resultat final va ser una tempesta perfecta que, en lloc de canviar les estructures de poder, les va reforçar, confirmant l'axioma: es va canviar-ho tot per no canviar res essencial.
El Replantejament de les Peces: El naixement d'un nou tauler
Abans de l'ofensiva final, el tauler polític es va haver de reconfigurar. La vella Convergència Democràtica de Catalunya (CDC), enfonsada pels escàndols del 3% i la pèrdua de hegemonia, va entendre que la seva única opció de supervivència era abraçar amb força la causa que havia instrumentalitzat durant anys. D'aquesta necessitat va néixer el Partit Demòcrata Europeu Català (PDeCAT), l'intent fallit de reinventar-se. Però el veritable moviment va ser la cr
... show more
Amb la perspectiva del temps, el procés independentista del 2017 es revela no com una ruptura espontània, sinó com un complexíssim tauler d'escacs on tots els jugadors, voluntàriament o no, van complir una funció assignada. El resultat final va ser una tempesta perfecta que, en lloc de canviar les estructures de poder, les va reforçar, confirmant l'axioma: es va canviar-ho tot per no canviar res essencial.
El Replantejament de les Peces: El naixement d'un nou tauler
Abans de l'ofensiva final, el tauler polític es va haver de reconfigurar. La vella Convergència Democràtica de Catalunya (CDC), enfonsada pels escàndols del 3% i la pèrdua de hegemonia, va entendre que la seva única opció de supervivència era abraçar amb força la causa que havia instrumentalitzat durant anys. D'aquesta necessitat va néixer el Partit Demòcrata Europeu Català (PDeCAT), l'intent fallit de reinventar-se. Però el veritable moviment va ser la creació de Junts per Catalunya (JxCat), la plataforma que va permetre a l'antiga elite convergent tornar al centre del poder, ara vestida de independentisme urgent i víctima de l'Estat. Va ser un canvi de roba per mantenir el càrrec.
D'altra banda, el procés va actuar com un accelerador de partícules per a formacions que ja existien, però que es van veure projectades a l'escena nacional. La CUP, amb una llarga trajectòria en l'activisme municipal i assembleari, va trobar en el procés l'escenari perfecte per a la seva maximalista i esdevenir el contrapès indispensable, la clau de volta que donava o treia majories. El seu paper va ser crucial per forçar l'escenari de l'enfrontament.
I no podem entendre la dinàmica sense la reacció unionista. El procés va fer néixer o va impulsar exponencialment les seves pròpies respostes. Ciutadans (Cs), que ja existia com a formació "anti-nacionalista", es va erigir en l'expressió més vehement del constitucionalisme espanyol, convertint-se en la força més votada a Catalunya el 2017. El seu auge va ser directament proporcional a la radicalització del conflicte.
L'Escenificació del Conflicte: Tots tenien un paper
Un cop el tauler va estar preparat, va començar l'obra.
D'una banda, l'independentisme va escenificar la unitat d'acció. JxCat i ERC, amb projectes i bases diferents, van protagonitzar una alianza forçada per la inèrcia dels esdeveniments. ERC va assumir el paper del independentisme "mesurat" i institucional, el contrapunt a la acceleració de Junts, però sense voler o poder trencar la dinàmica. La CUP va fer de consciència crítica i element pressionador, empenyent cap a l'enfrontament directe.
De l'altra, l'Estat i els poders fàctics van actuar amb la lògica del bomber piròman. Es va permetre que la flama cremés fins a un punt sense retorn. Es van tolerar consultes no vinculants com la d'Arenys de Munt (2009) i fins i tot es va mirar cap a una altra banda durant els primers passos del 1-O, com a vàlvules d'escape controlades. L'objectiu no era apagar el foc prematurament, sinó deixar que creixés per després poder aplicar tot el pes de la llei en el moment àlgid. L'aplicació de l'Article 155, la intervenció de la Generalitat i la repressió judicial van ser l'acte final d'aquesta estratègia.
Els altres actors van completar l'escenografia. El PSC va encarnar el constitucionalisme català, un paper incòmode però necessari. Els Comuns van fer de pont moral i advocate del diàleg impossible, un paper que els va permetre apel·lar a tots dos col·lectius sense satisfer-ne del tot cap.
L'Objectiu Real: La Gran Desmobilització
El gran joc no era la independència immediata ni la unitat a curt termini. L'objectiu estratègic, ideat pels poders fàctics tant catalans com espanyols, era molt més profund: apagar la flama independentista durant dècades. I, en això, van ser extraordinàriament eficaços.
El procés va mostrar, de la manera més crua possible, el sostre de vidre de la independència. L'Estat va demostrar que tenia les eines legals, policials, econòmiques i mediàtiques per triturar qualsevol intent. El missatge dissuassori va calar fondament en una part important de la societat: el preu a pagar era massa alt. La il·lusió del 2017 va donar pas a la frustració, la fatiga i la divisió del 2024.
Conclusió: La radiografia del temps
Avui, la radiografia és clara. Els que van prometre la República estan gestionant els pressupostos de l'Estat que van voler abolir. L'antiga Convergència, ara Junts, segueix lluitant per la seva rellevància. L'independentisme està dividit i desorientat, i la societat catalana, cansada. El procés va ser un terratrèmol que va alterar el paisatge superficial, però les grans estructures de poder econòmic i institucional, tant a Barcelona com a Madrid, van sobreviure i se’n van reafirmar. Tots van actuar els seus papers en una tragèdia que, en el fons, va ser una farsa per a la gran majoria. Es va canviar-ho tot —partits, discursos, esperances— amb l'únic i cínic objectiu de no canviar res fonamental.
Be kind to those who live in the tenement you moved into because they'll still be there long after you leave. Give the cockroaches names and treat them like members of your family.
Unus Nemo
in reply to Roko • •@Roko
English:
Chronicle of an Illusory Possession, or of the Book One Has Without Having.
My dear reader,
Allow me to invite you to a brief reflection on these marvels of our century. I speak of those thin, luminous pages that promise us the world, or rather, all the worlds that the written word has ever conceived. The wisdom of Alexandria in the palm of our hand; what ambition! And how easily we surrender to it. The touch of a finger, an invisible snap, and behold, a new volume is added to our collection. We feel like patrons, bibliophiles of a new era.
The sensation, I tell you, is that of purchase, of possession, of dominion. But sensations, as we well know, are the most cunning of deceivers. Hidden in the fine print of a pact that no one reads—for haste is the currency of these days—lies a truth that is utterly uncomfortable: you did not buy the book, my friend. You rented, at most, the privilege of leafing through it on yo
... show more@Roko
English:
Chronicle of an Illusory Possession, or of the Book One Has Without Having.
My dear reader,
Allow me to invite you to a brief reflection on these marvels of our century. I speak of those thin, luminous pages that promise us the world, or rather, all the worlds that the written word has ever conceived. The wisdom of Alexandria in the palm of our hand; what ambition! And how easily we surrender to it. The touch of a finger, an invisible snap, and behold, a new volume is added to our collection. We feel like patrons, bibliophiles of a new era.
The sensation, I tell you, is that of purchase, of possession, of dominion. But sensations, as we well know, are the most cunning of deceivers. Hidden in the fine print of a pact that no one reads—for haste is the currency of these days—lies a truth that is utterly uncomfortable: you did not buy the book, my friend. You rented, at most, the privilege of leafing through it on your screen.
While the polemic between the ancients and the moderns gets lost in petty squabbles about the aroma of paper or the cold convenience of glass, the heart of the drama goes unnoticed. I speak of possession, that right so dear to man. On your rosewood or pine bookshelf, you are the sovereign of your domains. Each volume there is a loyal subject. In the ethereal library of your device, however, you are nothing more than a tenant. And the landlord, a distant and faceless being, reserves the right to evict you at any whim.
From Invisible Shackles and Their Barbarous Name
The executioner of this servitude of ours goes by a barbaric word: DRM — Digital Rights Management. To a naive ear, it would sound like the fair management of the author's rights, and who among us does not value the work of the writer? In practice, however, it is quite different. It is a bolt, a mechanism of ironclad control over that for which you have already spent your money.
A paper book, that tangible object, brings with it a retinue of freedoms. You can lend it to a friend, a gesture that cements the strongest friendships; you can sell it to a second-hand bookstore, giving it new life and recovering some money; or you can, in a gesture of detachment, bequeath it to your descendants. The book, in short, is yours. However, this DRM thing annihilates these basic freedoms. Electronic books are not shared, not resold, not inherited. You remain captive in the digital fiefdom of the one who sold it to you, and your library, which you consider yours, truly belongs to the platform.
From the Specter in the Library, or the Book that Vanishes
The most astonishing corollary of this absence of ownership is impermanence. The digital work, which today adorns your collection, may tomorrow, by some remote whim, vanish into nothingness, without asking your permission. This is not conspiracy theory, but a true story, and an irony that would make fate itself smile. A few years ago, the large company that sells these devices—Amazon, to name a few—removed copies of "1984" and "Animal Farm" by the late Orwell from its customers' readers. Yes, the reader is not mistaken. The company, exercising power worthy of Big Brother, erased the work that precisely denounced totalitarian power. A trick that life, that old playwright, plays on us to remind us of its farcical nature.
The message was crystal clear: your library is not a sanctuary, but a service. Contract disputes, bankruptcy, a simple change in the terms of use can cause your intellectual and financial treasure to dissipate like smoke. Such a threat is unthinkable for the physical book. No corporation would dare enter your rooms to steal a volume from your shelf.
On the True Freedom to Read
The convenience of these modern e-readers, I confess, is undeniable. But the price we pay for it is our own autonomy. By accepting this licensing model, we relinquish a concept of ownership that, for centuries, has defined man's relationship with wisdom.
The choice of the paper book, therefore, is much more than sterile nostalgia. It is a declaration of principles. An act of resistance against these invisible fiefdoms that want to make us mere usufructuaries of knowledge. It is the affirmation that a work, once acquired, must belong, body and soul, to its reader.
So, the next time your finger itches to "buy with one click," ask yourself, dear reader: are you acquiring a perpetual asset or a revocable privilege? The answer, perhaps, will make you look with renewed appreciation at the old and faithful wooden bookshelf. There, each spine is a certainty. There, your library is, without a doubt, yours.