Facebook Tests the Power of Democracy
An interesting piece in the NY Times from April this year - "Facebook Tests the Power of Democracy"
Companies usually set the terms under which they provide their service and you have to take it or leave it. Frankly, Facebook did too, until changes it quietly made to its contract with site users sparked loud protests from users and online privacy advocates.But to its credit, as Facebook retreated from the ill-received rules changes, it also stepped up. It invited its community to help devise better rules by submitting suggestions and then asked it to declare its support for them -– or lack thereof. (A caveat: The choice of voters will stand only if 30 percent of active Facebook users vote, and few people expect a turnout as big as 60 million or thereabouts.)
Could this be a sign of more online democracy to come? “I think consumers are getting power,” said Rena Mears, a partner at consulting firm Deloitte & Touche. More companies interact directly and in real time with their customers and find themselves having to respond to customers’ wishes and concerns. “This is a negotiation.”
I found this very interesting when it occurred. In a blog post that showed a remarkable degree of perception and situational awareness the CEO of Facebook explained that with 60 million constituents Facebook was effectively a large country, more so than simply a corporation providing a service to customers. The dynamics that were needed to manage the situation were more those of governance than corporate bureaucracy.
By engaging with the constituency in this way Facebook must invest more energy and time in making changes, and those changes will be a compromise on what Facebook want, because they must incorporate the needs, desires, interests and concerns of the Facebook users. However, that's not necessarily a bad thing, as it will tend to mitigate any extreme positions, and will also enable Facebook to change gradually while taking everyone with them.
I would have liked to have seen a similar realization from the GBC, the governing body of ISKCON, after the abortive Resolution 311 of last year. However, I was disappointed to see no public discussion or reflection on the dynamics of the resolution and how that could be changed.
My own attempt to introduce a more participatory dynamic to the ISKCON Constitution project ground to a halt with my disillusionment at the lack of interest in opening a dialogue and engaging with ISKCON's constituents.
Anyway, no sense in wasting time lamenting over things. I've put my energy into chanting and kirtan and you know what, I don't really care anymore, except in a (dis)interested observer kind of way.
I will say this though - organizations that engage with their constituents will be more successful than those that don't.
- sitapati's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Clarifying the essential point (in our previous exchange)
Narasingha das
Hare Krsna prabhu
You may remember we previously had some exchanges regarding the possibility of regarding evolution as the means via which Krsna arranges for the various species to appear, rather than as being something fundamentally at loggerheads with our philosophy.
So I don't intend to rehash that subject in particular here, but I would like to focus on the underlying principle that I believe is of key relevance to all of us as devotees who are also trying to positively affect others we meet.
Ultimately what we are trying to do is to both take shelter of Sri Guru Gauranga and to make that available and relevant to others. Such shelter is available to us through the process of surrendering, of opening ourselves up to receive the transcendental blessings, knowledge, instructions and so on as coming to us via the descending process. As conditioned souls, we cannot begin to understand the actual reality of things - everything we can perceive (which is but the tiniest fraction of all there is) is fully entangled in a network of interdependent relationships whose beginnings and endings are outside our vision. But as devotees, we are the most fortunate recipients of transcendental knowledge, as made available by Sri Guru, as especially manifest in the form of His Divine Grace Srila Prabhupada who took so much care to establish the actual truth about reality, as distinguished from illusion, for the welfare of all (re. SB 1.1.2)
Our necessity as devotees then, is not to speculate as to what the truth might be (which is mental speculation), but rather to speculate as to how the truths we have been given are true, and how to present such in ways for others to understand (which process Srila Prabhupada explains as philosophical speculation).
Regardless as to how appealing we may or may not find any theoretical presentation, we accept it or reject it on the basis of our guru's clear teaching; otherwise, we imagine that his teachings are not actually transcendental, coming from the perfect platform, but are relative like anyone else's, and can be passed over in favor of something that has been produced by the materially conditioned mind and senses.
As far as subjects like evolution are concerned, which require some more specialised understanding before one should engage in debate, the first point is to at least be fixed in the clear conclusions given by Srila Prabhupada. If we are unable to explain how such is correct, if we are unable to respond to contrary arguments, then we should not try to engage in dialog regarding such topics with others, because of the dual risks that they will dismiss our philosophy as useless sentimental dogma and that we will ourselves lose faith. On the other hand, if we are more familiar with the philosophical specifics concerned, our business is to affirm the actual transcendentally determined siddhantas with logic and reason. In other words, our intelligence is meant to be the servant of the siddhantas, but not their master, whereby we look to our intelligence to determine what the truth is and to whimsically dismiss the siddhantas.
This was my concern in our previous exchanges, and I felt that it was never properly addressed. Since you had written that you wished to disengage from our ongoing discussion for a while, I waited until I felt 'a while' had passed before clarifying this point.
When I engage in discussion regarding evolution with non-devotees, my basis is reason and logic. But when I discuss anything with devotees, I refer to the common light of revealed understanding that guides us, so that we can then discuss how such a point is true, or how to apply it, etc.
As far as evolution is concerned, Srila Prabhupada was unequivocally clear, and instructed his scientifically trained disciples to very firmly repudiate Darwin's entire position. Of course Srila Prabhupada's position and any amount of shastric evidence is irrelevant in a discussion with non-devotees, or persons who do not accept the words of such authorities as any kind of evidence. But we are devotees, and when we are engaged in discussion between ourselves, we must know that such provides our basic point of reference, the very foundation of our understanding, our beliefs, our philosophical position; it is the ground on which we walk, and it is sacred ground. And whatever else we may think, as a result of our independent and conditioned intellectual functions, or of being impressed by the seemingly liberal word-jugglery of others, should be abandoned as something that is unfavorable to our devotional service, as otherwise we are giving it precedence over the transcendental teachings and position of Sri Guru.