Just some thoughts/questions: is FB an appropiate "forum" to "discus" philosophical and or political issues, or is it by way of its own inherent narrowmindness doomed to fail in the very end?
How to maintain both an open structure and to guard a "certain quality"? Or is it that participators who previously found themselves in other "online fora" are now eagerly trying to stay current and migrate en masse to a FB dominated "online existence" without taken into account the enormous broad and historical past of that same previous "presence" like for instance "mailinglists/usenet/fido boards/bbses etc etc The archeology of the "internet" is barely recognized as a valuable field of research, archival is at its best done erratic, sporadic and out of reach by most current constituents of the now extremely spreading FB audiences wordlwide. The need to develop a concise and reliable way to collect, archive and interprete the years before the rise of the monopolistic empire of FB is necessary both from an academic point of view as well as a tribute to the people who mostly anonymously and almost forgotten paved the way of constructing the internet as it is now AA Sent from my eXtended BodY _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
