I agree the language is important. How about "fiddled feed"? Not only will they block stuff, but they may substitute stuff, like China - what's to stop them? The real "clean feed" is one that hasn't had the grubby hands of government pawing all over it. A government that doesn't trust its citizens is one that itself cannot be trusted. Thanks to Elias for suggesting I post here.
Ian http://www.hereswhy.tk On Oct 27, 10:20 pm, "Elias Bizannes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm putting forward chicken feed[1] because even if we don't settle on that > name, it does several powerful things > 1) It's funny. Pure and simple. Funny is catchy and offers the best chance > to displace a common term. > 2) It implies stupidity. If we want to attack idiots, we need to make them > look stupid. A term like that achieve it. > 3) It implies control & manipulation. A chicken walks around in the yard, at > he beckon of its owner laying eggs all day only for the owner to take them > for their own purposes > 4) It's short. The reason why 'clean feed' works is because they are > mono-syllable words. Chicken is two but that's still in the boundaries of > workable > 5) It's visual. Visual generates better reactions in people. They remember > it, the attach more meaning. > > So don't mean to rain down other suggestions but maybe that can give some > ideas. > > I really agree that a new term is critical. And in fact, if we can come up > with one and propogate it, that's half the battle one. The term will shape > perception, and that's exactly what we aim to do. > > [1]http://twitter.com/barrysaunders/status/977209448 > > > > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:09 PM, Sjors Provoost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 9:15 PM, Elias Bizannes > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Who wants to start? > > > I will I suppose. Starting with language. > > > As a very wise man said[1], "Linguistics shape your thought: Think about > > it: "Clean Feed" = "censored feed" which implies "Dirty Feed = what we have > > now". > > > So I wish to start calling this something else, and indeed, a side > > benefit > > > of coining our own name apart from reshaping the debate is it will show > > > objectively what influence social media has in Australia. > > > I want to associate negative images with this policy. Dirty can't be used > > > because it invokes the current term currently. Filthy has potential. Big > > > Brother? The 1984 feed? The $114million feed? The Stalin feed? > > > I was thinking about iCroc, i.e. The Great Digital Crocodile of Oz. > > Gives a nice local feel to it. > > > Sjors > > -- > Elias Bizanneshttp://liako.biz --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Silicon Beach Australia" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/silicon-beach-australia?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
