Shared publicly  - 
 
A political manifesto by Piotr Czerski, translated by Marta Szreder, speaking for the Internet generation and to everyone else. He touches on free culture, copyright, and government transparency, among other things.

My favorite bit:

"There is not a trace in us of that humble acceptance displayed by our parents, who were convinced that administrative issues were of utmost importance and who considered interaction with the state as something to be celebrated. We do not feel that respect, rooted in the distance between the lonely citizen and the majestic heights where the ruling class reside, barely visible through the clouds. Our view of the social structure is different from yours: society is a network, not a hierarchy. We are used to being able to start a dialogue with anyone, be it a professor or a pop star, and we do not need any special qualifications related to social status. The success of the interaction depends solely on whether the content of our message will be regarded as important and worthy of reply. And if, thanks to cooperation, continuous dispute, defending our arguments against critique, we have a feeling that our opinions on many matters are simply better, why would we not expect a serious dialogue with the government?"
3
2
Renea Burns's profile photoOzymandias Haynes's profile photoPeter Burns's profile photo
3 comments
 
Sorry, but anyone who classifies any one group of people as thinking exactly the same way, be it political party, generation, etc. loses me from the start. Life is not that pure or simple, but wouldn't life be easier if it were true? Remember, here in America our generation protested the Vietnam War and students died at Kent State. Comparing another country's experience across the board does not make sense.
 
That's not a very generous reading of the essay. It's not that everyone in our generation is of one mind, but there are definite trends that I've noticed and felt in a large (admittedly disproportionately technical) subset of my generation that this author captured quite well. You might be surprised by how much Austin and Taylor agree with this for example, as well as many of my colleagues around our age.

I can sympathize with the annoyance when an author speaks with too all-encompassing terms, but it can also be annoying to read a post filled with caveats and weasel-words (and I think that overly-careful style works especially poorly in a manifesto-style essay).
 
Yeah in the third paragraph the author explicitly treats this objection; he does not intend his remarks to signify universal quantification. He's talking about the subspace of the population to which his remarks refer, and implicitly making a claim that this subset is large enough in some sense to be significant.
Add a comment...