Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
EDIT: couldn't PoFo be considered a cybercratic society?
Kolzene wrote:Like I said, cybercracy is not a well defined term since none have ever existed and thus it is purely hypothetical. However, the general consensus from the various places I have seen it defined is that the computer(s) has to make the decisions, as Wolfman said. Using it for any government that uses computers (or "effective use of information") seems a bit broad to me, since the term translates as "rule by computer". So like many other political terms (even technocracy) it really comes down to how you want to define it for a particular discussion. This is why I make a distinction between technocracy (rule by experts/scientists/skill) and Technocracy (the proposal made by Howard Scott and the Technical Alliance research group of the 1920s).
Kolzene wrote:That's interesting. However I've seen it spelled the other way many times. Being that no such societies yet exist, and that there is no central authority on which is the correct definition (that I am aware of), I guess that it comes down to popular usage. So until I see it nailed down, I'll consider either acceptable. I mean, you did know what I was talking about, right? And given the status of the word, I didn't try to correct anyone else when they spelled it differently.
Perhaps we can turn this confusion to our advantage, and use cyberocracy to describe "a form of government or an element of a government that rules by the effective use of information" as Wikipedia says, and cybercracy to describe a society run by computers. Two words, and two definitions. Seems to work well to me.
And he is right too, because the UK, serving as U[…]
@Hindsite You've got a pretty messed up interpre[…]
Here's Mark Blyth on the macro'n'cheese podcast, w[…]
Scheer has dual US/Canadian citizenship and hasn't[…]