> I'm so glad you found the interview of interest. Unfortunately, as with our print interviews, the full unedited interview is not available. However if we get a number of similar requests, we may consider releasing a longer edit,
Please message him; I'd be interested in an uncut version as well.
We're unlikely to just drop the raw footage (for the same reasons that journalists very rarely publish scans of the notes they take during interview, or the raw audio of any recordings, because part of our whole raison d'etre is editing things), but as I indicated, if there's enough interest to justify the resources, I could argue for a longer cut.
(Also, ProTip re: the poster below, yes, my personal email is publicly available with a google, but no, it's not a good idea to send a lobbying email to a journalist's personal account when there's a known-good work address available, not least because who knows when that email is going to be seen, and depending on the journalist's filters, it might never be seen at all.)
I've been digging at the trope of technology as decentralising, and am coming to suspect that it's anything but. Support for this in a few places, including Ed Glaeser of Harvard, particularly in his Triumph of the City and many YouTube talks, Evgeny Morozov and Zeynep Tufekci as regards Internet and communications, and others.
It's starting to hit me that we had a locally-oriented, peer-to-peer, decentralised world at one time, and it was decidedly lo-tech.
These are almost exactly the words I am looking for. We had paradise, and then we threw it away with the same artifice we used to build it in the first place.
But I will note that preindustrial life had many of the characteristics that decentralisation and peer-to-peer advocates seem to promote. Which gives a few opportunities for consideration:
1. Can technology provide that same level of decentralisation? Evidence is suggesting it does precisely the opposite, at least to date.
2. What are the other characteristics of decentralised / p2p systems? Are they inherently feudalistic? If not, what are the other possible structures? Are they inherently anti-technological?
3. Is "bad hygiene" necessary for decentralisation? That is, explicitly creating dysfunction in systems which are too large? I'm still developing that thought, though there's a Mastodon tootstorm here: https://mastodon.cloud/@dredmorbius/36518392
4. Are there ways of introducing necessary degrees of "bad hygiene" without bringing the entire high-technology regime crashing down?
5. Is p2p / decentralisation good, and if so, why? Or why not?
I am learning that technology is only empowering when the only entity capable of wielding influence over it is it's user. In all other cases you're just somebody else's pawn. When I was young technology was my escape from that reality of pawnship, and I'm furious that this is no longer the case.
Good point on user-owner-controller scoping. There may be something there.
I saw a great talk from Alan Kay where he gives an argument that studying historical systems is important for innovation: Imagine all the possible directions computing could move toward over the next 50-60 years. Some will be good (near-optimal), but others will probably be a waste of time and merely pursued out of fashion, while some of today's good ideas will be dropped and forgotten.
Thus in the future, when programmers find they've reached a "dead end" / local maximum, they might study ideas from 2018 and find a way forward. In the same way, someone who wants to innovate today could be advised to explore some of the "paths not taken" from the 1950's and 60's.
I will mildly argue the case for posting raw footage with a link I posted elsewhere, the raw footage of an interview with him almost 30 years ago: http://openvault.wgbh.org/catalog/V_4D37F2D8E1054BA49999027B...
Not every interview situation works this way, but I very much appreciated that behind the scenes look. Sound bites that can seem incredibly arrogant come off a lot more measured in the context of him repeating some things he's said before, and deciding he'd rather emphasize a different aspect.
I wouldn't make this argument generally; it's a journalist's job to not just let a subject present their own views unchallenged. In that 1990 interview, I enjoyed hearing some of the back-and-forth like when the interviewer wanted Ted to sound less like an advertisement at one point.
I think any material that establishes more history and viewpoints in our field is and will be very valuable. Please consider releasing more of it.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/video/geek-life/profiles/extended-...