The People's Skype | Hacker News Reader

The People's Skype

peoplesskype.org

61 pointsrl198720 comments

Unless the creator has special permission from Skype to use their brand in this way, I think they may be receiving a cease-and-desist in pretty short order.

It gets the concept across well, but using someone else's brand name is usually not a good idea.

What does this even have to do with Skype? Isn't Skype — being P2P — already powered by the people?

> Isn't Skype — being P2P — already powered by the people?

Any closed-source computer program owned by Microsoft isn't exactly "powered by the people".

That's exactly what I thought. The title made me think this was an open-sourced Skype alternative, using the name "Skype" just to describe an analogy, not name the product. While this doesn't make any attempt to emulate Skype's functionality, it does use the name. Skype could argue that their brand would be falsely associated with this project. The name definitely needs to be changed.

I don't think I like this. It is missing a lot of the subtlety of the real thing, in ways that I think are important:

1) In real life, anyone can use the people's mic. If you implement it with a centralized conference call, only the "leader" can use it. This is supposed to be a leaderless movement.

2) In real life, GAs don't vote, they operate with complex consensus processes, and there are several different kinds out there. You can't summarize them all with a simple yes/no.

I like the general idea of this app, but I truly hope the authors spend some time with a GA and adapt it to the people's real needs, rather than pushing their own model.

I developed the app, working closely with the movement at Zuccotti Park. I am very aware of technology that tries to "fix" something that is deemed wrong, but I was intent on simply augmenting systems already in place. I just noticed a problem when these systems scaled up, during larger rallies, so I felt that some minimal technology could help.

As far as the voting, it's really not about hard number voting as much as it is a general "temperature check" like the hand signals that work well in smaller occupy rallies do – this is just giving a rough estimate of the consensus of the crowd...nobody is counting each hand wriggling in the air, but in large rallies the speaker can't see all those hands to get that general perspective.

I imagined that speakers could pass the phone onto others, but a new mic can be easily created by calling the number and starting as a new speaker.

Could you clarify GA for me? The only thing that comes to mind are "Genetic Algorithm" and "Google Analytics".

general assemly

The GAs bug me. I've always found it curious that a movement that aims to mitigate the undue influence of a minority has chosen to operate based on consensus decision making.

If the goal is to restore the power of the majority, then just use Robert's Rules of Order and get on with it.

I hate so much this "repetition into conformity" thing. Making someone to repeat a "credo" is a known trick for installing beliefs into other peoples mind without them realizing that the "free", "peoples though" are orchestrated by the key members in the group.

This is "how to become sheep 101".

I don't like financial abusers but putting this people on power, assemblies in witch "everybody is equal", so experienced, documented and common sense advice is ignored, but with "some people more equal than others"(read Orwell books that talk about what Orwell himself lived) is the worse that could happen to America, Europe, or any other country.

How are you getting "repetition into conformity" from the link?

The "speaker" says something, then people a little distance away repeat the message so that those further away can hear what was said. GP's point is that most people will hear each statement repeated several times, by multiple people. This has strong psychological effects.

The "People's Mic" isn't about repetition or credos at all. It's about emulating the effects of a wired PA system where none exists, with the added benefit that it has the force of dozens or hundreds of people joining in and adding their weight behind the speaker's sentiment. If a single speaker were talking to an Occupy gathering and had a speaker system behind him, it would be just as representative of their goals.

It's a low-tech solution, and the linked article is also a relatively low-tech solution. Pretty cool.

I don't understand your post. A PA system adds 0 weight behind a speaker's sentiment. Well, maybe a little bit because they're louder, plus a little because someone decided to give them a mike.

But if dozens of people repeat the message, it adds a lot of weight to the sentiment. This is a downside, since it's obviously not the case that each person in the system will critically evaluate what is being said before repeating it. But they are still adding to the psychological "weight" of the statement.

I think you're overstating the psychological effects and underestimate the self-controlling influence of needing other people to repeat what you say.

A single raving lunatic with a PA can cause a lot of stress in a gathering, it's almost impossible to shut him or her up. OTOH if you rely on Mic Check, people will simply stop repeating what you're saying if you're an ass or even if you can't stop rambling.

A raving lunatic with a PA isn't likely to convince anyone. But a reasonable-sounding person can recite a few lines, and with a bunch of people repeating him, can convince a crowd of a lot of nonsense. Repeated information, especially from multiple sources, is much more convincing and can break down a person's critical reasoning abilities much more easily than a raving lunatic.

Why the heck is there so much hate about this link? Its a cheap, fast,and easy way to create a PA system. Systems made out of new technology this way are cool. Sure some of the people who use PA systems are D-bags but not everyone is. This is also cool b/c if you don't agree with what the speaker is saying, you hang up your phone and you don't have to listen to them anymore. So its better than a normal PA system! OWS or not this is a cool technology and the developer deserves some recognition.

There goes the privacy of phone calls. (like the government wasn't listening enough)

Two things:

1. Why does this technology need to be associated specifically with OWS? Sure it serves a need they might have, but why not let the technology stand on its own? Surely there are many other uses in addition to OWS for this system.

2. Skype will probably be giving you a call fairly soon.

Also see Hoot-n-holler lines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoot-n-holler

Cisco's Hoot and Holler over IP: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/12_1t/12_1t5/feature/gui... http://www.cisco.com/en/US/netsol/ns340/ns394/ns165/ns70/net...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com