Consolidation and De-centralization for Web 2.0/Social Media

As I join a new website and offered to create a new profile, find friends, make posts, look at new content. I cannot help but think there is a better way. There is no reason why something cannot float above all this and bring it all together. I hate going to one site to post about one topic and another site to post about something else. I once thought that it is simple chaos and one is silly to try and organize chaos, but someone helped me see that it is simply just overly complex. What will make things move forward will be the decentralization of information. Where these community groups pop up they act as connectors for similar people and information, not storage. This is the proposed webtop (desktop for the web), but most variants miss how to bring it together. They do not make the interface flexible enough. I want one point that is me in cyberspace, I connect to it through my phone, my computer, my tv, my purchasing habits, my tweets, my friends, my friends of friends, my blogs, my emails. It is me, just digital. Everything in the digital world that wants to take a piece of me into their system, should just reference me and filter what they want out of it. Where can I go that I can see parts of cyberspace that interests me (information that I want, people that I know or would like to know, the information that the many communities I am part of that is relevant to me) and I can choose to say what is relevant and what is not and further refine through that feedback loop of what to see. Of course sometimes, it is good to see things that we are not interested in or do not want to see, since that is the world.

Social Diplomacy

Public diplomacy begins with you To revive America's image in the world, we all must be citizen diplomats. By Sherry L. Mueller

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0105/p09s01-coop.html

Twitter in Mumbai

Micro-blogging is starting to come of age as a legitimate communication mechanism. The question  is whether it would have been better or worse? Had more folks received warnings, would more have escaped? Or would terrorist had known or utilized, would their attacks have become more potent?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/28/mumbai-terror-attacks-india-internet-technology-twitter

Somali Pirates - A Question of Synchronization

This is  a hard issue with many ships trying to stop small boat attacks against big targets. The problem is that there are too many types of countries with warships trying to do the right thing in the same area. How do warships that don't normally trust each other share information to fight a common enemy?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=af9WnV_oByg8&refer=worldwide

What if there was no email?

Mr. McAfee proposes the mental simulation of what organizations would go through if blogs, wikis, and other "platform" based communications were created before "channel" (email, instant messaging, texting) were invented. 

http://blog.hbs.edu/faculty/amcafee/index.php/faculty_amcafee_v3/a_technology_flip_test_introducing_channels_in_a_world_of_platforms/

The thought that stuck in my mind: 

If this was the case, why would organizations want email? If not, will the end result (where email is understood the same as other, newer mediums) be minimal email? 

The first problem with fighting as a network is becoming a network. Obviously, emails are a little more point to point, rather than typically hub and spokes. What would happen if an organization turned off it's email? How we would we fight? Would a hierarchical organization survive inside such sharing?