

The People's Skype - rl1987
http://peoplesskype.org/

======
tg3
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.

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

~~~
cryptoz
> 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".

------
gwillen
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.

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

~~~
andylei
general assemly

------
forgottenpaswrd
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.

~~~
tiles
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.

~~~
sp332
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.

~~~
morsch
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.

~~~
sp332
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.

------
pilom
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.

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

------
dkokelley
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.

------
seiji
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/docs/ios/12_1t/12_1t5/feature/guide/dthoot4t.html)
[http://www.cisco.com/en/US/netsol/ns340/ns394/ns165/ns70/net...](http://www.cisco.com/en/US/netsol/ns340/ns394/ns165/ns70/networking_solutions_white_paper09186a00800a8479.shtml)

