|
Plastic Bag (5)
Just to clear something up, since this
thread vaguely concerns me. If you read back along the
lines of this debate, it looks like Tom is saying *I*
said online interaction is inauthentic. My post is still
there, and anyone can see I never said that. What I emphasised
is the ambivalent nature of online interaction, and the
fact that it is different to RL - countering the tendency
to equate online and offline as if they were the same
thing. Which is ridiculous. The same applies point to
Tom's final post at the debate: that it mostly mis-characterises
actually what I said, and is merely what he imagined my
position to be. I have no intention of taking this any
further; I really can't be bothered. However what I will
do is respond to the specific points aimed at me, which
I think is reasonable. I'm not going to add anything else
to this - very little, anyway.
I don't presume to think I'm some kind of sole source
of wisdom, as Tom said very explicitly, but I do think
this kind of discourse is stuck in fairly rigid patterns
which are amenable to critical methods from non-techno/cyber
people. Saying, as he did, that my MA is "NOT NEARLY
ENOUGH" grounding in this subject is missing the
point. First, most of my ideas have derived from the 2
years since I did my MA. Second, from what I've seen of
the cyber and techno theory currently popular, I'm not
very impressed with the 'thinking' that goes with internet
culture and this is not from 5 years ago but today: a
book was published a year ago which is full of it, and
it's a core university text. All I'm saying here is there
are psychological, sociological and phenomenological factors
which other disciplines account for in sophisticated ways,
and internet theory doesn't. That you don't need internet
credentials to be able to analyse this. In fact from what
I've seen, the more totally immersed in it you are, the
less likely it is you can talk sensibly about it. Which
seems to stir the proverbial hornet's nest, to which I
reply: people see things in different ways. There is no
one viewpoint. It is legitimate and useful to consider
what are alternative perspectives. The fact that the internet
is technological does not mean it has to be considered
only in techno-speak terms by internet workers. In the
final analysis it is actually cultural, with cultural
ramifications. Most critics are not themselves novelists,
artists etc nor do they have to be. Academics aren't the
only people to build castles in the air, in fact the almost
hypnotic nature of the internet makes it very conducive
to castle-making.
But that doesn't seem to go down very well.
I could also say *I'm* not going to get irritated. But
that is effectively just internet-speak for saying I am
irritated, but I'm not going to express it, because I
am above that kind of thing. Internet discourse of that
kind is not just straightforward and/or logical, it is
*theatrical*. I could come up with a graph-theory about
that, showing how at one end of the scale you have an
emotional or emotive exchange, subject to its own kind
of dynamics and having its own values - and at the other
end of the scale you have a straightforward debate of
ideas. The two things get mixed up - on the internet quite
a lot - and its useful to disentangle this. But really,
spinning out some kind of clever-dick model to illustrate
that idea is uneccessary tautology: I can say it in just
a few simple words.
My reference to 'small scale activities' seemed to really
irk Tom, big-time. Thus, I was 'superior' because of my
intellectual declaration, arrogant etc etc. Now, I've
never doubted Tom's experience in online community. However
that is what he DOES know about, focus on, and theorise;
what DOESN'T really interest him is more dysfunctional
activities, more transitory, ephemeral, and fleeting internet
exchange. But actually they are very widespread. I said
I'm interested in the big picture, and all that means
is: I incorporate all the wild, wacky, distasteful and
negative stuff into my ideas and conception about the
internet. Tom focusses on quite specialised areas and
tries to support them and take them forward all the time.
I like to consider the whole spectrum of internet activity.
That's not superior at all, its just a different focus.
The initial debate began "is the internet shit"
and my point was a) that's a silly polarised question
b) ultimately its both shit and not-shit and c) by definition
it's a question about the whole of the internet, not just
groovy online community. However the debate was construed
only in online community terms. The internet is actually
quite big, and even though Tom has knowledge in certain
areas, he is not some kind of Universal Internet Guru.
There are plenty of other people out there - maybe even
not online, maybe in print - who say things beyond Tom's
range, different to it, and referring to other facets
of the internet phenomenon.
I think what is 'authentic' and what isn't is an argument
not really worth pursuing. The term is not defined for
a start; there are plenty of people who would say that
plenty of aspects of RL society are 'inauthentic'. That
a human being can be inauthentic when they are in bed
with someone, or say they love you, or anything else.
This is what I mean: internet theory gets into areas like
this, and flattens out what are quite big subjects. Basically,
if you feel online communication is 'authentic', well
then for you it is. Simple as that really. If you go into
a MUD or a MOO and feel you've been raped because someone
takes control of your avatar and abuses it, well no one
can say that's not 'authentic' if that's how you feel.
But it *is* possible to disentangle the psychology and
phenomenology of all of this. That there's no getting
away from the fact that you were just in front of a VDU.
That there is a strong tendency to ignore and flatten
out these distinctions, in internet culture.
I think my conclusion is there are theoretical areas of
no concern to Tom, and no *practical* concern for anyone
who enters an online community - me included, actually!
But what what I "won't stand for" is when quite
sensible enquiry is dismissed, mischaracterised, derided
as beginners arrogance etc.
Incidentally I use the term 'utopian' not only in a perfect
world-building sense, but also in the sense that logical
and rhetorical construction is deemed sufficient to establish
ideological positions, regardless of logical fact and
shaky real world correlation. Castles in the air, in other
words.
December
26, 2003 02:51 PM
Plastic Bag (4)
I think much of what you write at your
site revolves around your career, that sometimes it’s
like a politician building up his ideological position.
And as with politicians, what you say sometimes appears
to be OK, but if you think it about in a more penetrating
manner, beyond the snappy process of read-digest that
characterises internet browsing, you realise it is flawed.
Not necessarily in a dramatic or obvious way, but flawed
nonetheless. Thus, saying people seek sex, pick fights
etc on the ‘net in the same way they do in RL is
ostensibly accurate, but actually misleading. The significant
point is the frequency and degree with which this happens
compared to less colourful socialising, and the extent
to which it makes the ‘net a kind of lowest common
denominator medium, and ultimately unpleasant. Consider
it the other way round: is real life like the ‘net?
No, of course it isn’t. A Saturday night city would
have to be a military-policed zone full of soap-box activists
and a metropolitan sized orgy, to reflect what happens
on the ‘net. Therefore, it is not correct to equate
online and offline in that way. That kind of facile thinking
is what I object to, when the ‘net is theorised.
You might think that’s nit-picking, but actually
it isn’t: people pursue those kind of ideas and
create a semi-intellectual, digerati milieu, which is
ultimately science-fictional nonsense. Who needs William
Gibson when people talk like that? I have my own ideas
about why this happened (and why those books were published):
one is that programmers and coders suddenly had a public
platform, central to the internet phenomenon. Those people
are not philosophers or social theorists – and yet
they had entered those intellectual domains.
.
I don’t really know what you’re trying to
achieve by offering to show your Outlook documentation.
I’ve never denied that you’re involved in
some interesting projects, in fact I’ve never even
referred to this. You’ve got it wrong re. my remarks
and future possibilities; you’re reading into it
some of your own concerns. I rarely think about the future
– literally just a few times, in the most vague
‘what’s going to happen’ manner. And
never in terms of what specific interactions might be
possible; only in terms of how it reflects human capacity.
If you’re trying to find ways of antidoting well
known problems via software architecture, that’s
quite interesting. However I don’t think you have
full clarity on this: instant messaging is still online,
despite the fact that is live and instant, and it has
the same potential problems as web boards. It’s
not "crossover" at all.
.
I think I read the Shirky stuff, and probably agreed with
it. I don’t think it’s especially pertinent
or unique; other people have said similar things, for
example in the book The Victorian Internet: exploring
the impact and general sociology of technology, noting
sociological parallels with different technological forms.
And Carl Jung described the way humanity projects psychological
‘energies’ onto inanimate technological form.
.
It seems to come down to this: your interests and writings
refer to quite specific activities, whereas my intellectual
interests concern the bigger picture, i.e. the entire
phenomenon of the cultural internet: good and bad, past
and present, hugely public and relatively private, used
by digerati elite, distracted American students, deranged
personalities, average e mailers, and all the rest. That’s
the context from which my comments come; your responses
continually revolve around your relatively small scale
activities. I may have been unfair in attacking this,
since we all refer to our own lives and our own experience.
However much of the BS rhetoric *is* generalised extrapolation
from small scale experience, so it is legitimate to criticise
this when it occurs.
December
21, 2003 05:59 PM
Plastic Bag (Part 3)
I’m not suggesting this debate
would be resolved, but making the general distinction
between online and offline interaction. I don’t
think I’m cheating, merely reiterating fundamental
points that keep getting lost. If you choose not to engage
with it then that’s fine; that in itself doesn’t
change the validity of what I’m saying. You tend
to exaggerate and over-characterise everything eg "extreme"
utopianism. No, I wouldn’t say that and never did.
I’m sure you do have a greater experience of online
community because that’s your job. It’s also
possible – as I have suggested – that what
you say is based on quite a narrow sector of internet
activity, relatively speaking, used to generalise about
all of it. Even a massive site like the BBC’s, for
example, is just a small dot in the entire medium.
"Insanely off-whack"? You’re
just exaggerating and being colourful again, to have an
effect. You suggest my experience is outdated with regard
to gender games, but respond with a speculative projection
into the future. Which doesn’t make sense. Since
my comment is about the way it is now.
I would be interested in examples of
successful long term communities, though you may just
be thinking of the obvious/well known ones which I have
looked at. I’m sure there are success stories, and
it does interest me. I also maintain that they are exceptions,
that like the dot coms, for every good one there were/are
10, 20, or more that failed and/or weren’t ultimately
very interesting. That when you make comments about the
internet it necessarily includes those, or you are misrepresenting
the cultural phenomenon in its entirety.
I don’t
think you’ve really grasped my fundamental ideas
and don’t think you’re especially interested.
Which is fine. I could explicate further but there is
no point; in any case I don’t wish to do it. You
kept defending the ‘net, I kept reiterating my THEORETICAL
objections i.e. to certain kinds of rhetoric. The former
interests you, the latter mostly doesn’t. Which
is fine. That doesn’t mean there are currently no
books or web sites spinning out utopian stuff which lacks
some really fundamental phenomenological distinctions
between online and offline experience. There are plenty
of those books and they are essentially science-fictional,
based on a kind of technological enchantment. They also
tend to ignore real life issues like internet access.
Huge it may be, but it is still used predominantly by
specific socio-economic sectors with a certain standard
of education. So: to give one specific example, rhetoric
about how the ‘net encourages community and will
enhance society etc is flawed. Because there are real
life political/educational/socio-economic factors that
just don’t fit that cosy rhetorical world. It makes
sense for the digerati, but not for others. Similarly
for all the benfits of online interaction, it remains
keyboard tapping and staring at a VDU. The ambivalence
is a fact, i.e. that you are ultimately engaging only
in symbolic communciation, and this gets lost and forgotten
in all the glossy verbiage. The kind of stuff that people
say about the ‘net is outdated, because it derives
from the 90s when everyone was really really excited.
Naïve might be a better word: it wasn’t grounded
in sociological, psychological and phenemenological reality.
Posted
December 21, 2003 01:18 AM
Tom (Part 2)
Look yourself: not calling it utopian
rhetoric doesn’t mean it isn’t. But I’m
not going to get into that level of argumentation using
spiky remarks, exaggerated adjectives etc, but stay with
the simple facts. You try to emphasise the complete similarity
between physically based and technologically mediated
communication, but in doing so illustrate perfectly certain
widespread themes which are just conceptual nonsense.
Talking, for example, is something you do with your voice
and not via a keyboard. The two different ‘mediums’
define in a very basic way what kind of exchange is possible,
and I don’t think the two things should be confused.
There are plenty of studies on this – how people
engage emotionally via mouse and VDU – and I think
the conclusion is that it is profoundly ambivalent because
it is symbolic. And the ambivalence has to be emphasised,
or you become immersed in a strange fantasy world where
everything is ‘virtual’. I never said the
internet wasn’t communication; I merely highlighted
the problematic area where distinctions between online
and offline are routinely blurred. It’s quite common:
there are people who actually argue that you can change
your personality or gender with online interaction. I
think those people are lost in a technological fantasy
world. Somewhat deranged, in fact.
Nor did I say there is no possibility
of online community. To repeat: I highlighted the difference
between online and offline, counteracting the tendency
to merge the two, which is done quite frequently by cyberspace
theorists as part of their overall rhetoric. I know you
can get help, support etc, but I don’t agree with
people who discuss this as if it were no different from
physically based community. Thus, saying “The basic
quality of that community … isn't particularly different
from a group of people meeting in their local village
hall" is just ridiculous. For example, it’s
well known that people play around with online personas,
even genders, which are different from the real one. I
am considering internet usage across its full range; I
get the feeling you are only thinking about quite narrow
and specialised groups of people. Which is fine: but it
means you cannot universalise your ideas as if they represented
all online life. And that’s what you tend to do.
I’m not confusing the content
and method of communication at all; I’m pointing
out that tapping on a keyboard is inherently a very restricted
means of expression: so we can’t get too carried
away with what you can achieve with it. In fact you confuse
the two in your distinction between voice and internet:
you express this in purely technical/physical terms, and
the point is what you can convey, how you can convey it,
how it feels for you and the other person is very different!
I agree the ‘technological’ kind of comparision
is stupid: I didn’t do it, you did!
I am fully aware that random quotations
aren’t really worth very much. What they do is point
towards substantial material that someone may or may not
find useful or accurate. I personally found it quite a
good book; whether you or anyone else decides to investigate
it is up to you and no real concern of mine. But it has
to be taken for what it is: a signpost away from the discursive
limitations of the internet and into the domain of more
substantive research.
If the distinctions between online and
offline community are collapsing – as you say –
then that is an interesting and additional factor to my
own ideas about this. But I suspect it’s not as
common or universal as you suggest, if you look at the
internet as a whole – not just the limits of your
personal experience.
You keep defending the internet
as if I’m decrying it, and I have to keep saying
no I think it’s great, that my objection concerns
the way it is THEORISED. I think this is pretty clear
from my posts. In fact, this discussion illustrates the
problems/limitations of keyboard tapping: had it taken
place otherwise, the background context for what I’ve
said would have been abundantly clearer.The best you can
do is summarise your message in text form which has to
be snappy and concise, knowing it doesn’t fully
articulate your position and can be misunderstood. Which
is quite ccommon, hence all the arguments, flames etc.
with millions of people each with their own agenda. In
a 60 or even 30 minute café conversation you could
probably give a reasonable account of a book you had written
to another person. I don’t think you could do that
with the ‘net; it’s too vague and open to
misunderstanding, as each person reads while they sit
in a different location and has an entirely different
set of thoughts, feelings and ideas going through their
head: you don’t have the same rapport, or the means
of establishing it. Much ‘net communication is an
attempt to understand what the other person actually means,
and it’s 100 times harder if they are not face to
face. Anyway I’m getting pretty bored with this;
it’s got to the stage when I’m more or less
repeating myself. Utopian internet rhetoric is undoubtedly
out there, blurring online and offline experiences, you
sometimes do this yourself, and I have highlighted this
fact.
Posted
December 20, 2003 04:06 PM
Tom Gets It Wrong
"The basic quality of that community
however isn't particularly different from a group of people
meeting in their local village hall"
Don't be silly Tom: this is what
I mean by mythology and utopianism. Or maybe science fiction
is a better description. We're not talking about abstract
information - which is expedited magnificently over the
internet - we're talking about flesh and blood people.
An actual meeting is far more meaningful than tapping
on a keyboard. It is *substantially* different. Physically
congregating with other folk is the same as being on the
internet as is reading a book about Tibet compared to
actually going there. Or reading a menu and eating the
food. You can't reduce and flatten the physical, sensory,
emotional, kinaesthetic and social world in that way.
What it does is confuses basic semantic parameters, the
"Blending of reality and metaphor:
a willingness to equate the real highway with the digital
one, physical space with cyberspace, real communities
with virtual ones" Slouka, Mark 1996 War of the Worlds
Abacus, London: page 68.
I know what you're saying, and I have
no dispute with the benefits of the internet. But there's
so much silly utopian rhetoric flying around, and it gets
us nowhere because it's more imaginative than factual.
Posted
December 18, 2003 06:52 PM
"The Internet Is Shit!"
"No, How Dare You, The Internet
Is Great!"
I’m not sure all of that was focussed
on the few simple points I was making: a shotgun going
off in into different and peripheral areas. It may not
be what you actually think, but you did say it: first,
that it helps people link up, communicate and facilitate
culture, and then no, it doesn’t do that. A contradiction.
“For the most part, the internet
only differs from letters, village notice-boards and conversation
in the speed and depth of the ways that people can interact
with each other”
That is simply not true. I’ve
spent time on web boards and you always encounter vociferous
argumentative exchange, flames, trolls and a large amount
of very banal little posts. On the one hand there’s
the great idea of internet community, and on the other
hand there’s the substantial evidence that for much
of the time it’s really not that great: the characteristics
and limitations of the medium limit what can be achieved
and what you can reasonably expect. I think where it does
succeed is when you have a very specialised interest group
– technical, philosophical, whatever, and in my
experience that is the only time all those Rheingoldian
ideals are ever realised. The open, public and free-for-all
enterprises are nothing to get excited about because they
waste time at least as much as do something with it.
“Now it's interesting that you
say it's easy to access illegal / depraved content on
the web with only a credit card - well I'd argue two things
there - firstly that it's actually not particularly easy
to do so because it's generally pretty easy to get information
on which people are maintaining illegal sites because
so much of the action of the web requires financial transactions
and credit cards that can be relatively traced and identified.
I won't deny that it's easier to find pornography, though”
They are two separate issues. It is
extremely easy to access that kind of stuff. The fact
that you can be traced does not mean it is not easy: it
means you can be traced. How widespread the surveillance
is, I’m not sure. It’s obviously increasing
and will continue to increase as the problem grows. I
also suspect, as with the rest of the ‘net, much
of the content is difficult to locate. Presumably the
authorities aren’t hacking into databases, so they
first have to find the people running them. So why don’t
you hear of webmaster prosecutions, only the Pete Townsend
type? I don’t know actually; I don’t know
how it works.
“Nor will I deny that there are
things that are on the internet that most people don't
like the look of or would prefer weren't there, because
obviously there are. What I would say instead is that
for every piece of content you can find that seems to
you catastrophically unpleasant, I could find considerably
more that has provided value or utility.”
I don’t find it catastrophic,
and agree that there’s more decent content than
otherwise. I merely think that excessively positive rhetoric
is partial and innacurate when we are speaking of the
internet *as a whole, and as a cultural phenomenenon.*
“The basic needs and interests
that drive human beings haven't changed simply because
they have a larger forum in which to research / discuss
/ publish about them. People still care about all kinds
of dodgy sex, but they also care about their personal
health, their financial status, their homes, their families,
their ambitions and careers, their pets, their music collections,
their computers, their governments, their news, their
television programmes, their celebrities, their religions
etc. etc. etc. Decrying the internet because it's a place
where illegal activities happen is exactly analogous to
decrying any environment in which people talk to people”
I’m not decrying the ‘net;
I think it’s great. Nor am I suggesting that human
nature is being or will be corrupted – although
clearly, where the dodgy stuff is concerned it is like
drugs: if there’s a pusher on the street, people
buy. The availability accounts for much of the ensuing
market. Human nature is the same wherever you go –
as you point out – so the same psychology applies
to the ‘net: availability does increase the interest.
However that’s tangential to my point: what I am
decrying is the promulagation of what I referred to earlier
as the mythology of cyberspace, as opposed to it’s
sociology. The first is an exercise of the imagination,
and only the second is grounded in sensible and factual
observation.
“On the whole - the internet
has done far more good than bad. It has helped many more
people than it has hurt. It has published much more useful
information than illegal information. It's for these reasons
that third-world countries are clamouring for greater
access, to have greater involvement and connection with
the internet, why across Western Europe and the USA governments
are often desperate to drive up digital literacy and access
to the internet. I'm not speaking as a cultish devotee
of a dark art. The internet may be complicated and nuanced,
it certainly has negative things going on in it, but it
is not shit - which - if you'll notice the title - was
the limit of my assertion in this piece: that the internet
matters and is not shit, not that it is perfect.”
I agree that on the whole it’s pretty good, although
the way it’s been commandeered by corporations definitely
isn’t. It wasn’t like that originally: when
it was used by genteel academics, it was purely for communication
rather than an enormous market place."
The entire “shit!” “no
not shit!” dichotomy is not a useful way of forming
an appraisal. You say "I can tell you right now why
the internet matters and why it is not shit" and
I could tell you right now why it is shit – see
above. In other words, you can take either premise and
find your own material to support it. I haven’t
done that, because they are both partial. What I have
done is redressed the over-enthusiastic i.e. positive
generalisations, because they are false. You can spin
out the visionary and utopian stuff as long as you like:
it began in the 90s and continues today. But it never
came true, and it never will.
James
(December 17, 2003 02:51 AM)
Blog Rhetoric/Cut The Crap
I think Tom's enthusiasm for blogs is
obvious, as is his support for 'amateurisation' meaning
everyone can do it. However there's more to this subject
than an 'amateur? how dare you!' response. Tom claims
that 'amateurisation is everywhere', and I don't think
this is as true as it initially appears, and nor is it
necessarily a good thing as Tom implies.
Digital empowerment is a substantial
cultural trend (Movable Type, Photoshop, Publisher, Avid,
Premiere...) but I think its still quite a specialised
area. Tom speaks in a generalised way - it is indeed "panoramic"
- but is actually thinking of a relatively small number
of people. You can't talk about 'empowerment', 'community'
etc in such a narrow way when these are important, and
WIDER social/political/educational issues. The world is
changing? Says who, and by what criteria? And how are
blogs part of this when such a small percentage of people
have a computer/internet connection/blog? Many people
do in the educated new media world, but statistically
most people who have a different kind of life don't.
Tom's consistent 'finding the good stuff'
theme refers to a select few within a select few. The
majority of blogs are not based on "information".
Distributed cognition and aggregation are great ideas,
but they do not apply to maybe 90% of what's out there
- the blogs that Tom neither reads nor links to. Most
blogs are socially motivated. Personally, I have concluded
that blogs as a whole are not very interesting because
I can't possibly be interested in thousands of individual
lives that I mostly cannot relate to. It's like having
access to personal letters. But their significance derives
not from what I think, but from what the families, friends
and colleagues think of each other's work. And that's
great, just as it's great there are a small number of
blogs which are based on or at least interested in "information".
But what about the remaining 90%? What can you say about
them? I think these parameters need clarifying, so the
interests and concerns of a digital elite are not presented
as a widespread cultural phenomenon or the defining meaning
of what is happening. The value of the blog phenomenon
is 'distributed', as are the blogs themselves. And here's
a specific point: WHO is comparing blogs to the academic
citation model? I only know one person who did/does this:
Tom, presumably thinking of his own online venture. I
may be wrong. But again I think this needs clarifying,
and also evaluating: if most blogs are not information
based, then this premise is incorrect. It may apply to
a select few, but not the vast majority.
I think a much bigger example of 'amateurisation'
is the fashion for Pop Idol This, Become A Celebrity That,
and the related so called Reality TV. You too can be a
famous person. Is this 'empowering'? Of course not. If
it ever does help people it is still a tiny minority in
the same way that so called celebrities are a tiny minority.
As some kind of social project, it is therefore misleading
and exploitative. It appears to empower but maintains
the same old infrastructure. You are supposed to identify
with the protagonists because they are ordinary, but they
are in extra-ordinary circumstances which you and I will
never experience.
I don't mean to be either aggressive
or rude, but robust: if a spade is a spade, it makes sense
to describe it as such. Personally, I think in the media,
in politics and even in academia there is too much spin,
half-truth and fancy rhetoric that gets us nowhere.
Go
see it
It's Both! (3)
That's only partly true, although the
notion that all human nature is there is correct. The
trouble is, some of it is 'in your face' and unwanted.
I guess this debate depends on your perspective: that
of an enthusiastic 'user', a cynical 'dismisser' or -
which in my view is the only way of having a proper appraisal
- someone who acknowledges the full panorama of internet
activity. Saying A, B and C are great is OK, so long as
you recognise X, Y and Z in equal measure and do not have
only a partial focus. One further thought: the 'net is
shit' site says hey, let's start again. I disagree. I
think the good stuff began decades ago and the current
good stuff is a continuation of that earlier trajectory.
Its only when the net became hugely popular in the last
5-10 years that all the bullshit started to appear. If
we 'started again' all those exploiters, the corporations,
the spammers, the pop-up code monkeys, the sick stuff
etc. would have an even GREATER presence on the net because
they would be starting out level with everyone else and
with lots of experience
Posted
by: James on July 18, 2003 06:49 PM
Is It Shit Or Is It not (2)
This is still polarised into "shit!"
"No not shit - great!". It is obvious: any statement
which says one thing or the other exclusively is incorrect,
because it is both. Yes it sometimes connects people who
feel excluded etc; yes it also creates 'net addicts and
confirms people's isolation stuck in front of a VDU. Yes
it helps create community, yes it also extends corporate
influence. See what MIT's Sherry Turkle says: yes it can
help provide a social learning experience, yes it can
unbalance people even more (http://www.edge.org/digerati/turkle/).
The Internet Is Fab rhetoric started in the 90s, it still
continues, and I believe it will ultimately be counter-productive
when people see for themselves what the 'net is actually
like, on a day to day basis, for the majority of people.
There's a difference between potential and actuality,
ideal and fact, the enthusiastic few and the indifferent
majority, light-hearted and personally appreciative remarks
and wider sociological consideration.
Posted
by: James on July 12, 2003 11:19 AM.
On Whether The Internet Is Shit
Or Not (1)
This is all very polarised - "it's
shit!" "No it's not it's great!" The fact
is the internet is *both*. Yes it helps connect people
etc, but it also allows people to network who have criminal
interests, and it allows corporate powers to extend their
influence even further. Tim Berners-Lee said a few years
ago that the web would reflect human culture and that
is exactly what it does - for good and bad. I think what
we need is a balanced appraisal which recognises both
facts, rather than partial and one-sided rhetoric.
Posted
by: James on July 7, 2003 12:33 PM.
On The Power of Aggregation, and
the Objectives of Blogging
I think you’re expressing a personal
and specialised interest which doesn’t have a wider factual
basis. You won’t change the power established journalism
has with an etymological fine point, and I doubt if blogging
will either. Your words are more rhetoric than fact. Specifically,
who are the “empowered and vocally reactive readership”
who do their own research? It’s a great idea and I wish
it were true. There are a few about, but not many. As
with the WWW, so with blogdom: the signal to noise ratio
is quite high and most blogs revolve around relatively
trivial content or specialised personal interests. Why
would a journalist or media house be interested in interacting
with that, especially when their research is generally
far more rigorous? They have the time, the contacts and
the resources. Most blogs are a different kind of activity.
They’re like an interactive personal column, and that’s
what they’re good at.
I don’t think there’s an attitude of
‘putting upstarts in their place’, because the establishment
has nothing to fear. I think that’s a personal comment
that’s not generally applicable. Repurposing and challenging
the established news? Again, great idea and I wish it
were happening. But it’s not; that’s not what most blogs
do, except maybe in a very cursory way like a conversation
in a pub. The aggregation thing is an interesting point
but I’m not sure it fits your idea because what, exactly,
is aggregated? I don’t think it’s an ideological or political
force. I sense that it’s more about fashion than critical
thinking.
Enthusiasm for blogging is one thing,
but it has to be based on facts rather than (laudable)
ideals that are not borne out. When the ‘net first appeared
people had a similar kind of aspiration – it was going
to transform society etc. It didn’t, and it rapidly became
a commercialised medium. I liked those original ideals
– I still do – but on the whole, they are not borne out
and I have to acknowledge that fact.
Posted
by: James on February 23, 2003 12:47 PM
On the A List Blogs:
I think after a while, this debate just
goes round and round in circles repeating itself. For
me, the interesting thing about it is understanding the
discrepancy between the thousands of no-hit sites and
the 'select few'. It's a fact, so why is it a fact? Quality
is undoubtedly one reason, but I suspect its not the only
one and not the most important. I suspect the principle
factor is an online reflection of what happens in other
cultural areas like the art world. It's fashion-driven,
it does depend on who you know (to get that opening exhibition
which makes your career), and once you're established
you have a momentum and a network that other people don't.
Which is not to say the 'select few' are thereby a waste
of time - the chances are, they are quality sites. But
it's quality site + high visibility that does it. Andrew
Sullivan has written about how blogging is a waste of
time in some respects, because there is no guarantee people
will read you and there is no reward, other than appreciative
readers. Well poor AS. I have never seen him mention the
fact that he is a high profile writer, with or without
a blog, and thereby in a totally different position to
everyone else.
I don't believe there aren't others
with comparable or even better sites than the 'A list'
when we're talking about tens of thousands of people all
around the world. Its just that the spotlight is on them,
and they are efectively 'celebrity' sites - because they
are celebrated. Right or wrong, fair or unfair, it seems
to be what happens.
Maybe there's a set of questions that
will clarify these issues, ie that a little research would
be in order.
1) How many of the 'A list' started
off with an existing network of media or web design contacts?
2) What kind of fashion do the A list
blogs reflect? I don't think this is any different from
music, for example. Some bands are 'in', others are 'out',
and in recent years some bands were 'in' because they
were 'out', and we all enjoyed the irony. Just look at
the way fashion rules the world - a trend in clothing
sweeps around the planet, just because a select few say
'ooh! aah!' at the latest creation of a designer, or everyone
wants to be like their favourite singer. You know Jennifer
Aniston? Well, her haircut used to be un-trendy. Then
people started asking for 'a Rachel cut'. Now its trendy.
Is this logical or aesthetically sound? Is the Rachel
cut superior to all others? Of course not. Its called
fashion, we all buy into it to some extent, and it's linked
to the 'judgement' that takes place for awards, which
gives visiblity, which gives...
3) Does a blogger know what is fashionable
and consciously or unconsciously provide what s/he knows
will be popular? Personally, I think chaos theory makes
a lot of sense. I don't believe the cultural A list were
always 'geniuses' (an over used and devalued word). I
suspect The Beatles or Quentin Tarantino happened to produce
something which fitted a prevailing zeitgeist, and that
this was more unconscious than conscious.
I'm not suggesting blogging is a superficial
and sheep-like phenomenon, but I am saying there are probably
answers to these questions within a wider cultural analysis.
Or at least, there's some value in opening up the debate
in this way.
And question 4? Well I'm sure it exists....any
ideas?
Posted
by James on January 31, 2003 06:55 PM
On Blog Competitions, and the
Guardian:
Seems to me the transcript highlights
the fact that this is not a right/wrong debate. Rather,
that there are different viewpoints, valid in their own
terms.
I like blogs, but I also like movies,
books, art etc. and they have 'competitions' which are
equally subjective and ideologically questionable. The
blog is unique because anyone can do it, but I don't think
that makes it singularly 'special'. I'm sure there are
many artists, writers etc who object to their competitions,
because they offend their idea of artistic or literary
integrity.
I don't think there's any 'appropriation'
here - it just couldn't be done because the web is so
vast, democratic and anarchic, and I'm sure the G. recognise
that.
A competition about content that is
often personal is a little strange, but I'm glad to see
that 'playing to the camera' is both recognised and not
appreciated.
I see valid points here on both 'sides'.
I suspect that some entrants will also have ideological
objections, but entered the event for practical reasons
- just like the hypothetical artist. Seems to me that's
what the G. want to provide for.
It's a bit of game, and I suspect most
people realise the 'winner' may or may not have real value
since who can define what that is? There probably are
a few useful criteria - like the authenticity cited above.
But entering, winning, not winning, does not directly
equate with value or worth. Someone may derive great benefit
from personal publishing and yet may not have a popular
blog. So who is the judge? In those circumstances, outside
opinion is irrelevant. But that doesn't mean it follows,
therefore, that a competition is best avoided.
Posted
by James on September 10, 2002 12:13 AM
|
