DISQUS

mark · 3 years ago

nicely put; wonder what mr. carr is afraid of - a little competition, perhaps?

Mathew · 3 years ago

I don't know Nick, but whenever I come across stuff like that I picture a guy sitting in a wing chair in some university library somewhere, muttering to himself about how he can't concentrate on Aristotle's Poetics (in the original Greek, of course) because those damn kids won't turn down their boogie-woogie music.

Rob Hyndman · 3 years ago

Real wrath-of-God type stuff, indeed, all of us proles speaking up and being heard. What will they think of next? Elections?

But seriously, one point that Messrs Keen and Carr didn't mention is what is surely one of the most powerful consequences of this, um, empowerment. The atomization of media will inevitably amplify the hurly-burly of competition and produce a much more interesting and provocative community of voices.

Is the age of the expert over?

Mathew · 3 years ago

I don't know about it being over, Rob -- but it's certainly getting a lot harder :-)

Mike McDerment · 3 years ago

I was telling some folks the other day about how I attended the TorCamp conference. TorCamp was a really informal conference (the "unconference") that really encouraged dialog from the 20 or so people in each workshop, NOT just the person leading the workshop. I was amazed at how how many smart people there are in a room at events like that. Normally you only here from the one person at the front of the room at conferences...

Change is afoot and there is room for unlimited voices in the blogoshere. Seems like some people don't want to embrace that change...

Stuart MacDonald · 3 years ago

Okay, yes, super, fine, I read the posts and, yes, these elitist dudes do need to remove that pickle. But on the core of it, haven't people chosen their info source from Place A vs. Place B forEVER? Said another way, isn't all that is really happening here that Experts are being more broadly and cheaply distributed? It used to be that you chose your Camp by doing things like reading the Sunday Sport vs. The Economist. The same thing is happening today, it's just that the point-of-view buffet is fuller, and it's nearly free.

-- Stuart

Mathew · 3 years ago

I think you're right, Mike.

And Stuart, that's a good point. We're just extending and broadening the range of voices that are out there, which I think is a good thing. Yes, some of them are going to belong to morons or loudmouths, but not all of them -- and there might even be the occasional genius :-)

Richard MacManus · 3 years ago

Nice response! What made me laugh about Keen's article was that what Andrew Keen thinks is Web 2.0 is his own weird fantasy world. I mean, nobody I know ever claimed the Web (let's forget the 2.0 bit for a second) was a utopia - yet Keen's article makes it out to be a *dystopia*. As for Nick Carr, no matter what his pedigree - he may as well be George Bush for all the 'us vs them' claptrap he writes on his blog.

Old media better wake up to this fact: the world is changing, get over it. Evolve or die.

Mathew · 3 years ago

Well said, Richard. And thanks for the comment.

Mathew

Nick · 3 years ago

I don’t know Nick, but whenever I come across stuff like that I picture a guy sitting in a wing chair in some university library somewhere, muttering to himself about how he can’t concentrate on Aristotle’s Poetics (in the original Greek, of course) because those damn kids won’t turn down their boogie-woogie music.

Nope, you don't know Nick, but I'm happy to have inspired your imagination. And now that I've roused myself from my library wingchair, emptied my pipe and staightened my bow tie, let me qualify the elitist qualifications you've so generously bestowed on me. I was an editor at HBR, not the editor, and I have written but one slender volume, though, as Johnny Thunders might have said, it was a motherfucker.

Markus · 3 years ago

Interesting what if scenario from a crazy person...... I can play the what if game to.

Up until now society has had rules to function, and you had to obey those rules in order to live in the world and not go to jail or be killed. Since the invention of the interent those rules have started to break down. 30% of all searches on the internet are porn. Sexual preditors stalk myspace, and things like sex personals have exploded.

I forsee a future where porn dominates the blogosphere, or the pornosphere as it will become known. Think of the millions of users who would love to read the blog of their favorite porn star? Think of how easy it is to sell something to people who think you have a personal connection with.

The internet has become a sort of alternate reality where people act out on sex, fear, gread and ego/power. I believe that the more personal the internet becomes the greater this trend. Political blogs are full of "angry people"/nuts saying crazy things and basically wanting to kill the other side. thousands of scammers play on peoples fear and steal billions a year, in the UK alone 2 billion pounds was stolen last year. How many bloggers check thier ego feed on a dailly basis?

In short rules that govern human society where formed over thousands of years, we are now seeing those rules broken down online and a new set forming in their place.

It would seem everything that is becoming popular online is focused on creating a strong instant emotional response from the user.

Seth Finkelstein · 3 years ago

Richard: "I mean, nobody I know ever claimed the Web (let’s forget the 2.0 bit for a second) was a utopia ..."

Sure they do, just not in a trivial way. That is, it's rare to find a strawman claim of the sort that there will be absolute perfection. But it's pretty easy to find highly overblown claims of meritocracy and democracy, and it's immensely tedious to repeated debunk them (i.e. Where-Are-The-Woman, and the vast attention inequality).

The no-utopia is a deflection tactic from the unjustified evangelism.

Keen's just going overboard in the other direction. I suppose he could similarly argue "I didn't call it a dystopia, just a loss of the best of what we have now".

Mathew · 3 years ago

Thanks for the comment, Nick. Just to clarify, I didn't say you
were like that image, just that that's what your (and more so
Andrew's) comments reminded me of. And I've changed the post to
reflect your lesser duties at the HBR. Thanks for taking my rant in
the spirit in which it was intended.

Mathew

Anne Zelenka · 3 years ago

"Reckless Banality": I wish I'd called my blog that. Great post, Mathew.

Nick: your book is a real "motherfucker"? Come again? On second thought, no thanks. Hold your fire, buddy.

If anyone's wondering why more women aren't hanging 'round these parts, there's a partial answer. I don't mind potty language, but I draw the line at phrases that suggest women are most useful as fuckable objects.

Mathew · 3 years ago

Thanks for the comment, Anne. And you're right, "reckless banality" is a great name for a blog :-)

Ed Kohler · 3 years ago

The Ghostbusters reference really nails the absurdity of the anti-democratization of content creation arguments. Just because everyone can publish doesn't mean everyone's worth reading. Everyone can be their own editor, and use technology (sites like Techorati, Digg.com, or Del.icio.us) to help them figure out what's worth reading.