Web 2.0

[Best First]

What do people think of this?

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/ ... 07,00.html

Bit ranty but i can't help but feel he has some valid points.

[Hot Shot]

Doesn't he have something better to do?

[Best First]

i hope you are being ironic...

[IronHide]

I was going to read it....but that video got me roped in and i eventually forgot.

Damn internets!

[Kaylee]

Meh, sounds a bit too much to run to the tune of "It isn't perfect and if I take it to it's complete extreme it could destroy life as we know it". Personally a bit of a more objective angle would serve his points better, for questions and issues regarding the Internet there certainly are.

[Legion]

As a web developer, i both love and hate it.

[Denyer]

What do people think of this?

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/ ... 07,00.html

Bit ranty but i can't help but feel he has some valid points.

Equally it's a levelling force -- people can find others with common interests or opinions and get stuff done as a group. That was previously mainly the scope of those with more access to media outlets.

[Best First]

i think part of his point is that its a levelling force, and to question whether that's always a good thing.

[angloconvoy]

Wow, what an arrogant little basket. Apparantly only special people can be authors. Nice to see that he clearly includes himself in the list of special people.

[Best First]

does saying some people are better at stuff than other people make you arrogant?

its a fact of life.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

Some people are better at something then others.

Im better at the 100m hurdles then someone whos in a wheelchair for example.

Because im 'better' should the disabled person not try?

[Best First]

curious analogy, given that disabled people are deliberatly given their own sporting events where they don't compete with the fully abled...

[Impactor returns 2.0]

Ok then, im 6ft 5i - what if im racing against someone whos fat and only 5 foot tall, like Tom cruise (whos not fat but should be) ..

I seem to recall Homer Simpson once saying... "You tried and failed. The lesson is: NEVER TRY!"

[Legion]

Then how do people learn new things? How does innovation happen with everything being done by the same people all the time?
Sure, when some people try something, they fail (sometimes miserably), sometimes they try again and they succeed (and sometimes fail again) and so on and so forth...

I mean, using your analogy, i can't run the london marathon - should i never try and improve myself to the point where i can give it a go?

[Impactor returns 2.0]

That was the point of my analogy! - I wasnt saying dont try because your not the best, im saying everyone should always try and better themselves.

Its the taking part that counts?

damm, thats why the Yanks always win!

[Legion]

sorry! think i must've misunderstood the point you were making Impy, that'll teach me to join in these types of topics when i can only skim read them at work...

[Best First]

i think your analogy is misses the point that is being made to be honest - itss not about people not aspiring to be better, its about the fact that they don't need to be better becaue they have a media outlet all of their own and they can post any old sh*t and think their contribution is as valid as that as someone who has genuinely refined their craft.

1000 idiots will be louder than one non idiot, doesn't make them right or their opinions neccessarily valid, but the internet doesn't have many safety guards on that front.

i'm not saying there's some kind of definitive line, i'm saying he has a point in some ways - there's a lot about the net that is little mor ethan people acting up in ways they wouldn't dare in real life and despreatley looking for nothing more than having their opinions confirmed back to them.

[IronHide]

Im better at the 100m hurdles then someone whos in a wheelchair for example.

Because im 'better' should the disabled person not try?

Id say let em at those hurdles. Be funny as hell watchin some dude in a wheel chair bowl those things down.

High jump might get a tad tricky.....

[sidestreaker]

Id say let em at those hurdles. Be funny as hell watchin some dude in a wheel chair bowl those things down.

High jump might get a tad tricky.....

uhhhh funny

[Kaylee]

i think your analogy is misses the point that is being made to be honest - itss not about people not aspiring to be better, its about the fact that they don't need to be better becaue they have a media outlet all of their own and they can post any old sh*t and think their contribution is as valid as that as someone who has genuinely refined their craft.

1000 idiots will be louder than one non idiot, doesn't make them right or their opinions neccessarily valid, but the internet doesn't have many safety guards on that front.

i'm not saying there's some kind of definitive line, i'm saying he has a point in some ways - there's a lot about the net that is little mor ethan people acting up in ways they wouldn't dare in real life and despreatley looking for nothing more than having their opinions confirmed back to them.

Hm, is that the fault of the medium or how people use it? I know people who only read the Daily Mail and unsurprisingly they think the world is being overrun by immigrants, homosexuals and labour and that Tony Blair eats babies. People with closed minds or those seeking self-reaffirmation in my experience are pretty good at distancing themselves from other opinions which come their way- similarly though people with open minds have a wide variety of different sources they can draw upon.

In short, the Internet does I would say provide a whole spectrum of opinion for people to examine... whether they choose to or not is their own affair. I think in the end it may come down to an issue of free speech and expression- people who can say what they wish and choose what to listen to may just associate with their own or similar views. Is there any way to counter that without impinging on freedom of speech?

There are issues to do with policing the Internet for illegal activities (money laundering, illegal data transfer [including illicit pornography] and the communications of terror groups) definitely but I would say that those with knowledge to can use the Internet very effectively also to trap such people (operation Orb in the UK for example resulted in the arrests of about 20+ paedophiles actively engaged in exchanging illegal photographs).

All in my worthless opinion of course :S

[angloconvoy]

His book The Cult of the Amateur: How Today's Internet is Killing Our Culture and Assaulting Our Economy will be published in June

On his own blog

I'm nostalgic for the world I grew up in where there was a clear distinction between author and audience....

...Most people do not have anything interesting to say.'

Saying some people are better at some stuff doesn't make you arrogant at all. But saying most people aren't interesting but thinking you are interesting enough to be allowed a blog and to write books does. And its quite telling that he wants a world where author and audience are clearly seperate when he's just written a book. He wants to be on a pedestal. He talk about digital narcissism while his entire argument appears built to fuel his own narcissism, which is a shame, because there do seem to be some valid points in his basic argument.

[Denyer]

its about the fact that they don't need to be better becaue they have a media outlet all of their own and they can post any old sh*t and think their contribution is as valid as that as someone who has genuinely refined their craft.

The useful stuff tends to stick around in some form. The opinion pieces were already almost always fluff, be they in a Sun/Mail column or somewhere online.

Do thousands of people follow John A. Smith's blog religiously, or do they crown Warren Ellis 'Internet Jesus' and make it a brief part of their daily trawl? It takes a long time to build a solid readership and usually a large helping of becoming the establishment in the process (eg, Aintitcoolnews, Slashdot.)

Also, bandwidth still costs and even most good fansites on any particular subject are semi-commercial. Again only a few rise to the top and stick around. The minors don't appear in most search engines; those are still dominated by cross-referenced and usually 'official' news sources.

In the same way that not everyone should be doctors or teachers or astronauts, not everyone should be an author. Most people do not have anything interesting to say.

Honestly, I'd include him in that. It's like the same opinion columns come up time and time again on Slashdot...

I want to learn about Martin Luther's epiphany, not the epiphany of the 11-year-old who blogs next door.

Then look up an encyclopaedia rather than an open-to-all wiki, which at best is a starting point (so's the encyclopaedia if we're being academically fastidious.) Don't read the blog of the 11-year-old next door. You have the power to select, just as people have the power to pick and choose their conversations and not trouble with meta-conversation about their personal journals/soapboxes. Take some responsibility for your reading habits, resolve to check out new stuff and the loyal opposition, and drum some of that attitude into the next generation.