Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It's just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here.

LQD The splintering of the fourth estate

by Sven Triloqvist Fri Nov 19th, 2010 at 12:07:51 PM EST

Media organisations are trying various routes to the future - the Guardian's is firmly an open and collaborative one

An excellent and longish article in the Guardian today: The splintering of the fourth estate. The article is an edited transcript of the Andrew Olle lecture 2010 given by Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger in Sydney, Australia on 19 November.


So many good points are made that to fair quote a bit of it would not do it justice. I recommend you read the whole article.

But maybe a few tasters:

Gutenberg's invention made the soil from which sprang modern history, science, popular literature, the emergence of the nation-state, so much of everything by which we define modernity

We are travelling through a period of extreme change faster than our corporate bodies can cope with. It's painful - and, if not treated quickly and correctly, can be fatal.

I want to discuss the possibility that we are living at the end of a great arc of history, which began with the invention of moveable type.

"Much of what we call communication is, necessarily, no more in itself, than transmission; that is to say, a one-way sending." (a quote from 1958)

The BBC is still the finest news operation in the world. How does it do it? Through subsidy.

Now subsidy also gets a bad press. But, in reality, few of us are in a good position to ridicule subsidy.

The American essayist Walter Lippmann, in his famous 1922 book, Public Opinion, made it plain that the press could not live without the subsidy of advertising.

There's much more. Go read.

Display:
Damn you. i was just fixin to do another wash, and now you have to challenge us with this post-Mcluhan pre-universal digital elegy/post-mortem speculonimbus?

as if the end of moveable type was the end of the arc. for Paul the Prescient Octopus' sake, pixels are almost archaic now.

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin

by Crazy Horse on Fri Nov 19th, 2010 at 03:11:18 PM EST
Dude - that's some washing machine.
by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Fri Nov 19th, 2010 at 05:48:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yeah. It's a challenging address. In many ways.
He focuses directly on the process of change going on in mass com, and the dilemma that digital media present to the print media.
Yesterday I wrote a segment-by-segment dissection of the first half, questioning, among other things, his repeated assertions about what he sees as a vibrantly opinionated private press. Pouf.
what's an opinion? William Randolph Hearst once said "Freedom of the press is for the man who owns one", and he was speaking about the presentation of "opinion" therein---his.

In retrospect, was the endlessly repeated presentation of Hearst's pro-nazi, fascist screeds a net gain for the intellectual world?

Perhaps the wag who first described "Opinion" in more biological terms was nearer to the mark. But even there, one can find utility, if you are determined enough, in even the most poorly informed (or washed) orifice- or oracle of social media.

I threw it all away.
It's too much work, too important to do a superficial job on it.

So I'll resign myself to the fact that the unsupported opinions included herein will bring the inevitable (and justifiable) attacks.
Sorry. Life's too short. Take them for what they're worth.

Rusbridger seems to be writing more of a justification for his chosen (invented?) business model at the Guardian, and at the same time he perhaps unwittingly reveals what he thinks of as "news" by his efflusive adulation of the BBC (or the thin shadow of the BBC that remains today) and his assertions about the wondrous nature of social media and the emerging web2.

A good case can be made that "Twitter" was named by people instrumental in it's creation, who saw the superficial nature of the communication it was intended to enable, but did not foresee it's going viral. The name suggests more about the nature of the communicators, and the "content" they produce than it reveals about the future of journalism.

A while ago a young couple came by the boat, cruising the dock on a fine, lovely day, perhaps one of the last such days of the fall. He was handsome, well dressed. She was luscious, enough to stimulate lecherous notions in a stump. Each was absorbed in their technogadgets, he poking his keyboard furiously, she talking away. They stopped and sat on the curb by the grass. A half hour later, I cruised by on my battery scooter with my grocery cart in tow and a laughing girl on my lap. They never lifted their heads, or broke their focus. They never looked at each other.

Lest you think I'm just a myopic old geezer without the wit to see an emerging phenomenon if it crawled out of the trash and bit him, my friends may explain my recent absence from the scene by the fact that I'm in the midst of learning HTML and CSS, and have almost run out a trial download of Dreamweaver, so I'm busy immersing myself temporarily  in a part of the world Rusbridger talks about, but hopefully as a player learning a tool to communicate.

The most striking thing I've learned so far is how powerfully (and how subtly) these tools filter what can be expressed therein.

I admit to never having received a "tweet". Could it be that my life is richer as a result?

Have you ever wondered about what all those people talk about that is so much more important than the world around them?
He's a fool.

I get calls. Therefore I am.

Could it be that the cellphone-heads are the intellectual heavy hitters of the modern web2 world?

I get tweets. Therefore I am.

PS: What's a really good book on .html and CSS?
These damned tutorials are too narrow- just aint my thing.    

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.

by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Sat Nov 20th, 2010 at 02:46:34 AM EST
What would have been your interpretation had the young couple being engrossed in books?

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Sat Nov 20th, 2010 at 04:24:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Good point.
I think the heart of it is two things: Balance, and content.
There are lots of young people who promenade on the Quai here, who find a comfy spot and neck--or read.
Their choice of what to do on a sunny day, with a pretty girl, on a Paris Quai reveals a lot about them. And perhaps the content they produce.

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.
by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Sat Nov 20th, 2010 at 10:50:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
PS: What's a really good book on .html and CSS?
These damned tutorials are too narrow- just aint my thing.
Look at the www Consortium, they have the html and css standard, and maybe better "tutorial" documents for someone like you.

Also, check out books by O'Reilly: they're written by programmers for programmers.

Of all the ways of organizing banking, the worst is the one we have today — Mervyn King, 25 October 2010

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Nov 20th, 2010 at 04:34:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
A good case can be made that "Twitter" was named by people instrumental in it's creation, who saw the superficial nature of the communication it was intended to enable, but did not foresee it's going viral. The name suggests more about the nature of the communicators, and the "content" they produce than it reveals about the future of journalism.

Does Twitter turn people into twits?

Of all the ways of organizing banking, the worst is the one we have today — Mervyn King, 25 October 2010

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Nov 20th, 2010 at 04:49:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Most everyday conversations are tweets (or animal calls) - short exchanges that can be sociable, informational (often warning) or promoting bonding. Twitterscape is a scaling up.

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Sat Nov 20th, 2010 at 05:37:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It turns them into twitchers. Twitchers serve an entertainment and a scientific purpose. Seeing a new species or behaviour is exciting, so they spend a lot of (waiting) time in known 'active' locations. They have a communication network to alert other twitchers to novelty.

But they also collect other useful data, both ornithological and wider ecological, that can inform scientific studies. They also tend to be habitat preservation activists.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Sat Nov 20th, 2010 at 05:46:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Or might we say that the limits of the medium selects for ---twits-- and then rebrands them as the typical, the modal?

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.
by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Sat Nov 20th, 2010 at 10:52:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
no, twits are attracted to twitter.

mynah birds do it in banyan trees, it's a hell of a racket.

maybe better they all do it somewhere (else) quietly...

attention hounds, the froth on the beer of the internet.

It's a fine line between homage, parody, and consumer opportunism. Jess Walter

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Sun Nov 21st, 2010 at 10:40:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Geez, I understand your pining for the old Gutenberg age, but sadly it is unsustainable and has been 'deeply captured' by an moneyed and ever greedy elite.

We can skype in detail about the reasons why I support the development of the noosphere, but, in simple form: massive peer-to-peer communication will be our ONLY defence against deep capture.

'Science' should be doing defending us, of course, but science is expensive; funding can be manipulated or removed. And is being.

P2P is cheap. P2P is easy. P2P can take 10 idle minutes of time from a million people and create 80 man years of effort. 80 inefficient and duplicated man years, but then our brains seem to function rather well with massive non-linear duplication.

Every new technology brings its Toads of Toad Hall. Instead of despairing, let us work to ensure these new tools are useful to us.


You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Sat Nov 20th, 2010 at 06:28:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter aren't P2P. They're all wholly-owned private networks.

Email isn't P2P. The web isn't P2P.

Currently P2P only exists for file sharing.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sat Nov 20th, 2010 at 07:46:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Currently...

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Sat Nov 20th, 2010 at 08:10:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It's not just currently. In spite of the hype, the Internet is inherently centralised.

I know you dream of great decentralised networks in the sky, but that technology simply doesn't exist yet, and quite possibly never will, for hard physical reasons.

If it does arrive, it will be a very poor relation to the Internet we're used to today. And it will incredibly easy for governments to monitor it and block it - easier than it is to track down sources of printed samizdat.

There will be no great open network without some magical Tesla-like point to point wireless communication technology that doesn't rely on fixed hardware or fixed power.

Such a thing isn't even science fiction at the moment. That's not to say it's impossible, but at the moment it's not even speculatively likely.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sat Nov 20th, 2010 at 10:21:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
WiMax is stalled, but has the potential to create metropolicentric communities that can function without connection to the wider www. They would be cww - citywide webs.

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Sat Nov 20th, 2010 at 11:14:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Actually, p2p mesh networking isn't particularly hard.  I built one with a bunch of nodes over a decade ago (using off the shelf 802.3 and 802.11).  The killer then was latency and network effects (unsurprisingly).  The routing problem is essentially solved.  The problems we ran into were entirely social/political.
by njh on Mon Nov 22nd, 2010 at 11:16:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Packet or streaming data?

Ever since I learnt about confirmation bias I've started seeing it everywhere
by ATinNM on Tue Nov 23rd, 2010 at 04:52:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes. And that's under serious attack.
Twitter is not a P2P communications medium,  it's a powerful filter that reduces reality to--how many characters?

The same is true for the others. I'm not so much pining for a Gutenberg world as I am afraid of the cartoon world that "social media" seem to represent.
And how fragile it really is, and how easily manipulated.

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.

by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Sat Nov 20th, 2010 at 11:00:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
There are no good books about CSS and HTML, because CSS and HTML are so badly designed it's impossible to write a good book about them.

And Dreamweaver is one of my least favourite pieces of software, ever.

If you want to do the webby word thing, start with Wordpress. It's easy to set up, fairly easy to use, and it will give you a working framework for writing of all kinds without the pain of custom web design.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sat Nov 20th, 2010 at 07:36:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Agree about Dreamweaver and Wordpress. I don't do coding, so can't comment on CCS and HTML.

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Sat Nov 20th, 2010 at 07:54:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

"There are no good books about CSS and HTML, because CSS and HTML are so badly designed it's impossible to write a good book about them."

That's about as sensible as saying you can't write a good book about Hitler because he was a bad man - apart from the question of whether HTML and CSS are THAT bad - once more TBG seems to know better than whole teams of people.

It's a good idea to learn HTML at least, it's not that difficult and can be useful in a variety of circumstances, including putting stuff on here.

Some recommendations here:

Top 10 HTML Books for Beginners

http://webdesign.about.com/cs/beginninghtml/tp/aatp_begbooks.htm

And Dreamweaver is one of my least favourite pieces of software, ever.

Another assertion with no reasons. Many others would not agree:


There are many web design software available in the market. Some may be available free of charge but professional tools have to be purchased. Dreamweaver is one of most of the most popular web design software available in the market today.
...
The latest version of the software, Dreamweaver CS series has been regularly voted as the best web design tool for coding and design professionals.

They give some reasons:


Some of the features that make Dreamweaver the leading web design software are discussed below:

... Like other popular Web design software, Dreamweaver provides an easy to use Graphical user interface to help build different pages of a website. With Dreamweaver, a web designer can design a website by dragging and dropping objects as opposed to having to code it from scratch.

Dreamweaver has many built in features that make it relatively easy to design a professional corporate or personal website. It is popular with both, professional web designers as well as non technical users with limited web design and development experience.

...
One of the main reasons behind Dreamweaver's original rise to popularity as a professional web page designing tool, was its introduction of the split view workspace showing both editable layout as well as code view on top of the other. This allowed experienced web designers and developers to be able to edit the code directly in code view while being able to see the design in real-time in the design view.

etc.



If you want to do the webby word thing, start with Wordpress. It's easy to set up, fairly easy to use, and it will give you a working framework for writing of all kinds without the pain of custom web design.


Wordpress isn't perfect for everyone either - though you may not be worried about the commercial aspects noted:

15-benefits-and-limitations-of-wordpresscom-blogs/

http://www.quickonlinetips.com/archives/2007/08/15-benefits-and-limitations-of-wordpresscom-blogs/

But anyway, as I said, I'd recommend learning HTML as it's fairly easy, even for people with no programming background, and can be useful and gives you a satisfying sense of control.

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Sat Nov 20th, 2010 at 09:19:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Link to the bits about Dreamweaver:

http://www.kronikmedia.co.uk/blog/website-design-top-features-of-dreamweaver/1090/

See also:

Adobe's Dreamweaver has been in commercial use for over ten years now, while other's have come and gone Dreamweaver's development and popularity has continued.

As a piece of software it is widely used in professional web design circles, but nevertheless many designers openly discourage its use when writing in forums and blogs.

This is because of its WYSIWYG features. WYSIWYG is an acronym for What You See Is What You Get. This means that the software writes the actual code for you as you write the text or import pictures.

Professional web designers get aggravated about its use not because they feel that it's "cheating", but because the correct way of learning the trade is to look under the bonnet of the website and understand the engine, the code.

However, many people are attracted to the creative possibilities of web design by first using the WYSIWYG features of Dreamweaver. It allows the user to more quickly create something visually tangible rather than just lines of code.

...

http://www.articlesbase.com/internet-articles/do-you-need-dreamweaver-in-order-to-learn-web-design-1 097624.html



Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Sat Nov 20th, 2010 at 09:28:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But, like the popular Powerpoint, the structure of the easy-to-use software also defines how many people will use it badly.

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Sat Nov 20th, 2010 at 09:36:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
For someone who actually knows something about practical web design - unlike Ted, who posts quotes about stuff he has no clue about and no professional experience of - the point about Dreamweaver is that the WYSIWIG features don't actually work correctly.

It doesn't preview CSS properly. Formatting is random, so you need to use an external browser to see what your code really looks like.

And because IE, FF, Safari, Chrome and Opera all use slightly incompatible dialects of HTML and CSS, you need to preview your code in all of them.

Some critical features, like @font-face, don't work at all in Dreamweaver.

The interface sucks too. Professional designers have become used to it, but it's a travesty compared to the ease with which you can do page layout in InDesign or Quark, and it's harder to use than Adobe's old PageMaker.

Wordpress and the other bloggy and forumy platforms keep all of this hidden. So if you try to get hands-on with raw code you're letting yourself in for a world of pain - unless you want to make pages that look like they fell out of the 1990s, which is all basic HTML is good for without CSS.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sat Nov 20th, 2010 at 10:34:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Unlike you, who thinks that his opinion should suffice on just about any subject, I don't rely just on my own opinion. However I have SOME clue, admittedly limited; I did teach myself basic HTML years ago and taught it to media and journalism students for some years and enjoyed showing those who wanted to use progs which generated HTML automatically how you could sometimes cut 10 pages of code to less than one by doing it yourself. I did use Dreamweaver years ago too.  However I didn't just oppose my opinion to yours, hence the reference to such things as:


"The latest version of the software, Dreamweaver CS series has been regularly voted as the best web design tool for coding and design professionals."

This does not mean, of course, that's it's perfect, but it does put your habitual lofty dismissal in context.



And because IE, FF, Safari, Chrome and Opera all use slightly incompatible dialects of HTML and CSS, you need to preview your code in all of them.

This isn't a failing of Dreamweaver itself, and see:

It's a recommended practice to check how web pages look and function in the typical browsers through which your users will be viewing your pages. Dreamweaver offers you easy access to as many as 20 different web browsers.

http://www.guidesandtutorials.com/dreamweaver_tutorial_previewing_pages.html



Some critical features, like @font-face, don't work at all in Dreamweaver.

There's this:

Dreamweaver Extension @Font-Face Code Hints

Adds code hinting for the src and format properties used for the @font-face tag.

Not surprising it's not included given this:


Technologies like Cufon, sIFR, FLIR and @font-face all represent different groups of developers placing bets on what they believe to be the future of web typography.

There is, as of yet, no consensus in this ever-evolving game. All of these methods have perfectly valid arguments both for and against their use.

...

(and this)

Nice post, but bad timing.

Font-Face just announced that they are shutting up shop:

http://www.font-face.com/#google_announcement

http://sixrevisions.com/css/font-face-guide/


The interface sucks too. Professional designers have become used to it ...

Cf the opinion of two reviewers:


One major change from CS3 is the user interface, which has been redesigned to provide a common experience across all of the CS4 apps. There's no question that this is an improvement, but if you're upgrading from CS3, you may not be pleased about having to relearn the interface. Once you get over the shock, though, you're bound to love the ease and familiarity of moving between the various apps.

http://macs.about.com/od/applications/gr/adobe-dreamweaver-cs4.htm



So if you try to get hands-on with raw code you're letting yourself in for a world of pain - unless you want to make pages that look like they fell out of the 1990s, which is all basic HTML is good for without CSS.

Another exaggeration, it doesn't matter that much if you're mainly concerned with putting up text and the primary focus is on content. But I didn't present it as either/or, and the stuff on Wordpress I referred to listed its advantages too. But, given the minor effort it takes to learn HTML it's worth doing, can be useful and gives one some understanding of what goes on. Of course, if one wants to make more of an effort one can go on to CSS - or use Dreamweaver, like so many others, or just leave it to Wordpress.  

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Sat Nov 20th, 2010 at 12:48:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I apologize for dumping this off-topic discussion into your very important diary, Sven, but it relates peripherally, and I really need advice- like both TBG and Ted's insights. Mig, what do you think? Expand a bit?

I accept the reality of web design as it is. No one cares if I like it. And it's genesis is history.

I'm learning html for just the reason you mentioned- I have a visceral need to know what's going on, to see the cogs and gears. As well, "stuff" seems to arise in a WYSIWY interface if you want to deviate from the standard blocky, cluttered text-heavy designs that SEO seems to favor, that needs to be fixed. As yet I don't know enough.  

As well, if I slavishly use their template, then they are filtering- limiting- my content in yet another way.

This relates to Sven's discussion- it's another techno-filter, another whole layer of reality-shifting cogs and gears that if you can't understand- or are too lazy to bother with- will co-opt your stuff. The only way to escape it seems to be through it.
It's a lot for my high-mileage neurons.
(More coffee.)

But for me, twitter seems to have no exit that does not lead, at best, to the world of a bande dessinee without the artwork.

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.

by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Sun Nov 21st, 2010 at 12:34:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Reasons to use twitter - from a medical student:

  1. I can contact fellow medical students and professors easily.

  2. I get answers for my medicine-related questions from educators from around the world.

  3. I get feedback easily so I always post there my ideas and projects.
...

0. I can watch and follow interesting discussions focusing on health, web 2.0 or medicine. I feel I'm in the middle of an active group or community consisting of medical students, patients, doctors, nurses, healthcare lawyers and medical librarians.

http://scienceroll.com/2008/11/01/10-reasons-why-i-use-twitter/



Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Sun Nov 21st, 2010 at 11:43:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
   [W]e came across the word "twitter," and it was just perfect. The definition was "a short burst of inconsequential information," and "chirps from birds." And that's exactly what the product was.
    --Jack Dorsey

Wikipedia. Original concept. But like so much of technology, some combination of marketing and human real needs causes the thing to morph into something much more.

I feel I'm in the middle of an active group or community consisting of medical students, patients, doctors, nurses, healthcare lawyers and medical librarians.

Could he be saying that he feels the lure of, the need of such a community, and twitter is the best that seems to be available?
What might a real community "of medical students, doctors, patients, nurses, healthcare lawyers and medical librarians" consist of? Sounds a lot like a university with teaching hospital to me, or for the working medical professional, a hospital, perhaps.
Sounds like twitter would necessarily act as a powerful filter as well as a discipline, to limit communication to concepts -"twits"- that could be crammed into 140 characters.
As well, twitterworld is safe.

What's interesting to me is that he could "feel a part of a community--" on this basis, which suggests to me an empty place where any richer notion of "community" could once have resided.

And --yes, I hear the refrain, in my own words, "These kids nowadays! What's the world coming to?"
I can answer that.
A place so devoid of a sense of the human community that, according to a recent study, torture is widely seen in the US not as information gathering tactic but as retribution for ---well, unknown evil acts.

(Can't find the link to the last, after a lot of looking. Anyone else read the piece, who owns a working memory?)

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.

by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Sun Nov 21st, 2010 at 11:25:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If ET is a community, why not communities in twitterverse? After all the 140 character limit is only for a single message, nothing is stopping you from sending two or two dozen messages.

A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
by A swedish kind of death on Mon Nov 22nd, 2010 at 03:42:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Geezer - really - think about it; he's a medical student, so presumably part of a local medical/educational community. But with twitter he feels part of a much wider community. You know, just as we are part of local communities, but like the contact through Eurotrib with people in a range of other countries with similar interests - is this a "human community" - not just at meetups ?

Cf his point 2:

I get answers for my medicine-related questions from educators from around the world.

This makes it more likely that he'll get a wider range of feedback - in addition to any that he gets locally:


I get feedback easily so I always post there my ideas and projects.


A place so devoid of a sense of the human community that, according to a recent study, torture is widely seen in the US not as information gathering tactic but as retribution for ---well, unknown evil acts.

See the comment about Eurotrib and "human communities" above - it's  just daft to try to blame such things on the web, twitter, etc. Plenty of traditional "human communities" remain and they're not all bastions of enlightened thinking.

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Mon Nov 22nd, 2010 at 04:04:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Exactly. In many of the Finnish ad agencies and production and post-production houses I visit, many people have IM or iChat open as they work. They don't 'chat', they use it cooperatively to control what is now a harsh deadline process. It's better than shouting. They use twitter for the same purpose when on the move.

I also noted earlier that most of us do not converse in essay form. Like the Conference Theory: that only 20% of the content satisfaction for participants comes from conference speeches - 80% comes from the coffee breaks. And this 'satisfaction' (and information) will be exchanged, live, in spoken sequences of twitter length.

Social networking has been going on since the invention of the campfire. As you rightly point out, the new tools simply connect local communities into bigger networks. But not for celebrity gawgling, to get better information and do their work (and maybe their life) better.

One of the aspects of recent technology that always fascinates me, is the extent to which success is due to the 'misuse' of technology, compared with what the engineers envisaged as the benefits of their product.

I repeat this early Finnish case from the early Nineties: The State-owned Tele (Communications monopoly) was anxious to promote the new SMS service now enabled on mobile device chips. But they saw it as a push service, allowing commerce to 'push' offers and menus and any other bullshit to the mobile phones' potential customers roaming near whatever restaurant or shop was making the offer.

The service languished, making little money for the mobile operators around the world - until teenagers with mobiles but little cash, limited by a maximum monthly bill paid by their parents, discovered cheap texting. For them it was the best way to manage their complex local network.

BTW this phenomenon supposedly sprang up 'spontaneously' around the world. But teenagers were already connected around the world via other media. Any meme spreads like bushfire in this age group.

Another 'misuse' case would be the web pornographers who have driven a lot of  development in site design and services such as graphic file handling and online payments.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Mon Nov 22nd, 2010 at 04:54:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I also noted earlier that most of us do not converse in essay form. Like the Conference Theory: that only 20% of the content satisfaction for participants comes from conference speeches - 80% comes from the coffee breaks.

The founders of google noticed that when they started working together tey got a lot of their ideas while chatting by the refrigerator - so built that sort of thing into the company:


By design each worker is no more than 100 feet from a bathroom or food and drink (at Google the food is always free (and tables are large to encourage interaction) ). This creates an environment where people tend not to go home, which Microsoft discovered and leveraged decades ago. But nobody works every minute they are AT work, which means the Google Geeks are constantly talking with each other, team building, bonding, and goofing off. And for 20 percent of that goofing-off time I'll guarantee you that many of these people are discussing their pet projects, 99.75 percent of which have been REJECTED by the company.

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070524_002134.html



Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Mon Nov 22nd, 2010 at 11:50:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I only know one way to learn to code: Find a good reference work, make a "Hello World" code (i.e. anything that will compile) and look everything else up as and when you need it. If and when you use a particular function often enough, you'll get tired of looking it up all the time and just memorise it.

'Course, I don't code that much, and I don't do graphics at all. So YMMV.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Nov 21st, 2010 at 08:06:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The problem for newcomers is that web design isn't HTML any more, and hasn't been for at least ten years.

Web design now is HTML, CSS, almost certainly some Javascript, and one or more of php, Perl, Flash, and ASP. For anything complicated, like a blog with dates on it, you need at least a content management system that hides all of this away from you - Wordpress, Joomla, and the rest - or balls of steel and a willingness to learn some variant of SQL, in addition to most of the above.

There was a time when you could bodge together web pages with a text editor and an HTML manual.

You can still bodge together HTML pages with a text editor and an HTML manual, but your pages will look like they've been bodged together with a text editor, etc.

A quick trawl around the net shows that most pages look better than this - because they use existing code to do the heavy lifting. Unless you have extra special requirements - and most people don't - it's not worth taking the six months to a year it takes to get fluent in the basics when simpler tools that hide the machinery out of sight are available for free and can be set up in a day or two, leaving you to concentrate on the content.

Wordpress is open source - mostly php, some raw HTML and CSS - and you can customise the files and templates completely if you want to. But reverse engineering the templates and files is a much better starting point than a blank editor page.

And while you're learning what everything does and how to change it, you can be putting up content and letting other people read it.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sun Nov 21st, 2010 at 09:19:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Web design now is HTML, CSS, almost certainly some Javascript, and one or more of php, Perl, Flash, and ASP. For anything complicated, like a blog with dates on it, you need at least a content management system that hides all of this away from you - Wordpress, Joomla, and the rest - or balls of steel and a willingness to learn some variant of SQL, in addition to most of the above.

You have replicated almost exactly my terrifying list of things to learn. At the tail end, I picked javascript, php, and Joomla. Wanna do server-side.

The problem is that, at 68, it goes slower- I will waste years of my remaining time on this- time lost to me and my family. It's a form of theft from them,(they stare at my back) and a dark place to spend a big piece of my time in. Since I have no choice,(gotta do it, can't afford to pay someone else to do it) I need the best low-time-investment system.
 I like the building part. I hate this learning to repair tools and work around their limits.

Wordpress is open source - mostly php, some raw HTML and CSS - and you can customise the files and templates completely if you want to. But reverse engineering the templates and files is a much better starting point than a blank editor page.

Yeah, that is the approach that's emerging from my three weeks with the Dreamweaver demo, three weeks with Kompozer, and the .html and CSS tutorials.
I'll think seriously on what you say.
How is Wordpress superior to Dreamweaver- the fact that it's open source? That certainly matters- Dreamweaver is expensive- but think documentation, code verification, browser testing, accomodating a range of window sizes, ease of use for a relative newbie,---
Which?

Thanks again, TBG and all. I listen.

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.

by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Sun Nov 21st, 2010 at 11:54:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
geezer in Paris:
How is Wordpress superior to Dreamweaver- the fact that it's open source?

Dreamweaver is a tool to build pages from scratch, Wordpress is a platform that gives you a starting format - a blog - that can then be modified. And there is a lot of modifications to learn from, because of the open source license. So it is sort of the difference of getting a lot of car parts and a manual or getting a used car. Either can result in a well-working machine, but most find the latter route easier. (I have not written pages for some years now, so take this with a grain of salt. Stuff changes.)

A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!

by A swedish kind of death on Mon Nov 22nd, 2010 at 03:55:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, that's exactly right.

The bottom line is that you have a working system from day one. You don't need to reinvent the wheel, because someone has already invented the wheel for you.

If Wordpress is too constrained, Joomla and the alternative CMS systems (of which there are many) give you more control over formatting and update tools. Scoop, which powers ET, is one example. (And a dated one, now.)

There are similar off-the-peg solutions for other kinds of web forums, shopping systems, photo galleries, and so on. Most are customisable.

If you start from raw HTML you'll be duplicating many man years of effort to re-solve problems that have already been solved by people who have been coding for years and know the technology backwards.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Nov 22nd, 2010 at 08:58:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Taking on all that doesn't make much sense if you only want some idea of what goes on and if you don't intend to make a (late :-)) career of it. As I said, learning HTML makes sense as it won't take long, gives you some control and idea of what goes on. You could add getting some familiarity with CSS.

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Mon Nov 22nd, 2010 at 04:30:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Already done both. I'm well past the novice stage, with three functional domains. My first, and most amateurish was fairypaths.com --done for my two girls, and to learn on, in Kompozer. But I can see the snowballing complexity, with five linked sites under development, in content management if nothing else.  And, after several careers, it seems I am indeed going to need this knowledge. It's called a "platform", and it's what I can do to help interest a publisher in my writings.
I have confidence in the images, the stories and memoir- it's the process of luring a good agent that's a bitch.
There's more to it, but thanks to all for the advice- I take it seriously.

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.
by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Tue Nov 23rd, 2010 at 07:16:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
but I think you're quite right to learn html, to get a grasp of the medium from the nuts and bolts level.

One technique for learning what works :Look for stuff you like on the web, then do "view source" on it to steal the html, save it, modify it, view the results in your browser. Of course, if it contains lots of images or other specialised media, your stolen html won't actually look any good, but it's very educational.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Mon Nov 22nd, 2010 at 11:45:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks very much, TBG.
So glad to hear someone say this, because that is my growing opinion- that the whole thing was thrown together, then fixed, then the fix was fixed, then another coding system and file system was invented to fix all the fixes on the first thing.
But I'm doing artsy, almost starkly text-free, image-heavy pages, and is wordpress an appropriate machine for that?

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.
by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Sat Nov 20th, 2010 at 11:06:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I expect this from TBG :-) but I would have thought you'd be a bit more understanding and even appreciative of (Brit) Tim Berners Lee's efforts in particular, and the sharing spirit which has become influential:

Creating the world wide web didn't make Tim Berners-Lee instantly rich or famous. In part, that's because the Web sprang from relatively humble technologies. Berners-Lee's invention was based on an information retrieval program called Enquire (named after a Victorian book, Enquire Within upon Everything), which he wrote in 1980 as a contract programmer at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) in Geneva, Switzerland. In part, it's because Berners-Lee did the unthinkable when, more than a decade later, he finished writing the tools that defined the Web's basic structure: he gave them away, with CERN's blessing, no strings attached. While others made millions off his invention, the soft-spoken programmer went on to found the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) at MIT, which he still directs, to promote global Web standards and development.

http://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/13784/

Few things begin in an almost perfect state and the web has come a long way in a fairly short time, with problems of getting a wide range of organisations to agree.

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Sun Nov 21st, 2010 at 12:24:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm not blaming Berners-Lee who did a fine job on the HTML 1.0 spec.

But I am blaming the subsequent scrums and turf wars between Microsoft, Mozilla, Apple and the rest for the fact that web standards aren't particularly standard, and anyone who does professional web design has to write different HTML for every browser.

Meanwhile W3C was soon taken over by academics who think very, very slowly, and should never have been allowed anywhere near web standards.

HTML5 is the Next Big Thing. Work started in 2004, but W3C are currently saying it's going to be at least another two or three years before the standard is standardised. A working standard is due in 2012, but the final, official standardised standard may not appear until 2022.

By which time everyone will have created their own semi-compatible versions again, and the official standard will be semi-ignored - just as it was with earlier versions of HTML and CSS.

This is not a good way to organise these things.

In comparison Berners-Lee co-published a paper about HTML 1.0 in November of 1990, and had a working version before Christmas.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sun Nov 21st, 2010 at 09:38:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"I'm not blaming Berners-Lee who did a fine job on the HTML 1.0 spec."

Well, you did say:

"the whole thing was thrown together" - which has a slightly different tone :-)


But I am blaming the subsequent scrums and turf wars between Microsoft, Mozilla, Apple and the rest for the fact that web standards aren't particularly standard

Well, yes, these things happen when lots of money and the kind of egos which run big companies are involved.


Meanwhile W3C was soon taken over by academics who think very, very slowly, and should never have been allowed anywhere near web standards.

Oh please - silly generalisation - many academics think very fast and arguably the increasing publish or perish context means that many don't take enough time to think things through. In France there is often a somewhat more academic (trad sense) approach in technology and so they tend more to try to get things perfect, while the US approach is more: get out something that is working and then improve it. I thought you were complaining about the latter "throw it together and patch it up" approach :-)

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Mon Nov 22nd, 2010 at 04:42:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
any thoughts on Rapid Weaver?

It's a fine line between homage, parody, and consumer opportunism. Jess Walter
by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Sun Nov 21st, 2010 at 10:40:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The culture of narcissism and consumerism arose long before twitter. Web 2.0 "democratized" both - now everyone can be a mini rock star and an entrepreneur if you know how to play the game. No money or social access needed.

Twitter got big when a few sports and movie figures started using it. It has had marginal success in taking out the media as a middleman, and in sports journalism, this has destabilized the dynamic of journalists "looking for a sensational scoop" that will get eyeballs and sell advertising, with the sports stars on the other side speaking "professionally" to make sure they don't get said scoops. The non-information conveying ritual of the post-game interview can transform from "we failed to execute our game plan" to a tweet on the order of "the refs were shit and I played like shit too."

I at least get an emotional connection with the latter. Of course we're still wired for spectacle and the centralized media is still king of the hill, so this doesn't happen very often, as the media is simply going to take a tweet like that and spin it into a sensational story and the public will talk about it.

To me this is all of marginal interest - this culture is far too powerful to change in a meaningful way before we experience some involuntary decomplexification and decentralization.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Sat Nov 20th, 2010 at 09:14:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I find the discussion of twitter most interesting
We should understand what Tumblr or Flipboard or Twitter are all about - social media so new they're not even yet Hollywood blockbusters.

...

  1. It's an amazing form of distribution

  2. It's where things happen first

  3. As a search engine, it rivals Google

  4. It's a formidable aggregation tool

  5. It's a great reporting tool

  6. It's a fantastic form of marketing

  7. It's a series of common conversations

  8. It's more diverse

  9. It changes the tone of writing

  10. It's a level playing field

  11. It has different news values

  12. It has a long attention span

  13. It creates communities

  14. It changes notions of authority

  15. It is an agent of change


Of all the ways of organizing banking, the worst is the one we have today — Mervyn King, 25 October 2010
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Nov 20th, 2010 at 04:24:50 AM EST
Some of these are true. Others aren't. A lot of these claims are made whenever any new technology arrives. (E.g. email.)

Twitter is online flash-mobbing. It's useful because it's currently trending, sort of mobile-friendly, and mostly ad free.

It's not The Messiah, any more than the web is.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sat Nov 20th, 2010 at 07:39:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Gutenburg bid on and won a Church contract, and for a another 400 years book publishing was like Arpanet, for dissemination within an elite.

The publicly accessible web is less than 2 decades old, SMS a little older. Twitter is 4 years old. And in spite of the exponential shortening of development and spread times, we are at the very beginning and neither you or I can know how this will all pan out.

But I completely disagree with your implication that the web (and all P2P) is not a phase shift in all human behaviour. It's the biggest and best tool for democracy we've ever had - so far.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Sat Nov 20th, 2010 at 08:08:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And yet - they've become prominent at the same time as the discourse has shifted to the far right.

Blogging about policy is not the same as setting policy. Technology is a nice shiny toy, but it doesn't change the fact that in politics either you're setting policy, or someone else is.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sat Nov 20th, 2010 at 09:05:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Indeed: it is causal. The shift rightwards is a direct consequence of the exposure of what has previously been fairly hidden for the least few hundred years. The elitist way of life perceives a threat and reacts.

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Sat Nov 20th, 2010 at 09:34:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Please develop this idea further.

Of all the ways of organizing banking, the worst is the one we have today — Mervyn King, 25 October 2010
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Nov 20th, 2010 at 10:32:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Has not the rightshift been going on since the early 80ies?

A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
by A swedish kind of death on Sat Nov 20th, 2010 at 02:10:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It probably began in 1970 with Watergate and a year later with the Pentagon Papers - at a time when the msm still did investigative journalism. These were, imo, the seeds that grew into buds in 1985 with The Well. The wide availability of community tools took another decade - with the launch of Netscape.

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Sat Nov 20th, 2010 at 04:07:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"Working on the rightshift,
singing those Epistemic Closure blues.
Working on the rightshift,
spend the money so we won't lose."

Ever since I learnt about confirmation bias I've started seeing it everywhere
by ATinNM on Sat Nov 20th, 2010 at 04:35:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think the rightshift began right after FDR passed the central legislation in the "New Deal", and the oligarchs of the time realized just how close a brush with disempowerment they had just had, and that if FDR succeeded, their ass was toast.

I gre up in a community in Ohio where the devil and FDR were indistinguishable.

The attempt to recapture the initiative focused on Union suppression and media capture.
Both worked.

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.

by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Sat Nov 20th, 2010 at 11:22:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes. Please enlarge on this concept, Sven.

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.
by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Sat Nov 20th, 2010 at 11:14:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Let me join the chorus and say I think this is a great insight that I hope you'll develop further.

I'd note that the desire to be open about what is currently hidden is driving the political communication systems. Here in the US the big shift came in the 1980s when conservative talk radio emerged - it was (and is) a low-tech, top-down transmission model. But it also resembles Twitter or blogs in that it enabled communications - people could call in and share their thoughts and have those thoughts validated.

That was extremely important for the right, whose values and narratives had been systematically excluded from the media since the late 1940s. They wanted to bring out what was hidden. Whereas John Birch Society tracts never got a wide audience, the reader of those tracts, Glenn Beck, gets an enormous audience primarily through talk radio. The right's TV presence came only after the talk radio model was proven financially successful, and talk radio still serves to develop new right-wing talent.

The left felt - quite incorrectly as it turned out - that the media was on their side during this time, the 1980s and 1990s. When the left finally realized the truth - that their perspective was being systematically excluded from the media - during the buildup to the invasion of Iraq in 2002-03, they already had at their fingertips the digital tools to start getting their own messages out and prevent them from being hidden.  

And the world will live as one

by Montereyan (robert at calitics dot com) on Sun Nov 21st, 2010 at 06:04:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think a huge problem for the left is the identification of politics with debate.

Talking about stuff is not the same as setting policy. dKos is still, after all these years, full of posts shrieking that someone has discovered a right-winger lying.

They don't understand that lying is policy and strategy for the right. It's not a moral aberration, nor is it shocking - shocking! - evidence of hypocrisy.

It's the foundation of what the right does, because the right knows that it's a good way to get closer to power.

The first step to setting policy is to capture the debate - define what people are talking about, and why.

Twitter is bad for this because it's transient. Talk radio is good for it because you can repeat the same points over and over and over and over, and you can also create social proof and an illusion of participation.

When you combine that with right wing fundiegelical church going, you have a closed mental system that's very difficult to break into.

Twitter on its own certainly won't do it. Nor will web forums. Saturation MSM coverage will do it, but it's not practical and not affordable.

So the best the left can hope for is high profile story creation for the MSM, and the appearance of non-partisan issue-based outreach for indie voters.

Charismatic leadership wouldn't hurt either.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Nov 22nd, 2010 at 09:09:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Rusbridger, in a way, answers the problem of his organization although he doesn't come right out and say it:

In the Web 2.0 world the profit stream is in being a gateway a "a network node equipped for interfacing with another network[s]" and/or an aggregator of a "a specific type of information from multiple online sources."  What these two have in common is a gathering of sufficient number of eyeballs so an advertiser will purchase 'real estate' on the website.  It's not quite the Broadcast TV Revenue Model since there is two fundamental differences:

  1.  The Web 2.0 Model is better in that the people using the Gateway or Aggregator can be 'self-selected,' in some manner, and thus more likely to be interested in the product(s)

  2.  The Web 2.0 Model is worse in that advertisers have a much harder time reaching outside the 'self selection' market niche.  

Further, the Information Revolution of the microcomputer has allowed (2003 data) approximately 50,000,000 books-worth of data to be published each year and with the advent of the social media, YouTube, the rise of the "professional blog-a-sphere," in their various manifestations, and so on a defensible 2010 estimate would put the number at 100,000,000 books-worth of data per year.

And the number is still growing.

Our ability to publish data, and I'll get to the difference between data and Information in a moment, has created, in the University of Berkeley's phrase, a Data Avalanche.  Pragmatically we are in a situation where you can find anything about anything if only you can find it.  Example, using "irish bank crisis" as the Google search terms I received 1,430,000 results from their "Web" Search Category, 1,280,000 results from their "Image" Search Category, 308 results from "Video," and 7,050 results from "News."  At an average of 10 seconds per result it would take me 51.7 years to traipse through this potential Informationbase to qualify it to an actual Informationbase -- where "actual" is defined as "relevant to what I care about finding out."

And it would take MORE time to sieve through the Actual Informationbase to find the Information ... the Answer(s) I'm Looking For.

Data is the 'raw stuff' of Information.  Data is turned into Information when it is processed by time, context, relevance, Knowledge obtained during the search, & blah-blah.  Finding a website, switching gears, that informs me Willard Quine discusses Truth in terms of:

Truth and satisfaction; Satisfaction by sequences; Tarski's definition of truth; Paradox in the object language; Resolution in set theory.

doesn't do a bit of good if I don't know, example, what Tarski's definition of Truth was.  To find out Google gives me 259,000 results to wade through (~ 4.9 years-worth of hits.)  "Paradox in the object language" has 270,000 hits, and so on.  

This gives rise to the interesting situation that I can easily and quickly find Information on the Web IFF I already know, in some vague sense, the answer.  Implying the Web 2.0 is more an Aide-mémoire than anything else.

Along with this, the sheer volume of sites on Web 2.0 results, practically, in the user ending up in Epistemic Closure¹ using or going to sites previous qualified by achieving "satisfaction," emotive or otherwise.  People use Wikipedia, or go to European Tribune for that matter, because it is a "trusted" source of Information or, putting it as rudely as possible, the user adheres to the Group Think of the site.

And we cycle back to Gateways and Aggregators.

As lousy as it is functionally, Google made $2.2 billion last quarter off the number of eyeballs they accumulated.  I concede Google IS better than anything else out there; in the Kingdom of the Blind someone with a white cane is Emperor.

This is where the Trad-Media has a leg-up.  They've already got the infrastructure to produce the product.  They've already got an audience they, such as the Guardian, can flip into becoming a trusted Gateway for news.  Hulu.com is a site the major US networks have constructed to allow people to access, for a fee, their broadcast programming.  One can go down the list of companies in different media markets that are trying, however ineptly, to cash-in on the potential audience.  

So far the Trad-Media have been relatively inept at capturing Web market-share.  At some point, if nothing intervenes, they will 'get over' themselves by restructuring their Business Model to fit the Web environment.  Which is, as I've been arguing, is to stop thinking of themselves as a One-to-Many, e.g., News, provider so much as a Many-to-One Gateway and Aggregator.

¹  One's command of available Languages on the Web is itself a major promoter of Epistemic Closure.  How many times has anyone linked to a site written in Chinese 'round here?

Ever since I learnt about confirmation bias I've started seeing it everywhere

by ATinNM on Sat Nov 20th, 2010 at 02:36:50 PM EST
Valuable insight.

Rusbridger talks about the equivalence of licence fee subsidy (BBC) v advertising subsidy (commercial media). What he doesn't mention is the 'subsidy' of community. Or what we do here on a small scale.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Sat Nov 20th, 2010 at 03:55:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Valuable insight.

Thank you.

I will observe if my observations are valuable ..."this gun for hire."  I can be had.  ;-)

Re: Advertising versus Subsidy

Advertising is a known process and AFAIK the only income stream outside direct payment to the ISP Gatekeepers a media company can realize.

Subsidy ... I haven't given much thought to.  In Theory and Practice people are willing to 'give of themselves' to a site in which they place their trust and/or perceived need.  dKos is of the former, Wikipedia the latter.  Tens of thousands of people have been spent hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of "man-hours" making the sites what they are.  As the "initial acceptors" piled on it made each site more valuable for each individual to continue to subsidize with their time and work as well as expanding the user community.  As good as that is, dKos depends on advertising to make a profit, Wikipedia rejected outside advertising, concentrating on direct contributions from their user-base.

I don't know the subsidy "market," outside of direct infusion of cash, for sites like - oh, say - the Nordic Council's.  Stupidly, they don't have a User Forum, that I can find, so it's hard to get a grip on how successful, or not, they are in attracting eyeballs.  This is very common on governmental or quasi-governmental websites, indicating to me they still don't Get It.

The BBC is the Poster Child for a government subsidized organization that has managed to Make the Leap - for a given value of "Make" and "Leap" - but they've done it before with the Radio-to-TV change over.  Possibly there's some degree of Institutional Memory?  (I won't write "Flexibility" lest some valued contributors 'round here with much more experience with the Beeb than I have gang up to beat the crap outta me!  LOL)

Seems to me people are willing to freely "subsidize" sites with their knowledge, labor, and time while simultaneously holding on tightly to their cash.  Leading to a bit of a conundrum: users will "pay" to make the site worthwhile but they won't pay to keep the site running.    

Ever since I learnt about confirmation bias I've started seeing it everywhere

by ATinNM on Sat Nov 20th, 2010 at 04:33:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
All of these issues reduce to a common one - social sponsorship of valuable activities.
by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sat Nov 20th, 2010 at 05:03:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
yes, but public, private, or both-at-once?

It's a fine line between homage, parody, and consumer opportunism. Jess Walter
by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Sun Nov 21st, 2010 at 10:42:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Along with this, the sheer volume of sites on Web 2.0 results, practically, in the user ending up in Epistemic Closure¹ using or going to sites previous qualified by achieving "satisfaction," emotive or otherwise.  People use Wikipedia, or go to European Tribune for that matter, because it is a "trusted" source of Information or, putting it as rudely as possible, the user adheres to the Group Think of the site.

I'm on the edge of my understanding here, but working from the Wiki definition of Epistemic Closure, it seems to me that your proposition above explains in part why I am so uneasy with the micro-world of the twit- the risk of just ending up in another self-congratulatory club-think corner. It's that long, fragile chain of "entailment" that, with each link, reduces the usefulness for me.

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.

by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Sat Nov 20th, 2010 at 11:42:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
twitter is perfect for today's average attention span.

real friends are hard to find, but hey, how many virtual ones can you pick up on facebook?

it's a popularity contest! how many tweeters 'follow' me is a direct evaluation of my ability to info-tain them.

woo woo

or you could look at it as techno-haiku, a constraint that's a challenge. personally i find it as shallow and dull as it gets, but i could change...

and become as shallow and dumb, maybe i am already, but don't know it yet, lol.

drain bamage...

It's a fine line between homage, parody, and consumer opportunism. Jess Walter

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Sun Nov 21st, 2010 at 08:15:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Maybe you should look at Rusbridger's arguments - which go beyond attention-span cliches. In fact the tweets can link to much longer documents and discussion and argument does go on.

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Sun Nov 21st, 2010 at 11:35:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
the micro-world of the twit- the risk of just ending up in another self-congratulatory club-think corner

Yes.  In that people tend to high-value communications confirming their existing beliefs.

No.  In that the structure of Twitter, as I understand it, allows messages and links to challenge existing beliefs.

Maybe.  Developments in Mathematics (Sureal Numbers, which I don't yet fully grasp, BTW), Game Theory, and Network Theory, inter-related as they are, indicate some "nodes," point sources, of communication are more important than others.  In some cases this is the originator of the communication, in others it is the position of the communicator in the network.

To make things even more fun, Power Laws inform us sometimes a communication starting way over on the right of the scale:

can be propagated through the network, becoming more affective or important than those - call it - structurally or previously important.  

Any message from any source has the potential to "Go Viral," quickly spreading through the network.  Of these a very, very, few can restructure the network itself either by eliminating or creating critical nodes.  In general the more 'robust' the network, either by design or happenstance, the less likely a message from 'the far right' :-) will cause this to occur.

As you rightly point-out, the form of the message(s) is also a critical factor.  In general the shorter the message the more likely it is to reinforce and propagate through existing nodes and intra-node communication.  

One last thing, networks can and do re-structure themselves when a sufficiently affective or attractive - in terms of numbers of links - new node "pops in."  There any number of reasons for this, as well.  As an example, Stephen Fry became an important node in the Twitter network due to his fame and prestige acquired from his TV and other mass media work.  

"What the devil does this all mean?," I hear you ask.  (LOL)

Most of the time, most of the messages transmitted through the Twitter network as it exists reinforcing existing beliefs and the existing network.  Every now and then a message ripples through the network invoking and causing change in beliefs (although that's a VERY low probability!) and/or the network.  Given the messages passed via Twitter are 140 characters the communication medium itself tends to structural robustness of the existing nodes and  communication through the network.  

Thus, change, however defined, CAN happen.

It probably won't.

Ever since I learnt about confirmation bias I've started seeing it everywhere

by ATinNM on Sun Nov 21st, 2010 at 01:54:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]