Category Archives: Communications, Connection, Internet, Web, Media

Jason Calacanis: “No one is blocking anyone, no one is in a position of power, it’s flat”

Posted on by

Jason Calacanis: Noted:

Jeff has a great tag on exploding newspapers. I’ve been thinking about newspapers a lot since Dan Gillmor’s journalism event at Harvard 10 days ago. In another 18-24 months newspapers are gonna hit the bottom and I think I’m gonna swoop in and try and buy one, build out the online portion, and buy a local TV station to go with it. Newspapers are not dead, they just have another purpose in life. “I’m watching you” guys (say in DeNiro voice from Meet the Parents/Fockers while pointing the piece symbol into your eyes for extra effect :-).

Filled under “hello?!?!” — there is no A, B, or C list in the blogosphere people. There is your list, my list, and the entire list. No one is blocking anyone, no one is in a position of power, it’s flat… you can do whatever you want–stop crying about it and post something interesting.

Jay Rosen posted a comment about Philadelphia, to which I added (with minor edits):

Indeed, Philly is a place to be. I invited you to an unconference having to do with this a while back. I have hopes for great things.

On the “blogosphere is flat” myth, that was popped a long time ago by Clay Shirky, in the same piece in where he described the Long Tail of the web.

If you are a believer in the long tail concept, you gotta accept its core tenet – power laws present themselves on the web. Those in the head end get far, far more influence and attention then in the tail. And the tail is mighty long indeed. The flip side of “The Long Tail” is that this is perfectly acceptable. In fact, it represents an opportunity.

The web empowers niches – communities of interest – to flourish. You can target a niche in the tail and do well very well there. A consequence of having zero shelving space and technologies that make it easy for those seeking out their passions and concerns, no matter how out of the *current* mainstream, to find them.

I think you know this however, so why perpetuate the myth?

Nicholas Carr: “blog-peasants could hear the sounds of a great feast inside the castle walls”

Posted on by

Trodding a path that’s been well walked before, Nicholas Carr posts an eloquent piece for those tho think the web is their way to fame and fortune.

I had this to say in his comments:

People blog for different reasons, not only to be influential. Lets set this down as a rule of fact okay? Without acknowledging it, those on both sides of this debate are raising up straw men to knock down.

Most people I know who blog don’t care about being influential, they just want a way to be heard by the friends, family, co-workers – their own social community. They want a chance to define who and what they are.

I’ve heard countless times, from folks, who I’ve tried to convince to start a blog, “I have nothing to say to the world.”

Fact is, no one knows that, but at least you have an additional way of communicating that acts as a journal, as a memory extension, as a piece of identity.

Nick, this is a well written piece, poetic even, but I don’t know so much if people fall for the story line of “have a blog, reach millions” anymore.

I’ve had pretty intense discussions with folks like Jeff Jarvis over the existence of the A-List, usually well supported by Clay Shirky’s piece “Power Laws. Weblogs, and Inequality”.

Where I’ve distinguished myself is with a nuanced view that people, like you, like Seth, like the great writers he mentions who I read everyday, who I consider friends, don’t want to agree with (understandable since they have purer hearts then mine…)

Sure the A-list exists. It’s human nature. Within any social system such influence scales emerge. Not only is there an A-List – there are multiple A-Lists within topic spaces.

And there is nothing you can do about it. Nothing.

Kent’s piece about equating blogging to songwriting (I play guitar) is apt for a great many people that have some internal drives towards becoming famous or influential (like Seth and like me, but less so). And like any musician, if you have a goal to be influential, you need to do more then practice your art, you need to make a spectacle of it, spread word of it, find people to spread word of it, market the shit out of it. The web changes nothing on that score. It’s hurts the heart a bit if you are an idealist that believes that valuable hard work alone should earn you the influence you desire. But it’s part of our existence. Online and off.

Those who deny it have something their selling. On both sides of the fence.

For most people, the vast majority of folks, the A-List issue, it doesn’t matter – it’s about friends, family, co-workers – their own social community. And no A-Lister is keeping me from reaching them. From being heard by them.

The magic of blogging, and the danger, that is rarely discussed, is that this sharing is done in what danah boyd calls the “super public”. By sharing our passions, concerns, our lives in a public space, the opportunity presents itself that we may be heard outside of our sphere of life. When that happens, sometimes it’s magic. Influence, sometimes follows. But more exciting is that sometimes, even new friendships are made.

Nuance sucks don’t it? And if your goal is to be influential – it gets you nowhere fast.

Let me add that by sharing in the “super public”, you sometimes contribute to a store house of knowledge that can be a resource for others. I’ve found a solutions to a programming problems from a blogs countless times. And I am thankful for it.

Citizen Journalists at Louis Kahn Memorial Park and at Logan Airport – opportunities for local newspapers

Posted on by

Dan Gillmor says Doc Searls committed an act of journalism, even if he wasn’t a journalist, when he posted his report from Logan Airport . Albert Yee, in Philadelphia, attended a community meeting on violence at Louis Kahn Memorial Park and and reported on the experience and the event itself. A powerful example of the same.

As Dan said of Doc, “He witnessed something and told the rest of us what he was seeing. It’s ordinary, but also extraordinary in the meaning for society in the long run.”. Indeed I believe that to be the case. But there is two ways of reading these acts of journalism. You can look at them as threats to ‘the establishment’, revolutionary examples of why we no longer need paid journalists and editors filtering the news for us. Or you can look at them as opportunities. Opportunities for paid journalists and editors to expand their role as as news gatherers. What if paid journalists and editors opened their horizons and looked outside their newsrooms to look for, discover, and empower those voices that wanted to contribute reports like Doc’s and Albert’s to a paper, or didn’t realize it’s a possibility?

Services like Inform.com and Technorati enable this on one level. Witness how WashingtonPost.com uses Technorati to expand coverage and discussion on their articles. But what if an editor at a paper was proactive in seeking out these acts of journalism? Using toolsets that enabled them to pull together reporting and opinions from across the blogosphere and to connect with those who have already contributed something? What if?

“7 Reasons the 21st Century is Making You Miserable”

Posted on by

A terrifc, biting essay, that I wish I wrote: 7 Reasons the 21st Century is Making You Miserable: I’m just going to quote number seven, because it helps point to why I do some of the crazy things I do online, make sure to read the whole thing:

7. We feel worthless because we actually are worth less.

There’s one advantage to having mostly online friends, and it’s one that nobody ever talks about:

They demand less from you.

Sure, you emotionally support them, comfort them after a breakup, maybe even talk them out of a suicide. But knowing someone in meatspace adds a whole, long list of annoying demands. Wasting your whole afternoon helping them fix their computer. Going to funerals with them. Toting them around in your car every day after theirs gets repossessed by the bank. Having them show up unannounced when you were just settling in to watch the Dirty Jobs marathon on the Discovery channel and then talk about how hungry they are until you finally give them half your sandwich.

You have so much more control in AOL Messanger, or in chat, or in World of Warcraft.

But here’s the thing. You are hard-wired by evolution to need to do things for people. Everybody for the last five thousand years seemed to realize this and then we suddenly forgot it in the last few decades. We get suicidal teens and scramble to teach them self-esteem. Well, unfortunately, self-esteem and the ability to like yourself only come after you’ve done something that makes you likable. You can’t bullshit yourself. If I think Todd over here is worthless for sitting in his room all day, drinking and playing video games, doesn’t it follow that I’m worthless for doing the same thing?

It doesn’t matter what you tell yourself, or what slogans you memorize about how everyone is special. You’ll think of yourself as special when you do something special. If you think of yourself as special prior to actually doing something special, you’re not healthy and well-balanced. You’re a narcissist, disconnected from reality.

You want to break out of that black tar pit of self-hatred? Brush the black hair out of your eyes, step away from the computer, and buy a nice gift for someone you loathe. Send a card to your worst enemy. Make dinner for Mom and Dad. Or just do something simple, with an tangible result. Go clean the leaves out of the gutter and listen to the sound of the free-flowing water the next time it rains.

It ain’t rocket science; you are a social animal and thus you are born with little happiness hormones that are released into your bloodstream when you see someone else benefitting from your actions. You can line up for yourself a spread of your favorite liquor, your favorite video game, your favorite movie and your favorite sex act, and the sum total of them won’t give you the same kind of lasting happiness you’d get from helping the cranky old lady down the street drag her garbage to the curb.

This is why office jobs make so many of us miserable; you don’t get to see the fruit of your labor. But work construction out in the hot sun for two months, and for the rest of your life you can drive past a certain house and say, “holy shit, I built that.”

That level of satisfaction, the “I built that” or “I grew that” or “I fed that guy” or “I made these pants” feeling, can’t be matched by anything the internet has to offer.

Except, you know, this website.

Chris Bowers: “Viral Marketing Versus a Mega-Conglomerate”

Posted on by

A cross post from Philly Future yesterday….

Chris touched on something big in his post on today’s primary in Connecticut – today will be a test of how well the web works to shorten the distance between someone who is selling something, in this case a politician, and consumers/participants, in this case voters. The Ned Lamont campaign’s use of viral marketing (Internet campaigning), while suffering some faults and trip-ups as any political campaign does, should be looked at as a case study in how to connect people to causes they care about and generating buzz.

Last year I had no idea who Ned Lamont was. And if it wasn’t for the web – I doubt few in Philadelphia would be so concerned, let alone the entire country. But here we are. Think about it.

So let the talk of partisanship and division wash over you for a second. Partisanship and division in politics and within political parties isn’t all that new is it?

What *is* new (well at least was long missing) and is very, very heartening, is the infectious enthusiasm and growth of a politically aware and involved public.

That has to be celebrated. No matter the outcome.

In a similar vein, go read Richard Cranium at The All Spin Zone: “In Connecticut – America Wins”.

And um… go Ned Lamont!

… and Lamont wins!

A note from Shelley:

Lieberman stood for something once upon a time. Whatever it was he stood for, though, was lost in the 9/11 attacks. He lost his perspective, and now he�s lost the race. Running as an independent, as he has threatened, just shows that he�s about to lose the one thing left: his dignity.

On the other hand, the �people� weren�t entirely the winners, as has been proclaimed. The Lieberman challenger, Lamont, may have made effective use of the grassroots to run his compaign, but he also made a great deal of use of his personal wealth. He wasn�t exactly one of the little people.

Still, hopefully this will shake up the Dems enough to force the party into something other than Republican Light.

Jeff Jarvis: “It�s not about them v. us, as Nick Lemann would have it. It�s about them and us.”

Posted on by

Jeff Jarvis makes a point I agree with, but I’m afraid not many look at it this way, at least not yet:

The Times has two good stories today that were both helped by the work of bloggers. I don’t say that at blog triumphalism or as a war cry of bloggers replacing journalists. Quite the contrary, I say that because these are the sorts of examples of networked journalism at work that I hope we’ll be seeing more and more.

…It’s not about them v. us, as Nick Lemann would have it. It’s about them and us. The more we work together, the more informed society will be. It is a good thing for journalism that there are now more people than ever doing journalism and these are just two small illustrations of that.

I replied (paraphrased) in his comments:

Wish the rhetoric from the community that spread word of the doctored photos shared your way of looking at things.

Because they don’t you know. And maybe it’s from their rallying cries that the Lemanns of the world derive their fear and concern from.

Mathew Ingram: “Is AOL to blame, or is privacy dead?”

Posted on by

I’d say it’s dead Mathew. And that most folks just don’t realize it unless it personally impacts them.

Case in point, this article in CNet has it all wrong on how to protect yourself. It’s not your IP address that gives you away. No amount of cloaking can help you when it’s what you type that identifies you. As this NYTimes article proves.

Oh, and want to unlock your kid’s profile on MySpace, there’s a way now.

As Mr. Edelson, of Stealth Ideas says, It’s not like you�re stealing a key out of their drawer and reading their diary,� says Mr. Edelson. �This is public information.”

That’s the way a whole lot of people and organizations seem to feel about the information we unknowingly devulge everyday.

Become a beta tester for Comcast’s new Webmail

Posted on by

If you’re a Comcast.net user, you can click here to sign up to participate in a beta program for our new Webmail. It’s far easier to use, with a cleaner interface, and new functionality.

And speaking of something interesting, check out this search interface. Try typing in a long query for fun.

Oh, and if you’re into widgets, we have one for the fan.

It’s true I normally avoid talking about what I do at work, but Webmail is a special case since the beta program is limited to a small number of participants and the other efforts are up on labs. Get-a-clicking and leave feedback for us.

“Don’t believe BusinessWeek’s Bubble Math”

Posted on by

37Signals: Don’t believe BusinessWeek’s bubble-math:

This week’s BusinessWeek cover story features a beaming Kevin Rose from Digg. Across his chest it says “How this kid made $60 million in 18 months.” Wow, now that sounds like a great success story.

Too bad it’s a blatent lie. BusinessWeek knows it….

…So why are you writing about an 18-month old company that took $2.5 million to be “finally be flush with enough cash to pay salaries, rent an office, and keep employees in standard startup snacks like Twizzlers and Vitamin Water.” If BusinessWeek wants to say it only takes $50 and an internet connection to be the next mogul they may want to cite a valid example. It’s certainly possible, but Digg isn’t that example.

via the Bb Gun