To be clear...
15:18 Monday, 12 February 2007
Words: 187
I'm no more "opposed" to commerce than I am to breathing.
I am opposed to the unchecked expansion of commercial activity at the expense of social and political activities. Markets are not conversations, because conversations are a social activity, not a commercial one. But if you tell people markets are conversations, then it stands to reason that conversations are for sale.
We're in no danger of losing our heads, what else would marketers have to market to? No, we're in danger of losing the notion that life means something more than an economic calculation or a commercial transaction.
Commerce would have us buy a product and that meets all of our social needs; and politics, well, that would all simply be outsourced. John Robb often mentions the rise of the market-state. This is not a thing to be welcomed, I think.
If things go on as the enablers, facilitators and apologists (i.e. the Cluetrain™ crowd) would have them go on, then someday Douglas Adams will be proven correct, the meaning of life is "42."
We'll just be arguing about the currency it's expressed in.
No Comment
20:50 Sunday, 12 February 2006
Words: 302
I wished to respond to a post on Hugh MacLeod's Gaping Void weblog, but when I tried to post my comment I got this helpful error message:
Oh Dear! It seems my comment spam filter doesn't like what you wrote... probably one of the words you used is also used a lot by spammers, and therefor has been banned. Just type in the word "test" and enter, to see if it's working, and it should be fine.
Type in the word "test" where, exactly? To see if what's working? I'm baffled. I have no idea what word is causing the problem.
Here's what I tried to post, at least it'll appear here. It's probably important to read the preceding comments to understand this one, so my apologies for the non sequitur nature of this post. If someone could bring it to the relevant parties' attention, I'd be most grateful:
"If that voice becomes influential, then great. If not, then does it matter?"
It matters if it's right.
The problem is that what's right is often not what's popular.
Popular is usually more influential.
Always charming, Shel and Hugh, to see reasoned criticism dismissed as "whining," and "unfair" at that, with an implied criticism that he's just doing it for the attention. Well done, gentlemen. Is it just me, or is there something "unfair" about that? Should I wait for the rest of the blogosphere to rush to Seth's defense here, or is it just going to be me?
Lest anyone think I'm part of some "sour grapes" crowd, I don't track my traffic, have no means to check and I don't care. I punch above my weight because I don't agree with many of the popular myths framing the debate, not because I desire attention from legions of people I'll never meet.
Balls of Brass, Feet of Clay
19:47 Sunday, 12 February 2006
Words: 227
The tag line of this weblog is a line from the movie Groundhog Day. It's there for a reason, as a reminder to myself.
There are a lot of people who write about how to make the world a better place, who can expound at length about the changes technology brings that will allow people, "empower" them is the word of choice, to realize more of their potential than ever before.
But what is our potential?
We talk about "smart mobs" and "the wisdom of the crowd," and somehow in the popular conception of those ideas is lost the notion that sometimes mobs aren't smart and crowds are often downright unwise. Of course, the word "mob" usually meant something ugly, and it was existence of new technology that permitted Howard Rheingold to embrace that startling juxtaposition.
I know a few things, rather, I've learned a few things in recent years, and I've tried to share some of them here. I'd like to think I have few illusions. I don't believe I'm making the world a better place by writing whatever I happen to write here. What I write here has no power to make the world a better place, and it would be an ego-centric conceit of the first order to believe that it did.
The only times I make the world a better place is
What goes around, comes around...
12:36 Sunday, 12 February 2006
Words: 96
I'm not sure what it may be an indication of, but there does seem to be something ironic about Jon Garfunkel's 14,000 word series entitled The New Gatekeepers, published last May, being displaced in its Google rank by Tristan Louis' roughly 1200 word post (6000 characters according to Smultron) post of the same name.
Is the "authority" of the "new gatekeepers" pushing Tristan ahead of Jon?
Or is it just the "meritocracy" of the blogosphere?
Beats me, but I don't use scare quotes for nothing.
This'll Be Good Too
06:13 Sunday, 12 February 2006
Words: 1457
Dan Gillmor had replied to Frank Paynter's post at his weblog. He does not respond to Seth Finkelstein's post, dispelling any obligation to do so with this:
Frank, notwithstanding his disclaimer, Seth's comments strike me as classic "When did you stop beating your wife?" I respect Seth and his work a great deal, but I'm not going to engage in a discussion framed this way at the outset.
One of the ballsy, brash, boastful and arrogant slogans that opens The Cluetrain Manifesto is this:
We are not seats or eyeballs or end users or consumers. We are human beings - and out reach exceeds your grasp. Deal with it.
Dan Gillmor is a journalist, formerly of the San Jose Mercury News. I don't live in California and I'd never read the Mercury News, so Dan Gillmor first came to my attention when Dave Winer set him up with an early version of his Frontier-based weblog hosting and content management system, which I believe Mr. Gillmor used in connection with a course or a seminar on journalism that he offered in China. Dave Winer mentioned Mr. Gillmor's name often, which, I suspect, helped to bring him to the attention of the wider web world, particularly the early adopters and the very geeky.
Today Mr. Gillmor is noted for his efforts in "citizen journalism." I won't pretend to know what that means, but then I don't know what "advisory board" means either. But if I had to guess, I'd guess that "citizen journalism" has something to do with new technology giving the average person the ability to perform many of the functions of professional journalists and mainstream media publications. To include, one might believe, interviewing figures in the "news" regarding topics of current interest. Presumably, he regards these as "goods," or "virtues" and is something of an advocate for them; but again, I could be framing this incorrectly because I don't really know what "citizen journalism" is. It may just be a way for Mr. Gillmor to make a buck.
The "when did you stop beating your wife" dodge that Mr. Gillmor invokes here, is from the "old media" and the sometimes unsavory efforts of journalists looking for attention to frame questions in a way that the answer is unflattering for the respondent no matter what they say.
So let's unpack the relevant portions of Seth's comment and see where he's accusing Mr. Gillmor of "beating his wife."
I'm getting fascinated by how this whole A-list/start-up ecosystem functions. As far as I can make out, it goes like this:
This is an expression of interest, and a reference to the relationship ("ecosystem") between two seemingly unrelated entities, high attention-earning webloggers ("A-list") and entrepreneurs ("start-up").
The A-listers travel the conference circuit, accumulating attention. They may have a small fellowship or foundation grant to live on, like a saleman's base salary, but it's not a huge amount, basically covering the core expenses of being an A-lister.
Seth is describing what he observes in the wider world. A-listers do travel to conferences and they do attract attention. I'm not sure "accumulate" is the word I would use in connection with attention. What is "accumulated," or perhaps more accurately, "cultivated" is reputation. But that's beside the point. Nothing offensive here, it's merely an observation.
With regard to remuneration, like a fellowship or a grant, again some of the A-listers do receive these from organizations like Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet and Society, to which I believe Dan Gillmor is currently affiliated. To my knowledge, Mr. Gillmor is currently self-employed in some capacity, he's no longer on the payroll of the Mercury News.
Again, I don't see anything offensive here. It would be interesting to see how many Berkman fellows are on advisory boards of start-ups, and whether the affiliation occurred before or after becoming a fellow; and the percentage of Berkman fellows who become members of advisory boards compared with unaffiliated high attention-earning webloggers (we could argue about an arbitrary number here, but I'd say if the population of current and former Berkman fellows is n, then use the Technorati Top n , perhaps adjusted for those blogs that aren't clearly identified with an individual blogger, but I know less about statistics than I do about "citizen journalism.")
The start-up gives the A-lister options, and a small measure of status. In return, the A-lister gives the company a measure of credibility, and some of the accumulated attention.
Here Seth describes the presumed quid pro quo. This is probably the nut of Mr. Gillmor's objection. Presumably, the whole "advisory board" thing is supposedly to be taken at face value. Members serve on a board that "advises." Seth is overtly challenging that presumption, and is offering an alternative, and, to my mind, more accurate description of the what is exchanged in the relationship.
There's nothing legally, ethically, or morally wrong with Seth's description, it's just a little unseemly, mostly because of the "advisory board" fiction that is used to gloss the transaction.
If the company crashes and burns, as most do, well, the attention and status exchanged was mutually beneficial.
Seth is describing one potential outcome, and the fact that there is no downside for the A-lister. They have no real "skin" in the game, and perhaps even received some additional bump in their reputation by being affiliated with a number of start-ups as an "advisor." (I wonder if anyone is tracking the record of start-ups and their associated "advisors." There's probably an opportunity for a new division of Technorati, "the authority on what's going on in the world of weblogs." They could rank advisors with the best track records for their "advised" start-ups going on to success or acquisition, thereby assisting future start-ups in picking "winners." )
If the company hits big, as happens, but rarely, then it's payday all around.
Again, the upside outcome that is win-win for both parties. Nothing offensive here.
Have I got it right?
An invitation to respond, to refute, clarify or agree with Mr. Finkelstein's description.
Which Mr. Gillmor declines to do, without explanation other than offering an old dodge that does little more than indicate that Mr. Gillmor feels uncomfortable with Seth's description.
Again, if all these "advisory board" relationships were so "transparent," we'd hear a lot more about them. The fact that Mr. Gillmor dodged the question merely adds to the growing perception that there's something unseemly about them.
What is unseemly is that they are little more than endorsements, with high attention-earning webloggers trading on their reputations for the chance for a potential, probably modest, payoff. Since the start-up is likely to fail, since the payoff is likely to be small, and since there is a never-ending source of new start-ups hoping to garner a little attention and enhanced reputation by basking in reflected glory, high attention-earners would seem to prefer preserving their dignity by calling their relationships with start-ups "advisory boards," and not "endorsements."
The fiction is corrosive and corrupting.
Dave Weinberger is a member of Technorati's advisory board and an author of the Cluetrain Manifesto, which demands marketers treat people with respect for their intelligence. Technorati is as cynically manipulative in its marketing as any Madison Avenue branding house. So one has to wonder what the nature of the "advice" is Dave provides to Technorati. Dave says that blogs and bloggers shouldn't be judged by how many people read them, but that's how Technorati made its reputation, by promoting its "ranking by authority" scheme. So Dave's beliefs, which have been the basis for his positive reputation, are inoperative when it comes to his relationship with Technorati. Dave says Dave Sifry is his friend, and maybe that's true, but I think Dave Sifry's company is doing damage to Dave Weinberger's reputation for its own gain. With friends like that...
Dan Gillmor is an advocate of "citizen journalism." But when he's on the receiving end of that "citizen journalism" looking into the nature of his relationships with commercial entities, he invokes the same cheap dodge used by crooked politicians. Seth's description of what the nature of the relationship is and how it functions seems uncomfortably close to the truth, and so Mr. Gillmor dodges the question. So much for the cherished belief in "citizen journalism" that has established Mr. Gillmor's reputation.
Technology does not change human nature. It changes how we do things, it doesn't change what we do.
"We are not seats or eyeballs or end users or consumers. We are human beings - and our reach exceeds your grasp. Deal with it."
Be careful what you wish for.
Changing the World
15:46 Saturday, 12 February 2005
Words: 380
Robert Scoble, of late the darling of both mainstream media and the blogosphere, tells us in a comment that people at his "level" at Microsoft can "change the world." I commented that I thought that was overstating things a bit, and Robert replied that no, I was wrong. "I've seen it happen dozens of times in just the 20 months I've been at Microsoft (and it certainly happens all the time in Silicon Valley)."
This is the kind of stuff that just blithely flows off the fingertips of Microsoft's "Chief Humanizing Officer." I guess I just haven't been paying attention because the world looks pretty much the same to me today as it has for most of my life, let alone the last 20 months. Sure, some lines on the maps have changed, we're frightening ourselves about a different group of people, and we're much more "wired" now, but what has that really changed? Not much. It's changed how some people, a relative few by the "world's" standards, do things. Whether or not those changes will be for the better remains to be seen. Of course, all the people who have invested their authority, their rank in the hierarchy, on selling this vision will tell you, unquestionably, the changes are for the better. There's little juice in uncertainty in the blogosphere. No "buzz" in asking questions that aren't probing someone else's personal failings. No "wuffie" in skepticism. No dopamine for the receptors in expressions of doubt or reservation. Unless it's in the context of competing standards, formats, or technologies for moving the internet, and presumably by extension, the world, forward. Lot's of zero-sum questioning in those contexts.
Look around and mostly what one observes is self-promotion, self-justification and self-righteousness. Not all of it, to be sure, but most of the so-called "A-List," the guys who are interested in branding themselves and who exercise the greatest authority are pretty much in that category. You won't see much self-examination, self-deprecation, or self-denial.
What was that quotation from Schopenhauer we read last month? "Every person takes the limits of their own vision to be the limits of the world."
People confuse attention with authority. People who receive attention begin to believe they are authorities.
Under the Weather
15:43 Saturday, 12 February 2005
Words: 63
This crud that's been going around has finally made its way to me. The timing could have been better. I'm supposed to be heading out to California on Monday. It's not the kind of trip I can just not take. Pretty much sucks. So I guess I'll just do the usual self medication thing, and try not to infect too many other people.