The End of Cyber BS 198
| Small Pieces Loosely Joined | |
| author | David Weinberger |
| pages | 211 |
| publisher | Perseus |
| rating | 4/10 |
| reviewer | Jon Katz |
| ISBN | 0-7382-0543-5 |
| summary | the Web is changing life itself |
Despite the staggering amount of hype everyone has had to endure (and some of us have contributed to), Weinberger's premise is that the Web hasn't been hyped enough. The Web, he claims, is not only altering social institutions like business and government, but transforming fundamental concepts of our culture: space, time, reality itself.
This is the sort of stuff that gets publishers, media people and academics breathing heavily, even though reality suggests that a) it simply isn't so, and b) such declarations are the intellectual equivalent of tech support: the more deeply you look, the less seems to be there. The outside world continues to see the Net as an atom-smashing alien force, when it is, in fact, a transforming technology whose future nature and impact remains unclear. There is the persistent belief out there that for the Net and the Web to be interesting, they must be portrayed as changing everything about everything, and the search for the seer who can explain how has been relentless, although not by the book-buying public. This has given rise to a whole genre of Cyber BS.
Weinberger is obviously bright and observant. And he's quite correct in suggesting that the hyperlinking era the Web begins is astounding, even revolutionary. But is it changing the nature of our lives? Decide for yourselves.
Weinberger proposes four concepts (plus the nature of life itself) that the Web is altering: he uses eBay as an illustration.
- Space. eBay is a Web space that occupies no space, whose links are based not on contiguity but on human interest. eBay demonstrates that the geography of the Web is as ephemeral as human interest iself, each of us looking across the space that is eBay and seeing vastly different landscapes -- of games, quilts, Star Wars memorabilia, battery chargers.
- Time. The real world, Weinberger says, is a series of ticks to which schedules are tied. As he investigated different kinds of eBay auctions, checking back every few hours to see if he'd been outbid on quilts, "I felt as if I were returning to a story that was in progress, waiting for me whenever I wanted. I could break off in the middle when, for example, my son came home, and go back whenever I wanted."
- Self. Buyers and sellers on eBay adopt a name by which they will be known. The real world person behind the handle firewife30 may have other eBay identities, as well. Unlike non-virtual selves, these eBay selves are intermittent and, most important, they are in writing.
- Knowledge. Weinberger began his eBay experience ignorant about quilts. But he learned by listening to other quilters and wound up knowing quite a bit.
The upshot? "If a simple auction at eBay is based on new assumptions about space, time, self and knowledge, the Web is more than a place for disturbed teen-agers to try out roles and more than a good place to buy cheap quilts."
The Web has sent an enormous jolt through our culture, he continues, zapping our economy, our ideas about the sharing of creative works, possibly even our institutions such as religion and government. Suppose that the Web is a new world we're just beginning to inhabit. We can't characterize ourselves without simultaneously drawing a picture of how the world seems to us, Weinberger says, nor can we describe our world without describing the type of people we are. If we are entering a new world, then we are also becoming new people.
Heady stuff. Weinberger, an NPR commentator and the publisher of JOHO (Journal of the Hyperlinked Organization) understands hyperlinks and their stunning impact. It isn't as if his observations are wrong. The things he sees are new, interesting and significant.
But his book also reminds us that this age of Cybertheorizing began to die with the demise of the original Wired. This is bad news for over-heated tech writers and academics feasting on cyber-culture courses. In case Weinberger hasn't noticed -- and he hasn't, if the book is any indication -- the Web these days is mostly about sex, free news, entertainment and retailing. For better or worse, we remain the same people we were. You could argue that the Web has triggered a monumental wave of hostility, self-referential blabber and commercialism. In the post dot-com era, we see that the Net and the Web aren't changing everything about the world, just taking the things people have always liked to do -- shop, read, yak, play, masturbate -- and making them easier. Business and politicians are also drearily unchanged. Even the hackers have been largely tamed by lawsuits and the numerous fences sprouting all over the cyber frontier.
"Once we are on the Web," Weinberger claims, "we find the ground has dropped out from beneath us. The normal constraints, on which we have built the common sense that guides us, fall away. And so we get to improvise and to invent... We are sharing this new world not because we have to but because we want to. We are sharing this world not because we find ourselves next to someone due to the inevitable accident of proximity but because we have chosen to join with someone based on the common ground of shared passions."
Is this your Net, your Web? I don't think so. The ground seems pretty solid where I go, and normal constraints are everywhere.
I'd like to get on Weinberger's Web. The one I can access is increasingly hard-headed and utilitarian, dominated by movie reservatiion sites, customized news delivery, retail ordering, and the ubiquity of digital communications -- mailing lists, e-mail, IM systems. Flamers and spammers have driven many underground, where we communicate in exclusive media more peacefully in peace, but with a less diverse and decidedly non-passionate group of people.
It's too bad, really, but it seems to be the contemporary reality of life online. Small Pieces Loosely Joined is not convincing. The age of the cyber-manifesto is ending. The Web isn't altering the nature of reality. It is, of course, only reflecting.
You can purchase Small Pieces Loosely Joined at Fatbrain. Want to see your own review here? Read the review guidelines first, then use Slashdot's webform.
Weinberger vs the facts? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Weinberger vs the facts? (Score:1)
Weinberger is a hype machine, feeding off commonly held beliefs about the net, packaging them in a written form, and trying to turn a buck.
Sounds a lot like a certain
Re:Weinberger vs the facts? (Score:1)
"The End of Cyber BS" (Score:2, Funny)
If you want to "end Cyber BS", start with yourself!
At least he's holding his convictions (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, the heady days of '99 are long gone, but that doesn't mean The Web can't still change our lives for the better.
Re:At least he's holding his convictions (Score:2, Insightful)
Why Britney's Worthless (Score:4, Insightful)
Bear with me for a bit: Markist theory describes the capitalist as being the one who controls the ways and means of production; this puts him at the top of the pyramid since all goods and services flow only through him. He's a record company mogul who owns CD writers, and the only way you can get Britney Spears' latest offering is to buy it from him.
But the internet should have changed all of that. By enabling the cheap mass production of the goods and services (those that can be digitized, i.e., software and data), the 'ways and means of production' has become de-centralized and available to all. We can get BS's latest stuff off Napster now, so the record company mogul, who in reality adds no value to the music itself, has lost his vaunted position atop the production / distribution pyramid.
In an extrapolated and idealized from of this logical trend, the provider receives direct payment for services / goods and there is no capitalist controlling the flow. Basically, Britney's music is free, but you want to go see her show and you are willing to pay for a ticket to see her in person. The Britney Spears show is still a scarce commodity even though her music is not.
So, in a world that obeys the forces of nature, the capitalist realizes that he is in a dead business and must find work elsewhere, while the masses enjoy the intrinsic benefits of the internet: peer-to-peer sharing of massively produced content.
Unfortunately, the capitalist today is unwilling to submit to the inevitable and so finds it necessary to prop up his archaic revenue stream by having the behavior of the masses controlled through legislation (i.e., DMCA, SDMI, DRM, M.O.U.S.E.). The complaint of the capitalist is that this is necessary because the content providers do add value and without the hard-wired revenue stream they will lose the hierarchical structure (the pyramid) that makes them what they are and insures value in their product. That is, Disney would go out of business if everyone could just download Snow White off the internet.
So that's why we need Campaign Finance Reform in the Internet Era.
Re:Why Britney's Worthless (Score:1)
A capitalist != lazy fucker.
A capitalist != wannabe monopolist.
An immigrant running their own laundromat is most probably a capitalist.
Why don't you rewrite your speech with "current bigwigs" instead of capitalist and see how ridiculous it is to bring in capitalism.
BTW, just because you claim Markist [sic] theory defines something in a certain way doesn't mean it's so. It's not even relevant, really.
I declare that Einstein defined E=mc^2 and therefore the web has a long way to go to revolutionize our lives.
Re:Why Britney's Worthless (Score:2)
Not all capitalists are wannabe monopolists - only successful ones.
An immigrant running their own laundromat is most probably a capitalist.
The immigrant running their own laundromat (or laundrette here) is probably thinking about maybe getting another laundrette in another part of town. Then maybe buying another one, possibly moving into drycleaning too. And so on.
In otherwords, they are in a market, and they want to get as big a piece of the market as they can. All the better if it is all of it (all the laundettes in the town/county/state/country, depending on ambition).
Re:Why Britney's Worthless (Score:2)
If you don't see the relevance then you miss my point: the internet is sufficient to remove the edge that the capitalist once had because it lowers the threshhold so that everyman now possesses the 'ways and means' of (information) production.
Plus, I'm not arbitrarily 'down' on capitalism. The True capitalist would have gotten out of the music business 'cuz he saw the writing on the wall. But nowadays they opt to preserve their revenue stream by throwing money at Fritz Hollings to do their bidding and arrest transgressors of the DMCA and SSSI. Now I'm not saying that making it too easy to break the law to have the prosecution of that law a viable prospect is a good thing, I'm just saying that it is a natural consequence of the abilities inherent in the internet.
But, oh well, you're bored... perhaps I've typed too much...
Re:Why Britney's Worthless (Score:3, Interesting)
It most certainly does not.
What Marxism teaches is that in a capitalst society the upper class controls the means of production... which is a silly observation because "the upper class" is defined as "those who own a lot of stuff", so of course they own the ways and means, that's what makes them upper class.
Marx believed that, in an ideal world, the means of production should be controlled by the workers. This seemingly simple idea has lead to the deaths of tens of millions of people, and the abject poverty of entire nations who should have been filthy rich, had class envy not made Marx's words sound so appealing when coming from the mouths of men like Joseph Stalin, Fidel Castro, and Pol Pot.
The trouble with Marx is that he never really proposed a better alternative to capitalsm which could actually be implemented in the real world. All he really knew for sure was that working in a factory sucks. He was a product of the failures of early industrialism more than anything else.
Re:Why Britney's Worthless (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes, Marx believed that the proles were alienated because the economy is driven not by natural human need but by the profit motive. I contend that it was not the idea that killed people but the implementation of Communism by Stalin that killed people in Communist Russia. You forgot to mention 1796 France, in which class envy led to the Great Terror. Oh yeah, that was a result of the Enlightenment... sorry.
You're right about the trouble with Marx: I don't get a good feel for an alternative, and perhaps that's what all the Stalinist killing was really about. A regime that maintained its control of the people by brute force, because there was no pot of gold at the end of the Rainbow. But I am not sure that this is proof of the failure of Marxist ideas. See, the fact that, at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution capitalists were exploiting workers was a great example of the failure of capitalism. Sweatshops, child labor, and the other excesses of capitalism (see Dickens) at the time were indicators that this system should fail. Why didn't it? Government regulations!
But this is where it should be different! The proles of the world are now in possession of the means of production of information. This should eliminate the boundaries between the classes and end the alienation of the (consumers). But the means of production are kept from the people by law. I'm not saying that's wrong. I'm just saying that's what is.
Re:Why Britney's Worthless (Score:1)
You turned a perfectly valid observation into an anti-RIAA rant. I'll ignore the last three paragraphs and comment on the economic promises and reality of the web:
Some expected the web to turn the whole "old" economy upside down. That is and was the BS which has been proclaimed dead now. You can't copy a coke and you can't download it either. Therefore the internet could not change that part of how we live.
The internet is about information, about making it available, storing it, searching through it. What does that mean to our everyday life? We can now learn about products which were not available to us before because the market wasn't big enough to make offering them to us profitable. We can now find people with similar ideas who where to distant and spread out before for us to know about them. We can now learn about different views on the world, from all around the world, which were filtered by a few media executives before. If information is a relevant part of an activity or a product, the internet has either changed that aspect of our lives or it most likely will in the near future. It is only the relevance one assigns to information which makes people think the internet hasn't changed a lot or turned everything upside down.
Re:Why Britney's Worthless (Score:3, Informative)
So, yah, I in no way expected the web to turn the whole "old" economy upside down, but it has transformed the information portions of the economy, and those that are almost pure information have lost their edge.
I didn't mean to rant... Britney was just an example.
Re:Why Britney's Worthless (Score:1)
IMHO, the reason that the web failed to deliver its promise of turning the traditional pyramidal structure of our economy upside down is because the alternative structure - one of de-centralized authority, control, and profit accumulation - is anathema to capitalism. This suggests that capitalism is not, ultimately the most desired form of commerce.
So the fact that the web's promises didn't work out in a capitalist system is all the evidence you need that capitalism is not "the most desired form of commerce"? I would think that the reason most web ventures failed was ridiculous products, naive business plans, and $1,500 dollar office chairs.
Re:Why Britney's Worthless (Score:1)
The business plans of most of the dot-com companies reminds me of the underpants gnomes from South Park:
"Phase 1: Steal underpants. Phase 3: Profit!"
And, of course, most dot-coms spent money like it was going out of style
Re:Why Britney's Worthless (Score:2)
Well I guess if you consider footing the bill for the actual recording of the music as no value, then yeah you're right. Not to mention paying for the song/music writing (in the case of Britney or other pop pap), promotions, tour support, merchandising...
Re:Why Britney's Worthless (Score:2)
Re:Why Britney's Worthless (Score:3, Insightful)
The truth is, it's the "artist" who adds little value. Disney made Bridney Spears a star, by hiring the right people to record the background tracks, dressing her up in kinky schoolgirl costumes on MTV, pushing her album on radio stations they own or have deals with, promoting her on nearly every media (most of which they own), and doing what it takes to make sure that every 12 year old girl in America knows her on sight, memorized her lyrics, and wants to be just like her. Britney spears is not the producer of a product... she is the product.
Re:Why Britney's Worthless (Score:2)
By the way, it is said that both BS and Eminem gained their popularity through the internet, and that it was after kids were downloading ther stuff like crazy that the execs pumped up the images. It's hard to imagine what things would be like without the pre-existing record industry moguls, but I suspect it would involve less hype.
The labels still do add value, but that's because the industry has not been completely turned on its ear by the internet. But it would have if Napster wasn't dragged down and killed.
Re:Why Britney's Worthless (Score:2)
If by "the artists themselves" you mean the rich fucks like Prince and Courtey Love whining about how the labels have "exploited" them, save your pity for somebody with real problems. Actual struggling artists would LOVE the chance to be exploited like that. Courtney Love's problem is that she pissed all her money away, not that she didn't make millions off her shitty albums.
And as for Britney Spears getting popular through the Internet before the Big Evil Record companies came along, you are being suckered. Miss Spears has been a Disney product since early childhood. How to you think an average looking, pre-pubescent girl got all that buzz when the net is absolutely crowded with bands that nobody gives a shit about? Because the Disney machine was pimping her stuff from day one, that's how. The story that she came out of nowhere and gained a huge following before she was signed is a myth.
Re:Why Britney's Worthless (Score:1)
"Markist[sic] theory describes the capitalist as..."
I think that we're off to a problem right at the start if you're going to use Carl Marx's definition of capitalism as the basis for your arguement.
Why don't we instead start from a more neutral dictionary definition. Like this one from Miriam-Webster Collegiate dictionary:
capitalist: a person who has capital especially invested in business
Re:At least he's holding his convictions (Score:3, Insightful)
It has already transformed our lives in fundamental ways we don't even think about. They just seem "normal" now.
Example: an irate customer enters your workplace and makes a scene. Afterward, you Google his name and discover a history of outbursts (being ejected from city council meetings), some arrests, some allegations of knife wielding, and some fisticuffs in professional disagreements. So you give a print-out of some web pages to your boss and he hires a security guard and implements other security procedures.
You get a quick thank you for your five minutes of research, then go back to work. You think nothing of what you just did, even though it would have been impossible - unthinkable - just a few years ago. Well, that was my reaction anyway.
Re:At least he's holding his convictions (Score:1)
Also, the cutting edge shifts all the time. I tend to agree with Katz's grim outlook, being as I am online since '95 (in this backwater country called Argentina I believe time should be measured in dog-years, not man-years) and seeing the shift happen; but I think there are manifestations of vitality all over the Web.
You might argue that self-publishing (academic, fictional, biographical) and weblogs might be instances of masturbatory practices in general, but you could argue that of most of human endeavors and cultural productions. I think that there is where the real thing is with the Net, and it is as thriving and vital as ever. We speak, we converse with eachother, we meet, and, of course, we have sex, outside the chain of production.
You are not going to agree with me, but I invite you to think about this: by definition, doing things for fun is the exact opposite of doing things for business (Latin otium versus negotium, leisure vs. business, for the classicaly minded among you), and in the Graeco-Roman scale of values, business is something to endure only to obtain the means (material or otherwise) for engaging in creative leisure. As long as the Net keeps from turning from a playground into a marketplace, which I believe will never happen, it will be fueled with the output of our fun. And it will be good, very good.
Take a step back, look at it, see it happen.
Just don't despair yet.
Attitudinal Shift (Score:2)
It's kind of funny, when you think about it. All these years of using the 'net have instilled in me a different concept of what is "normal". Whereas eight years ago e-mail seemed amazingly out of the ordinary, now I have a similar feeling about snail mail.
Or maybe I'm just nuts.
Re:At least he's holding his convictions (Score:2)
The Web has certainly changed my life. How did you plan your last vacation? I'm looking for a trekking operator in Thailand. Naturally I use the web to do my research.
The interesting consequence, though, is that some excellent tour operator in Thailand who doesn't happen to have a web site will never get my business. Who'd have thought that some guy in remote Northern Thailand needs to be on the web in order to stay in business?
CyberBS . . . (Score:1)
We used to shop by catalogue and phone, now we shop by point and click.
We used to talk to distant friends by phone and letter, now we do it by email and web page, conference software and the like.
While the internet has made some things easier, I, for one, don't see that it has created a paradigm shift in any area of culture or social interaction.
Re:CyberBS . . . (Score:1)
Re:CyberBS . . . (Score:1)
Well (Score:1)
Jon.... (Score:2)
Uhm, I disagree here. The web is whatever you want it to be. I look a lot of documentation as well as research items constantly. It can be argued that for some people, this is all their is. Ok, but if that is the case, then why are there something on the order of 9 Gabazazillion pages out there, dedicated to everything from Babettes' page of Dog stuff to Slashdot?
There is more, and this short-sided, slef-important, blowhard doesn't realize this, then why should I bother reading his drivel?
Re:Jon.... (Score:1)
That doesn't mean that that's all there is, it just means that's all I find. Your browser history is a good look at your own personality, not the content of the web.
"The End of Cyber BS"... (Score:5, Funny)
;-)
Re:"The End of Cyber BS"... (Score:2)
Sure, the early 90s cybperbole was std issue West Coast utopianism.. THAT kind of cyber-BS is over. Maybe in a few years when Katz gets over the BS of 1996-1999 - when the vision of utopia was cashing out on an IPO - he'll forget about movie reservations and understand how profoundly the 'net is changing things as it seeps into ubiquity.
I had a boss who once observed that younger people view the Net as a place to do stuff, and older people see it as a place to buy stuff. Don't trust anyone older than ($JonKatz_age - 1).
Who wrote this? (Score:2, Redundant)
Perhaps he could help me reconcile his position here with his position everywhere else?
Re:Who wrote this? (Score:2)
Philosophy? (Score:5, Insightful)
One might sum it up as 'I buy stuff on eBay, therefore I am.'.
Regardless of why the web was designed in the first place, within the past several years, it has evolved from an Information medium, to a marketing, e-commerce medium. People share information, pictures of their newborn baby, recipes, links to their favorite game or movie webpages, pornography, and an uncountable number of other things. People (and businesses) also use the web as a medium to sell their products and services. As more people (end users) become comfortable and able to use the web, these businesses would be daft not to take advantage of this new medium. It's easier, faster, and cheaper to advertise on the web (and email) than any other way.
I might be straying off my point here a bit, so I'll end my comment with the following statement:
The web is a medium for people to do what they otherwise would have done anyway through other means.
People used to have photo albums of baby pictures that they showed to their relatives. Now they're online. Some people used to have BBSs to trade files and pictures. Now there are warez sites. People used to mail their resumes to prospective employers with postage stamps (everyone remember what those are? By the way, right now it's 34 cents), but instead now, they email resumes and cover letters, submitting applications electronically on webpages. The web has simplified many lives, but if someone were to come to me and say that it has altered reality, then I would probably start calling the men in the white coats to take them away. Reality is reality. The web is the web.
Re:Philosophy? (Score:5, Interesting)
I think you are missing that cost/benefit analysis that goes along with everything we do. There are many things that I could've done before but would not have because it would have taken too much time (cost) to justify the benefit.
For example, I talk to my sister almost every day via IM. Before we used IM, I never talked to her. Because of IM, my sister and I have a better relationship.
Another example, my girlfriend and I were watching a movie the other night and we started arguing about what other movies a particular actress was in. A quick jump to IMDB and the issue was solved (I was right this time). IMDB has helped my relationship.
Now these are obviously oversimplified examples but they make the point that the internet has changed the world (maybe only slightly) by reducing the cost to do certain tasks making it more likely that they will occur.
Re:Philosophy? (Score:1)
Another example, my girlfriend and I were watching a movie the other night and we started arguing about what other movies a particular actress was in. A quick jump to IMDB and the issue was solved (I was right this time). IMDB has helped my relationship.
Because one or the other proved the other one wrong? Being proven wrong is seldom taken gently, and usually leads to long term resentment. If you went to IMDB because you both really wanted to know then that's one thing, but if it was to prove someone wrong then that's a whole different problem.
Re:Philosophy? (Score:1)
We also are about 50/50 so if one of us gloats then the other just brings up another time when they were right.
Re:Philosophy? (Score:1)
Hehe, truth be told I don't even bother anymore because my wife is right about 95% of the time. Actually I'd swear it is 100%, but I'm giving myself a bit of the benefit of the doubt. No longer do I rush to the PC to prove my memory, because it just disproves it. :-)
Re:Philosophy? (Score:2)
1. Members of my family had long been estranged; every family reunion or phone call between certain siblings would end in an argument. My family started a listserv sort of arrangement, and have found that the ability to "think before you write" has led to family relationships which were, practically speaking, impossible a year earlier. And the speed of email, as opposed to snail mail, has led to us being more "in touch" with each other than ever before. Happy ending, hooray!
2. Information on virtually any subject is available almost any time I wish, be it the middle of the night, while I'm watching TV, or whenever. This change is so significant to me that it's hard to imagine what it was like "before." For the most part this has enabled me to be more politically and socially informed and active, but it's also allowed me to change careers (to MS developer, sorry), take up ham radio, help sell my mother's house without a realtor, build my own computers, etc.
I suspect that if I could really examine my life pre-Net and my life now, I'd find many more examples. "Revolutionize" is a strong word, but I think it may be justified.
But "visionaries" like Weinberger or my favorite, Faith Popcorn, are wankers, to be sure. Fortunately, I don't think anyone cares what they have to say.
Re:Philosophy? (Score:2)
Re:Philosophy? (Score:1)
The web is a medium for people to do what they otherwise would have done anyway through other means.
This is false. I currently am reading 100 novels from a pompous list. I probably would have done that before the web. But I am writing down my impressions of them, and posting them on my website (http://www.dougshaw.com/top100.html) We can debate whether or not this is a worthwhile thing for me to do. (My mother votes 'no.') But if it were not for the web, I would not have expressed my opinions of the books in writing. The process has, of course, affected the way that I read and think about books.
"The web is a medium for people to do what they otherwise would have done anyway through other means. "
I have given you a counter example.
Re:Philosophy? (Score:1)
The web is a medium for people to do easily what they could have done anyway through other means at some great expense of time and/or money.
Does that seem more coherent to you? (No sarcasm intended!)
Re:Philosophy? (Score:1)
The web is a medium for people to do easily what they could have done anyway through other means at some great expense of time and/or money.
Does that seem more coherent to you? (No sarcasm intended!)
I still disagree. One thousand people have read my review of Brave New World. Before the web, even if I had a lot of money, I wouldn't have been able to get one thousand people to read it. (Oh, yes, if I had Millions of dollars of disposable income, I would have been able to hire a publicist and self-publish. But even if I HAD a million dollars, it would not have been WORTH a million dollars.)
The general gist of your comment (seems to me to be) is that the web simplifies things, but does not allow us to do anything new. And I disagree. The web allows me to publish my book reviews [dougshaw.com]. Strangers and I now have very interesting discussions about the books I have reviewed, and whether I, a math professor, have a right to pass judgment on Literature.
This would not have happened if it had not been for the web. Even if I had time and money, I would never have done a project like this. The web has allowed me to do something new, that is not just an extension of what I could have done previously.
Re:Philosophy? (Score:2, Interesting)
True, but the web (well, actually the Internet in a larger sense, since we're including email already) also allows people to do things they may never have been able to accomplish through other means. Or things they never would have thought to do if not for the possibilities it presents. Would I be hacking my Audrey Internet-appliance into an MP3 jukebox without the support of like-minded individuals on the net? Would such a device or such concept even exist without the web? Nope.
I think what it all comes down to is that the Internet is the most flexible and efficient communications medium ever invented. Effective and instantaneous communication can overcome many difficulties that would otherwise be insurmountable. And the standard of what's considered "effective" has been dramatically raised by the expectations of the user. Fifteen years ago we had flyer sent out in response to one of those little bingo cards tucked inside magazines. Now companies without well written, informative web sites and the internal policies to support such sites are at a serious competitive disadvantage.
So, no, the web hasn't "changed reality". But what ever has? Did cars? Radio? TV? Not really. Nonetheless, I think the kind of enhanced personal communication the web makes possible is the latest example of incremental change that has already had a huge impact.
Re:Philosophy? (Score:1)
That's true. But it's only really useful in the context that almost every powerful new technology goes through the same trajectory. The first thing people do with powerful new technology is to do the same things they have already been doing only now it's faster and cheaper.
Slowly but surely the power of this new tech will result in news ways of doing things that, hundreds of years from now, will make our lives right now seem like quaint history.
I'm not predicting the future, I'm trying to apply the lessons of history to the "now". The rise of the printed book followed this path; so did the development of the printed alphabet. A more recent (and less overarching) historical example is the telephone.
I think we happen to be living at a time when we're being handed phenomenal new technology that not even the tech's designers (*especially* not the tech designers) really understand how this stuff will ultimately be used. So, if the web hasn't reached its potential (and perhaps that's something we can all agree with) then all us info architects, cybrarians, web-app developers and so on should be putting our heads down and trying to figure out how to make better use of what we've got in front of us!
Cyber B.S.? (Score:1)
Try replacing "cyber" with, say "really-big-network-I-don't-quite-understand", and the B.S. might just tone down.
Re:Cyber B.S.? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Cyber B.S.? (Score:1)
Cybersalad. Cybersushi. Cyberglue. Cybersoapstone. Cybercow. Cybersandwich. Cyberdoily.
Re:Cyber B.S.? (Score:1)
About face... (Score:5, Insightful)
Today, the web has changed NOTHING, even though it is obvious that it has made a number of impacts on millions of lives. The web has changed a great deal, and cynically copping out that the net is nothing but porn and ads and sales is cheap journalism.
Re:About face... (Score:1)
Makes you wonder how they drive though:
Pedal to the metal followed by slamming on the brakes. Ohhh, I'm gonna get carsick.
The End of Cyber BS?! (Score:2, Offtopic)
Oh no! I can already see Jon Katz with a cardboard sign around his neck that reads "Will write Slashdot articles, and use the 'l' key instead of the '1' key when writing dates in the 20th century, for food" ;-)
The Web's biggest influence... (Score:1)
The problem is that this mindset remains when people log off. Remember McDonalds getting sued for serving hot coffee? This kind of thing will only get worse in the future when the children who were raised by the web (the 'Net generation, anyone?) enter adulthood with the expectation that they will never be personally responsible for their actions.
Re:The Web's biggest influence... (Score:1)
Second, assuming that the "Net Generation" will not take responsibility for their actions is as ignorant and close-minded as those that said that the "boob tube" will destroy our or our parent's generation. How children develop responsibility is by watching their parents. If you, as a parent, act responsible then mostly likely so will your children.
As for the increase in litigation, you have no further to look then the faulty/antiquated legal system.
Ha! (Score:1)
Not everyone is wired (Score:4, Insightful)
Those of us who are wired 24/7 (or pretty close) don't realize that we are the exception not the rule. That being said, I think that Weinberger makes for an interesting read even though I don't always agree with him (just like Katz).
Re:Not everyone is wired (Score:1)
20 years how many famillies used electricity for their daily live? not much.
30 years after, the same inquiry will be slighty different.
etc..
The impact of the web is real for the poeple that have access to the technology like us. But for the rest of the worl, that don't have the ressources to wire themselves, it will be a while before they can begin to see changes happening.
It's up to us and the companies to dumb down the INTERNET and the ressources needed to be wired. The same was for true for the Telegraphe, the telephone and all the communication inventions that bring the people of the Hearth closer.
But hey, that's my take on this.
Let the time decide if the INTERNET has changed our lives.(I bet it has, otherwise I won't be here responding to you by an elaborate networks of harware, software and elecctricity combined)
Remember, deep effects can only be felt after centuries of implementations, not decades.
Cheers.
Pascal Abessolo (a.k.a. Akoma)
On the flipside ... (Score:3, Insightful)
- Time. This guy is stretching it a little if he thinks eBay is unrelated to time. Since, you know, their auctions are pretty much based on a closing time and they tell you how much time you have left to bid, down to the second.
- Self. I'll give him that one.
- Knowledge. I hope he took it all with a grain of salt. Even if he was learning about quilts. There's all kinds of misinformation out there.
Re:On the flipside ... (Score:1)
No kidding. If I have to put up with any more "I aM l33t w3avr!" kiddies I may throw up.
Ahem. What the web is "about" (Score:1)
This is an opinon, not a fact.
What you get out of the web is (usually) exactly what you're looking for from it.
I can see how Mr. Katz can theorize that the web is mostly about these things if they're what he uses it for. But, as for myself: the web is a resource for information (and not necessarily news). And I'm sure others have different views.
The point is: the web, by its very nature, isn't about anything. It's a medium.
Re:Ahem. What the web is "about" (Score:1)
Earlier posters claimed that the examples used by the author aren't much different from a book. The index of a book could certainly be considered like web hyperlinks... The true idea of hyperlinks as being bi-directional would probably move the web into a space where you could claim that it is doing something truly different and forcing the processing of information in new ways. So it becomes something more than a medium.
In any case, the experience of using the web is different from using other communication mediums... think about how you might browse Everything2... very non-linear. Maybe we haven't found a way yet to articulate how to describe the experience correctly... but there is a need to. It seems to me that cyber-theorists shouldn't be looking at how the Web will change everything, but how it has or has not changed now. An investigation of how news was generated and transmitted on Sept. 11 would be an interesting example to examine.
Okay, I better stop before I sound too much like Katz.
Isn't it ironic (Score:1, Redundant)
One more thing about Time ... (Score:4, Interesting)
The same exact thing goes for books. This isn't revolutionary and new. For hundreds of years people have put down books when their son came home and gone back whenever they wanted.
Re:One more thing about Time ... (Score:2)
The same exact thing goes for books. This isn't revolutionary and new. For hundreds of years people have put down books when their son came home and gone back whenever they wanted."
Except, of course, if you put down a book when your son comes home and go back to it later, you won't find that the characters have somehow all died while you were away. Step away from an eBay auction for too long, and you may just lose it. There's been at least one I was involved in, trying to get some cheap Warhammer 40k models, that people were adding in bids down the last closing seconds. Saying that time stops, or even slows down, on the Web is just stupid.
new tool for stock picks (Score:1)
Now I know ...
To determine what the conventional wisdom is, what everyone already thinks, and has therefore already been discounted by the market, just read Katz ...
(Don't) Buy This Book. (Score:3, Interesting)
With the dot-com implosion and the resulting Internet hangover, my job has been a lot easier the last while. It seems my company has begrudingly come to realize that the Web is just another channel and other set of technologies on which to transact. However, books like Weinberger's tend to fan the flames of Weblust and bolster such executives' deep belief that the Web will, indeed, change the World.
*sigh* I despair. The Web is wonderful. I like the Web. My kids like the Web. My wife likes the Web. It's good at some stuff, it's bad at some stuff. If anything, it's made us more impatient with the World (i.e. I want that information now!!). But in the end, I don't believe it's changed my own context in the world too much. I still play with my kids, chat over the fence with my neighbours, scratch my ass when it's itchy, and wonder what tomorrow will be like.
For the Web pundits who lurch zombie-like towards the wonderfully Webby tomorrow, could their real dilema be that they cannot function in today's world?
Re:(Don't) Buy This Book. (Score:1)
There is a saying about "getting ahead of the Smiths." I think it is relevent in this situation.
Many people are working for that mythical tomorrow. That time when circumstances will unite and put them so far ahead of the Smiths that the Smiths will be left forever in the dust. When they will have everything they desire, and others will *know* it.
Some of those people want a magic pill that'll take them there. Something that will provide them limitless opportunity at little cost. Some saw the web as this magic pill. Even as those hopes are crashing back to earth, people will still hope.
The irony is that computers have been a magic pill for some--for those who were in the right place at the right time. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs are two names that come to mind. And oddly enough, they're a perfect pairing in this type of contradiction--based on what I've read of them and their relationship, each views himself as having "gotten ahead" of the other. That is because they have different views of what it all means. For Gates, it's about having a powerful computer monopoly and controlling the mindless masses. For Jobs, it's about having a dedicated following and the "cool" factor.
But magic pills won't work for the majority, because getting ahead is really a contradiction. Getting ahead of what? Your neighbor? Get ahead, move to a bigger house
The web is going to change society at some of its deepest levels. It has already begun. But it's going to be like other innovations of the 20th century. Give us a decade, or two, and we're not going to be able to imagine life without it. Life will have adapted to it, and it will have adapted to life. I find it hard to picture a life without jet planes--a life in which it would have taken me much longer to travel to Europe or Australia. Yet that was a reality that our grandparents can probably remember. And those who thought air travel was a magic bullet have been getting hit on the head with reality for far longer than just the past couple of months.
In 200 years, we can look back and trace the culture evolution brought on by the Internet. Right now, we're too close. And it ain't no magic bullet to anywhere, so those who are out there feeling betrayed ("I knew the secret! Why can't I reach tomorrow?") can either go on searching for their next magic bullet, or realize that there's plenty in today that can be enjoyed.
Re:(Don't) Buy This Book. (Score:2)
Of course, if the disintermediation between sources of porn and Knuckle Monkeys such as yourself is proof of the Web's society-changing effects, then congrats. Maybe you can be Wired's Man(?)-Of-The-Year.
Things don't really change that much (Score:2, Insightful)
The internet isn't all that big a deal in the grand scheme of things. Sure, it changes some things but basically life is still life and people are still people.
Re:Things don't really change that much (Score:1)
Re:Things don't really change that much (Score:2)
1. We can wipe ourselves off the planet.
2. We can instantly communicate across the planet.
3. We can leave the planet.
4. We can socialize with people who don't live anywhere near us.
5. Soon, we will be able to have offspring without doing the Wild Thing, even by test tube.
6. Soon, we will have machines that are smarter than we are.
7. Soon, our children will be living much much longer.
8. Soon, we will make for ourselves individual worlds where we feel loved and accepted, even if it doesn't involve real people.
The internet is just a mere preview of coming attractions.
Radical proposal (Score:1)
Sure the web has changed some human behavious (or more precisely, changed the way we instantiate the same old behaviours), but changed the very nature of life? Not likely. What seems to have changed is the amount of bathwater being consumed by the technocultural press
To address the e-bay examples used:
- Space. eBay is a Web space that occupies no space, whose links are based not on contiguity but on human interest. eBay demonstrates that the geography of the Web is as ephemeral as human interest iself, each of us looking across the space that is eBay and seeing vastly different landscapes -- of games, quilts, Star Wars memorabilia, battery chargers.
Relationships based on human interest, not contiguity? That would mean I'd have to leave home to make friends
- Time. The real world, Weinberger says, is a series of ticks to which schedules are tied. As he investigated different kinds of eBay auctions, checking back every few hours to see if he'd been outbid on quilts, "I felt as if I were returning to a story that was in progress, waiting for me whenever I wanted. I could break off in the middle when, for example, my son came home, and go back whenever I wanted."
Like a book, perhaps? Or stepping out of a meeting room for a while? Imagine that, life continues while you do other things, and you can later rejoin.
- Self. Buyers and sellers on eBay adopt a name by which they will be known. The real world person behind the handle firewife30 may have other eBay identities, as well. Unlike non-virtual selves, these eBay selves are intermittent and, most important, they are in writing.
RPG. Or even the fact that although I know the JonKatz id and the inimitable writing style, does anyone really know the full person?
- Knowledge. Weinberger began his eBay experience ignorant about quilts. But he learned by listening to other quilters and wound up knowing quite a bit.
Like being a newbie who joins a club? The end of life as we know it (TM)
Jon told us about himself, now how about the web? (Score:2)
In case Weinberger hasn't noticed -- and he hasn't, if the book is any indication -- the Web these days is mostly about sex, free news, entertainment and retailing.
I wonder what Jon has bookmarked?
Welcome to Usenet, circa internet year dot. (Score:2)
Hmm. Imagine that - hundreds of groups available based soley on common interest and not geographical location. You could have hundreds of different groups of people, all just banded for common goals.
Of course, such a system would need a hierarchy of some sort, or you could never find the group you wanted. How about something like comp.*, alt.*, uk.local.* etc..
Oh wait on a minute, it's possible I've heard of something similar before...
Cheers,
Ian
The Revolution Will Not Be Webcast (Score:5, Interesting)
(with apologies to Gil Scott-Heron)
You will not be able to stay home, brother.
You will not be able to jack in, log on, and zone out.
You will not be able to download pr0n and warez,
Eat ramen while waiting for a Flash movie to load,
Because the revolution will not be webcast.
The revolution will not be webcast.
The revolution will not be load-balanced by Akamai
Across huge server farms to maintain the proper bandwidth.
The revolution will not bring you
Giving a Powerpoint presentation with Steve
Ballmer, Jeff Raikes, and Craig Mundie to demonstrate
How
The revolution will not be webcast.
The revolution will not be served to you by
Scott McNealy's Sun Microsystems and will not
feature a backend by Larry Ellison's Oracle.
The revolution will not optimize your internet connection.
The revolution will not consolidate all your debts into one easy monthly payment
The revolution will not let you punch the monkey
To win twenty dollars, because
The revolution will not be webcast, brother.
There will be no pictures of Sam Donaldson and Vint Cerf
At the Webby Awards in San Francisco with
Academy of Digital Arts and Sciences members Matt Groening and Beck.
Plastic, Peter Pan, PBS and Plus Magazine
Are not going to win crap.
The revolution will not be webcast.
There will be no pictures of pigs shooting down
WTO Protesters on indymedia.com
There will be no pictures of ICANN board members
Receiving bribes from Network Solutions, Inc.
There will be no Real Video or JPEG stills of John
C. Dvorak muttering conspiracy theories and no articles by
Jon Katz with the bleeding heart that he had been saving
For just the proper occasion.
Wired News, Salon.com, and Slashdot.org
will no longer be so damned relevant, and
No one will care what Wil Wheaton has to
Say on his weblog because the geeks
will be in the streets looking for a brighter day.
The revolution will not be webcast.
There will be no pages of webcams refreshing every
30 seconds with no pictures of half-naked women
Prancing and pimply-faced males scratching themselves.
The theme song will not be posted to MP3.com and
Will not be shared using Napster, Audiogalaxy, Gnutella,
iMesh, BearShare or Kazaa.
The revolution will not be webcast.
The revolution will never return a 404 Not Found,
403 Forbidden, or 500 Internal Server Error.
You will never have to worry about the virus in your
Email, the cracker at your firewall, or the bug in your OS.
The revolution will not waste 2 million dollars on a Superbowl Ad.
The revolution will not find you job opportunities.
The revolution WILL put you in the driver's seat.
The revolution will not be webcast, WILL not be webcast,
WILL NOT BE WEBCAST.
The revolution will not be in cyberspace, brothers;
The revolution will be live.
Re:The Revolution Will Not Be Webcast (Score:2, Funny)
The Revolution will not be webcast.
However, it will be sponsored - probably by Nike and AOL/Time Warner.
And then the Revolution will be patented - probably by Microsoft, who will then sue to get Nike and AOL / Time Warner away from it.
And the Revolution will by copyrighted. You will not be allowed to criticize the Revolution. Revolutionsucks.com will not be accessible to you.
You, ultimately, will not be allowed to participate in the Revolution. And, since it will not be televised or webcast, you will soon forget about it, and go back to watching Friends if you watch TV, or watching Law & Order and the West Wing, if you like to brag that you don't watch TV.
Marketing 101, folks (Score:2)
-- Communist
-- Religious
-- Internet-based
-- Libertarian
-- Sexual (must be 18 to select)
-- Authoritarian
-- Bloody Anarchy
Sign up by Feb 13, and you will get your very own Weatherman figurine, a 29 dollar value, so you will always know which way the wind blows.
The parent post was brilliant - I was thinking of that song, too
Re:The Revolution Will Not Be Webcast (Score:1)
Who should I credit it to?
--
Richard Nixon (blowing a bugle)
Re:The Revolution Will Not Be Webcast (Score:1)
MODS! How is this Offtopic? (Score:1)
Technology Marlas (Score:1)
- pjammer
Cartman moment (Score:2)
Well, I think it's clear what happened. Corporate America went up to the Net, slapped it in the face, and said "That's enough of your shit! You fucking bitch!"
The end of CyberBS (Score:2)
How the web has changed how I do things (Score:2, Interesting)
The first is a no-brainer, I've never been a letter writer (the postal kind) and with our busy schedules, the chances of catching an old friend who lives in the same city, much less the ones scattered across the country, on the phone is vanishly slim. Via e-mail (I know, I know, it ain't the web, but now it is ubiquitous enough that just about everyone I know has e-mail) I am almost daily contact with a bunch of people I haven't seen in years (and a few I've never met face-to-face).
I can't imagine how frustrating it would be to go back to not having the WWW to access almost any kind of information quickly. Flip by a movie and see an actor, but you can't remember his name? Look up the movie in the TV listings, then hit the IMDB to find out. Want to know what's playing at the theater? You don't have to buy a paper or listen to the theater recording (if you can get through). Need to know an obscure fact? Want to find out how to fix your clothes dryer? Looking for a copy of "The Night Before Christmas" to read to your kids on the night before Christmas? Want to look up and purchase an obscure, out of print book? Want to read a three week old article from a foreign newspaper?
These are everyday uses of the net that people already take for granted. News, sex, and retailing doesn't cover it by a long shot. These are fundamental changes in the way we do things and interact with others...
Cyberspace (Score:1)
I think it's funny that people think this is new, that this "space" has only recently existed....
Is this so amazing? What about when you talk on the phone? Isn't that the same type of space, where that conversation happens?
Not published yet (Score:1)
Just to continue the Katz-basho I would rather anyone else review this book once it is published (4/2002). I would rather have chromatic's (or even CmdrTaco's) view on this then Katz. Besides, I hope that more than eBay is used as foundation for this cybertheorizing. But it's hard to determine the utility of a book from the cover jacket and Katz's so-so review
when i read the title and saw katz... (Score:1)
Ugh... (Score:1)
End of BS? (Score:2)
Well, gee, I for one will certainly miss your trenchant commentary here in the post Columbine era.
--saint
Changing the convenience, little else. (Score:1)
Can we see some consistency (Score:2)
That said, and now straying Offtopic, the problem with the article, and what makes it difficult to digest and get a sense of it's *direction* is the fact that Katz seems completely unable to think for himself. Most people seem to have a point of view, or set of principles which guide and form their opinions. Of all the Katz articles I have read, he never, ever, has anything to say. In effect, Katz offers the reader no value in the time spent reading his critiques. Perhaps if there was some consistency to his writing that gave us some insight into what *his* opinion was, rather than this flip-flop wishy-washy game of playing devil's advocate. Without a style or foundation to start from, he is simply a parrot, trying on a different persona week to week.
Pick a stance for Christ's sake already and run with it, Jon. Today the net brings us closer, tommorrow you'll be saying that it drives a wedge between the haves and have-nots. Yesterday P2P was revolutionary and the masses were poised to overthrow our corporate taskmasters. Now you say it's all pr0n and chat? Boy, if it wasn't for your savvy compass, I'd be lost. Stop trolling and baiting your readers, switching sides will-nilly. Is this really your opinion, or the is it the one you feel will generate the most discussion? Better to speak your mind, back it up, and take your lumps. Instead you pander to your audience, depriving them of a writer's unique perspective, in exchange for the transitory acceptance of the mob.
I'm not sure if he was taking shots at himself, but this:
Despite the staggering amount of hype everyone has had to endure (and some of us have contributed to)...
is exactly what I'm talking about. Have you had an epiphany? Have you come to realise you are The Hypist?
Another one:
This is bad news for over-heated tech writers...
Yes, Jon it certainly is.
I don't know if you have to fill out your articles, or (giving you the benefit of the doubt) you are limited in how much you can write, but perhaps next time try excerpting a chapter or a coherent piece of the book in question, and then critique it. Lambaste the author, agree with him/her or just put a different spin on their writings, even extending it to make it applicable to your audience.
Instead, you snip out a few choice pieces on eBay (eBay! Jeebus!) and then pull a post-modern cynic routine on us. Thanks Jon, you're one of us now. Come on man, at least try.
Drifting back ontopic, I feel that Jon's "opinion" is lucid. The web is an extension of our lives, and it has and will continue to enhance and enrich our lives, but it is not the revolutionary force that was promised. No surprise there, few things are. Radio, TV, Teflon, nuclear power. All these technologies have enchanced our lives and enriched them, but no one technology is revolutionary, only the aspirations of those who wish to benefit and profit from them. The closest thing to a cultural earthquake we have is the *sum* of our achievements over the last century.
I'm sure that with the advent of television many speculations and ventures were born and then died indignant deaths, both culturally and commercially, for better or worse. So it goes for our current baby, The Internet. Basically, (IMHO) I think we all know this, and it doesn't take Katz to tell us this.
So Jon, go home, take a bath, and find a subject you actually have an opinion about, even better - find something you're passionate about, and come back next week with something that this audience can chew on, OK?
My half cent.... (Score:1)
Let's see, the web is not a revolutionary, life altering, mind boggling, country destroying, business ruining, profit making machine.
Go figure.
The problem is, everyone is expecting the internet to create a new way of life not supplement it. The internet was not designed to change the world. It was designed to make information accessable. That's the original premise under which it was formed, and that's what it should be used for. Now of course information varies, depending on your view, but to me, if it can be sent via electronic signal, it is information.
What ruined the image of the internet was when the government stepped back in to claim what was once theirs. Just as the wild west was tamed when the government stepped in (though Tame is a loose word) so to was the internet tamed.
No longer to hackers prowl the wires, seeking whatever fancy strikes them, no longer is the internet a largely unregulated area with it's own rules. Now it's just another human institution.
Cyber predators are no more prevalent on the internet than real life predators. The difference is, the internet is loaded with glamour, and so people assume that lifes laws don't apply.
No, the internet is not a big let down to people who have common sense. It's only a big let down to sensationalists like the person who wrote this book and to people like Jon Katz who live off of controversy.
Slow internet in Philippines (Score:2)
So, although the internet may be changing a part of the world, there is a great portion of the world that has not been impacted by the internet--it is either too slow to be useful, or simply not available at all.
Still too soon! (Score:2, Insightful)
However, the internet is evolving. Information will be transmitted wirelessly and it will be transmitting back and forth between microchips in everyday objects. Sooner or later VR will become common place and someone will want a way to operate in VR across the internet.
The internet *will* have a major impact on our lives -- the web was about 10% of the impact. Think of it as just the equivalent of the printing press -- it was revolutionary, but there was still a lot of important development yet to occur.
Regardless, talking about the effect of something like the web (which is 8? years old) is silly. We won't -- can't -- know where all the cards will fall for some time. The real *problem* (if there is one) doesn't have anything to do with the technology. It has to do with the ridiculous hype machine that modern journalism has become. it either REALLY SUCKS or is INSANELY GREAT. No journalist that I've read recently has said anything like, "The web is a useful tool for sharing information over long distances and should have a decent impact on information distribution, much like email." All they write is: "The web is going to change EVERYTHING!"
"Ginger is going to change EVERYTHING!"
"Wireless technology is going to change EVERYTHING!"
"G3 -- any day now -- is going to change EVERYTHING!"
on and on and on.
I know we all turn a deaf ear to it and have a rational sense of the actual change that is occurring on the ground level, but the public doesn't and the business men don't and it is going to take things like the Dotcom Panic to get everyone to realize what is hype and what is real. Ebay is a great site. It is one survivor of several hundred infant deaths.
Technology is useful and wonderful and has been providing people with better ways of life for hundreds of years. The hype machine is what is out of control.
__________________________
You get what you look for (Score:2)
One last quibble - "flamers and spammers" have driven people "underground"? In what universe? There's this magical thing called the delete key. Hit it and you don't have to deal with them, and if that doesn't work you can always ignore them. Most people are smart enough to figure that out. And how do you define underground in an environment where 99.9% of the activity doesn't get noticed by the mass media anyway? This is the problem with the quotes from the book and Jon Katz' review - lots of buzzwords and rhetoric, but not as much thinking.
Astonishment (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The the web is "about." (Score:2)
Tom.