The Commercialization Of the Internet

YorickFinn writes "Common Dreams recently posted an article by Norman Solomon on "Denial and the Ravaging of Cyberspace." In short, Solomon argues that the commonly held view of the net as the last bastion of truly democratic mass communication is, in fact, a myth. For instance, he points out that "Websites operated by just four corporations account for 50.4 percent of the time that U.S. users of the Web are now spending online...." Ultimately, Solomon claims that the net may become more like "interactive digital TV," with the decline in the use of browsers and the increasing prominence of technology such as MTV.(The "M" is for Microsoft, formerly WebTV.) All told, his forecast is somewhat bleak, but not entirely unfounded. Worth the read."

Comments

It never really was democratic....

[daoine]

..if you consider democratic as an ideal where everyone has a voice.

The net has always had an access cost -- you had to have a machine, you had to have a connection. In the "ideal" net of late 80's and early 90's, it wasn't necessarily more democratic. Only people with computers and net connections had access.

With commercialization came lower costs and greater access. So while the proportion of content has become less democratic, the number of people who have been given the opportunity to access it has become more.

No, it's not the wacky little connection of home grown websites that it used to be, but it's not necessarily a bad thing that more people have been given access either.

And this is a problem?

[Syberghost]

Ok, let me get this straight; the internet is democratic mass communication only if everybody picks the "right" web sites?

There's no chance at all that the reason 50% of people's time is spent on web sites belonging to four companies is because those four companies are providing a service that Americans feel is worth spending 50% of their time reading?

Freedom of choice means freedom to make bad choices, and freedom of the press includes freedom to print crap.

Re:And this is a problem?

[Genom]

There's no chance at all that the reason 50% of people's time is spent on web sites belonging to four companies is because those four companies are providing a service that Americans feel is worth spending 50% of their time reading?

Nah - it's because us Americans, for the most part, with notable exeptions, are lazy technophobes who have been convinced that if technology isn't "so easy a complete moron could use it", or doesn't look super-slick and glitzy, that it's not worth using.

People aren't interested in content, they're interested in big flashy graphics, and pretty lights, and little midi jingles that play when you hit a page.

Welcome to the world created by mass-capitalism and the sellout of government to corporations - where the incentive is not to make a better, cheaper, more efficient product, but to produce the lowest-quality product you can, while still making it sell well. Where the incentive is not to properly educate the consumer, so they can make an informed decision, and buy your product on it's merits, but to confuse the customer, and keep them stupid by telling them that competitors products aren't "as easy to use", and that they "shouldn't be bothered" with things that aren't "easy".

Yep. That's where we are. We're in a world whre everyone is supposed to be, and assumed to be morons. Distracted by bright lights and flash, while ignoring the larger issues. Don't worry about those things - they're not "easy". "Let us take care of that for you -- all you have to do is hand over your credit card -- that's a nice doggy -- here's a biscuit ::pat pat::"

Nah--I'm not bitter ;P

Freedom of choice means freedom to make bad choices, and freedom of the press includes freedom to print crap.

So it does =) I hope it stays that way. Everyone (corporate or private) should have the right to publish what they'd like to publish. I'm even against "gating" content behind warnings and layers of obfuscation to "save the children" from pr0n, violence and the like -- I say let them find it! Let them learn about those things - and make their own *choice* as to whether or not to look at it again. Let parents give their kids the morals to know whether the stuff is "right" or "wrong" - instead of imposing "right" and "wrong" based on some farsical community hivemind. And for people that feel they "shouldn't be bothered" with pr0n or various disgusting content sites - here's a clue: "Don't go back there if you didn't like what you've seen there!"

::sigh:: of course, I *know* I'm in the minority - I just rant a lot ;P

Misleading stats

[astrashe]

Wait a minute -- on the one hand, the net is horrible because people can distribute copyrighted material, and on the other hand the net is horrible because big corporations control everything?

I think the 50% stat is a little misleading. People spend a lot of time using free web applicaitons that sites like MSN and Yahoo give them. But should a person's time on Hotmail really be counted as the same sort of thing as a person's time reading the NY Times? If AOL forces its users to hit their page first, how does that compare to a site like this one (/.), where people choose to view it?

The Drudge Report is a good example of what the net can do. It's one guy with a massive audience. Andrew Sullivan's site is another example of a single guy with a big audience. I think sites like Indy Media have big audiences as well. Even if they don't, when compared to Time/Warner/AOL, it's an enormously powerful tool for getting the word out.

I think there's a parallel here to Linux vs. MS. People started businesses, everyone started talking about "world domination" and all of a sudden Linux is failing if it can't compete on MS's home court, the corporate world. But that's not the way Linux started -- it was a great way to learn, it was something that allowed everyone to participate. It's still great for that stuff, and it always will be.

Debian can't be killed, it will probably go on for decades. Seriously -- what possible scenario could you think of that would cause it stop existing? Why isn't that the relevant fact, instead of the VA Linux stock price?

Alternative media don't have to compete with commercial media to succeed. They just have to survive and provide high quality information. The net makes that possible, and it's going to continue to make that possible. And the net's going to make sure that almost every family in America, and in most of the industrialized world, is going to have access to that information.

Sure, most people aren't going to bother with it. But what did anyone expect? That the net would change human nature? Most people don't care. But a lot of people are going to take the trouble. They already do. And those people can make a difference.

Re:Stupid Users

[Zachary Kessin]

You know I don't see it as being lazy or stupid to not put up your own page. You just might not have the time or energy or have anything that needs a web page. Ok sure I could put up a web page with a picture of my cats and such but in truth who cares? Many of those people who you acuse of being to lazy or stupid are neither. They just have lives that don't revolve around the net. They have kids to spend time with and bills to pay.

When I get around having kids (G-d willing), and the choice comes to 1) put up a web page, 2) spend time with the kids. I will go with 2 every time.

I also don't see a problem with a few big companies getting 50% of the hits on the internet. There are thousands of small groups with web sites no one is stoped from looking at those site, and many people do. But it does mean that whats on the web sites of the big 4 is not useful (to someone) or relivant.