Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The End of Cyber BS

Posted by JonKatz on from the The-Web dept.

David Weinberger, one of the co-authors of the Cluetrain Manifesto: The End of Business As Usual, is one of many celebrated practitioners of what loosely came to be known as cybertheory. The Manifesto began with the memorable phrase "People of Earth" and was "aimed squarely at the solar plexus of corporate America," one reviewer alleged. (You remember those days. Everything about the Net was aimed at the solar plexus of one thing or another). The book purported to show how the Internet was turning business upside down. But that, of course, was then, and this is now. Nobody seems to have noticed that if anything has been turned upside down, it's the Net. Weinberger has struck again in his new book Small Pieces Loosely Joined , (Perseus) a "unified theory of the Web." This time, the Web is changing life itself. Is he on the same Web? Mostly, what this book suggests is the end of CyberBS. And good riddance. 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.

54 of 198 comments (clear)

  1. Weinberger vs the facts? by Cinnibar+CP · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Assuming that Katz's premise on Weinberger's previous work being inaccurate, dated, and incorrect in it's vision is acceptable, why would anyone care to read a work by this same author when he suddenly changes his viewpoint to match the status quo? 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. He isn't visionary (but he's obviously smart, if he's making a buck or two off this drivel). We could go into a point-by-point dispute on Weinberger's premise of the net redefining space, time, etc, but why bother? This is mainstream psuedobabble aimed at the solar plexus of the fickle masses wanting to be told what they already believe to be true about the 'net.

  2. "The End of Cyber BS" by Burgundy+Advocate · · Score: 2, Funny

    This is from the same guy who brought us Junis from Afghanistan, reading slashdot and watching movies on his Commodore?

    If you want to "end Cyber BS", start with yourself!

    --
    Dragging people kicking and screaming into reality since 1996.
  3. At least he's holding his convictions by jayhawk88 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Not to get too deep into Katz bashing territory, but I seem to remember Jon (like most of us) screaming from the mountain how The Web was going to change everything about our lives not 2 years ago. But now, it seems, that "The Revolution" has met with some resistance, the new trendy thing to do is bash ourselves for being so stupid, and talk about how The Web is not fullfilling our expectations after all.

    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.

    1. Re:At least he's holding his convictions by RC514 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think it isn't far-fetched to say that "The Revolution" has met with some resistance because it is changing our lives. The web has failed mostly in the economical sense (and even there is starting to fill some niches: Amazon...). No, we aren't in Utopia yet, but we certainly have left the unconnected times behind.

      --

    2. Re:At least he's holding his convictions by fleener · · Score: 3, Insightful

      can't still change our lives

      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.

    3. Re:At least he's holding his convictions by Ami+Ganguli · · 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?

      --
      It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
  4. Jon.... by Em+Emalb · · 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.'

    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?

    --
    Sent from your iPad.
  5. "The End of Cyber BS"... by Frothy+Walrus · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...JonKatz's last article?

    ;-)

    1. Re:"The End of Cyber BS"... by MadAhab · · Score: 2
      Despite the staggering amount of hype everyone has had to endure (and some of us have contributed to),

      ...*ahem* I'll take that as a mea culpa, at least. Of course, becoming so ubiquitous as to be unworthy of special attention is a victory, tho Jon makes it sound like a defeat.

      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).

      --
      Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
  6. Who wrote this? by JMZero · · Score: 2, Redundant

    I didn't realize this was by Katz till I read the flamers at -1... If Katz really believes the web to be as boring as he suggests it is here, what's up with every other post he has ever made?

    Perhaps he could help me reconcile his position here with his position everywhere else?

    --
    Let's not stir that bag of worms...
    1. Re:Who wrote this? by Tenebrious1 · · Score: 2

      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. Maybe he thought he was posting to one of his more peaceful and less-passionate websites he moderates.

      --
      -- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
  7. Philosophy? by Sierpinski · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I have to admit that I was rather amused at this.... for someone to analyze the web in regards to space, time, self and knowledge, but use eBay as examples, made me laugh out loud.

    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.

    --
    And they said zombies weren't real!
    1. Re:Philosophy? by RazzleFrog · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The web is a medium for people to do what they otherwise would have done anyway through other means.

      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.

    2. Re:Philosophy? by 5KVGhost · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "The web is a medium for people to do what they otherwise would have done anyway through other means."

      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.

    3. Re:Philosophy? by jguevin · · Score: 2

      It's hard to stand back enough to get proper perspective. Off the top of my head, however, I can think of two significant ways the Net has changed lives around me.

      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.

    4. Re:Philosophy? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2

      I can think of one big way the 'Net has changed my life. Without the Yahoo Chat Rooms, I would never have met my wife.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  8. About face... by pheonix · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wow, media in general has become rather disturbingly cynical, haven't they? I mean, 2 years ago, the web was going to change EVERYTHING... a bit optimistic, but that's just "the way things were".

    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.

  9. The End of Cyber BS?! by Tackhead · · Score: 2, Offtopic
    The End of Cyber BS?!

    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" ;-)

  10. Not everyone is wired by the_rev_matt · · Score: 4, Insightful
    As much as Weinberger's thesis fits my wife and me, Katz is right that the vast majority of people just don't see the web as part of their daily lives. My family lives in Silicon Valley, but only my brother works in high tech. The rest of them are lawyers, teachers, mechanics, lighting designers, HR, etc, all in non-tech companies. Some of them check their email as often as once a week! I know a lot of people here in STL that just never use the net.


    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).

    --
    this is getting old and so are you

    blog

  11. On the flipside ... by e1en0r · · Score: 3, Insightful

    - Space. All those eBay servers have to be housed somewhere.

    - 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.

  12. One more thing about Time ... by e1en0r · · Score: 4, Interesting

    - 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."

    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.

    1. Re:One more thing about Time ... by corbettw · · Score: 2

      "- 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."

      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.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
  13. (Don't) Buy This Book. by CrazyLegs · · Score: 3, Interesting
    If Katz's overview is accurate - and I'm sure it is - I'm afraid. Very afraid. I'm a corporate IT guy who works on technology strategy - or is supposed to anyways. I've spent the better part of the last 3.5 years trying to soothe the ambitions of company executives who read Wired (and other such junk) and believe the hype. You know the type - deep in technolust, shallow grasp of technologies' limitations, the hippest executive on the block, has the title with the 'e' suffix, and utterly convinced that 'Web-enabling' the business is the future.

    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?

    --

    CrazyLegs

    "Pork!!" said the Fish, and we all laughed.

    1. Re:(Don't) Buy This Book. by CrazyLegs · · Score: 2
      OK Skippy... I'll put my 20 years of IT experience building large-scale computing infrastructure against your community college Perl course anyday.

      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.

      --

      CrazyLegs

      "Pork!!" said the Fish, and we all laughed.

  14. Things don't really change that much by Grax · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How is today's life different than 100 years ago? We still learn to walk and talk followed by more learning until we think we are ready to participate in adult society. We look for partners of the opposite sex (except for some that don't go for that sort of a thing). We want to be loved and accepted. We grow older and wiser (even though the kids still think they know more than we do). We get old and then we die.

    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.

    --
    Coding Blog
    1. Re:Things don't really change that much by pyramid+termite · · Score: 2

      How is today's life different than 100 years ago?

      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.

  15. Jon told us about himself, now how about the web? by drew_kime · · Score: 2

    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 ...

    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?

    --
    Nope, no sig
  16. Re:Cyber B.S.? by GigsVT · · Score: 2, Funny

    Wow, that's really cyber-insightful. I'm glad we can get such convergence in an e-medium like Slashdot. It allows such synergy of the flow of our ideas. It's a true P2P platform where we find solutions to decrease the turnaround time of conducting internetworked discussions.

    --
    I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
  17. Welcome to Usenet, circa internet year dot. by mccalli · · Score: 2
    Weinberger proposes four concepts...that the Web is altering: ...a Web space that occupies no space, whose links are based not on contiguity but on human interest.

    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

  18. The Revolution Will Not Be Webcast by wunderhorn1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The Revolution Will Not Be Webcast
    (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 .jpgs of Bill Gates
    Giving a Powerpoint presentation with Steve
    Ballmer, Jeff Raikes, and Craig Mundie to demonstrate
    How .NET will change your computing experience.

    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.

    --
    Karma: Bored. (Thinking about resurrecting the "Anyone else is an imposter" joke.)
    1. Re:The Revolution Will Not Be Webcast by Carmody · · Score: 2, Funny

      Loved the spoof.

      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.

      --
      God is real unless declared integer
  19. Re:The the web is "about." by tomknight · · Score: 2
    Formatting, my friend, formatting. And don't forget that Preview is your friend - but I guess you've already realised this.

    Tom.

    --
    Oh arse
  20. Why Britney's Worthless by Bluesee · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    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.

    --
    SDMI: Finally! Music that won't rip or burn! Brought to you by the fine folks at RIAA.
    1. Re:Why Britney's Worthless by pmc · · Score: 2

      A capitalist != wannabe monopolist.

      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).

    2. Re:Why Britney's Worthless by Quikah · · Score: 2

      so the record company mogul, who in reality adds no value to the music itself

      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...

      --
      Q.
    3. Re:Why Britney's Worthless by Bluesee · · Score: 2

      My point: It's now cheap enough to record that the previous owner of that particular ways/means of production is now not the exclusive owner. The value he added is now diminished by the ubiquitousness of the internet. The same thing with advertising: dissemination of information is now virtually free inasmuch as one can make it available to everyone. This doesn't necessarily mean that it will get in front of eyeballs, but that may be rendered immaterial if the sole determinant of product value is true consumer choice, which could reign in a pure internet economy.

      --
      SDMI: Finally! Music that won't rip or burn! Brought to you by the fine folks at RIAA.
    4. Re:Why Britney's Worthless by Bluesee · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, I see we are in violent agreement here. The only reason I used Britney was because it is a good example. See, music is pure information and so is a perfect internet target. That the DMCA and other legislation is being used to hold back the dam is the reason why the part of the internet that was supposed to turn that part of the economy upside down didn't. And what remains then is, yeah, not a whole lot more than the news, weather, stock quotes, and as you say 'relevant information.' But the web should have destroyed the traditional pyramidal economic structure for music, videos, and software. As another example, that's what the GNU GPL is about: you and I may profit a little bit from coding and selling software, but no central authority can maintain a revenue stream by holding those rights.

      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.

      --
      SDMI: Finally! Music that won't rip or burn! Brought to you by the fine folks at RIAA.
    5. Re:Why Britney's Worthless by Bluesee · · Score: 2

      The Marxist theory (pardon my typo) posits that the capitalist owns the 'ways and means'; this is why, for example, an inventor knows that merely inventing something does not in itself make him rich. If it's a piece of hardware, he knows that he will be killed in the marketplace because he cannot manufacture, distribute, advertise, and support his product all by himself. So he has to sell it to a company that can. This is Marx's observation.

      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...

      --
      SDMI: Finally! Music that won't rip or burn! Brought to you by the fine folks at RIAA.
    6. Re:Why Britney's Worthless by Golias · · Score: 3, Interesting
      The Marxist theory (pardon my typo) posits that the capitalist owns the 'ways and means'

      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.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    7. Re:Why Britney's Worthless by Golias · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Name one popular musician who became a multi-millionaire without the aid of a label, and I will agree that the labels don't add much value anymore.

      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.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    8. Re:Why Britney's Worthless by Bluesee · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Reaching for the fundamental bases of society, which he believes are economic, Marx defines a class by the relationship they share with the means of production. Therefore, not circular reasoning but definition distinguishes the Bourgeoisie from the Proletariat. This is not really a silly observation, because it uses the word "class" in a different way than you are using it. He never mentions the upper class, and the Bourgeoisie are the capitalists in his examples.

      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.

      --
      SDMI: Finally! Music that won't rip or burn! Brought to you by the fine folks at RIAA.
    9. Re:Why Britney's Worthless by Bluesee · · Score: 2

      That is precisely the argument that the RIAA uses in court testimony to validate its continued existence, which the artists themselves claim is conspiratorial usury. My point is that this arose from a time when there was a great wall between the artist and his audience; it's a throwback to a simpler time. This no longer needs to be the case.

      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.

      --
      SDMI: Finally! Music that won't rip or burn! Brought to you by the fine folks at RIAA.
    10. Re:Why Britney's Worthless by Golias · · Score: 2
      Welcome to the machine.

      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.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

  21. Cartman moment by MSG · · Score: 2

    Nobody seems to have noticed that if anything has been turned upside down, it's the Net

    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!"

  22. The end of CyberBS by rlp · · Score: 2

    See here.

    --
    [Insert pithy quote here]
  23. How the web has changed how I do things by cmpalmer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The two most fundamental impacts the 'net and the web have had on me and my family is communications and access to information.

    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...

    --
    -- stream of did I lock the front door consciousness
  24. End of BS? by saintlupus · · Score: 2

    Mostly, what this book suggests is the end of CyberBS. And good riddance.

    Well, gee, I for one will certainly miss your trenchant commentary here in the post Columbine era.

    --saint

  25. Can we see some consistency by underpaidISPtech · · Score: 2

    First, I would like to say that for the most part, being a cynic, I can't help but agree with the points made in the review. I have not read the book, I am simply in agreement with Katz's perspective. On the whole (IMHO), the Web affects few people in dramatic ways.

    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?

  26. Attitudinal Shift by Robotech_Master · · Score: 2

    Recently, I picked up the roleplaying game De Profundis, which is a game that involves roleplay by exchanging actual physical letters. And as I was writing one of these, I got to think about it, and realized that after eight years of writing e-mail, it seemed to me there was something rather neat about the idea of an actual hand-written letter--the idea that, in a few days, the other person would be holding in his hands the very sheet of paper you are writing the words on, instead of simply seeing a representation of those words on a computer screen.

    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. :)

    --
    Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
  27. Slow internet in Philippines by kenneth_martens · · Score: 2

    The internet may be revolutionizing the Western world, but it still has a long way to go until it affects the lives of those elsewhere, such as Asia and Africa. Having lived in the Philippines for 4 years (1996-1999, and a three-week trip just a month ago) I know that internet access is painfully scarce. It is available in the largest cities (Manila, Davao City, ...) but not elsewhere. And what is available is dreadfully slow--I can remember waiting around 5 minutes for Google to load so I could type in my search entry. Even on my trip last month there were times I couldn't even get Google to load at all.

    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.

  28. Still too soon! by ruzel · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I love it when writers and academics sit around arguing about what history will be twenty years from now. Everyone's concern with the web for business, its social impact and how it changes our lives is very short-sighted. Who was arguing this about Gopher or FTP? It's just a protocol on the Internet. It's good for some things and not good for others.

    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.
    __________________________

  29. You get what you look for by pyramid+termite · · Score: 2

    Really. If a spoon fed, customized media experience is what you're looking for, you can find that on the web. If you're looking for something different and unpredictable that has a different way of getting people to relate to one another you can find that on the web also. I just love it when people make gross generalizations about a section of the web and try to apply it to society as a whole. There are things going on that people regard as revolutionary in their own lives, whether it makes Slashdot or Wired or not. There are also people who are pretty much using the web as a more individualized version of their local newspaper or TV station.

    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.

  30. Marketing 101, folks by pyramid+termite · · Score: 2

    The Revolution? Ha! For a mere penny, you can get 12 revolutions now, if you just join the AOL/Time Warner Revolution of the month club and agree to buy 12 more revolutions in the next 24 months for our low, low regular retail prices. Check off your preferred kind of revolution -

    -- 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 ...

  31. Astonishment by selfevident · · Score: 5, Informative

    It sounds like Jon's review is based on the first eight pages (of a book that won't be published until early April) in which I use shopping at eBay as a prosaic first example precisely because I figured it's a common experience. The book - the whole book - is my attempt to answer a question implicit in Jon's review. He says I'm "quite correct in suggesting that the hyperlinking era the Web begins is astounding, even revolutionary." If so, then what's it revolutionizing? If the Web is as boring and quotidian as Jon says, then what's astounding about it? For some of us, even while we're bidding on quilts at eBay or downloading porn, there's something importantly different about the Web. That's what the book's about. And one of its points is how extraordinary the ordinary is on the Web. Astonishment isn't such a bad response.