Slashdot Mirror


The End of Cyber BS

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.

17 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. 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 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. "The End of Cyber BS"... by Frothy+Walrus · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...JonKatz's last article?

    ;-)

  4. 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.

    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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. (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.

  10. 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.)
  11. 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 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.
    2. 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.

    3. 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.

  12. 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.