I haven’t figured it out fully yet, but the whole ‘new web’ is a disappointment for me. That really surprised me as I have always been a strong proponent of the net bringing people together. Something does not seem right and I have not found anyone articulating it nicely as of yet. Somewhere else it was said that we may be in the age group of becoming grumpy old man, but I don’t really think so. Calling somone grumpy because he is questioning the world around us is like accusing someone of being unpatriotic when criticising the government etc. It is a cheap deflection.
So what is my problem with the new web? Firstly what bothers me is the pointlessness of it all. These are platforms for people to publish their stuff and then find like-minded people. But as we have seen there is always someone somewhere that will say “great” to whatever you do or will find you interesting. Since that is a given – that there is always someone somewhere who is interested in you or what you do – the end result, their feedback and your product, is totally irrelevant and value-free. Unless you are just in for the gratification that such feedback will give you, which in the age of uncertainties is a strong attraction. Which is why I think that the people who came up with the platforms are very smart as they cater for an obvious need, best compared to the need for Jerry Springer and consorts. Any demand is bound to be supplied to.
Several years back when weblogging was growing in popularity, we already knew that eventually any site would attract like-minded people who are unlikely to disagree with you. The end result would be that you could rest assured that you had said something ‘right’, you stated some sort of truth because of course if other people do agree it must be right.
Then, secondly, we face a lot more volume, as it has been already stated, but also more quality material in absolute terms. Unfortunately it has become a needle in a haystack and I for one have given up bothering to go through it as the benefits of finding something of value are not proportionate to the effort.
Lastly it has become obvious that the platforms who make this happen are just in it to enable fairly cheap gratification of its members, but no real increase in value to the audience. You may think differently about this if you’re a teenager with more time to kill than you’d wish, I suppose.
I will get more interested again when we will see more people are competent and authoritative to talk about the subject, better editing and negative consequences if failing to do so, a clear thought process behind what is being said and why and based on what information. At the moment it is far too much of “everyone is entitled to their own facts”, as it was referred to elsewhere. The Tyranny of Popular Culture , or in this case popular opinion, is what will be the consequence.
I’ll be better spending less time online with any ‘community’ (a lie really, as they may be interested in you but never really care for you as a real community would do) and concentrate on my own things.
As you know I also don’t buy this whole “community” nonsense. It’s a feel-good gloss to what amounts to a mutual admiration society. I mean, do real friends go around complimenting you on every word or action you produce? In the real world those are called acquaintances, or perhaps more accurately, kiss-assers.
At the risk of furthering the echo chamber, let me say I think you’re on to something with this idea that people are simply not “competent and authoritative to talk about the subject.” All these back-slapping comments of approval are really a mask for a lack of anything worthwhile and intelligent to say, and this, mixed in with this new protocol that says it’s untoward to question or criticize anything, is producing a singularity to today’s online world. There’s a whole lotta preaching to the choir going on, but while I can indulge the preacher at the pulpit, I just wish the choir would shut the hell up already.
The more I think about it, the more the numbers thing makes sense.
It has become the norm in many areas of society that the people with critical thoughts are either blended out, or simply do not bother to speak up as they are afraid of the negative backlash of being portrayed as part-poopers and pushed to the sidelines. Think about eBay: if you give negative feedback, you know you will get negative feedback in retaliation, even though it is totally unjustified. Thus you don’t say anything. This totally weakens the system.
The sheer numbers in all this compensate for this. If the few people who could offer criticism stay quiet, others from the large pool will come forward instead and offer positive comment. Thus there will always be positive feedback, but from a churning population. Remember: there is always going to be someone who will like what you have produced. The perfect mutual admiration machine; a numbers game.
spot on! (ain’t the two of us a great mutual admiration society ourselves!)
the other day I wanted to leave a “negative” comment on someone’s blog post. In fact the comment was merely questioning, not really negative, but already in my mind I was perceiving it to be received negatively, which shows you how effective this “machine” is. It would’ve been the 25th comment or something, and the first one questioning the premise of the person’s post. In the end I decided it was better to make the comment on my own blog, partly because I wanted to expand it, and partly because I was afraid of being labeled a party-pooper, a wet blanket, etc. And the thing is, I wasn’t afraid of the blog’s author pushing back, that I would have welcomed. I was afraid of the vast coterie of commenters who would’ve either ignored it, or dealt with it in condescension.
Or better yet, the blogmeister can filter all comments anyway, and only repost the positive ones (or just delete the negative ones). Leaving only the ‘correct’ evidence.
Hey now, let’s not be hasty. First take a look at what ‘Web 2.0’ really is: a name for various sets of tools that arguably enhance web development/use. Peachy.
It’s being used in a lot of different applications, which is great. Let’s look at a few you missed: Google (et al) Maps, one of the greatest applications in the history of the world. Flickr, reddit, all great, useful tools which enhance (I dare you to disagree here) the lives of their users.
Looks to me like your beef is not at all with Web 2.0, but rather with community sites. Are you nuts? Sure, there’s a lot of noise to signal there, but this is also true of pretty much all modern day media. And let’s look at a few of the benefits: groups of people united only by a common interest can get together regardless of race, gender, age, nationality, and even physical location to enjoy, discuss, and learn with each other. This is immense, amazing, unprecedented stuff. Your wheelchair-bound grandmother in Tulsa can explore her love of astronomy with a university student from New Delhi and a gifted 5 year old from Rio, and maybe forget a little of her xenophobia.
As to people on social sites always agreeing with each other, A) goodness, have you never been to one? B) until I showed up, it sure seemed like there was an awful lot of backpatting on this thread.. C) This isn’t necessarily a bad thing; human validation can be important. This is one reason we have physical communities as well as virtual ones.
Now, if you want to be disappointed with Web 2.0, be disappointed because it’s a trite buzzword covering a very small evolutionary step toward the web becoming actually useful, and, like many buzzwords, is being used increasingly to justify all sorts of terrible, useless, wasteful business ideas. Don’t hate it because people can be dumb.