the internet in general

[whiteley]

scott bourne sent me this link today- some pretty interesting thoughts...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/15/books/15book.html

discuss.

[Brewseph]

This might be a little off topic but I was reminded of this true story about a guy that kills a co-worker over a girl he never even meet in person but only talked to over the internet.

http://www.talhotblond.com/ 

[ASSHOLES and ELBOW GREASE]

Interesting article. Multiple identities, mob mentalities, the loss of voice, and rationalization I've experienced before, joke. But the future of the internet will be interesting.

Online culture, he goes on, “is a culture of reaction without action” and rationalizations that “we were entering a transitional lull before a creative storm” are just that — rationalizations.

Is he saying there are so many people dumping their knowledge into the internet that all the creativity in the stew just becomes rationalized? And the internet is only something to interact with?

Then he goes on to say, We had instead entered a persistent somnolence, and I have come to believe that we will only escape it when we kill the hive.

Is he saying, we don't think for ourselves and we just jump on the bandwagon? Wasn't the internet first created for military use? Then later used for education, cataloging, and maybe health/medicine? Now we have passed the Patriot Act. I've read that the forefront of technology right now is pretty much science fiction. In a our lifetime computers will have hologram technology and the internet will be able to "read your mind", i.e. finding your perfect match, perfect job, choosing your diet, controling your life basically. Which I think one of the points of the article is trying to say is, that people need to think for themselves, and not let the internet guide their lives.

[krewkruxklan]

parts of thisifind parts of this agreeable, but some of it is hard for me to grasp.

like the intellectual property thing for instnace. The idea of the author as a solitary genious is a myth in itself, i think wikipedia is a great example of the collective nature of knowledge. From what i've read, Lanier is suggesting the voice of the 'expert' is carries more validity than the voice of 'lamen', which isn't the case.

And in the case of the "homogenious text", i find the idea farfetched. I although its possible that the texts be amalgamated into one work (ie encyclopedia), i doubt authorship in general will be ignored. I dont know if im missing his point, but an anthology of short stories still retain their authorship despite the fact that multiple stoires are published in one book.

I do agree with his points on the sadistic society and the harms of anonymity. But i think privacy on the net is very important as well (reason i hopped off that facebook shit).  

[grimcity]

I think it's important to note that his book is only focusing on "the dark side" of the web and not the internet in it's totality.

I'll need to read his book to get the full jist of his position, but from the article I question his example of American Idol, Google and Wikipedia as stuff that "diminishes the importance and uniqueness of the individual voice."

Point by point... American Idol, though not my type of program, is a contest that focuses on individual voices. I'm not sure if he's talking about the fandom behind the show, but if he is than I could equally say that any fans of the Beatle's back in the day were also victims of mindless collectivism.

Google's a huge data exchange. If you're searching for information, your uniqueness and individualism play about as much of a role in the data you collect as flipping through the cards at the library trying to find some books. To counter his point, I'd even say that people aren't part of a mob when they research data, and though many people may run the same queries depending on what's popular at the time, people search for information that they want personally, whether it edifies them or if it's just pronz.

I don't get the Wiki example either... sure, the data collection, editing, and dissemination is done so out of a collective process... but so are real encyclopedias. There are plenty of individual voices heard when you look into the background editing discussions in Wiki, it's just a less formal and less academic version of pier reviews... which is something else that occurs every day in the analog world.

I'd even say that the web, socially, is itself analogous to the real world... people with similar interests tend to group together, and with that you're bound to get some results that appear to be "hive minded," but if ten people that love the color blue are put into a room together, it's not a hive mind that makes them like blue, it's the preexisting commonality of those individuals that drive them to believe that way.

He speaks of "digital humanism" as if it doesn't exist... grassroots efforts ranging from political action committees to a bunch of punk-ass skateboarders doing what they could to help skaters in need are the norm, that humanism exists.

Sure, he's got the "witch hunt" tales to tell, but even that term itself came from real-world hive minds that murdered women with no aid from the internet. For every bad tale he can find, there are also stories of people doing good things (as individuals and groups) that make his whole thesis a moot point.

We're social animals. Some people feel more secure being anonymous while being social, some don't care. Like I said, I'd need to read his book, but if the article is a good intro, then it seems like his thesis is based on a lot of presumptions, generalities, and artistic embellishment.

...but I'll wait and see what everyone else thinks before final judgment.

I keed, I keed

[cherry]

” but argues that the site’s ethos ratifies the notion that the individual voice — even the voice of an expert — is eminently dispensable, and “the idea that the collective is closer to the truth.”

The collective IS closer to the truth. Not one person has or should pretend to have the knowledge of the absolute truth of anything. Everything together decides what is and what is not. My guess is that this man is upset due to the fact that the price of knowledge is diminishing due to the fact that anything you could want to know is at the tips of your finger courtesy of the internet.

"— it makes it difficult for people to discern the source, point of view and spin factor of any particular fragment they happen across on the Web, while at the same time encouraging content producers.

 Anyone who blindly follows one source is already a dumb ass. internet or no internet,human being's mentality's will not change."

"diminishes the importance and uniqueness of the individual voice, and that the “hive mind” can easily lead to mob rule."

another word for mob rule; democracy.


all in all, much like everything that is published in mass. media today, it is easy to see the agenda behind this entire article.

Mr. Lanier is most eloquent on how intellectual property is threatened by the economics of FREE Internet content.

And here comes the campaigns against free and unregulated internet, once again.

Maybe i am just a regular drone sucked into the hive of the internet(I mean that guy has dreads, he's an individual) and i am reading to much into this but, then again........

The internet is amazing. What other machine can you jack off too, check your bank account, look at pictures from your family vacation, buy a hot tub and research quantum physics with?

NONE

[krewkruxklan]

...it seems like his thesis is based on a lot of presumptions, generalities, and artistic embellishment.

definately, this is what i find wrong with his argument.

Also, i think his gripe with the internet is the de-commodification of media and services. As a silicon valley insider, i assume he has a lot of stake in the financial productivity of the 'computer industry'. Dudes like this make it harder to pirate software and shit.

I think the idea to further commodify the internet (and knowledge) can only serve to take society a step back intellectually.

[sven thorkel]

i ain't gonna let no hungarian water dog tell me how to surf 

[Jura]

Its weird when you realize (again and again) that there are some pretty intelligent dudes up in here.

You guys pretty much knocked the white rastas ideas outta left field. Bravo!

Well, at least the crappy ideas in that story.

[grimcity]

You guys pretty much knocked the white rastas ideas outta left field. Bravo!

O YEAH WY DONT U DOODS SHUT UP AN GO OUT AND SKATE FAGROTZ

STOP HIVE MINDING MEEE

(ps, my name is Neal Boyd... from Louisiana!)

[TheFreshSC]

i ain't gonna let no hungarian water dog tell me how to surf 

SIG'D

[whiteley]

the responses in this thread make me happy- not because i think they are right or wrong, or that i think mr. lanier is right or wrong, but because there are lots of points raised in here that wouldn't have crossed my mind. and that's where i think one of the main strengths of the internet lies. stoked.

[Bobbito]

I liked what he mentioned about facebook being a multi-identity type of thing. I guess that's a main reason why I didn't have one for half a year plus if people want to reach me I have a fucking phone. Reactivated just 3 days ago because my friend changed his password so now I can't use his account to facebook stalk bitches

[sven thorkel]

To counter his point, I'd even say that people aren't part of a mob when they research data, and though many people may run the same queries depending on what's popular at the time, people search for information that they want personally, whether it edifies them or if it's just pronz.

i like this point. if you were simply following a mob then the "information" is already there. an example would be with music. if you had little individualism in musical preference you would most likely listen to top 40 music and all you would have to do is turn on a radio to hear it. you are directed to it. if you are an individual (when it comes to tunes) you would go out and find music that fits your specific tastes. the internet is a good tool for finding music so in this case its not deterring individualism but instead fostering it

[CUDDLEMONSTER]

” but argues that the site’s ethos ratifies the notion that the individual voice — even the voice of an expert — is eminently dispensable, and “the idea that the collective is closer to the truth.”

The collective IS closer to the truth. Not one person has or should pretend to have the knowledge of the absolute truth of anything. Everything together decides what is and what is not. My guess is that this man is upset due to the fact that the price of knowledge is diminishing due to the fact that anything you could want to know is at the tips of your finger courtesy of the internet.

i don't know about this. i agree that no one should "pretend to have the knowledge of the absolute truth of anything", i also agree that authorship is mostly an illusion, that there is no "true" meaning to a text, ect. however, i don't think that is what this guy is claiming. rather, (i think) he's saying that the internet is able to create a reality "on the ground" that once existed in cyberspace and the rules of the internet are not the usual rules of life. the "scarlet letter" posting mentioned in the article is a good example. before the advent of the internet rumor (granted, as well as knowledge) could not spread the way it does now. information was largely controlled by the people that could afford to disseminate it, which i'm against, but it also checked misinformation which can be just as powerful.   

"— it makes it difficult for people to discern the source, point of view and spin factor of any particular fragment they happen across on the Web, while at the same time encouraging content producers.

 Anyone who blindly follows one source is already a dumb ass. internet or no internet,human being's mentality's will not change."

while i'm usually skeptical about any statement claiming knowledge of anything close to "human nature" i agree that people put into an option-limiting framework (whether an economic system or a two party political system) will behave in semi-predictable fashions. that said, i think it's undeniable that the internet has an effect on our behavior that can only be expressed within the systems we inhabit. would the entire tea-party movement be possible without the internet? could sara palin become a political possibility in a pre-meme america? yeah, their are a million websites exposing what a complete fake she is but this only fuels the discourse. even ignoring her is now placed in this context in relation to her.

i think his ideas regarding the structure of the internet are important. a site like facebook can become so big that it starts having effects not disimiliar to a monopolistic corporation, only instead of dealing in oil or software facebook has a monopoly on virtual expressions of personality. sure, you can go to other sites but if you're trying to connect socially with someone you should go to facebook because everyone is on it- that fact alone draws in millions of new users, whether the product is satisfactory or not. you're given fields to fill out but it's mostly fill-in-the-blank personality creation. even when we feel like we have complete control over the internets' potential to express ourselves, this is itself an effect of "erasure" because we become less likely to even see the fields. there's a reason they call it a "profile." you are erased in the creation of your profile, i think that's why our generation seems obsessed with "authenticity" but can never even approach defining it.

blah, well super interesting topic/article. i didn't mean to attack or critique the dude i quoted either, just really baked and wanted a way to jump in.

[grimcity]

the rules of the internet are not the usual rules of life.

...snipped from a larger sentence because this is a really good point.

I don't agree with some of your FaceBook assessments though... I don't think there's any erasure of identity when filling out the profile, it's simply an attempt at condensing biographical information about one's self... in FB's case, it's to help you virtually network with people that you already know, or people that you don't know but would like to to some degree because they share an interest or you're just interested in them.

We're used to condensing who we are, both in straight-facts and with some creative writing already, from tax forms to job applications to resumes. I think filling these out (as well as online profiles) is more of a testament to the fact that we are individuals... just look at MySpace, how shitty must a MySpace page be to express the individuality of a person?

On another note, going back to the hive mind stuff, that really just bothers me... these forums are accused of the exact same thing constantly... ironically, it's usually other Slap members making those claims. Another thing as it applies to the forums... a lot of people here have spent several years actively posting, and if this place isn't full of very different and identifiable individuals, no place is. I haven't met any fake accounts yet, but every Pal I've met in real life is pretty much who you meet in text (though there are some that front pretty hard, but whose to say they wouldn't front in person?).

I think the main difference between being online and "in real life" is the rules thing you brought up. When reactionary, I think we're more prone to openly praise or attack online than we would be face to face, but I have to wonder (in a horrible example), what's more honest:

That lady Virgina from XTREME Wheels spammed us with a really horrible ad, and was immediately crushed for doing so. Granted, spamming is a no-no in the world of net-etiquette, but had she handed me a flier while I was sitting at a local coffee shop, I wouldn't have gone off on her right there because in real life social situati0ns, it would be inappropriate... even though I'd feel the exact same way about how cheesy she is. Then again, virtual environments have different rules by their very nature. We can be brutally honest and absurd here because we're not limited by normal social parameters (excluding some online communities). We're not limited by physics or much else here, either, virtually speaking. We can be flying dragons that shoot lasers out of our asses depending on where we are.

If anything, the internet communities and networking sites just creates an extension of exactly what we are or what we want to be. In real life, I'm really sociable, overly talkative, and have good friends in every place I've set foot. I've pretty much done the same thing on the internet, and I've made some real life friends because of it. I'd even put forth that some of my online friendships are as legitimate as some that I have in "real life" even though I've never met them face to face. That's 100% due to the individuals that that pertains to.

Sorry for the tangent... one thing I'll say so as not to completely dismiss this guy, he does have a lot of geek cred (respek), but I question his authority on the sociological aspects of his thesis (as of now since I haven't read it). I think he's on a killer subject, but my own posit, were I to attempt to write a book about it, would be about 99% opposite of his.

[Perfection]

The internet is a wonderland of pleasure.

[grimcity]

That chick's got a really huge ring.

[grimcity]

Mark, here's one to ask Scott... how did he arrive at the linked story?

I only ask because I got it here...

[brooklyn brawler]

Grim, you are internet's dark genius.

[Ronald Wilson Reagan]

Mr. Lanier sensibly notes that the “wisdom of crowds” is a tool that should be used selectively, not glorified for its own sake. Of Wikipedia he writes that “it’s great that we now enjoy a cooperative pop culture concordance” but argues that the site’s ethos ratifies the notion that the individual voice — even the voice of an expert — is eminently dispensable, and “the idea that the collective is closer to the truth.”

I disagree with him on this. The voice of an expert is not nearly as valuable as thousands of experienced voices. We all have biases, agendas, and perspectives. Giving multiple perspectives gives a more clear picture of the truth than even the most focused expert.

[H8R part 4]

but every Pal I've met in real life is pretty much who you meet in text

i don't think peoples online personas are anything like their real life personas.  the problem with "text" is what gets lost in translation.  facial expressions, body language, and the tone of someones voice doesn't exist virtually, but those all very important parts of ones personality and how we perceive/view/judge each individual that we meet.  i guess thats why we have emoticons but the "hive" has deem it to be "gay", i'll elaborate further.   
the use of emoticons came up at some point a while back and for the most part, you'll notice that the majority of the community here avoids using them.  so just out of my own curiosity i asked one of the guys(22) what he thought if someone puts a smilie face at the end of a post/response or a text, he said "the dudes is gay, what kind of dude smiles at another dude unless hes gay?"  so i asked another one of the younger guys(18) and he said the same thing. and literally 1 by 1, each person i asked(mostly males) was more or less questioning the posters/texters sexuality solely based on their use of a smilie face.  don't get me wrong, some people were like, "oh the dudes is happy" but the majority(aka hive)thought otherwise. 
sorry to get off topic but i found this kind of regular and i couldn't believe how many people i asked were on the same page.  its a feature designed so people could convey their facial expression online but how it makes someone gay is completely beyond me?
remember the poster SFA?  he had a problem with people posting "lol" saying it was gay/girlie/kid shit.  i distinctly remember this because it was kind of regular and i tend to remember regular shit.  not to mention MS still uses SFAHAHAHAHAHA instead of lol to convey his laughter.     
             

I think the main difference between being online and "in real life" is the rules thing you brought up. When reactionary, I think we're more prone to openly praise or attack online than we would be face to face, but I have to wonder (in a horrible example), what's more honest:

That lady Virgina from XTREME Wheels spammed us with a really horrible ad, and was immediately crushed for doing so. Granted, spamming is a no-no in the world of net-etiquette, but had she handed me a flier while I was sitting at a local coffee shop, I wouldn't have gone off on her right there because in real life social situati0ns, it would be inappropriate... even though I'd feel the exact same way about how cheesy she is. Then again, virtual environments have different rules by their very nature. We can be brutally honest and absurd here because we're not limited by normal social parameters(excluding some online communities). We're not limited by physics or much else here, either, virtually speaking. We can be flying dragons that shoot lasers out of our asses depending on where we are.

If anything, the internet communities and networking sites just creates an extension of exactly what we are or what we want to be.

how can one justify being a dick to someone simply because they're doing it online?  if you're being a dick you're being a dick, whether you're doing online and in real life.  the difference is it takes balls to do it in real life and only a keyboard to do it online.  and just like you said above, "every Pal I've met in real life is pretty much who you meet in text."  then that would mean that if someone being a dick in text, then they must be a dick in real life.  but you and i both know that isn't the case. 
i'm not saying one dick move online makes you a dick forever but in some way it does.   the one thing that the internet and its users doesn't do is forget.  if you want to participate in anything online you have to play the part of a politician.  you can't say the wrong thing, not even once, not ever, or it'll come back to haunt you.   
i frequent other messageboards and you'd be amazed how many times someone will drag up an 8 year old post to be like, "you see, i told you this guys a dick!".
in real life we tend to forgive and forget but in the virtual world, theres really no such thing.  i'm not even saying shit that goes on here, it really goes on everywhere and its kind of disturbing in a lot of ways.  i think i said this once before but i'll say it again.   posting on a messageboard is like going back to high school while running for a political office.  except its just not messageboards now, it pretty much the internet as a whole.               

The voice of an expert is not nearly as valuable as thousands of experienced voices. We all have biases, agendas, and perspectives. Giving multiple perspectives gives a more clear picture of the truth than even the most focused expert.

but where are those multiple perspectives coming from and from who?  what experience do they have and how do we know they' are telling the truth?  and thats where i think things go wrong and thats where the problem of anonymity plays its part.
if a 100000 people who you can't see, that can't grind say indy trucks suck, but theres 2 guys that can grind for days that say they're good, who should we believe?,  the majority? 
i hear what you're saying but the majority is often wrong and its been proven time and time again throughout history.  its unfortunate, but if enough people believe it to be true then it becomes the truth in some sense, and especially so online.  the hive mentality is like a virus in a lot of ways.     
     



i must say this is a most interesting topic!  it really brought up some very interesting points in our views of the virtual world around us. 
good stuff but i'm going to sleep now.  i look forward to reading more. 
   

[Albatross]

the responses in this thread make me happy- not because i think they are right or wrong, or that i think mr. lanier is right or wrong, but because there are lots of points raised in here that wouldn't have crossed my mind. and that's where i think one of the main strengths of the internet lies. stoked.

slap magazine is a diamond in the rough

[Mooley]

He fears, however, that “the vast majority of journalists, musicians, artists and filmmakers” are “staring into career oblivion because of our failed digital idealism.”

As interesting as all the stuff about the collective internet and all the anonymity was, I thought that little blurb was really the part that jumped out at me and I wish the article expanded upon it more. It seems like one of the internet's more interesting paradoxes that something which offers so many opportunities for exposure to new genres/artists/etc. can also have the potential to be a massive detriment.It talks about his ideas regarding online culture and the ways in which we're culturally failing ourselves, but I don't really get the way his 'hive mind' idea applies directly to this slaughter of traditional media he seems to be preaching about. Hopefully it's well-developed in the book.

[Donkey Lips]

the internet is a great place to meet people and j/o

[grimcity]

how can one justify being a dick to someone simply because they're doing it online?   

I'm not justifying it, just saying that we're not as bound to hold back positive or negative backlashes towards others... you and I might act one way at a formal dinner with the President, but we'd act a different way if we were watching TV of other people eating a formal dinner with the President.

[brooklyn brawler]

I honestly can't take this guy's article seriously. If the guy writes the way he speaks, I think I'd chug my wine and leave the art show. He's writing in a newspaper, not a novel.

There's no way Lanier would ever understand the internet, and especially not this generation of short term memory reading and visuals. He's calling everyone Tila Tequila's.

He fears, however, that “the vast majority of journalists, musicians, artists and filmmakers” are “staring into career oblivion because of our failed digital idealism.”

"failed"?

Good god. Skim the fat, buddy. The entertainment industry is TRYING to feed us pop culture, all while struggling against "kids on teh youtube".

Nobody listens to the radio anymore, nor are there any music videos on television. Talent is being found on the internet, because it's accessible. The media that once lost control of influencing pop culture is now embracing it. i.e. Justin Bieber, yeah I said it.

If we didn't have youtube sponsor videos, kids would still be saving money up to fly to California to get "found".

[Canuck]

BB you just dropped some wisdom.

[brooklyn brawler]

I want to elaborate on the point that The New York Times is just another print among other papers. It doesn't make your voice stronger because your words are in it. You just have a larger audience, yet your opinion is as valid as everyone else's. I read the Times as well, but I don't regard it higher than other places.


NYT can also act as a tabloid.

NYT can have writer opinions just as fucked up opinion as everyone else's.


I'd rather an opinion on the internet from someone who's spent time on it; someone who sees it as a friend and enemy. i.e. Kevin Rose, Eric Bauman, or even Tila Tequila.


Now, onto Lanier...


When I was visit my parents, my dad does this really weird thing where he'll walk by, and stand behind me looking at my computer, going "Whatcha doing?" I have to scoff and angle my computer away from him.

He doesn't get it. He uses Explorer with MSN Toolbar to find porn. His computer is loaded with Bonzi Buddy and Kazaa C++. He'll still email me to keep in touch, because I don't always answer my phone. He does understand the internet is vital, but refuses to understand it. If something doesn't work, it's the computer's problem. Just like this article, when the internet doesn't do what Lanier believes is traditional, it is wrong.


When I read articles like this, I picture my dad. I don't fault him for not understanding the internet. It's not age or stupidity. He just doesn't respect it, and therefore will never understand it until he does.