After reading works like cult of the amateur, wisdom of the crowds and
the tipping point, and learning about the history of media up until
this point I'm only seeing some of the puzzle pieces. I understand now
that media is directed by people, not by events. That the internet did
not become a cultural landmark upon inception, it became a landmark
after one billion people used it. This is because the telegraph, TV
and radio were the same way. It takes the crowd to deem whether an
invention is worthwhile. The car was invented long before Ford, but
people don't just snap up a good idea, they wait to pick the right
idea. It wasn't until we got the combination of the right fuel type
(like it or not we chose gas over electricity) the right manufacturing
method and the right price. The same goes for new media. we tried Myspace, and Friendster, and people dropped them to cling to Facebook.
What I don't understand is this idea of clinging to the old, when
things no longer work. Cult of the amateur had some good criticisms of
web 2.0, namely that we don't appreciate experts and we are sciphoning
money out of the economy by trusting these amatuers for free. However
he seems to want to cling to the past, and is mournful that these jobs
are going away. While I am incredibly sympathetic in these regards tot
he people who are no longer able to make money off of advertising
because of Craigslist, or cannot write news stories because bloggers
will do it for free, I say, innovate. People are tenacious creatures,
and when the going gets tough the tough will find a way to forge a
living. Maybe it's time for tv to loose it's chunk of pie to online
video. maybe we need "web critics " that will tell us who is an expert
on line and who is not worth following. Maybe we need to create more
value, as Rich Nadworny was so adamant about. If people are doing
things for free, then we need to take it as a blessing because we can
then find other ways of creating value.
This in't to say that I see the system as being fine as it is. There
is still a lot of crap online and wading through what is valuable and
what is not is hard work. and even if we were to have an online critic
to do it for us, so we can see what is worth our attention, how would
we pay them? The other problem is that we are making mental labor less
valuable. I'm all for automation and having computers do tasks that I
know humans shouldn't need to perform, but news and music and culture
is our THING. That's what we will always do better than computers, so
why are these things being devalued? It's because these are the things
people want to do. People will always want to make art and music in
their free time, and people will always love spreading the news to
anyone who will listen. But if people will naturally do this, then why
should we move away from it? Shouldn't we be working to create a world
where everyone enjoys going to work? In an ideal society wouldn't we
have everything taken care of already and have people free to create
culture? And shouldn't this be getting easier with computers being
able to perform ore and more jobs that people do not want to do?
Hopefully I will find these answers as I continue this semester, and
hopefully I will be able to move humanity to do what it truly does
best. Imagine.
the tipping point, and learning about the history of media up until
this point I'm only seeing some of the puzzle pieces. I understand now
that media is directed by people, not by events. That the internet did
not become a cultural landmark upon inception, it became a landmark
after one billion people used it. This is because the telegraph, TV
and radio were the same way. It takes the crowd to deem whether an
invention is worthwhile. The car was invented long before Ford, but
people don't just snap up a good idea, they wait to pick the right
idea. It wasn't until we got the combination of the right fuel type
(like it or not we chose gas over electricity) the right manufacturing
method and the right price. The same goes for new media. we tried Myspace, and Friendster, and people dropped them to cling to Facebook.
What I don't understand is this idea of clinging to the old, when
things no longer work. Cult of the amateur had some good criticisms of
web 2.0, namely that we don't appreciate experts and we are sciphoning
money out of the economy by trusting these amatuers for free. However
he seems to want to cling to the past, and is mournful that these jobs
are going away. While I am incredibly sympathetic in these regards tot
he people who are no longer able to make money off of advertising
because of Craigslist, or cannot write news stories because bloggers
will do it for free, I say, innovate. People are tenacious creatures,
and when the going gets tough the tough will find a way to forge a
living. Maybe it's time for tv to loose it's chunk of pie to online
video. maybe we need "web critics " that will tell us who is an expert
on line and who is not worth following. Maybe we need to create more
value, as Rich Nadworny was so adamant about. If people are doing
things for free, then we need to take it as a blessing because we can
then find other ways of creating value.
This in't to say that I see the system as being fine as it is. There
is still a lot of crap online and wading through what is valuable and
what is not is hard work. and even if we were to have an online critic
to do it for us, so we can see what is worth our attention, how would
we pay them? The other problem is that we are making mental labor less
valuable. I'm all for automation and having computers do tasks that I
know humans shouldn't need to perform, but news and music and culture
is our THING. That's what we will always do better than computers, so
why are these things being devalued? It's because these are the things
people want to do. People will always want to make art and music in
their free time, and people will always love spreading the news to
anyone who will listen. But if people will naturally do this, then why
should we move away from it? Shouldn't we be working to create a world
where everyone enjoys going to work? In an ideal society wouldn't we
have everything taken care of already and have people free to create
culture? And shouldn't this be getting easier with computers being
able to perform ore and more jobs that people do not want to do?
Hopefully I will find these answers as I continue this semester, and
hopefully I will be able to move humanity to do what it truly does
best. Imagine.
No comments:
Post a Comment