Blogs will not revolutionise the world

At least not the way the hypemasters want you to think. Tom Coates is using a small controversy about bloggers trying their hands at viral marketing to spew his gall about the incessentant hype about how the latest New Internet Thing is going to change the world forever:

I’m totally fed up of people standing up and waving a flag for the death of institutions based on sketchy information and a vague belief in the rightness of their cause – and I’m also slightly sick of more moderate voices being drowned out under the revolutionary fervour of people fresh with their first wave of excitement about user-generated content on the web. Weblogs suffer from this enormously. Someone said that every journalist that writes about weblogs thinks that the year they discovered them is the year weblogs went mainstream. I’ve watched this for almost six years now. I now need people to think about what’s more likely to happen – that big media organisations, and governments and businesses will dry up and evaporate, or that some of them will adapt and change to a new ecology, renegotiate their place in the world and have a role in fashioning and supporting whatever it is that’s coming?

Whatever is on the horizon – social software, social media, ubiquitous and pervasive computing, technology everywhere, permanent connectivity, media distribution, mass amateurisation, disintermediation – it’s going to have an enormous impact on our lives. But that impact will probably seem relatively subtle and gradual to those people living through it, and its true effects will probably not be fully recognised for a hell of a long time. So let’s try and be a bit humble about the whole thing, eh? Let’s get excited about possible futures, let’s argue for the changes we think should happen, let’s present ideas and theories and ideas and business models and look to the future and test them and explore them. But please, no more religious wars of us versus them, big versus small, old versus new… We’ve got enough entrenched dogmatic opinions in the world already without creating new ones…

Hear hear. I’ve been on the internet since 1994, not that long compared to some, and I’ve seen so many of these hypes come past. The internet itself, the web, push technology (remember this?) Java, Linux, Open Source, blogs, RSS, etc. etc. None of these things changed the world “forever”, but all of them (except push) changed the world in ways we still barely understand and won’t understand until at
least half a century or more has passed. Just like Zhou Enlai said of the French Revolution, it is still “too early to tell” what the impact of the internet is.

You gotta laugh

This is how the Guardian described Alister Black’s blog in their latest article on political blogs:

A neatly designed blog with extensive photo galleries. Alister Black’s site has many good points, and covers “conspiracy theory” stories the mainstream media doesn’t usually touch.

Conspiracy theories?

The icing on the cake? He was located in the centrist section…

Bigotry or just obnoxiousness?

One of my bêtes noirs is anti-French bigotry, which for some reason USAnians are most likely to indulge in (with UKians a close second). The litany is familiar: they’re whiny, arrogant, stinkyand cowardly; the sort of lazy stereotypes any good bigot has ready to hurl at their favourite target.

In the current political climate, with France taking a stance against the mad plans Bush has for Iraq, it’s no surprise hatred of the French has gone mainstream again. Not a day goes by without some pundit getting a dig in at the perfide French. For the most part, this is coming from people who are beyond redemption anyway, so it doesn’t really bother me. However, when it’s somebody who’s normally more sensible than that, somebody who’s not a rightwing nutbar, somebody like Jim Capozzola from The Rittenhouse Review, it gets my goat.

Jim thought it would be funny to post one of thoes mass forwarde e-mails, something called The Complete Military History of France –I bet you know already where this is going, right? Correct, it’s a “hilarious” summing up of all the wars France was in and how bad they were. A real kneeslapper. It features such gems as:

Hundred Years War: Mostly lost. Saved at last moment by a schizophrenic teenaged girl, who inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare: “France’s armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchman.”


(Why did you link “schizophrenic teenaged girl” to Body and Soul, btw?)

Duh! Because she posts as Jeanne D’Arc, of course, as Jim has pointed out to me. sometimes I am an idiot.

World War I: Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States. Thousands of French women find out what it’s like to not only sleep with a winner, but one who doesn’t call her “Fraulein.” Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline.

World War II: Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song.

In short, it betrays not only a astonishing lack of historical knowledge, it’s also incredibly offensive. If you don’t agree with me, do a gedankenexperiment and imagine the response a similar list with examples of “Jewish greed” would get.

Apart from the offensiveness of statements like “Going to war without the French is like . . . well . . . World War II” –Word War II did not start in 1941, you know– what irritates me as much is the smugness of the whole “essay”. It is drenched in a sence of superiority which is wholly unearned: when was the last time the US fought a serious war on its own territory or had a real, strong enemy at its borders? The US has not had to deal with anything like the amount of war and devastation France had to; I sincerily doubt it would’ve done better.

UPDATE: edited to make it clear Jim only posted this, not wrote it. He has e-mailed me (after I notified him) that the main reason he posted it was because he’s always the last to recieve such
forwards:

Actually, the reason I posted it wasn’t because I hate the French or anything, though I’m no fan, but because — as I’ve said on my blog several times — I’m usually the last person in the world to receive
e-mails with those kinds of world-traveling “humor” pieces. I was trying, at least, to make fun of myself, not the French, though that seems to have escaped nearly everyone who read it.

Fair enough. Obviously, it has somewhat backfired… Let me make clear that I don’t think Jim is a bigot at all; his post just irked me enough to rant about the attitude as displayed in that piece.

Google buys blogger

From a story done for the San Jose Mercury News and reported on Dan Gillmor’s weblog:

But now Google will surge to the forefront of what David Krane, the company’s director of corporate communications, called “a global self- publishing phenomenon that connects Internet users with dynamic, diverse points of view while also enabling comment and participation.”

“We’re thrilled about the many synergies and future opportunities between our two companies,” he said in a statement on Saturday. He didn’t elaborate further on what those synergies and opportunities might be, but said more details would emerge soon. Users of the Blogger software and hosting service won’t see any immediate changes, he added.

For Williams and his five co-workers, now Google employees, the immediate impact will be to put their blog-hosting service, called Blog*Spot, on the vast network of server computers Google operates. This will make the service more reliable and robust.

That last is good news at least. For the rest we’ll have to wait and see, but if there’s one company I trust not to fuck things up, it’s Google.