Power Laws, Weblogs, and Inequality

Well, I have never looked at blogging in the way that Shirky analyzed it. He presents that blogging is something far more cut throat than I had ever imagined. Being someone who really never got into the whole blogging scene and really still isn't a big fan of posting personal thoughts and responses in this medium. However, with that being said, I do appreciate and respect those who take blogging as seriously as some of the bloggers that Shirky described.

First off I had no idea of the cut throat nature of blogging and just how nearly impossible it is to get recognized. Lanier in his book gave one example of someone who did just that though. Diablo Cody, he presented, an exotic dancer who was also an avid blogger was able to get noticed by a publishing company who took an interest to her blog. That publishing notice led book a book deal, which in turn was noticed by a film studio which led to a movie deal that produced that widely popular movie, Juno. This was something that I was not aware of whatsoever, I just thought that Judd Apatow had an idea for a movie about teen pregnancy , wouldn't have ever thought that it was some blogger-strippers work.


Drawing now more on the bell curve aspect that Shirky used and how it applys to the weblog aspect of his article, this theory can also be put into work with the grading policy being discussed in the classroom. While I know the vast majority of our classmates find the "bell curve" grading system to be a prime example of inequality. I know that this has been expressed in some of my classmates blogs already but I know its an issue that is still at the front of our minds, especially now that the blogs will be graded in an hour and a half. The inequality aspect of our blogs culminates with two things, time and experience. The aspect of time is almost too obvious, but the aspect of experience branches off into a couple different things. First off the experience of age is a big one, I know that myself and Max are the minority in this class being the two youngest, having just completed our first semester, where others like Frank have just completed their seventh. Don't get me wrong, I like and accept challenges with open arms and a smile but the prospect of competing with seniors and juniors for grades is an intimidating prospect. I know that this class rewards you for the work that you put in (at least that's my assumption) I just hope that the effort I give is sufficient to keep me in good standings with my fellow classmates.  

Lanier - The Final Chapters.

            Finally. At last this manifesto has been completed and I have never been happier. Upon reading the last two parts of Lanier's manifesto, I am more confused than ever. Lanier has an, how should I say, interesting style and approach to his writing, chalk full of contradictions. After cutting through all of his technical jargon and trying to decode his meanings and philosophies about life I am still left wanting a justified reason as to why he wrote this book. In his final two parts he goes into a description and rant on neoteny, singularity, computationalism, cybernetic totalism and a whole list of other things that are new and foreign to me. In the opening to part five of his book, Lanier confesses that the appeal of cybernetic totalism is "undeniable", when earlier in his manifesto he defined cybernetic totalism as "a cataclysm brought on when computers become ultra-intelligent masters of matter and life.". Following Martin's blog title "People Like Lanier Are Responsible For Skynet", I'm completely agree. Lanier's whole criticism of people and the Internet was that people were becoming to absorbed in the whole wonder that is the Internet. He criticised the masses for following blindly and giving "too much credit" to the Internet that is and was designed by humans for humans, not machine for machine. So in the terms of a troll, WTF Lanier? How can you say that a cataclysm brought on by computers is appealing? Has James Cameron taught us nothing?

        For all my criticisms and harsh words about Lanier, I do have to give them man credit for what he has accomplished in his lifetime. Going from being a goat herder and midwife (I couldn't make that up people), to the father of Virtual Reality, the man's accomplishments are staggering. In the final few parts of his book, he describes, in detail, just how the creation of VR happened and through his description you can see just how passionate this man is about his work. I can see now that through all the bullshit that he confused us with and all his grievances about the Internet, he is almost a caring father, wanting to see his son become interested in what he himself likes. He only wrote this book because he cares, and the fact that he wrote this manifesto, with his background, is good enough reason as to why we should respect what the man has to say, regardless of how we feel about him or his views. I may not agree with everything that the man says but I do respect him for his accomplishments and what he has done to facilitate the growth of VR and the Internet itself.

You Are Not A Gadet - Part 1

First off, I find it funny that we are reading a book by a man who has longer dreads than Marley, is whiter than Michael Sera and creates music that sounds like something that would be playing in an acid trip that has  gone horribly, horribly wrong. But hey, he does seem to know his shit about the Internet and the cyber culture that is growing out of it even though he looks like a hippie version of Bruce Valance. But all of my criticisms aside, the first part of his book, You Are Not A Gadget, is very informative and gave me new information about the Internet that I didn't know anything about. The idea of the "Lock-In" that he gave and so described gave me a whole new outlook on the way the Internet and how I use it. I myself am guilty of how he felt that everyone was spending to much time on the Internet and relying so heavily on its graces as a medium in which to obtain information. I don't see how the world would function if tomorrow the Internet just stopped working. South Park in their episode Over Logging gave probably not only the most comedic depiciton, but an accurate one as well. If the Internet were to shut down tomorrow, people would lose their minds, and students would, god forbid, have to do research through that awful medium that people call books. Here is a link the the South Park episode in case anyone is interested.

http://www.southparkstudios.com/guide/episodes/s12e06-over-logging

Lanier values people. He values that people need to have an identity and he values the individuality, creativity and intelligence that comes with that identity. Lanier also states that there is no wisdom in crowds, people on the Internet seem to follow one another like sheep. When someone posts a comment or says something that only contains hate ( what is know as being a "troll") it only spreads its containment's everywhere. Lanier hates this practice and is ashamed or angry in the direction that the Internet is going. He adds onto this idea by saying that people are just following a blind prophet, when someone who is a posting things anonymously, or blind, people don't seem to want to find any proof if this person is right or has any credible sources to back up what he/she is saying. The blind leading the blind or, more appropriately, the Shepard is leading his flock to the slaughter of ignorance. Unless of course, this person has credible sources and evidence to support their claims.

I found that most of what Lanier was saying to be true of  what is happening in the Internet today, and I feel that at some point the "trolling" and just sheer ignorance of  anonymity has to come to an end. I hope that I may live to see the day where those people who refuse to take the responsibility of what they say cease to litter the Internet but I fear that I won't. Lanier makes some valid claims in this first part of his manifesto that he backs very well and hopefully part two offers just the same.