« Can You Learn From Second Life? | Main | How Can You Be Two Places At Once, When You're Not Anywhere at All? »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Daman Tenk

One small thing, regarding your whining about the RIAA.

If it's for the artists you're speaking, the RIAA is the last person you want on your back.

The way the RIAA is AGAINST Artist Rights is exactly the very reason the Recording Artists' Coalition was created in the first place. THEY are the ones you want to support if you care about the artists. Not the RIAA.

Jago Constantine

With regard to Robert Putnam's book on declining social capital, I have doubts that social media can take the place of "church basements"

Prokofy Neva

I refuse to accept any automatic, tribal, conformist, knee-jerk interpretation of the RIAA. I have yet to hear anyone tell me in unbiased, persuasive tones why I'm "supposed" to think this organization is "evil". If it truly were the evil thing geeks portray it as, every single rock band would be against it. But they aren't. Management of bands costs money, and takes professionals. In and of itself, a management body that demands rights and protects rights of its investment, which is considerable, doesn't at all seem inherently evil to me whatsoever; it seems good.

Are musicians rights to "trump all"? I simply don't see that they need to. Management pumps lots of money into selling, organizing, distributing for artists. It's not a trivial role. It's not a role that "social media" can replace, whatsoever, as I pointed out: back of "social media" is just...people. Amateurs, in some cases.

I simply find most of the hysteria around RIAA to be *unpersuasive*. That doesn't mean that I am somehow for exploiting artists and having evil managers clean up. Gosh, think of the evil managers out there, like that guy who sucked up all of the N'Sync boys' money, etc. Sure, there are stories of exploitation. But inherently, a group of managers banding together to protect their rights, and sue *for their private property* against *thieves* doesn't appear evil to me. You can rant and rave all you like about it, but it's not persuasive, as you are ignoring the very real problem of *theft* which harms musicians most of all, and which prompts the RIAA activities in the first place.

Clubside Granville

It would take far too long to point out all the errors (lies?) in the referenced article, but let's start with the title: "A History of the Social Web". What does that imply? That the history would start with the World Wide Web, a protocol of the Internet. But what do we get instead? Decades of marginally accurate information about computers, huge gaps in networking (the Bulletin Board System revolution that came with personal computer modem acceptance) history and even an at-best abridged if not outright mistaken tale of the Web's invention (no reference to SGML?).

Social sites were there from the first day CGI was available (nearly synchronous with the first Web server) with guest books, forums and other traditional "connective" apps ported from the BBS scene (and CompuServe, AOL and college networks). There doesn't even seem to be a definition of what the Social Web is to the author leaving the article as a whole a meandering mess.

Two last things before I irritate myself further: the IBM PC did not ship with a mouse and Web 2.0 refers to a technology not a use, it means moving away from the stateless relationship between client and server to a more desktop-like responsiveness through AJAX and related technologies.

Where is this article headed to? If it's a school paper, an F better be in the wings, if for publication, may at least one knowledgeable editor arrive on the scene before this dreck hits the printed page.

Prokofy Neva

Yes, you're absolutely right, I had forgotten about that BBS period. Of course, because that was with "walled gardens" that are universally loathed by these Web 2.0 geeks, they just erase them out of history.

I remember there were computers without a mouse, you just typed all those DOS commands. Hmm, were those Apples? No, they were early PCs. They had a really clunky turning of the pages.


The internet is a lot older than 15 years old. The web is only about 15 years old, but the web is a subset of the internet (if the dominant part of it these days). Second Life uses the internet, for instance, without being part of the Web beyond a few points of integration here and there.

I remember when the web first came out actually. Lots of virtual world devs at the time were irritated that now we had to bother with a "website" rather than just focusing on the world itself. (Here is where someone chimes in about how the boundary between the two will disappear, etc etc. Maybe.)

Prokofy Neva

Are you enjoying that feeling of superiority that geeks get when they "set someone straight," Matt?

I know all that. But for all practical purposes, the "Internet" is really what started about 15 years ago. All the truly geeky ARPAnet thisnthatnet stuff before the web, before you had actual pictures and clickable addresses, was not "the Internet" for most people. The Web may be "a subset" of the Internet technically, but it really is coterminous for most people -- for common, non-geek use.

In fact, I can remember that we used the Web *without* the picture capacity because we were on dial-up modems with a capacity of 55 or something, whatever that slow speed was. So we shut off the pictures, which it let you do back then, rendering all pictures as coloured diamonds. "We are not children, we don't need pictures," a staff person told me.

No, the boundary won't disappear, and what you say about irritation back then for those pioneer VW devs is interesting, if they perceived websites as "in the way". They *are* in the way. They're in the way *now*, as the Lindens struggle to dumb down the world and make it "like the web". Nobody needs this.


Now I agree that everyone is welcome to believe what they want, but to not let an honest discussion develop seems deceiving to me. Whether you believe in the hype or not isn’t the point, rather the inability to have an honest discussion about something on an old-media platform in a public space.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)