In September of this year, the Internet briefly burbled with the news that Facebook, the market leader in workday-wastery, would soon debut several fundamental changes to its site. For some of the more excitable online pundits, this was akin to the discovery of a heretofore-unnoticed ocean, and as the date of the redesign drew closer, they devolved into hysterics. Ben Parr, a writer for the tech news site Mashable, embarrassed himself with the sort of full-throated hyperbole best suited for a monster-truck rally: “On Thursday, developers will be elated, users will be shellshocked, and the competition will look ancient. On Thursday, Facebook will be reborn. Prepare yourselves for the evolution of social networking.”
The changes that Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg announced to a conference of developers in San Francisco that Thursday were, at base, all about control. Users would be better able to control their so-called social graph by sequencing their data into timelines. News organizations could exert more control over their Facebook presence by publishing Facebook-specific editions of their content. And, by turning the site into a more immersive experience, Facebook furthered its ambitions to control every segment of online activity, from commerce to conversation. The conference at which Zuckerberg made the announcement was called f8, as in “Fate,” and, by the end of the presentation, observant web users had caught a glimpse of theirs.
Once dispersed organically across the wilds of the Internet, news content and online discourse are consolidating onto platforms operated by a few tech companies—Google, the world’s most ambitious microscope; Twitter, the hyperkinetic modern version of the telephone party line; Facebook, Apple, Amazon, a few others. They are subsuming their competitors and adding users at a gluttonous rate. By controlling the social dissemination of data, they are poised to become the primary information sources of the digital age.
These companies have brought functionality and efficiency to a realm that is often confusing. They have reinvented the means by which ordinary people interact with and relate to the news and one another. They have made it easier for people to find stories and news sources of interest to them, and share that material with other interested parties. They have, in many ways, simplified their users’ lives.
But such convenience and efficiency comes at a cost. These digital gorgons now loom so large that content producers cannot avoid their shadow. The traffic they direct and attention they command is so great that, for publishers, to ignore them is to court obscurity and potential irrelevance. In a previous era, media properties were the primary points of access to information and opinion relevant to their respective communities, much to the dismay of certain interest groups and constituencies whose issues went unreported and voices went unheard. Now we have swapped one set of media gatekeepers for another—a handful of multi-billion dollar tech companies that aim to profit by hosting the digital commons.
The question is whether they’re up to the task. Some claim that Facebook and its cohort have crippled the open web—that unregulated bastion of independent thought and untrammeled communications—by encouraging people to become data sharecroppers on their vast digital plantations. The doomsayers are perhaps overstating their case. The open web continues to exist, after all, and is not hard to find, even if you don’t know what you’re looking for. But it is safe to say that the rise of the new digital behemoths portends the decline of the maker culture that once defined the Internet, as people are encouraged to become data consumers rather than creators. It means that a significant number of people will come to spend the bulk of their online time inside a circumscribed Internet characterized by limited functionality and bland ambition. And it likely spells an end to the idealistic notion that true disintermediation— the removal of the informational middleman—could play a relevant part in any given future for news.
Urban Dictionary:
1. Rohypnoled 35 up, 27 down
The verb of Rohypnol.
shut your face or you'll find yourself Rohypnoled.
1. Rohypnoled 35 up, 27 down
The verb of Rohypnol.
shut your face or you'll find yourself Rohypnoled.
2."padlocked intellect"
3."thimbleful of mind"
4."killer"
5."pedophile"
6."Recidivist Vegas Dicer"
7."Vegas Rohypnol Staggerer"
8."Deadman's Word Notes"...
52 Facebook Casino Reader Comment cards a week. Spit out randomly. Unerringly accurate.
This is not a channel-jamming con.
#1 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Fri 18 Nov 2011 at 04:42 PM
Clayton blithers: 2."padlocked intellect" 3."thimbleful of mind" 4."killer" 5."pedophile" 6."Recidivist Vegas Dicer" 7."Vegas Rohypnol Staggerer" 8."Deadman's Word Notes"...
padikiller responds: Just stay away from "commie" and you'll be OK, Clayton...
In CJR-Land, it's OK to call someone a "racist pedophile"... But calling someone a "commie" is so "inflammatory" that censorship becomes necessary.
Shine on, you crazy diamond!
#2 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 18 Nov 2011 at 10:38 PM
Economic Crisis, The Audit — November 18, 2011 07:56 PM
Audit Notes: Occupy Maybelline, Abramoff on the Revolving Door, News Corp.
By Ryan Chittum
[The Occupy Wall Street movement is already having its dissent commodified.
As BagNews shows, this Maybelline commercial shows its models prancing around in co-opted Occupy imagery...].
[Yeah, Ryan's link mentions that in an update:
"I just exchanged emails with Steve Hall from Adrants. Steve points out an important fact that I somehow missed. That is, that the video is a little over a year old. I apologize for the intimation that the ad was new and specifically designed to co-opt the Occupy movement...
Whoops.
#2 Posted by Thimbles on Sat 19 Nov 2011 at 06:10 PM].
There seems to be an issue with Ryan's post. I would solve problems of this kind by cooperating with good sites in Asia/Australia and the UK/Europe or elsewhere so as to maximize time zones.
If I were running the CJR site, errors would still be possible, but they would not stay up on the site this long. Or at least there would be an explanation by now.
CJR is not going to develop as a reader's site if machine-like reader comment posting is allowed. I mean padikiller/Thimbles or Thimbles/padikiller. They seem to be wrapped in a tight, unbreakable orbit.
There is no way to read and respond to such a flood of posts. I always reply to someone who comments on my posts, if I have time, but there seems to be no way to initiate a discussion with these two. Their posting is just too hectic.
I continue strongly to recommend that real names be used. If there is some critical information that has to be communicated otherwise, let an editor do it. Everyone, including the editors, should get three posts a day, no matter how short or long. No exceptions, period. Not even in the case of an oncoming nuclear winter. Why not try this system to see how it works? Otherwise, the site will not develop its potential. Comments get too rapidly buried in repetitive new ones.
There is little true interaction between writers and readers here, anyway. Manic posting will make that trend even worse. Ultimately, people may not take the site seriously in terms of reader comment.
#3 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Sun 20 Nov 2011 at 12:01 AM
@Clayton
For someone who claims the inability to "initiate a conversation", you sure do publish a ton of material in the comments here.
Ryan isn't interested in accuracy - he'll clip any anti-corporate allegation he can find on some commie (note to Pravda.. er, I mean CJR censor - I'm not calling any particular person a "commie") site on the internet and slap it up as fact here in a New York minute.
Eventually, we'll get an "update" with an insincere explanation of how Maybelline is still an evil corporation, despite the fact that all of the factual allegations against it are wrong.
This OWS thing is nothing but a city block's worth of privileged white kids who went for a sleepover and a party. An undirected, incoherent suburbanite flash mob that ended the second the kitchen tent closed. Yet Ryan and his ilk would make it into a "movement" of some kind.
#4 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 20 Nov 2011 at 07:39 AM
It seems to be impossible for 'padikiller' to get the message.
Let's say I'm running a business offering a useful service. But I have a nervous dog. As soon as a customer comes in, my neurotic dog gets into a frenzy and jumps all over the customer and pisses on him or her.
Then I would not have many customers. You are marking other posts by pissing on them, 'padikiller.' You are not trying to think carefully about how to create a good site for discussion.
Refraction is everything. I am supposed to be transformed by my experiences, not just hysterically reproduce my personality quirks. I am now reading "Microstyle," by Christopher Johnson. I suggest you do the same.
The private orbital lock with 'Thimbles' is a drag on the site.
The Mississippi between the writers and readers at this blog should be bridged. I expected a response to my comment at CJR's own 'Language Log' by now, but there has been nothing.
The site's e-mail addresses are clumsy and antique. justin.peters.cjr@columbia.edu should be the format. If we can't even get to square one with modernization, we may as well give up.
#5 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Sun 20 Nov 2011 at 01:04 PM
Ok, folks, back on topic:
Does anyone else remember when "everyone" was on AOL?
Just sayin'.
#6 Posted by Edward Ericson Jr., CJR on Wed 1 Feb 2012 at 05:55 PM