There was once a time where diversity of thinking and interests was considered an important thing. Popular thinkers of the day encouraged us to explore new things that we would maybe have never considered thinking about and thinking a little harder about the things we actually know and do. A friend encourages his team and friends to regularly buy a magazine that covers a subject they're not interested in order to find out something new. Back in the halcyon days of blogging this was called being interesting. The pursuit of interesting even spawned a series of conferences and back in 2007 our Internet world seemed to be, well, interesting.
Four years, friends and some circles later, things seem not only to have changed, but have done a complete 360 180 on the idea of diversity, fascination and interestingness. It seems to me that, particularly with what’s going on on google+, that diversity of thinking and the skill of actually being interested in something new has faded, making way for a new phase of the web; a place full of speed, quick links, quick likes and a binary scoring system. This new web seems to have turned its back on the skill of thinking for one’s self, in favour of the fraternity.
Surely, I’m not the only one who has noticed this? Fraternity thinking is like herd on Vodka-Redbull; hugely protective, highly organized, fascinatingly dull and staggeringly aggressive to anyone who either questions the central themes of their “circle” or dares to move beyond posting a cheezburger network link and actually thinks for themselves. Borg-Like, deeply suspicious of success and completely void of irony, this new fraternity web does and should worry me. I hope it worries you too.
Entirely agree.
ReplyDeleteI'm so very bored of violent agreement; why can't we have the odd argument, or at least opinionated chat?
Part of me thinks it's because of the very media-led nature of many of these platforms, where people feel they shouldn't speak out against their friends/other like minded individuals.
In 2006/7, I knew folks writing in my little internet world didn't all agree, and I liked it.
Violent agreement... nice phrase Will.
ReplyDeleteI agree, though I think it's still out there; just reined in a bit.
That's because the algorithms are running the show. Everything is so geared toward tailoring what you see of the internet to your specific taste.
ReplyDeleteIt's useful when Amazon notices that you may like one product because you like another. But when Facebook doesn't show you status updates from people with whom you haven't interacted in a while, you're getting an increasingly myopic view of what's going on.
Because every site thrives on clicks, they can't afford to show you things they think you won't like, creating a relentless drive toward homogeneity.
It happens in academia too. Only at a much slower pace. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/31/opinion/sunday/biased-but-brilliant-science-embraces-pigheadedness.html
ReplyDeleteGroup think isn't particularly entertaining. But then, this isn't really new, or is it? There was a time, before 'social media' - ehem - when I was a regular in anarchist discussion forums, because it was interesting. But, being a self reinforcing thing, like all communities it all quickly turned boring and - well - mad. Same with your circles, and it's not only algorithms but also vanity, and I don't think we are all devoid of that. (Not even you, your Highness.)
ReplyDeleteGreat to have you back, btw.
Well stated. Agree with Will too. I was once told by someone well known in my industry that I "need to be more focused in my online presence." What, so I can also talk only about marketing online (it's what I do for a living)? And what everyone is talking about. It's just too bad. I'm an individualist: so, I talk about art, design, my Military background, family, and any other latest topic that strikes my fancy! It's called being human, with my own unique perspective, and some of us just don't know how to conform to the "group-think." Thanks for stating. @Brent it's great to provide relevant results, etc. in advertising. Yes, that is useful, when I'm looking to buy new shoes. But for the purpose of blogging, and online conversation with people –– the non Borg-like –– in that context we're more discriminating. Well I am anyway. There's no algorithm to meet the needs of serving people the conversations they want, at least not yet.
ReplyDeleteThis is right on point, the idea of "friending" or adding someone to your circle that you might disagree with, or even someone you don't know, seems odd to many when it's exactly what we should be doing with these technologies.
ReplyDeleteWelcome back Kaiser. I have no idea what you're talking about but I think I agree. Hmmm maybe not? See you on Google+
ReplyDeleteMaybe the problem is the commercialization of the web. As soon as everything you post needs to serve some purpose (usually monetary), risk-aversion rises; you begin to focus on being interesting to a certain audience (customer base) and neglect being interesting (let alone controversial) in general.
ReplyDeleteThe internet used to be more human before people felt like they needed to focus on larger numbers (see advertising/media buying etc) "quickly" I heard "lump people together in big groups". Yes the algorithm drive the usage, yes the platforms are driven by the ad revenues, and the engagement numbers. it was great when it wasn't a mall, or is that not what you meant ?
ReplyDeleteYou are exaggerating.
ReplyDeleteThose phenomenons have always been there. I agree that the way how some social software is programmed is certainly driving the social behaviour you describe - but again: it's nothing entirely new and I see a lot of evidence that diversity and a culture of discourse is still very much alive on the web.
the willingness of diversity lies in people not in machines.
ReplyDeleteor: we build machines on our needs - not vice versa (I know you and your dytopian mindset will disagree)
Sometimes it seems the interestingness got boring when it became professionalized. For profit conferences and consultant/gurus riding along.
ReplyDeleteOr maybe all the interesting people, because of their interestingness, now have damanding boring jobs.
Possibly at a human level given nobody, in media or your friends with real lives, shares raw interestingness anymore as it threatens job security, future political ambitions or even running accidentally into legal trouble.
Though for me, personally, what made it challenging was suddenly there were too many audiences engaging with and looking at all the stuff. Context and relevance kind of softened. Too much to worry about 'what if someone (usually a particular person or subset) took something interesting out of context.
It was good days back then in the Halcyon era when it felt like advertising karoke every morning when I logged on. Everyone having a go and encouraging each other. Pushing it to the limits. Now, we all seem to just sing in the shower by ourselves again...
few people can afford the creative thinking, many have to streamline their behavior in order to get through at all. on the other hand, creative thinking is actually quite hard, maybe the cool tech widget script plug-in of 2007 helped overcome a lack of it.
ReplyDeletebreaking (from) the system was never easy.