by Ethan Johnson
August 16, 2006

Seth Finkelstein and Nick Carr are just two of several people who are either now, or have historically challenged the idea that "hyperlinks subvert authority" and that blogging in particular is a great way to bypass the traditional "gatekeepers". For example, the new conventional wisdom is to maintain a "career blog" as opposed to submitting a resume (CV) to prospective employers. Tired of the same old media song and dance? Start your own online magazine, blog, whatever, and people will beat a path to your door. Who needs record deals? Upload your songs to your web site and you'll be headlining the top concert halls in no time. On paper, this all sounds great, but here's the problem: It's not working.

Or is it? Not everything that is published via non-traditional means (e.g. the internet) is destined (or meant) to become a million-seller. Not everyone will rise to the level of "thought leader" in a given area of expertise. And those that do, depending on the topic, draw a crowd that is commensurate with interest. For example, I could devote years of my life to the study of thumb tacks. I could become the world's foremost authority. No discussion of thumb tacks would be remotely definitive without making mention of my career and writings. But how many people find thumb tacks to be a scintillating area of interest, compared to say, what Britney spears plans on wearing tomorrow? Far more ink is spilled (virtually or otherwise) on the latter than the former.

As the popularity of the modern-day internet increased and came into its own, we were collectively told that none of the "old rules" mattered anymore, the fundamentals of economics no longer applied, and we all had a new "place" where we were free to be you and me. Essentially, the global internet was a "place" where US law applied, except where inconvenient, such as copyright law, being that information "wants to be free". The first dot-com bubble and crash provided a much-needed reality check and affirmed that economics are economics, regardless of the venue. Internet censorship by ISPs, governments, and corporations struck a blow to the idea of the global internet being driven purely by US laws. (Specifically, the First Amendment.) Napster's legal woes dealt a blow to the convention that copyright law somehow does not apply to virtual space. The experience may be virtual, but the equipment (and people) are quite physical. And they exist in a space that is indeed bound by laws, rightly or wrongly.

Along came the spectre of what is termed "Web 2.0". This moniker suggests that the rise and fall of the dotcom boom of the late 1990s was now buried under tons of rock and sediment, providing a smooth foundation upon which the next generation of virtual space might be built. The centerpiece of Web 2.0 is the ideal of the "social internet": Tagging to enhance context, interactive hubs and information sharing tools to enhance networking, and "mashup" applications to enhance productivity. With this new wave of internet hype came assurances that the "old rules" no longer mattered, the fundamentals of economics applied, but could be assuaged through the magic of Google AdSense, and that we all had a new "place" where we could bypass the traditional gatekeepers and become rock stars in our own right.

As the Web 2.0 bubble puffs up toward its inevitable end, cracks in the foundation are quite evident, but are dismissed by those who have an interest (financially or otherwise) in the belief that Web 2.0 is smooth sailing, and can only be bested by Web 3.0 and beyond. At root, I am inclined toward the opinion that many "facts" are indeed "beliefs about reality", but lack any inherent, unshakeable truths in and of themselves. Through the internet, all things are possible, yet not necessarily probable. As a process-oriented person, however, I do rely on truth and facts, and dislike any attempt to obscure same in the hopes of "proving" an assertion.

I engaged in a round of comment pong at Nick Carr's blog yesterday and quizzed Seth Finkelstein about his expressed disappointment in blogging as a vehicle for his personal or professional aspirations. The following excerpt from one of Seth's replies is quite telling:

To some extent, I think I was "taken" by hucksters who prey on people's frustrated hopes and dreams. I got the impression "that blogging indeed raise[s] the likelihood of this happening". All the slogans about "route around" the media, "formerly known as the audience", "now everyone has a printing press", etc. But as far as I could determine when measured objectively, the effect is extremely marginal if present, and arguably negative for a lot of reasons. And when I said things like that, I'd be told it was all my fault for not believing hard enough, that's whining, and nobody likes a whiner (i.e., saying "it doesn't work" shows I have a bad attitude so of course it doesn't work, just like being skeptical of fairies causes them to disappear, you gotta believe, clap your hands, pay no attention to the venture capital funds behind the curtain ...).

Having worked my fair share of lousy, dead-end jobs, I have experienced the rationale that [A] didn't work, therefore nothing will. While I empathize and agree with Seth's explanation of how the benefits of the "social internet" didn't pan out for him in the way that he hoped, I am also left shaking my head wondering what Plan B is, if Plan A is hopeless. After years of making myself physically ill working at yet another dead-end job, I finally broke away from all that and started down a path toward something more meaningful and enjoyable. I am quite sure that the other "dead enders" are right where I left them, cursing the darkness, sure in their beliefs about reality and their powerlessness in the face of all of it.

To Seth's point, however, I agree that "beliefs about reality" are a two-way street. My dead-end job was never billed as the fast-track to CEO. In virtual space, however, the merest utterance qualifies one for consideration for a Pulitzer. Not really, of course, but it could happen. A plethora of people with products to sell, seminars to lead, and books to write all have a vested interest in convincing the masses that they're right and everyone else is delusional and pathetic. They express their mantras of markets as conversations, the people formerly known as the audience, and that the market for something to believe in is infinite. The very machinery that is touted as being the panacea to bring about great ends by and large are eschewed by the same people who have an interest in getting you to believe that everything is above-board and works like a charm. Tagging is good, being tagged is better. Inbound links and site traffic is good, landing a speaking gig at a conference is better. Conversation is good, forcing trackback and other inbound links is better. As the apex of the great pyramid pushes ever upward, those clinging to the top insist that they could just as easily slide to the bottom in a heartbeat, and that those foraging at the bottom could find instant fame in the blink of an eye. Why, someone at the top could link to a bottom-feeder, and lo, the skies would part.

Influence begets affluence begets influence. Note that the de facto method for gaining and exerting influence is not necessarily one's position in the allegedly non-existent heirarchy of the social internet, but the brick-and-mortar world of conferences, tech-related or otherwise. The attendees are either paid to speak there, and thus have their expenses covered to some extent by the conference organizers, or are in a position to charge off the costs as a business expense. Not everyone has this luxury (and it is a luxury). A new method of sorting the haves from the have-nots has arisen, and defies the cheery claims that all things are possible through the social internet, and that there are no "gatekeepers" anymore. There are indeed, but the shadow has been moved to another place.

Ultimately, I believe that if we are committed to an objective, and seek to achieve it at all costs, we will certainly do so, or die trying in the face of all obstacles. I don't buy claims that the social internet is denying anyone their birthright, however, I do agree that it isn't necessarily by its very existence serving it up on a silver platter either. I see this avenue of inquiry as fertile ground for wags who thrive on sniping from the trees and dismissing any criticism of the machinery as the whinings of inept mechanics. I do believe that such criticism is legitimate and often warranted. And yes, sometimes whining is exactly that. But if we cannot fairly examine the machinery of the social internet (and beyond), and make judgements based on fact, and propose remedies to what is found lacking, then to hell with the whole rotten lot. <EM>