July 15th, 2007

If you haven't been following along with Danny Ayers' new weblog for his employer, Nodalities, you'll at least want to check out This Week's Semantic Web where Danny hunts down all the semantic goodness fit to print. I particularly liked the post Henry Story wrote on JSON.

I'm more ambivalent about Clay Shirky's speech at Supernova. The video can also be found at YouTube, since the Supernova site seems to be having problems.

Clay Shirky is a good speaker, and he makes some interesting points. I think, though, that conflating 'love', as he did, with our sometimes passionate interest in technology confuses that which we use and that which we value. Does the plumber love her wrench, the artist his brush? Perhaps, but if deprived of such tools, they would continue because it is really the act of creativity they love–the ability to use their skills to create something from nothing.

When Shirky talks about today's social networking tools, and how they act as 'aggregators' of such love, turning love into a …renewable building material my first thought was, well yes, perhaps, but they can also turn love into a wrecking ball.

When I wax poetic about a technology, there is no implication of extraordinary communal tie based on such an expression. If there were, I wouldn't be able to see when the technology is no longer useful for my purposes, or my interests lie elsewhere. I would lose my objectivity, and hence, my overall usefulness.

I do understand, though, about the need to give back to the community. If we find a technology to be useful, it behooves us to support it, in some way. Our support, though, is as much for selfish reasons as selfless–we give help, we get help back.

When Shirky uses 'love', he really is talking about in a higher sense; at a minimum, the love we give to our closest friends, which means we feel a strong comradery with others who share the same passionate belief in the technology. Such 'brotherly love' can lead to a wonderful sense of belonging, true. But it can also lead to fanaticism. There isn't a one of us who hasn't been caught up in a fanatical battle between technology believers. None of us has ever benefited from such, no, not even those who like a good fight.

C++ vs. Perl

RSS vs. Atom

IE vs. Netscape

XML vs. JSON

Windows vs. Mac

vi vs. emacs

Microformats vs. RDF

David Weinberger vs. Andrew Keen

And it goes on and on.

In the meantime, such 'aggregated love' can drive wealth into the hands of the canny few who know exactly what Shirky is talking about, and in fact, are banking on it.

Comments
1
Bud Gibson - 11:20 pm 7/15/2007

Hey, I was in the microformats vs. RDF fight, but decided it wasn't really my fight. Just so you know, this comment was posted with love. How do I make money off of that?

2

I know Perl (and even perl), but what’s PERL? :-)

3
Danny - 5:19 am 7/16/2007

Thanks for the link, love.

I agree entirely with what you say about Shirky's speech. He seems to have done what he did in a speech on tagging I heard (ITConversations? not sure) - lots of good ideas and material well presented, but some angle(s) which seemed very iffy, rather forced, which detracts from the presentation as a whole.

(btw, sorry about my guitar invading this post on Planet RDF - I'll give it a good thrashing :-)

4
Phil - 6:42 am 7/16/2007

PERL is a quasi-recursive antronym - it doesn't stand for Perl Is Not [an] Acronym.

5

Show me the … love!

But, when it comes to technology, Let's Just Be Friends.

6
Shelley - 8:15 am 7/16/2007

PERL was a caps attack. Happens when you write on tech too much. You should see my letters to my mother.

But at least I got Henry's name fixed.

Danny, it looks like it invaded my Photoshop post. Bad guitar, bad. No more Van Halen for you.

Re: Shirky. I think what struck me particularly much, was his talk about tool 'aggregators' and love as 'renewable building material', especially in reference to corporations, as they move into the future. That sounded suspiciously like telling companies if they use these tools, they can get the 'community' to do their work for them.

Maybe it's just me.

I heard this, though, and my first reaction was, "Where's a Seth Finkelstein, Dave Rogers, or Nick Carr" when you need one?

7
dave rogers - 7:08 pm 7/16/2007

Dave Rogers is in a secure, undisclosed motel somewhere near Fredericksburg, Virginia, for the night. Tomorrow, he will be headed north.

I was hoping to listen to Shirky's speech before commenting on it. Naturally, my prejudice or bias is to believe that this is just another misguided effort to make something significant in its own way, more significant by relating it to some social good.

From the "Irony is the fifth fundamental force of the universe" files, I refrained from commenting on David Weinberger's opinion that the word "leadership" is corrupt by its overuse. This from one of the people who've made the word "conversation" totally devoid of meaning.

"Love," "conversation," all social goods will ultimately be corrupted to serve commercial needs, especially the commercial needs of talking heads, consultants, analysts and academics. And don't for a moment believe they don't have commercial needs or interests.

The problem with Andrew Keen isn't that he's an alarmist, it's that he isn't alarmist enough. Now I have to go walk the dog.

8

Phil: ROFL! Quoted. Thanks for the laugh.

9
Shelley - 7:52 pm 7/16/2007

Will be curious to read your opinion if you write on this, Dave. It sounds like you've listened to the Weinberger/Keen debate.

I'd be more interested in hearing what Keen has to say, if I felt that he was saying it because he really believes it, and just isn't selling a book. When I watched the debate between him and David, my first reaction was, "Why don't they just take their books, march 10 steps away from each other, turn, and throw them at each other — whoever hits the other wins."

But then, I'm also an author, so perhaps my opinion is suspect. Except that I don't sell books about new world orders, good or bad. I tell people how to do stuff with code. I can't help thinking both gentlemen would probably treat such with disdain.

Frankly, after watching the debate, I came away with the opinion that neither person would see people like us in their respective versions of the new world order.

Aristotle, yes, I didn't write appreciately enough of Phil's comment. I'm glad he writes a weblog, because it's enjoyable to read.

10

"I heard this, though, and my first reaction was, "Where's a Seth Finkelstein, Dave Rogers, or Nick Carr" when you need one?"

Thanks, but remember, one of my New Years Resolutions was to stop arguing with marketing flacks. It doesn't do any good, and it annoys the flack.

That being said, you might enjoy the following Clay Shirky thread, which has comments from both Nick Carr and me:

http://many.corante.com/archives/2007/06/13/old_revolutions_good_new_revolutions_bad_a_response_to_gorman.php

Also, lessons in attention-mongering involving Andrew Keen:

http://blogs.britannica.com/blog/main/2007/04/the-citizen-media-revolution-10-year-anniversary/

11
Phil - 4:56 am 7/17/2007

The 'Luddite' thread on M2M reminded me that I've never been able to argue with Clay - he's too good at it, FSVO 'good'. After a while you've just got to say what you came to say and shut up.

12
dave rogers - 5:38 am 7/17/2007

Marketers, writing books called "The Age of Conversation." Oh, joy. Oh, rapture.

Profits from physical sales go to charity.

Because all we really want is the attention.

(Stay tuned for the sequel: The Age of Love.)

Thanks to all those who have contributed to the discussion. Comments are now closed, but you can contact the author of the post directly.