There is no Dana only Zuul

Zuul (a 'real-life' Sumerian god of destruction) being the evil omnipotent internet and all things digital, of course.

Is the obscure Ghostbusters reference throwing you off? Remember in the movie when Bill Murray's character, Dr. Venkman, goes over to Signourey Weaver's apartment and finds that Dana Barrett is possessed? While Dana is in the throes of possession he asks to speak to Dana to which she replies: there is no Dana only Zuul.

[crickets]

Well, the point is that I've finished that Keen book, and have to say that while it raised some interesting and valid points, for the most part I found it to be self-serving sensational hyperbole with an elitist spin. The internet is Zuul.

Keen seems to have a decent understanding of today's internet technology, but only to the point where it serves to bolster his arguments. He falls victim to the same behavior he describes in his book in telling how people only go to blogs that mesh with their ideologies: because they're biased and looking to have their own views reflected back which allows them to reify their contentions or creeds.

I'm assuming this is why he crafted his own blog, but I find it ironic given that he mourned the fact that so many blogs (and splogs) litter the ether, but then comes to the conclusion that he's mature and responsible enough that he can pepper one more on the digital landscape.

With the nature of the internet and digital technology changing so quickly, one major issue he had with regards to privacy are now moot with search companies like Ask.com leading the way by being the first search engine that will allow users to opt-out of data collection and have that information deleted within a few hours of their searches. Microsoft, Google, and Yahoo are all following suit so that search history can either be eliminated or completely anonymized.

For the most part, he highlights cases where Web 2.0 and the digital age have hurt those who are either lax or uninformed with regards to the permeable and ubiquitous nature of the information economy. He highlights the woes of Wikipedia, and how it's detracting from efforts exerted by experts.

His solutions are mostly common sense:

1. become better informed on Web 2.0
2. if you don't like something you see on the internet, then don't visit it again
3. parents need to rally in order to shield their kids from bad inter-neighborhoods.
4. if you have a router, you can configure it to restrict access to sites, or you can use software to monitor your child's usage.
5. don't put personally identifying material on the web if you're concerned about privacy

Bottom line: the tools and information to protect yourself are there.

Now I can finally pick up something interesting from the library, Cormac McCarthy's The Road. For my son, I've got one from my childhood: Island of the Skog.

I'm making good on my commitment

I mentioned a while ago this book, The Cult of the Amateur, by Andrew Keen. I've not been writing much because I'm trying to burn through this thing so I can comment on this...how should I describe it...provocative expose on how the digital age, Web 2.0, the internet are causing a process of cultural retardation.

The basic premise is that the nature of the internet is allowing people to dilute truth, and we are to blame for our own infatuation with ourselves, hence, the cult of the amateur. He raises some valid points about Wikipedia and its 'questionable' editing and (non-existent) vetting process, but then he states that Craigslist causes people to lose their job because of the fewer dollars spent on advertising.

My garage sale posting must've done horrible things for DoubleClick.

I'm withholding final judgment until I finish, but I find it difficult because as I find myself agreeing with some points, for the most part he sounds like an elitist who wields his research like a Protestant orator on the pulpit warning of the fires of hell that will consume non-believers. He delivers bitter tirades on bloggers and his generalist derisions liken them to negligent parents. In his eyes, every blog's link subsequently linked to another blog (aka: an unreliable source of information) muddies the water of truthery as the ensuing circle of misinformation threatens to drown us in confusion and mindless noise.

What's that, you ask? Does Andrew Keen have a blog? Why, yes he does! That magnanimous fellow conveys a upon himself a mantle of praise and humble awareness (he earned his stripes in Silicon Valley, and nonchalantly deemphasizes their significance while simultaneously giving a knowing wink as they offer credence to his tale), while providing links to Amazon and Barnes and Noble where you can buy his books. I think he's secretly jealous of the Daily Kos and is trying to generate swirl for himself.

It's an interesting read for certain, and he does circuitously make the point that you need to be careful about what you find as "fact" on the internets, but for the most part it's a hypocritical and somewhat myopic treatise with periodic nuggets of critical thought.

If you don't like what's out there in the ether, then stay out of those neighborhoods and stay abreast of events from reliable sources. It's like TV. Don't like it? Don't watch it, but stay aware of it...the whole "keep your friends close and your enemies closer" bit. Blurbs from Wikipedia should be taken with a grain of salt...of course you could always see who made the edits before you quote the site's articles in your term paper.

More later. Must finish reading tirade on the evils of YouTube and search engines and how horrible it is that Clear Channel or Viacom, two of the largest communication and media giants that control cultural mediums such as radio, cable stations, movie production houses, internet properties, and more have to "let go" of smaller underperforming stations. It's too bad that a handful of companies can't maintain a stronger grip on the vehicles by which we receive our news and entertainment. I'd prefer that one company have control over all my media because one opinion is better than a varying point of views.

Down J...must...reserve...judgement...only halfway through...maybe he'll start proposing solutions or alternatives as opposed to pointing fingers.

Has blogging caused the rate of dumbening to increase?

There was a piece on PBS a few nights ago where bloggers, journalists, and the dean of journalism at Columbia were interviewed to discuss "citizen journalism" or "acts of journalism". As one might expect, the piece explored both the positive and negative aspects of blogging: some say that bloggers are, on the whole, too uninformed and are diluting the relevance of online information, while others countered that the technology empowers people by facilitating the ease of dissemination of information and perspectives.

Coincidentally enough, Andrew Keen, a SV entrepreneur, published a book "The Cult of Amateurs" where he goes on to skewer the majority of people who've exploited mashup publishing technologies making it easier for individuals to spout all kinds of uninformed nonsense. I'm assuming that he means folks who are making use of blogger, typepad, myspace or whatever to publish pieces on politics, sexism, racism, facism, what myspace friends are doing, porn, movies, games, porn, sports, friendster, stocks, blog tricks, news, various social commentaries, porn, etc.

From what I've seen so far, I'd say his tone smacks a bit of elitism and there are chewy undercurrents of hypocrisy, as Keen himself has a blog, and a book, which are used as delivery vectors of his perspective on the phenomenon, but apparently it's okay for him to make use of the technology or for him to speak about his ideas: he's mature and erudite enough.

The rest of us? Slack-jawed yokels we are.

Needless to say, I don't think he's giving people enough credit. Or maybe he's not considering that it doesn't really matter that there's a lot of chaff out there...people who want to use the internet will have to become savvy enough to locate what they're looking for, and in the end I think they'll be the ones to dictate what content is deemed worthy for consumption and therefore what will become usable and meaningful information.

He apparently also discusses issues of identify theft, online pornography, and online gambling and how these are eroding the core tenets of American culture, but of course, it would seem that the amateurs are at fault here. His bottom line is: less banal banter is more meaningful. We'll get there, as we're early in the game for Web 2.0. We're definitely going to go through some iterations first.

Or maybe, I'm just one of those people who's spouting off a useless uninformed commentary, or maybe I just need a book deal in order to validate my ramblings.

I think I'll check out his book, but I'll be borrowing from the library on this one.