I don't care where you are on the political spectrum, listen up. Whoever "they" are, they do not hate us for our freedom. They do not hate us for our fast food, our rock and roll music, or our apple pie. They hate us because of our insipid yet casual hegemonic behavior with regard to everyone else.
This week, The Democratic People's Republic of North Korea conducted an underground test of a nuclear weapon which may have yielded up to 20 kilotons -- the rough equivalent of the nuclear bombs dropped at the end of World War II.
Naturally, this action has been almost unanimously condemned by the international community with practically identical rhetoric. It's the same old jeopardizing-peace-and-stability routine. I won't bore you with the details, because I'm sure you've heard it all before.
In fact, we've been going through this for years now with North Korea and others and I'd just like to stop for a moment and ask why. Why bother? I don't actually think North Korea is going to try to nuke the White House or even deploy their weapons against their neighbors. They don't want to use them, they just want to sit at the big kid's table.
Would that be so bad? The way I see it, North Korea could use the geopolitical equivalent of a hug right now. It was the Cold War, people. They bet on the wrong horse and now they're scared and alone in a world full of enemies. Of course they want nuclear weapons, because the way they see it, that's their only path to legitimacy.
Well, now they have them. We could continue to pretend we can force them to unlearn their creation, or we can face reality and focus on how to keep them in their silos. What's the best way to keep them in their silos? Stop antagonizing North Korea.
Am I saying we should sanction the proliferation of nuclear weapons? Fuck no. I'm just trying to point out that our skewed perception of the issue is going to preclude reaching any kind of resolution everyone can live with, and our sanctimonious attitude is only going to foster more resentment.
We use terms like "rogue state," and assign them to the Axis of Evil. We treat them like comic book villains because that's a lot easier than trying to understand where they're coming from, or -- even worse -- acknowledging our own role in the situation.
After all, they're only playing the game we created.
When we invented the atom bomb, we could not drop those motherfuckers fast enough. Now here we are, the only country ever to use nuclear weapons on another and we're on top of the world -- we were at least. We tell ourselves it's because we're somehow better, that we're capable and responsible enough to have them. What they see in places like North Korea and Iran is rather different.
Whoever has the bombs makes the rules.
They see a juvenile club, complete with decoder rings and "No Girls Allowed" sign. They watch us invade sovereign states without provocation while insisting they are the dangerous ones. They see us sign nonproliferation treaties and then turn a blind eye when our friends want to break the rules.
This is the primary reason we will never be free of terrorist cells, violent religious zealots, and dick-waving contests with other countries.
Just to be clear, I think governance on the country/state level in general is madness, I don't care if its a benevolent democracy or an iron-fisted authoritarian situation. Far be it for me to try and tell you how all how to talk between your crazy selves. Where I come from, however, if you patronize and belittle everyone around you, you're not allowed to act surprised when they resent you for it.
State Sovereignty
Imagine my surprise. I'm watching clips from Fox News posted to the media watchdog websites I typically peruse with my morning coffee and I see the likes of Glen Beck and Sean Hannity calling for dissent, secession and revolution. Unsurprisingly, it didn't take long for conservatives of all kinds to take up the banner of anti-establishment once they were ousted from positions of power.
And I have to give them credit. If nothing else, the right wing of the American political spectrum is a worthy adversary. During the Bush administration, the Democratic party basically rolled over and did as it was told, but now, riding high and full of energy from President Obama's landslide victory, they still can't manage to get anything done.
The Republicans under Bush and Cheney took full advantage of the nation's fear and anger to realize a seriously heinous agenda and when anyone complained, they more or less just told them to shut up. But they went too far. They screwed the pooch and now many of their pasty, bloated Republican faces no longer spew their xenophobic nonsense in the halls of power. They are not, however, taking it laying down, and this revolution is being televised.
Just like their favorite political party, the Fox News folks have made the astonishing transition from nationalist patriots to anti-authority rabble rousers. The whole charade has some traction with the more extreme elements of the party, but it's off to a rocky start. They repeat -- without irony -- the same rhetoric of the left-minded protesters they mocked for the last eight years. Not to mention they accidentally associated their first big protest event with the taste of scrotum.
I'd like to take a moment to ask you to visualize this role-reversal. Imagine Rush Limbaugh in anarchist riot black with a face full of pepper spray, Sean Hannity wrestled to the ground pleading, "don't taze me, bro!" to no avail. I want you to picture Glen Beck doing his fake weeping routine not for an audience, but for a judge about to send him away for conspiracy.
It's hard to do, right? That's because these guys are full of shit.
This is hardly breaking news, I know. The right is hilariously bad at this whole opposition thing and it shows. There is, however, one realistic and interesting point floating around in the whole mess; state sovereignty. It's a real shame this idea is starting to gain momentum now and with this gang of jackasses because it will likely be dismissed as the blatant power play that it is.
So before it is flushed down the toilet next week when Fox's precious hysteria reserves are committed to some other scandal, I'd like to take a moment to examine it from a perspective other than that of the paranoid conservative flash-in-the-pan populist.
You know, the paranoid anarchist perspective.
Fortunately, since I am not an elected representative nor am I a major media figure, I don't have to go through the rote platitudes required whenever one wants to criticize an aspect of our governance. You know, the "This is a great nation. I love my country, but..." nonsense. I care about our government as much as my last bowel movement, but here's how we might actually make it work.
As an anarchist, I believe that the most effective and least oppressive form of society is small -- the size of a band or tribe. Although customs and rules will vary from group to group, they ought to be voluntary gatherings of individuals. I think that organization on this level is far fairer to people than the bloated, faceless entities which currently control our lives, whose only real purpose is to gain more power which they use to justify their continued existence.
As a realist, I understand that this notion of being part of a large group, having support at high echelons, and generally not being forced to worry about some things is comforting to most people. I also realize that our culture has done a thorough job of convincing most people that if we consider decentralizing our government today, the bombs will fall tomorrow and there will be radioactive zombies by next Monday.
What I'm proposing is something far more gradual. Although I'd rather see a more drastic shift, why don't we start allowing the states more authority? That's right. I propose we try something out that lets you keep your big government that protects you from the communist space aliens.
You will immediately see a lifting of a great deal of the apathy that so characterizes our political system, It's easy to feel small and insignificant when all the real action is taking place in an arena as large as the entire country, but on the state level, one person can influence the system in far more profound ways.
It might even make a dent in the rampant corruption and nepotism we tolerate in our power structure for some reason. If the most powerful positions are many and have smaller constituencies, lobbyists and special interests of all kinds will have more trouble keeping them all in line. Aided by a more personal relationship to their voters, independent and third party candidates will have an easier time surmounting the challenges presented by the funding and support networks fielded by the major political parties. Even if the system is abused, it will be far easier to throw a wrench into it when there are so many parts.
It would give us all the chance to put our ideas to the test without subjecting everyone else to them. Life as a social experiment. Isn't that at all tempting? People and prosperity will find their way to those places with good, working ideas. We will be able to see what works and what doesn't, re-work it, try again. if something is a total failure, well we've still got a support system there because we didn't dismantle the federal government entirely. Not yet anyway.
Keep in mind that this is not what is being suggested by the windbags I mentioned before. They're posturing, bluffing, using wedge issues and tough talk to try to regain some of their lost influence. They are not interested in any kind of social experiment because their white asses are kept plump by the system as it is. They just want their guy back on the throne.
I'll be honest, I think this proposal will ultimately lead people to question this new apparatus of authority, to perhaps break it down even further, but even if I'm wrong, it will still have a positive impact on what I think is the biggest problem we face right now, the diffused responsibility for our actions.
The burdens of intolerance, of a lack of consideration for our environment, of overpopulation, of concentrated wealth, of dubious sustainability... It's hard not to look at these as abstract problems. They're too huge. "Someone should save the condor," "someone should save the Everglades", "someone should do something about degrading topsoil." If we can empower people in the way that I am proposing, we can change the way we approach these problems.
You can protect and cherish the natural wonders in your own back yard. You can do something about sustainability and inequity in your own community. That seems considerably more effective than electing someone else to congress, doesn't it?
And I have to give them credit. If nothing else, the right wing of the American political spectrum is a worthy adversary. During the Bush administration, the Democratic party basically rolled over and did as it was told, but now, riding high and full of energy from President Obama's landslide victory, they still can't manage to get anything done.
The Republicans under Bush and Cheney took full advantage of the nation's fear and anger to realize a seriously heinous agenda and when anyone complained, they more or less just told them to shut up. But they went too far. They screwed the pooch and now many of their pasty, bloated Republican faces no longer spew their xenophobic nonsense in the halls of power. They are not, however, taking it laying down, and this revolution is being televised.
Just like their favorite political party, the Fox News folks have made the astonishing transition from nationalist patriots to anti-authority rabble rousers. The whole charade has some traction with the more extreme elements of the party, but it's off to a rocky start. They repeat -- without irony -- the same rhetoric of the left-minded protesters they mocked for the last eight years. Not to mention they accidentally associated their first big protest event with the taste of scrotum.
I'd like to take a moment to ask you to visualize this role-reversal. Imagine Rush Limbaugh in anarchist riot black with a face full of pepper spray, Sean Hannity wrestled to the ground pleading, "don't taze me, bro!" to no avail. I want you to picture Glen Beck doing his fake weeping routine not for an audience, but for a judge about to send him away for conspiracy.
It's hard to do, right? That's because these guys are full of shit.
This is hardly breaking news, I know. The right is hilariously bad at this whole opposition thing and it shows. There is, however, one realistic and interesting point floating around in the whole mess; state sovereignty. It's a real shame this idea is starting to gain momentum now and with this gang of jackasses because it will likely be dismissed as the blatant power play that it is.
So before it is flushed down the toilet next week when Fox's precious hysteria reserves are committed to some other scandal, I'd like to take a moment to examine it from a perspective other than that of the paranoid conservative flash-in-the-pan populist.
You know, the paranoid anarchist perspective.
Fortunately, since I am not an elected representative nor am I a major media figure, I don't have to go through the rote platitudes required whenever one wants to criticize an aspect of our governance. You know, the "This is a great nation. I love my country, but..." nonsense. I care about our government as much as my last bowel movement, but here's how we might actually make it work.
As an anarchist, I believe that the most effective and least oppressive form of society is small -- the size of a band or tribe. Although customs and rules will vary from group to group, they ought to be voluntary gatherings of individuals. I think that organization on this level is far fairer to people than the bloated, faceless entities which currently control our lives, whose only real purpose is to gain more power which they use to justify their continued existence.
As a realist, I understand that this notion of being part of a large group, having support at high echelons, and generally not being forced to worry about some things is comforting to most people. I also realize that our culture has done a thorough job of convincing most people that if we consider decentralizing our government today, the bombs will fall tomorrow and there will be radioactive zombies by next Monday.
What I'm proposing is something far more gradual. Although I'd rather see a more drastic shift, why don't we start allowing the states more authority? That's right. I propose we try something out that lets you keep your big government that protects you from the communist space aliens.
You will immediately see a lifting of a great deal of the apathy that so characterizes our political system, It's easy to feel small and insignificant when all the real action is taking place in an arena as large as the entire country, but on the state level, one person can influence the system in far more profound ways.
It might even make a dent in the rampant corruption and nepotism we tolerate in our power structure for some reason. If the most powerful positions are many and have smaller constituencies, lobbyists and special interests of all kinds will have more trouble keeping them all in line. Aided by a more personal relationship to their voters, independent and third party candidates will have an easier time surmounting the challenges presented by the funding and support networks fielded by the major political parties. Even if the system is abused, it will be far easier to throw a wrench into it when there are so many parts.
It would give us all the chance to put our ideas to the test without subjecting everyone else to them. Life as a social experiment. Isn't that at all tempting? People and prosperity will find their way to those places with good, working ideas. We will be able to see what works and what doesn't, re-work it, try again. if something is a total failure, well we've still got a support system there because we didn't dismantle the federal government entirely. Not yet anyway.
Keep in mind that this is not what is being suggested by the windbags I mentioned before. They're posturing, bluffing, using wedge issues and tough talk to try to regain some of their lost influence. They are not interested in any kind of social experiment because their white asses are kept plump by the system as it is. They just want their guy back on the throne.
I'll be honest, I think this proposal will ultimately lead people to question this new apparatus of authority, to perhaps break it down even further, but even if I'm wrong, it will still have a positive impact on what I think is the biggest problem we face right now, the diffused responsibility for our actions.
The burdens of intolerance, of a lack of consideration for our environment, of overpopulation, of concentrated wealth, of dubious sustainability... It's hard not to look at these as abstract problems. They're too huge. "Someone should save the condor," "someone should save the Everglades", "someone should do something about degrading topsoil." If we can empower people in the way that I am proposing, we can change the way we approach these problems.
You can protect and cherish the natural wonders in your own back yard. You can do something about sustainability and inequity in your own community. That seems considerably more effective than electing someone else to congress, doesn't it?
Professional Sports
I'm going to try very hard to keep my elitism in my pants as I write this week's article. I would like to state for the record that I was not raised in an idyllic moon colony where entertainment has evolved beyond your simple earth contests. What follows is merely an opinion. I hope I don't offend too many people with this review, but if I do I guess I don't really care. You see, I like to drink beer, scream obscenities in public and stumble through the streets destroying property as much as the next guy. I simply do not feel the need to associate this behavior exclusively with the arbitrary success or failure of the nearest gang of inarticulate, color-coordinated, bum-slapping douchebags.
I live in a city where people go completely loopy over this stuff. As I've stated elsewhere, I am not well-traveled. While I don't know for sure, it can't be like this everywhere. Even when our teams are down on their luck, they can rely upon a powerful groundswell of nostalgia to keep the seat to ass ratio favorable. I have to assume that if your local team is some awful cannon fodder outfit that never wins and never has, then you have fewer face-paintingly insane devotees to the sport in general.
Not here, though. The local teams' games are always the chief social and cultural events citywide. We were having an economic meltdown before it was fashionable, our infrastructure is crumbling, every year the public transportation system gets worse and costs more, and our elected officials always exist somewhere on a slider between corrupt and inept. We should be out in the streets tearing shit up, but we only ever do it when a local team wins the whatever bowl.
Anti-establishment pontificating aside, the reason I'm writing this and the reason for the me versus them mentality you've likely detected is the way people treat the pastime compared to other hobbies. People assume I'm a sports fan. If there's a game taking place, I have to justify doing anything other than watching it. Clearly I'm not watching it for a reason and the reason is that I don't give two shits, but if I say this, people look at me like I just teabagged the pope.
Since I don't really care what others think about me, this wouldn't stick in my craw if society as a whole didn't see fit to judge everyone and everything else so harshly.
In our society, there exists a casual contempt for countless subcultures, clubs, and hobbies. While nowhere near as vile as the economic stratification, racism, and homophobia we struggle against, I believe they are all different heads on the hydra we never can seem to slay. It's an idea that has been with us longer than the written word. It is the conviction that, for one's own way of life to be valid, everyone else must be forced to live that way as well. Everyone -- from the early surplus farmers to the crusaders to football hooligans -- is guilty of this.
I am an adult, and have surrounded myself with people who are supportive and similarly inclined as far as interests go. But what about the kid living in Pigskin, Alabama? This hypothetical child could end up a violin virtuoso or perhaps has ideas for really bizarre performance art or maybe even harbors a harmless but unusual sexual fantasy that, if repressed, will cause a buildup of anxiety destined to culminate in some sort of clock tower incident. I'm not saying this kid can't be a quarterback or a cheerleader, but that's the direction society will insist upon.
I do not believe we need to create a world without spectator sports, but I am arguing for a world in which we support a more diverse range of cultural and artistic pursuits. I envision a world in which youngsters won't have to choose between art and acceptance, fantasy and friendship, science fiction and a social life.
That was heavy-handed. Where was I? Oh yeah, the review.
The professional sports model seems to consist of vast amounts of banality punctuated only occasionally by the extraordinary. Evidently, lots of people will watch for years waiting for one of those rare moments of wonder. To be fair, however, some people play World of Warcraft, which is designed to render the bare minimum of entertainment for their gaming dollar.
I only really enjoy those sports moments that undermine the normal structure of the game in question. I watched a runner yell, "I got it!" to disrupt the catching of an easy infield fly. That was awesome. I also enjoy hockey fights although they sometimes seem staged.
I just can't get into the passivity of the whole thing. I also seldom watch television and sometimes have trouble sitting still for a feature-length film. I mean no disrespect. If you're into it, that's cool by me.
But here's the problem; lots of fans feel the same way I do. An insane amount of thought and effort goes into the headgear, the face paint, the pseudo-spiritual rituals, and the awful -- and I mean really awful, cover your ears awful, dig a hole in the ground and bury your head awful -- songs on local radio stations. There's so much out there it's mind-boggling. I'll bet you could make enough selling one team's paraphernalia you could kick back for the off-season just like the overpaid meatheads whose names appear on your merchandise.
All this time and money is spent to try and influence something beyond your control. It is a subconscious rejection of the passive nature of the pastime. It's this disconnect between the effort that goes in and the actual entertainment value that turns me away from sports.
A few years ago, our team won the uber bowl for the first time since the age of yore. Obviously, I grabbed a camera and made my way to the college neighborhood to watch the riots. It was mildly amusing. They flipped some cars, burned a sandwich shop's awning, and tried for twenty minutes to smash open an uprooted parking meter. By the time I left -- around the time the riot moved in the direction of my tiny compact car -- I just felt sad. These kids didn't riot because their team had won, not really. Deep down inside they wanted to riot and the team's victory provided an excuse to do so.
It struck me as a monumental waste of potential. A release valve, a spillway, a clock tower that could have been a concert hall.
I live in a city where people go completely loopy over this stuff. As I've stated elsewhere, I am not well-traveled. While I don't know for sure, it can't be like this everywhere. Even when our teams are down on their luck, they can rely upon a powerful groundswell of nostalgia to keep the seat to ass ratio favorable. I have to assume that if your local team is some awful cannon fodder outfit that never wins and never has, then you have fewer face-paintingly insane devotees to the sport in general.
Not here, though. The local teams' games are always the chief social and cultural events citywide. We were having an economic meltdown before it was fashionable, our infrastructure is crumbling, every year the public transportation system gets worse and costs more, and our elected officials always exist somewhere on a slider between corrupt and inept. We should be out in the streets tearing shit up, but we only ever do it when a local team wins the whatever bowl.
Anti-establishment pontificating aside, the reason I'm writing this and the reason for the me versus them mentality you've likely detected is the way people treat the pastime compared to other hobbies. People assume I'm a sports fan. If there's a game taking place, I have to justify doing anything other than watching it. Clearly I'm not watching it for a reason and the reason is that I don't give two shits, but if I say this, people look at me like I just teabagged the pope.
Since I don't really care what others think about me, this wouldn't stick in my craw if society as a whole didn't see fit to judge everyone and everything else so harshly.
In our society, there exists a casual contempt for countless subcultures, clubs, and hobbies. While nowhere near as vile as the economic stratification, racism, and homophobia we struggle against, I believe they are all different heads on the hydra we never can seem to slay. It's an idea that has been with us longer than the written word. It is the conviction that, for one's own way of life to be valid, everyone else must be forced to live that way as well. Everyone -- from the early surplus farmers to the crusaders to football hooligans -- is guilty of this.
I am an adult, and have surrounded myself with people who are supportive and similarly inclined as far as interests go. But what about the kid living in Pigskin, Alabama? This hypothetical child could end up a violin virtuoso or perhaps has ideas for really bizarre performance art or maybe even harbors a harmless but unusual sexual fantasy that, if repressed, will cause a buildup of anxiety destined to culminate in some sort of clock tower incident. I'm not saying this kid can't be a quarterback or a cheerleader, but that's the direction society will insist upon.
I do not believe we need to create a world without spectator sports, but I am arguing for a world in which we support a more diverse range of cultural and artistic pursuits. I envision a world in which youngsters won't have to choose between art and acceptance, fantasy and friendship, science fiction and a social life.
That was heavy-handed. Where was I? Oh yeah, the review.
The professional sports model seems to consist of vast amounts of banality punctuated only occasionally by the extraordinary. Evidently, lots of people will watch for years waiting for one of those rare moments of wonder. To be fair, however, some people play World of Warcraft, which is designed to render the bare minimum of entertainment for their gaming dollar.
I only really enjoy those sports moments that undermine the normal structure of the game in question. I watched a runner yell, "I got it!" to disrupt the catching of an easy infield fly. That was awesome. I also enjoy hockey fights although they sometimes seem staged.
I just can't get into the passivity of the whole thing. I also seldom watch television and sometimes have trouble sitting still for a feature-length film. I mean no disrespect. If you're into it, that's cool by me.
But here's the problem; lots of fans feel the same way I do. An insane amount of thought and effort goes into the headgear, the face paint, the pseudo-spiritual rituals, and the awful -- and I mean really awful, cover your ears awful, dig a hole in the ground and bury your head awful -- songs on local radio stations. There's so much out there it's mind-boggling. I'll bet you could make enough selling one team's paraphernalia you could kick back for the off-season just like the overpaid meatheads whose names appear on your merchandise.
All this time and money is spent to try and influence something beyond your control. It is a subconscious rejection of the passive nature of the pastime. It's this disconnect between the effort that goes in and the actual entertainment value that turns me away from sports.
A few years ago, our team won the uber bowl for the first time since the age of yore. Obviously, I grabbed a camera and made my way to the college neighborhood to watch the riots. It was mildly amusing. They flipped some cars, burned a sandwich shop's awning, and tried for twenty minutes to smash open an uprooted parking meter. By the time I left -- around the time the riot moved in the direction of my tiny compact car -- I just felt sad. These kids didn't riot because their team had won, not really. Deep down inside they wanted to riot and the team's victory provided an excuse to do so.
It struck me as a monumental waste of potential. A release valve, a spillway, a clock tower that could have been a concert hall.
It's still pretty amazing when you think about it. Despite the scams and ubiquitous solicitation, the stalkers and the predators and the fact that it provides a forum for some truly despicable elements of society, the internet is a technological and cultural marvel.
Far be it for me to render an opinion on the whole thing. Last year, I checked the website of an anarchist organization for updates about the Republican National Convention protests, and not just because I share their viewpoint, but because they had better information than any corporate news outlet. To be fair, as I was doing so I'm sure some depraved piece of human garbage was using Myspace to attempt to lure some poor, unsuspecting young person into a terrible rendezvous.
Hey, all I'm saying is that it's impressive.
Chances are, if you use the internet, you probably spend a lot of time on a social networking website. These rose out of the old html-based chat rooms, message boards, and later blogs, refining the internet's capacity for communication by streamlining the process. This is what the smart people were doing back then while the rest of us were using the internet to discuss whether the Galactic Empire could defeat the United Federation of Planets in a war -- I mean, uh... looking at porn.
Each successive wave of this phenomenon has taken the wild, untapped potential of the internet and harnessed it, making it more and more accessible -- or, if you taught yourself html years ago thinking it would give you some incredible edge and feel like being a jerk about it, dumbed it down for the masses.
In any case, I was certainly not surprised at the more recent emergence of Twitter. While it certainly has some comedic and subversive potential, at its heart, it's nothing more than a list of the inane thoughts your acquaintances are presently having.
Although there seems to be some speculation that it will eventually be overshadowed by Twitter, I for one believe Facebook will be with us for some time. Something very much like it will be, at any rate. The reason for this is that Facebook has just the right combination of accessibility and control. And unlike Myspace, a wrong move won't saddle you with nine thousand viruses or -- even worse -- an unscheduled sample of the newest album from some fourteen year old's atrocious whatever-core band.
If you have a blog, or even a Myspace page, you are going to be judged by your content. Whether it's travel writing, food blogging, or just profile customization, you must create something for the whole thing to be worthwhile. On Facebook, there is so little in the way of creativity that the bar has been lowered almost to the ground. You just have to be yourself.
What are your favorite books? Cool. What bands do you like? That's awesome. Me, too. It's like making drunken small talk with everyone on the internet.
Facebook also cleverly dodged a fair amount of controversy by starting out as a service exclusively directed at college kids. Apparently, If high school seniors have an outlet to encourage and document drinking, screwing, and making bad decisions it's a menace to society. If college freshmen do it, it's an industry.
It's a lucrative industry at that. A relatively small staff can operate something like Facebook. And although it may help to show the ladies what a sensitive and smart dude you are, all that info you put into your profile to make yourself seem interesting can help them zero in on the right kind of advertising to show you. Facebook made around three hundred million last year.
We're living in the world that was depicted in science fiction written earlier in our lives. I grew up in a fairly rural, off-the-map sort of place. If you told my younger self that one day I'd write articles that could be transmitted nigh-instantaneously all over the world, I'd think it was fantasy. It's astonishing that this has taken place in such a short period of time, but it's also astonishing to see how we've used this technology.
I expect I would have imagined the internet as a great liberating force. A world in which everyone is given a voice and ideas can be exchanged freely with little interference from authority sounds like a utopia. Instead, it's often used to reduce us to lists, statistics, marketing demographics. I certainly would have believed that this technology could be used for evil, but I never thought we'd willingly do so much of the work.
It's still impressive, but where do we go from here?
Far be it for me to render an opinion on the whole thing. Last year, I checked the website of an anarchist organization for updates about the Republican National Convention protests, and not just because I share their viewpoint, but because they had better information than any corporate news outlet. To be fair, as I was doing so I'm sure some depraved piece of human garbage was using Myspace to attempt to lure some poor, unsuspecting young person into a terrible rendezvous.
Hey, all I'm saying is that it's impressive.
Chances are, if you use the internet, you probably spend a lot of time on a social networking website. These rose out of the old html-based chat rooms, message boards, and later blogs, refining the internet's capacity for communication by streamlining the process. This is what the smart people were doing back then while the rest of us were using the internet to discuss whether the Galactic Empire could defeat the United Federation of Planets in a war -- I mean, uh... looking at porn.
Each successive wave of this phenomenon has taken the wild, untapped potential of the internet and harnessed it, making it more and more accessible -- or, if you taught yourself html years ago thinking it would give you some incredible edge and feel like being a jerk about it, dumbed it down for the masses.
In any case, I was certainly not surprised at the more recent emergence of Twitter. While it certainly has some comedic and subversive potential, at its heart, it's nothing more than a list of the inane thoughts your acquaintances are presently having.
Although there seems to be some speculation that it will eventually be overshadowed by Twitter, I for one believe Facebook will be with us for some time. Something very much like it will be, at any rate. The reason for this is that Facebook has just the right combination of accessibility and control. And unlike Myspace, a wrong move won't saddle you with nine thousand viruses or -- even worse -- an unscheduled sample of the newest album from some fourteen year old's atrocious whatever-core band.
If you have a blog, or even a Myspace page, you are going to be judged by your content. Whether it's travel writing, food blogging, or just profile customization, you must create something for the whole thing to be worthwhile. On Facebook, there is so little in the way of creativity that the bar has been lowered almost to the ground. You just have to be yourself.
What are your favorite books? Cool. What bands do you like? That's awesome. Me, too. It's like making drunken small talk with everyone on the internet.
Facebook also cleverly dodged a fair amount of controversy by starting out as a service exclusively directed at college kids. Apparently, If high school seniors have an outlet to encourage and document drinking, screwing, and making bad decisions it's a menace to society. If college freshmen do it, it's an industry.
It's a lucrative industry at that. A relatively small staff can operate something like Facebook. And although it may help to show the ladies what a sensitive and smart dude you are, all that info you put into your profile to make yourself seem interesting can help them zero in on the right kind of advertising to show you. Facebook made around three hundred million last year.
We're living in the world that was depicted in science fiction written earlier in our lives. I grew up in a fairly rural, off-the-map sort of place. If you told my younger self that one day I'd write articles that could be transmitted nigh-instantaneously all over the world, I'd think it was fantasy. It's astonishing that this has taken place in such a short period of time, but it's also astonishing to see how we've used this technology.
I expect I would have imagined the internet as a great liberating force. A world in which everyone is given a voice and ideas can be exchanged freely with little interference from authority sounds like a utopia. Instead, it's often used to reduce us to lists, statistics, marketing demographics. I certainly would have believed that this technology could be used for evil, but I never thought we'd willingly do so much of the work.
It's still impressive, but where do we go from here?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
