Can we get to a new and improved liberal blogosphere if we're "polite" about inconvenient truths?
This year's running of the quadrennial horse race exposed — to those who would notice — many flaws in the progressive blogosphere, some as surprising as they were disappointing: bullying groupthink, classism, misogyny, and disturbing appetites for stale rightwing baloney and newly minted Drudgian smears.
Overarching the whole experience was a cloud of truthiness, believing whatever it felt good to believe, facts-be-damned.
The Obama skeptic found her/himself in the Ron Suskind role, the nose-against-the-glass reality-based wonk who "just didn't get it," being read the latest edition of the Arthur Jensen speech.
Truthiness rots everything. And so the need for a better, truthiness-proof blogosphere transcends the Hillbama wars. Thus, it's tempting at this point, after a primary battle that Obama termed a "death march," to try to unharsh the mellow by talking past the late unpleasantness and the failings of the candidate it gave us, assuming that "us" is Democrats.
Sorry, but I'm not going to do that. I'm going to be gauche.
The urge to wipe the slate clean with the presidential campaign still in progress — and progressive leverage over either presumptive nominee apparently non-existent — is symptomatic of our species's hyperdeveloped, kneejerk impulse to "move on":
Years ago on “60 Minutes,” they did a segment about an ex-Nazi honcho who was living in NYC. They had people in a nearby bar saying things like “hasn’t he suffered enough?” though apparently the only suffering he seemed to have encountered was living in a city with a huge Jewish population and being unable to do anything about it.
Ditto for all the “let it go” crap we still hear about Florida 2000. Hundreds of thousands of people are dead or wounded because of that, but we’re supposed to let it go.
Let's acknowledge the elephant in the room, shall we?
Whether you think voting for Obama is the right thing to do or not, his candidacy doesn't bode particularly well for anyone who believes in or relies on progressive policies.
You want links with that? Even recent history alone backs this up, as he distances himself from everything his party stands for, such as separation of church and state, freedom from unwarranted surveillance, timely exit from unnecessary wars, fair sentencing, reproductive freedoms, and environmentalism.
Yet, everywhere you turn, someone well-meaning or otherwise is offering us a nice hot cup of "Get Over It."
One piping hot topic here this week was The First Black President's announcement that he's not a racist, and a look back at the smears that made such a statement all but necessary. It's just part of a long-running story where, as Avedon puts it, "Obama created a situation where he can't and won't brag on what's good about Democrats, and all that leaves is the stuff that does him (and Democrats) no good."
Doesn't that make you feel great about hitting the snooze button for eight years and talking around the suckitude of Obama's campaign and presidency-to-come? (Too bad the country is so avidly approving of the Republican Party that it's necessary for Obama to cave again and again on framing and issues.)
Throughout the campaign and perhaps especially now, countless very good bloggers and prominent Democrats have been swallowing at least some of the truth to help prop up Obama, for example defending him against charges of elitism, arrogance, and being insubstantial when he's quite obviously vulnerable on those points. Those vulnerabilities include calling those who don't prefer him bitter, xenophobic, god-clinging gun-nuts (and those are just the Democrats); taking a rudely superior tone with his opponent ("likable enough" and the dandruff and finger gestures); and running on a platform of content-free platitudes about his "movement" of "hope" and "change" and spending his entire career running for the next job.
Do we really want to be gnashing our teeth in fauxtrage about such topics? Is that why we're here? It's not like there's a shortage of legitimate complaints about McCain, y'know.
If a PB2.0 is to rise from the ashes of PB1.0, we're going to have to say no to truthiness and yes to inconvenient truths, rising above the culture of "move on."
And with that, the floor is now open for your thoughts about building a better blogosphere!
- vastleft's blog
Printer-friendly version- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
The history of problems with pb 1.0 is important
to remember. We definitely should not just be quiet either--that will only get us more ignored and out of the way of sweeping all to the conservatives. How can so many people think abandoning all the Democratic principles talked about above is the right thing? Are they all so "dogwhistled" by the D behind the name that they tell themselves publicly touting the wrong values is just a head fake?
I couldn't exaggerate how many times...
I've had a conversation that went like this:
http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2008/08/b...
(via the Make Them Accountable e-mail newsletter)
Yup and why are they comfortable with that?
Seriously, how much of this do you remember with Kerry?
BTW, thrilled to see the book format for PB 2.0. Excellent work.
P.S. Didn't have to time to read it all--is Susie's stuff there too? And what about pb and j 2.0?
Everything should be in the book
If I missed something, ping me.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
This reminds me of Terry Pratchett's "The Truth"
(which is the name of a newspaper in DiscWorld, a fantasy....)
It turns out that most people don't care about the truth, think that what "everybody knows" is the truth, and really want to read stories about naughty vegetables shaped like the zuchinni of chastisement.
I hate to think that circulation-building demands truthiness. That would be bad.
But it's also true that if you don't get read, there's no point writing anything, including the truth.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
The culture of "move on"
This reminds me of a situation we have here in Zone 5b. A big mill will pollute the countryside for years (heavy metals, leachate, name it) and then the corporation will shut it down, leaving all the toxicity to be dealt with by the locals, if at all. They "move on."
That seems to be the attitude to our discourse as well; the Casey fauxtrage is an example. If I understand the issue correctly, Casey is being granted a speaking slot entirely to rectify a manufactured and completely false story. That's about as toxic a discourse as you can get.
It's as if you have to buy into and believe a list of lies to get admitted to the inner sanctum -- lies which can be shown to be lies through a minimal examination of the public record, and yet which are endlessly repeated by our famously free press.
[pounds head on desk]
What to do? And how to get people to read and participate when it is being done?
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
One of the great values at Corrente is...
... being boldy shrill, not sacrificing truth in order to uphold some oppressive notion of what constitutes "civility."
Consider that one doesn't discuss religion or politics in polite company. Is it any wonder that religion and politics are so routinely fucked up?
succint
It’s as if you have to buy into and believe a list of lies to get admitted to the inner sanctum — lies which can be shown to be lies through a minimal examination of the public record, and yet which are endlessly repeated by our famously free press.
that is the most perfect description of the Versailles
Villagers I have ever seen, and increasingly true of certain parts of netroots.
I recall when it was only Republicans who had litmus-lying tests
http://vastleft.blogspot.com/2007/02/why...
I had hoped that the emerging Democratic majority and burgeoning netroots were going to be different. I'm an idiot.
The money quote....
After quoting Digby and Stoller, this:
It seems that the authoritarian impulse is party invariant.
If you're looking for "the real enemy," that seems like a good place to start.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Authoritarian Dems
I think that may be a little bit too simple an explanation for what's been going on here.
The O isn't really anyone's archetype of a big, strong moralizing Daddy. He's a distant idealized figure who pretty much ignores his most fervent disciples, the absent father rather than the strong guiding hand, no?
And it seems to me there's a whole raft of prominent PB1 voices, Example A being Josh Marshall, who actually Know Better but have let themselves get sucked into something they don't have the emotional ability to get out of.
Then there are others who appear, at least to me, to be purely, coldly, cynically calculating. I think there's certainly a wide streak of authoritarianism in the latter, but not so much in the former. (just plain being a prick isn't the same as being authoritarian).
I think the former are, for lack of a better term, addictive personalities. They get that first big rush of excitement and hopey-changey about a truly historic possibility and quickly get so hooked, they can't let go. If you stop and think for a minute, it's acutely uncomfortable. Nope! Can't do that again!
So PB2 what? I dunno. It's hard to see through the miasma of our current political O environment to the other side, or even if there is one. The O phenomenon has served to sort us out quite a bit, and without it, we might not even be seeing so clearly the need for a PB2. But once O passes, whether it's in November or four or eight years from November, the intensity of focus and shared perspective will, seems to me, inevitably fracture.
IOW, boot-strap pronto?
1. "The absent father"... Oh, man, there's a whole book in that one.
2. The key point being:
Do it now before our systems adjust to the new levels of toxicity?
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Would you considera statement of
principles? A la the Dogme indie movie movement of the 90s? They really did preach dogma and it was more a marketing stunt than anything, but the principles were interesting and gave people a place to start talking about movies and moviemaking beyond the usual, "Who's your agent?" and "Did you get a deal from New Line?" crap you usually heard.
Something beyond, "Don't be a dick," and more than a issues or tactics? Fundamentals. The thing that separates Beowulf from Grendel sorts of things?
Everything's on the table
We're still in a blue-sky mode here, so any kind of structure, manifesto, etc. that would be effective and ethical is open for consideration.
I love the dogme group as a precedent
Can you give more detail?
IIRC, their manifesto was concerned with method rather than principle (though principled behavior was an outcome of the method).
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Dogme manifesto here
http://www.dogme95.dk/menu/menuset.htm
OMFG, that's brilliant!
Here's is the vow of chastity.
The nice thing about it is that it's verifiable, or, as Ohio would have it, "procedural." (Some of it could even be enforced by software. For example, all posts must have at least 500 words. If we wanted to avoid snarky one-shots, for example.)
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Dammit, now I have to remember stuff...
See http://www.dogme95.dk/menu/menuset.htm for info.
As you'll see by Dogme's Vow of Chastity, this effort was about stripping away conventional moviemaking methods in favor of what is near to hand. IOW, take away craft as it blocks authenticity.
The downsides to Dogme is that it is founded on an incorrect principle---that moviemaking was democratized by technology. Simply not so. The biggest challenge to an indie moviemaker isn't the technology, it's access to distribution and time. If you don't have time to make a movie (and by time, I mean money), you just don't, regardless of your good intentions or ideas.
On the upside, I think the impulse was genuine: something had gone wrong with cinema and it was time to remove the falsities created by an emphasis on craft and professionalism over, well...everything. Since craft is created by skilled people, by removing them from the set, you also removed their salaries from the budget, theoretically lowering the amount of money required to make a flick. But you also are required to improvise everything on set and that can lead to some amazing experiences.
It can also lead to total crap, which is what most Dogme flicks were. Got Lars von trier a lot of rpess, though, so it achieved its goal. Sigh.
How does this apply to PB2.0? Well, I think maybe we should focus on methods and procedures, and face the barriers to financial self-reliance. Money* and distribution** are major questions. Answering those may shape this PB2.0 of which we type.
*Money being literally, the business of PB2.0. And no, I haven't figured out how to make money for ya yet, but I'm thinking "the produce that looks like a buttcrack" thing might be lucrative.
**Distribution in this sense meaning not only readership, but commentary and response as evidenced by links to and clicks to.
For example....
Der dolchstosslegende, to cite an example from another toxic system of discourse.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
This Election Actually Helped I Think
Not within the blogosphere, but without. I've talked to a number of people, mostly older women, who see the media in a whole new light after the way Clinton was treated. Suddenly people they liked and trusted in the news, they don't like and trust anymore. It goes beyond simply seeing the bias in opinion, but to questioning the accuracy of the reporting. Many of them participated in one way or another in the campaign or watched it way more closely than they usually do. So they know that a lot of what was reported was untrue. That's a key thing to get people to see. And many people saw clearly this election. That so many people who used to see clearly decided to put on blinders remains depressing, but at least there is some good news out of this disaster.
Sure, we got the same result we got in earlier elections. But some previously closed eyes were opened and that's an important thing to also remember.
I still think the greatest thing Hillary Clinton brought to the table - and what made her truly dangerous to the Village
no matter her centrist policies - is the ability to get a lot of Americans to ignore the media. She did better as the campaign went on even as the media got worse and worse (which, of course, is one of the reasons why they hate her).
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt
18 million votes against truthiness
Yes, I find it remarkable and encouraging that Hillary won a majority of Democratic votes in the face of our famously free press proclaiming that the race was over starting in February, and the bloggers doing their little bit by yammering WWTSBQ
,
I can't remember which Clinton advisor said it, but at some point, post-Penn, the campaign realized that the more the press slammed her, the better she did.
What a surprise... There must be a special kind of brain damage in the Beltway class of consultants, for them to be surprised by this. Or perhaps it's a failure of perception, or of interest.
OK, then, 18 million... That should be a PB 2.0 audience. How do we reach them??
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Some of that began in 2006
The American public rejected the Village
narrative about non-partisanship and voted out a crapload (I think that is the correct unit of measure) of Republicans.
In 2008, Americans were told every which way that Hillary was unworthy, and yet by the millions they voted against the grain of the programming.
I've lost faith in a lot of things in recent years, but after they were badly snookered by the Saddam + 9/11 3-card monte game, the American public showed some independence and smarts it generally isn't given credit for.
"Independence and smarts..."
Exactly the same thing happened when the Republicans were impeaching Clinton -- his polling was never higher.
We want them reading us. How? Actually, I know the answer: Pictures of naughty vegetables.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
And pictures of butt cleavage
Butt Krakatoa is a sure winner.
If that's what it takes...
... why not?
UPDATE Actually, I think what we want is naughty vegetables that also look like butt cracks.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
There's two things here
One is the truth (v. truthiness) that is so important. If we are blog-reporters, op-ed contributors, etc., truth counts all the same.
The other is what we want our Presidential (almost)nominees (both sides) to be like. What's our role encouraging/suggesting/critiquing that?
It may vary if we are being reporters or doing an op-ed or an emotional rant, etc. (maybe we should have section headings?)
As far as both of these ideas, truth and almost-nominee character, we can't just ignore some things, primarily the existence of conservative ideas. Many progressives I know want to ignore them in Obama--and in McCain; in short, avoid discussing them all together. I seriously think that we must acknowledge both bad behavior--and good--by Obama on an on-going basis (including reevaluations of his past behavior); and both good behavior--and bad--by McCain, including his policies and his placement in the race. We should reward good behavior by anyone--party invariance (why don't we call it issues/values invariance again?) And we should be able to realistically discuss the horse race without being required to constantly restate our true progressive credentials and/or ideals. First off, you can't require people you talk to to pledge their votes to Obama or you won't even talk to them. Secondly, how can liberals win if they are not even willing to look realistically at the race? I got fooled by what happened with Kerry, thought he was going to win, think he did win (Ohio people went to jail for vote fraud) but not by enough to prevent a vote steal throwing the election to Bush. I was studying the race and I didn't see it coming, couldn't understand why more people didn't vote for the experienced Kerry who had many good ideas. So I am keeping my eyes especially open this time around, looking at and listening to many groups of people, reading the polls, etc. I have found that many of my progressive friends and family are unwilling to discuss the race--with anyone--even though they freely admit stats and analysis are available--they "just don't want to hear it." How can you win races with this attitude?
Oh and ah, hi Vast Left!
Thanks very much for hosting! And your nice intro and links!
"...the American public showed some independence and smarts
it generally isn’t given credit for."
Very true.
That's one way to reach the 18 million, they are focused on some basic things about politics and let the rest go by as noise?
But, VL, isn't that the problem?
There's a point where blue-skying has to stop and getting it done has to start?
No?
Is it time to stop muttering over the plan and start building the barn?
For instance, you make a good point about inconvenient truth and civility. But the latter doesn't necessarily preclude the former, just as bluntness doesn't always equal honesty. Sometimes bluntness is just cover for a jerk.
I wodner if procedurals would be more helpful as just a way to get started.
At this point, I haven't heard a galvanizing idea
We're ruminating, tossing around various kinds of notions about what went wrong and what might help make things go right.
Doesn't seem to me that we know yet whether what we need is a barn, a boathouse, or a series of tract homes, teepees, or trailers. Not quite ready to build yet, IMHO.
Procedurals? Please elaborate.
I can see that
I can also see the fact that PB2.0 is already name is the teepee.
We are the teepee we've been waiting for.
Heh.
Procedurals---I mean something such as presenting an opposing argument. Yeah, I know, lame, but it's a place to start. Anyway, let's say you blog on why we should all be using horses instead of cars. You make a good argument and I'm ready to toss out the keys and get a new saddle for Fury the non-Unity
Pony
.
But in the spirit of eating our own dogfood (dangerous thing to mention if ponies are around), you argue against yourself in a Flip Side blog. The trick is that your argument shouldn't be RW talking points BS, but another progressive view that simple disagrees. It should be substantive. The key here is to try another way of looking at the issues or methods as well as an honest and vigorous examination.
Yes, it puts the onus on bloggers, many of whom are already researching their little hearts out. So how about we tagteam? We could call it Progressive Thunderdome.
UPDATE: Another procedural would be AWA---Axing With Alternative. Like my Progressive Thunderdome ("Two bloggers go in; one comes out to get some coffee because the conversation is so interesting and she wants to keep up") idea. Say someone hates it. Okay, then speak up an offer your procedural. This isn't about being lame, this is about finding what will work.
What are the concrete ideas espoused to date?
Picking up from Ohio's comment, what specific proposals have been tossed around in these discussions that ought to be parts of a candidate solution.
The most concrete one that I recall is something akin to a webring or "alliance," a confederation of blogs with various voices but some common set of principles.
This would require a form of governance, to decide who's in, who's out, etc.
I wish FrenchDoc were here tonight
Because I think she would have examples of this sort of thing.
We need to avoid centralized structures to resist attack.
I think federated blogs with (a) shared revenue raising/advertising (I don't mind if there's a "progressive" tax, as long as I can buy my beer ;-) (b) shared content in the form of a widget that (i) has a headline feed and (ii) some form of alert ystem, (c) "procedural" principles.
Perhaps it could be a franchise type operation? Ohio? You still here?
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Yeah, I'm here, the franchise idea...
That's interesting. Could you elaborate?
I'm riffing on two things here
1. Your comment on "Creative Corporation" last week. If we're going to handle money, even in small quantities, there need to be a legal entity that does it.
2. Keying of the "Vow of Chastity," the beauty part is that it's procedural, verifiable, testable.
3. A franchise is a brand (start with Corrente's) and a set of procedures. Some franchises have procedures for french fries; we have for creating content (the Vow).
4. Franchises part of a chain, get the brand recognition and various centralized services (like te alert/headlines widget, for example).
Like that. Underperforming franchises get kicked out. Performance isn't by hits, but the vow.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
So we're looking at different things
-Creative Corp is the instrument to handle the business (aka the Beer Money) of Corrente.
-Corrente is the brand that means the Vow of Beer and Honesty.
-Corrente is also the means by which franchise blogs can benefit by association with Corrente---extended press exposure, widgeting, headlining, etc. Possibly even liability or other business protection underneath the umbrella of the Corrente Creative Corp?
Crap, we need a lawyer to even ask how far we can take the CreatCorp idea. Either way, yes, there's going to have to be an entity to fondle the money.
And I'm still not seeing how to generate revenue. Can we auction off the hamsters?
(FTR, I am not a lawyer. I am not an accountant.)
Handle the business of PB 2.0
Corrente would be like the first and flagship franchisee, I guess.
I can think of the following ways for ALL the network members to make money:
1. Advertisting
2. Donations
3. Self published books
4. Gear, like T-shirt
5. Original works of art
There must be more, too. Consulting services, barter. Like I keep saying, "beer money." But enough to make a difference in a local race or two or ten.
6. I was thinking of selling "Naming rights" to indivual hamsters, yes. There would be a hamster page, with images of hamsters. Rather like buying a pew in church.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
hamster naming rights!
*i'd* buy the right to name a corrente hamster.
I see, so the hamsters ARE for sale
Advertising, if you can identify the user group the franchise (as a whole) could work. With the Creative Corp to handle the business, then there is a clear separation between business and editorial, but there will always be question regarding the influence of advert on editorial. As there should be. But including ad rates and client buys may make that process a little more transparent.
Donations are always iffy. Cheap bastards. I think if we can get any of these other trickles going, donations can be sent to a PAC or local election or effort of the donor's choice. You know, an adjunct Corrente-branded "donate to these people" might be another good deed to consider.
Then we get into retail. Tie-ins might work. For example, FrenchDoc always cites these great books---if Corrente handles the link to Amazon or the bookstore of FrenchDoc's choice, you get a commission. It ain't much, but better than nothing. Flogging merchandise is again, always iffy on the income side, and Corrente will have to be abundantly clear about the business arrangement.
Hell, that should be part of the Creative Corp mission statement. To be absolutely clear and transparent about finances. Click here to get the recent numbers.
A self-published, "Best of Corrente," is something to consider, especially if writers have a chance to annotate. Or "The Progressive Cook," with all the recipes people have shared. Cookbooks sell like crazy and if it's a $3 downloadable, Corrente would net maybe half (I can't remember what Amazon's splits are).
Original art...that's interesting. Are you using original visual art as the banner for Corrente now? I love the banners, by the way. Love. Them. But if you were to rotate banners with images from a gallery of Corrente-galleried art that's also for sale...Could be really nice for artists who live outside the U.S.
(I could flip this into merchandising easily, but until you're ready to do something like this, I'm not going to prostitute someone else's work. Unless they're okay with it.)
Barter or services could also work, but the challenge is what do you want to sell and how do you set yourself apart? Can we put a pin in this one for now?
Man, them hamsters are expensive.
The idea though
was NOT to have Corrente as center or headquarter for PB2.0. We don't want it to become DK or DU. But rather a decentralized structure with common elements.
Go Global!
Double fucking happy hour bonus pony bingo
I'm arguing strongly for a decentralized structure so PB 2.0 doesn't get attacked at the hubs like PB 1.0.
Counterargument?
That said, it's foolish to think we aren't larger than many. The point is so that we avoid the power curve/long tail thing that so often happens on the internet -- like what happened to the distribution of wealth from 1970 onward.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
That header should be on a shirt
So if I'm getting it, the business is centralized (a creative corp, for example) that includes on its board or as advisors the franchisees---basically, people from other blogs/sites with an ownership stake in the operation.
Content creation and distribution is highly decentralized. So is moderation. Franchisees will have a financial incentive to stick to the Vow as we're tying in reward with verifiable, testable procedures.
And the Creative Corp will cite the Vow as part of its corporate structure.
It's, like, the circle of life.
There can be some flexibility here too
We can turn PB2.0 into a social business. People like me, with stable jobs and careers, don't expect to make $$ out of blogging, but I'd be willing to "invest" through microlending to PB2.0 to channel $$ to people who need it more and might be willing to work on projects (such as creating and managing widgets or designing logos and buttons or anything else).
I'm sure we can be creative with that too. Maybe if we go down that route, we can engage with Southshore bank who did microlending in Arkansas when Clinton was governor.
Go Global!
Think you could write that up as a post?
I never would have come up with it if you hadn't kept asking me questions, and I think you have a better business head. Possible? Now, truly, gotta go.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Italic tag on the loose... never mind
Close it!
Go Global!
VL, see downthread
My attempt.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
A galvinizing idea for?
our particular blog coalition (CW
) or the entire extended formerly pb 1.0 blogosphere?
Either way...
Just looking to see what specifics might be meaningful building blocks toward something real.
Web ring is good
but then there really would have to be some pretty concrete standards for inclusion. So which?
Based on the whole experience of the last six months, I'd have to say that criterion number one would have to be pretty strict moderation of comments. Corrente's and others' newer members are here because we got sand-blasted out of other blogs by the screeching hordes far more than because we couldn't tolerate the writing of the front-pagers.
As I said somewhere on another thread I've lost track of, there were very few blogs that officially purged commenters who were insufficiently O-worshiping, but all the O-blogs I'm aware of just let their commenters run wild and chase the non-conformists out that way.
Screeching and flaming will always chase out more thoughtful voices. There's no other way to stop that except by sometimes fairly heavy-handed comment moderation. A *short* (cough) waiting time after registration and before commenting is permitted is also helpful in stalling sudden raiders who flood in following an outraged link somewhere.
How members of the Webring would be chosen beyond that is, er, beyond me. The best one could do about FP content, I think, would be some sort of pledge about pretty subjective things, like insulting language or a respect for facts or attributing motives without qualifying, a modicum of linky goodness for assertions of fact, yada, yada.
Hard enough to come up with those standards, but then what happens if a blog ring member violates them repeatedly and egregiously? Who decides? Who unlinks them?
IOW, is there any way at all to do this without some kind of governing body and the resultant mess that would forever entail?
I like the "procedural" idea (is it Dogme?) ...
... because it's testable.
Strict moderation is a key, but that can only be built on a foundation of community action, since otherwise there aren't enough hours in the day.
And the moderation decisions are made by, well, an authority figure, and the bottom line there is basically "I've seen it all before."
Whereas, if principles -- "in every post, you have to present a short rebuttal of your own argument, with at least one link" -- are in play, they are easily verifiable by anyone.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi