It can't.

Blogging tools aren't sophisticated enough. And at a certain level putting in restrictions results in more problems than having none at all.(blocks more legit stuff)

People can use proxies and obfuscate their identities until the cows come home.

The only alternative is everyone going "public" and rejecting anything else.

I'm not particularly anonymous myself.

the wisdom of giant blogging/diary communities (DK being the archetype of that) as the concentration facilitates contagion (as in contagion theory of collective behavior, such as mob mentality).FDL was not similarly affected because it has only frontpagers. The fever swamp was limited to commenters.

In addition, the lack of mutual accountability (Big Blogs being critical of other Big Blogs) also facilitated the spread of the worst rumors (the War Room doctored video / Obama's supposed photoshopped photo)... or just posts that simply states "whatever so and so said" should be avoided.

So structurally, decentralization and mutual accountability should be key. In addition, it would allow for some degree of specialization and therefore broader coverage of issues.

A couple of snarkily worded posts early on might have nipped a lot of it in the bud...instead he fed the fire.

Somerby broaches the subject.

This Atrios post from way back when, May 25th.

I was writing a post about the primary. But, well, screw it.

...adding, I've been writing a political blog without doing much politics for several months now. I CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE.

I personally wrote about Atrios back in April.

"It's My Blog and I'll Post What I Want To!"

Question 2: Maybe

3. Hate Ads. No. Don't we have some sugar daddies (or mommies) around here?

4. That's a better question.

5. "Character!"

6. Denver!!!!

UPDATE: adding...

my zero comment posts are evidence that I'm straight up Z-list as far as PB 1.0 was concerned. ;)

feh.

If we are to examine how the "system" failed, someone's gonna get bruised.

I'm a scorched earth kinda guy...

but I've got to run for the next couple of hours.

Toodles.

This premise:

"One can dismiss this as a typical blogospheric cycle, were it not for the effects: As we see the Democratic Party retreat from Constitutional government with the FISA fiasco, and from its commitment to the base in a thousand small ways, but especially by crawfishing on universal health care, the toxic discourse that PB 1.0 created really didn’t help progressive programs or values move forward at all. In fact, during the primaries, the Democrat’s Overton Window shifted right"

is critical. Whether or not blogosphere actions actually caused this retreat or not is debatable and depends on how influential one believes blogs actualy are. What is not easily refuted is that the blogosphere acquiesed, and facilitated this shift.

What is also clear is that a toxic environment for dissent exists. It is poisonous, and like all poisons often do, inflicts the poisoner as well as the victim.

Hopefully I can address some of the action points next.

-----------------------------

Around these parts we call cucumber slices circle bites

the wisdom of giant blogging/diary communities (DK being the archetype of that) as the concentration facilitates contagion (as in contagion theory of collective behavior, such as mob mentality).FDL was not similarly affected because it has only frontpagers. The fever swamp was limited to commenters.

That is my view. Open Left and FireDogLake were relatively calm through the whole thing.

There is the Slashdot system with a firehose that those with "positive karma" have access to and can recommend entries with the site's owners having final say. Slashdot also has a system where you can moderate comments or comment on a thread, but you cannot moderate comments on a thread where you yourself have commented.

truthfully I really don't know how we can build a PB 2.0, save reading and recommending blogs we think are doing a good job.

With a roller! Thanks solely to you Lambert!

And thanks for moderating--you do it well.

So, are we looking for off the cuff thoughts here? Or more specific proposals?

I looked up some stuff about blogger ethics and have a couple of links here:

http://www.cyberjournalist.net/news/0002... Blogger's Code of Ethics: do we like this one?

http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_artic...
see also other pieces linked here

Also, several of us wanted to schedule discussions about ethics--like about Rawls for instance.

Oh and you said something about the Cassandra Award for pb, which imo you have won today!

Wouldn't it be easiest on all to blog/link/comment/(be online) in ways that actually REDUCED our footprint rather than increased it? Shouldn't strategies based on "flying under the radar" (so to speak) be preferred?

If not to feed egos, what use is a hit counter? A time on site counter? A bandwidth counter? Aren't all of these basically tools which are used to mine data, while flattering people in the same way they are flattered when they win craps? i.e. the house always wins!

Maybe PB 2.0 should DISCOURAGE high hit counts, ad sales, etc.? Would bloggers feel the incentive to cozy up if there were no monetary incentive?

So, my thoughts on Point 4....

-----------------------------

Around these parts we call cucumber slices circle bites

Politics needs both. That can lead to corruption. I'm not cynical enogh to think that everyone is corruptable, but I'm not naïve enough to trust that people won't be corrupted with money and power. That even applies to me. Call it my Hobbesian tendency.

I think the "structure" (and not some hardware/software structure) should assume some sort of Hobbesian state and develop "rules" accordingly.

I don't own a blog, I am just a parasite, so this show belongs to you all and you should do what you want but...

Anyone who hasn't read Origin of Species is at a huge disadvantage when trying to formulate an evolutionary plan. It isn't that Darwin gets all the details right, he does not, but he lays out a way of thinking about systems development that holds as true for consideration of deliberate human endeavors as for speciation and genetic survival.

Sort out what failed with P.B.-Beta (that is what it was, no? There never was a P.B. 1.0) and then, as you have begun to do, make a list of everything you can think of that worked to go with the major elements of what did not. (Why would also be good to understand but is often obscure, frequently unknowable and open to endless speculative conjecture; stick with worked/didnotwork and the discussion will be cleaner.)

Lessons learned analyses work this way, listing what went wrong (always a long list but usually condensable into a few key nodes of failure) and what went right (sometimes nothing, but usually a pathetically small yet crucial list) and not worrying so much at first about why; that will emerge in its own way, in its own time, as a consequence of the process.

Select those attributes which worked and combine them all, adding whatever new attributes are required for coherence and not a single one more; superfluous burdens breed disaster.

I really enjoyed the first pass, and look forward to this discussion and more. So seldom get to say this unqualified; you are doing good work here, without question.

Back now to lurking mode....

Just want to say that.

I want to advocate for something, not against something. I think PB1.0 was defined against Bush/GOP and had no destination in mind. It was trivial to go from anti-Bush to anti-Clinton. In fact, it might have been necessary for it to have any purpose.

I keep saying this over and over because it bears repeating. I still don't know what PB2.0 stands for? I want a mission statement.

Can we pick one thing on the list and discuss?

One of the things I liked in the Blogger Ethics above was that they saw the moderator as an essential part, someone who could nurture the newbies and hang with the old guard too.

How do you make people be less short-sighted and Kool-Aidish? Whatever the flavor of Kool-Aid?

In the MSM, they sometimes fire, demote, suspend people or make them apologize (Rather, MSNBC crew)--but a lot of times news stations/papers just start acting differently and often as if the past hadn't happened. Because there's nothing as old as yesterday's news? Or because it's too embarrassing?

How do you make people not want what they want? Or not use what influence they have?

It's an argument for separating the news reporting and the op-eds.

Supposing Single Payer could only be passed using truthy methods, not the truth.

academic, because truthiness never works for ordinary people.

Wow, pretty impressive with the stuff you crank out, gq.

BTW, if I'm a little behind the fair, the comments are not showing for me very quickly.

Nice to see everyone. Thanks for the work you post!

Although the evolution lists have a fair amount of appeal for me I kinda the chaos=creativity which was the obscure point of my ahem "round bacon" post today. A LOT of very creative people--including Esther Dyson!--have very messy desks and it ends up being creative for them, because they bump into all kinds of things.

Let's use ideas from all over.
But I like the goal-mission statement focus too.

And WHAT IS THE INTERNET/THIS SITE for y'all anyway?

To me, it's politically and Constitutionally important, one way of civic duty, educational (for research, analysis, and being shown by others), a mind-and-emotion-saver amongst the sometime blogocraziness, a way to think, and a path to truth.

How do we keep those things?

people for whom $50 is a large contribution. People who cannot afford to buy truthiness.

These points could be intertwinned. If we believe (and I really do think we all believe this) that PB 2.0 needs by definition to be all about truth and not truthiness (Point 5) then Point 8 (party invariant) is not only a certain by-product but a REQUIREMENT.

I just deleted a TRUTH rant I had in this space.

So assuming Point 5 disposes Point 8, what of Point 9 (extreme moderation)? Is that required? What other mechanism can ensure that? Who will watch the watchers?

My earlier point about reducing bandwidth, hits, etc. was process-based on what "attracts" corporate/malevolent interests based on easy access metrics. Is it possible to reduce these metrics and not at the same time reduce influence or impact?

I don't know, it's a question.

-----------------------------

Around these parts we call cucumber slices circle bites

I thought truthiness was the cheapest coin of the realm.

1. Trust chain.

Only allow commenters to join the community if they are recommended by another community member.

Maintain the network of who recommended who.

When some of them turn out to be agents, you exise the entire trust chain up to the known-good nodes.

Goodbye entire groups of sock-puppets and trolls all at once.

but what exactly is the blogosphere? Isn't it basically a form of communication? Like newspapers or television? Or handbills and newsletters?

One of the problems I've always had with the "netroots" is the idea that it is one entity and the identification of that entity by the form it takes, which is just the latest and greatest technology - the internet - for doing what people have been doing for centuries in this country, bitching about how much the current government sucks and advocating for better.

To me, I think we limit ourselves by focusing only on the primary technology used as if the "blogosphere" is somehow separate and apart from the progressive movement, to the extent there even still is such a thing. The blogosphere, like other public foras, is a place where you can meet like minded people, exchange ideas, argue, vent, and maybe, if you're lucky, even organize. In some ways you can do this on a larger scale given the access to a much larger audience, but there's also more of a chance that what you say gets lost in the sea of information and opinion.

This goes to Bruce Dixon's point about creating action out of blogging (e.g. demonstrations, etc.). This to me is the real challenge facing the progressive movement. There's a relativity low entry barrier to blogging or commenting on blogs if you don't mind someone else owning the bandwidth like Google or yahoo or Kos. So lots of people participate. But getting those people to actually show up at a protest is another matter because you can't do that from your couch. Indeed, I think in some ways the blogosphere has actually hurt my activism by letting me feel as though I'm politically active even when I haven't left my living room. But if you could get those people to show up, then you'd have a lot more influence. It's also, I might add, an excellent way to dampen the success of astroturfing operations. It's easy for one person to pose as 100 on-line, rather harder at a public park.

What I'd like to see is a coalition of folks develop that uses blogging and social networking as organizing tools for greater action. How to do that, I confess, I'm not sure, but I'd suggest looking at the Obama movement. Whatever else I might think about it, it sure could turn out a crowd. Now imagine turning out the same crowd for single payer healthcare.

I think those suggestions would be too limiting. One of the strengths of blogosphere is that anyone can play. At the end of the day you are at the mercy of the site administrators.

Incidentally, one of the amusing things at big orange is to watch Kos cope with the Frankenstein he has created. Pretty funny to watch the Obots attack him.

Can anyone explain this to me? I'm not getting it.

I want PB2.0 sites to be highly visible because of the breadth of progressive issues they promote, because of the quality of the substance and commentariat.

I want recognition for that, damn it.

(and I want credit for not using the "crashing the gates" metaphor!)

And where the hell is VL, tonight??

I'd also love to do radio.

My generation of old school bloggers types -- but I also try to type as if I'm talking. If we had a network...

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

I feel that a basic assumption underlying this discussion is that The Progressive Blogosphere consisted of people who had similar political goals. I take the approach in BTDs original post and say that no matter what system you use, the nature of the discourse will ultimately reflect the politics, goals, and interests of the participants---this is, at least, the null hypothesis from which I think this discussion should start.

While there's a big scale issue here, it's interesting to note the differences between the Canadian and US blogospheres, which evolved distinctly different structures. The Canadian "political" internet is still highly invested in discussion board software, and when blogs emerged, they were integrated into a similar paradigm based on RSS aggregators.

These are basically just web sites that collect RSS feeds from a group of related blogs and repost them in sequence. The membership is usually controlled by a few people. There's are couple of really big ones, which generate a lot of traffic. One of them uses a voting system to put posts on the front page. It also used to have its own associated discussion board. That one, ironically called "Progressive Bloggers", ended up still having many of the problems that Kos has, excessive presence of boring centrists, etc. On the other hand, it allowed everyone to speak from their own "turf", as it were, rather than the Kos model where everyone is jammed in together in an Orange Horde.

One site in which I am very much involved is Bread and Roses. It's a discussion board that evolved from a series of schisms with other leftist Canadian online communities (full disclosure: though I'm not the founder or owner, I'm a moderator and maintainer). It has a set of related "project" blogs and its own aggregator with a more selective membership list. The board has a relatively selective membership policy. This has allowed us to punch well above our weight in terms of actual membership and coordinate actions across the Canadian blogosphere.

those are just constructs used to CHARGE MONEY.

Ideas are LOW BANDWIDTH.
Embedded videos are HIGH BANDWIDTH.

Words are LOW BANDWIDTH.
Pictures are HIGH BANDWIDTH.

Links are LOW BANDWIDTH.
Quoting entire articles is HIGH BANDWIDTH.

Refreshing every second is HIGH HITS.
Refreshing only when something changes is LOW HITS.

Again, this is a small point, but if the ideas are paramount, if truth is paramount, then shouldn't the tools be sized to the task?

Viruses are still with us, dinosaurs are not. One is big, the other extremely small. Which triumphed?

Case in point, how much bandwidth do you think Somerby uses? Compared to his impact on everyone here?

-----------------------------

Around these parts we call cucumber slices circle bites

Do a guest (your state) NPR op-ed, record and send to station (call first and make arrangements--a lot of times you even used to be able to use the station equipment if you don't have any.) Be sure to mention us though.

Also, you could podcast here.

I'd like to see our door stay open--it's hard when people are faddish but they change. We have to make sure all the voices are heard, no?

Ideas need to coexist, even if mutually exclusive. I've just been listening to philosopher Martha Nussbaum's 2008 Nora and Edward Ryerson lecture on "Equal Respect for Conscience: The Roots of a Moral and Legal Tradition"--and she keeps emphasizing how Roger Williams stressed civility and politeness in all his discussions and rebuttals of his philosophic and political foes. It really worked for him and he "got away" with getting ideas approved like banning slavery in Rhode Island in the 1600's. He also wrote 400 page book rebuttals to people like the Mather's...hmmm, so more politeness, good solid ideas and lots of words?

These lectures are on-line and this appearance of Nussbaum's on trust and the fragility of goodness is amazing. We really need trust too.

I always think of the movie Groundhog Day with the Ryersons's lecture: "Ned--Ned Ryerson?"

what are their bylaws? how do you get on the board of trustees? why can't we take over our local pbs stations?

A very wise woman once said to me "everything is political -- someone voted on what color an exit sign would be." I believe this to be true.

Under the current "winner-takes-all" political system, it can be challenging to bring about change -- but not impossible. One of the first things an elected official will ask is 'how many voters can you bring me, and/or how much money can you raise for my campaign'. That seems to define your value to them.

A few years ago I met two wonderful lesbians in PA who manage an email list of about 2000 names. In their community some political races are determined by as few as 10 votes. Their list of 2000 names makes then extremely valuable to anyone seeking political office.

There are other influences that are directly connected to who we elect to public office. Corporate America has a tremendous amount of power and influence -- and they have used that power to elected candidates who will continue "feeding the beast."

We clearly don't have the same financial power as Corporate America, but we do have our right to vote. One of the biggest contributions we could make is to increase voter activism -- and yes, I'm talking about encouraging people to leave their computer and go out into the world to help organize.

We are stuck with basically a two party system -- so the question becomes how to take over one, or both, parties?

The other random thought is how to change the culture -- to make it unacceptable to say someting sexist or racist (or anything that ends in "ist"). That may be the biggest challenge.

What we have seen over the past year is a progressive movement evolve (there is that word) into something we all claim to be against? I would imagine Kos would say he's not a sexist, but would his comments truly past the "non-sexist" test? And do we have to call attention to our fellow bloggers, and our candidates, when they engage in behavior that doesn't fit within a non-sexist, racist, mold?

I think the more ways we can communicate with people the better -- radio (broadcast and online), television (online, unless someone has a few million dollars), the blogosphere, etc. Deregulation of MSM has created little more than a vast wasteland.

We need to try to bring a personal connection for why people should want to get involved, and then make it as easy as possible for them to do so. We need to be more forgiving as people are first getting involved, so if someone makes an error they are not driven away by a rigid ideological standard.

Just a few random thoughts ...

BAC

I don't think that the strange bedfellows model will work in the general case. Strange bedfellows only works because both groups feel they have something to fear and/or to lose. But most of the time, they have mutually exclusive political goals, eg, the Ron Paul economic agenda.

inherent in human social interaction

aka the family getting together

aka drinking a little beer and shooting a little pool

aka mob rule

aka waging war

there is NO systematic way out of the folly that humans can, will, and frequently do inflict on themselves and others.

the only defense is individual integrity and individual intellectual honesty - largely inherited personality traits.

there is no prescription that will work for the weblog world,

just as there is no code of journalistic ethics that could have prevented judith miller, pinch sultzberger, bill keller, and jill abrahmson from publishing m