[Many, many wonderful, creative thoughts from readers. I encourage everyone to take some time, read them all, and add your own thoughts. -- lambert]
This isn't going to be the definitive Progressive Blogosphere 2.0 post, for the very good reason that PB 2.0 is still ours to define. What I can say is that I came to this discussion with an agenda -- heck, a manifesto -- in mind, but last week's discussion -- hat tip, Big Tent Democrat -- was so creative and thought-provoking that I'm glad I didn't get to, er, manifest.
Why are we even talking about a Progressive Blogosphere 2.0?
There are my thoughts. I've been blogging since about 2003, when some of us (including Leah and Tom) were guest posters over at Atrios's place. And for a long time, I've been an old-school blogger: Pseudononymous, snarky, critical in the best sense of the word--as were many of us, and are many of us to this day. (Also, unfunded, which either destroyed or enriched my life, depending on how you look at it; my life has arced from poverty to a corporate salary to poverty in the span of my blogging career.)
The essence of the old school is critique; in those happy days, when we thought the only problem was the Republicans, that took the form of the media critique of which Atrios was a master; and which is practiced in pure form by the great Bob Somerby even today. How well I remember playing whack-a-mole with the lies justifying Iraq! The aluminum tubes! The uranium! The mobile labs! And on and on and on! As soon as we'd whack one mole, another would take its place. Why, it almost seemed orchestrated -- as indeed it was.
Well, primary season 2008 rolls around -- remember how, after the famous victory of 2006, this was finally going to be our year? -- and as soon as Edwards was out of the race, a lot of the blogosphere, and, I have to say it, especially that portion of the A list that endorsed Obama, abandoned any pretense of a critique. Quality control vanished. The 2008 equivalent of the aluminum tubes, the RFK smear, was propagated without shame (and, to this day, without any remorse or self-criticism [with, so far as I know, a single honorable exception. Readers are invited to submit others]. And, needless to say, the most vile forms of misogyny became the order of the day. In short, in much of Progressive Blogosphere 1.0*, the discourse became just as toxic as it has been in the Village
; indeed, one might almost think that the blogosphere had been assimilated by the Village. The failure was massive and systemic, just as when mildew destroys an entire garden.
Now -- and this may come as a surprise to some readers -- I know what snark is, what polemic is, and how to do harm with words. But I don't think I'm clutching my pearls to say that the toxicity in PB 1.0 was different in quality and quantity from anything I've ever experienced in my life, let alone sought to inflict on others. I'm sure that others felt the same; that's why many left the old sites and set up new ones. One could 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, not left (which is not surprising; much of the toxicity came as PB 1.0 adopted right wing frames, which are designed -- have been funded -- to disempower progressives. They're doing their job).
So, what to do? If we need a new, non-toxic discourse, then -- it seems to me -- we need to create a new system or framework in which the discourse is created. Last week, BTD rightly stressed that ethos, character, is important in maintaining editorial integrity in the face of political assault; however, it's also clear, from the Stanford Prison experiments (FrenchDoc will correct me on the cites) that "good" people can and will turn to evil if placed in a system that creates and sustains evil; see Abu Ghraib. As Krugman says: Bad systems, bad choices. For example, the site/traffic model of "It's my blog" is hard to argue with; by the same token, if the "my blog" that's in reality a community serving many thousands of diverse voices suddenly becomes so toxic that it starts purging people, there's a lot of pain and suffering, at the least, involved -- and damage to progressive goals, too. Or if the person running "my blog" decides they want become David Broder, instead of critiquing him.
As the photo shows: We've outgrown the old framework; but where's the new one?
So here are a few of the questions and ideas for PB 2.0 systems people came up with:
1. How best can PB 2.0 protect itself from assault by partisans and corporate astroturfing disinformation campaigns? Assuming those are different things. [Hat tip: Goldberry]
2. Should PB 2.0 be a legal entity along the lines of CPB? [Hat tip: Goldberry] Or -- thinking outside the box here -- along the lines of a megachurch?
3. Should PB 2.0 have a business model? Servers cost money. Ads? Subscriptions? Passing the hat? [Hat tip: TnJen]
4. How do we flatten the power curve? Typically for the Internet, as PB 1.0 shook out, there were a very, very few high traffic blogs, with a steep shoulder of lower traffic blogs, and then a "long tail" of very low traffic blogs. Not only are the few high traffic blogs more vulnerable to assault by corporate and partisan forces (assuming those to be different) than a more evenly balanced system would be, having an "A,"- "B"-, and "The Rest" List smacks altogether too much of the two-tier, authoritarian model so prevalent elsewhere under the Conservative ascendancy. [Hat tip: Lambert and FrenchDoc]
5. How do we create a system where seeking truth, and not selling truthiness, is the highest value? [Hat tip: BTD and VastLeft]
6. How can PB 2.0 create face-to-face activism, "instead of this Intertubes stuff"? [Big tip of the ol' chapeau to Bruce Dixon; our problems are not, primarily, technical in nature!]
7. Is AA a good organizational model? [Hat tip: Caro] Like old school bloggers, not only is AA anonymous ("spiritual foundation of our tradtions") it hasn't been captured by partisans or corporations. Indeed, AA might be said to be the epitome of the decentralized and mutually accountable network. [Hat tip: FrencDoc]
8. Should PB 2.0 be "party invariant"? [Hat tip: gqmartinez] Strange bedfellows are bad why?]
9. Is ruthless moderation necessary? [Hat tip: Nadal]
10. Do we need to make shared principles and purposes explicit? [Hat tip: Truth Partisan]
NOTE * Of course, YMMV by individual bloggers; some remained intact, while others totally lost it. I'm talking about PB 1.0 as a system, as a network of interconnected blogs. Taken as a system, the discourse produced by PB 1.0 was toxic.
UPDATE I forgot to say that one way to connect te "intertubes" with "face-to-face" is through project software, especially if the project teams are not geographically dispersed.
- lambert's blog
Printer-friendly version- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
Answer to Question 1.
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.
It can't through technical methods, you mean
Moderation and account management require people...
[ ] 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
Structurally, one might question
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.
Go Global!
"concentration facilitates contagion"
Indeed.
In gardening terms, that's a monoculture.
[ ] 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
I'll Blame Atrios, personally.
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 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. ;)
Let's keep it systemic, not personal
Again, that's the lesson of Milgram and the Stanford experiments. "There but for the Grace of the God(ess)(e)(s) go I..."
[ ] 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
Not Personal...
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.
Oh, events and people need to be cited
no question. Check my links, there, willy....
[ ] 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
Before the questions, the premise
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
-----------------------------
I'm not such a bad guy once you get to know me.
On the "typical blogospheric cycle"...
I had this in mind, from Lord Kos:
They being the strikers...
[ ] 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
diaries
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.
Sorry I'm late, I was painting the porch
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!
Discussion of ethics
We could certainly schedule one -- contact me via lambert_strether DOT corrente AT yahoo DOT com. We've got a couple lined up already, but it's a good sign we have a schedule...
On this thread, I'm looking for what you can give. That said, examples/critique of codes here in the thread would be helpful.
[ ] 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
Re: Point 4
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
-----------------------------
I'm not such a bad guy once you get to know me.
I think we need a business model
because servers cost money, and lots of us are poor.
That said, I think the network needs business model, and that's distinct from the individual blogs.
And yes, under the radar is just fine. No bandwidth limitation problems....
[ ] 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
Power & Money
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.
Garish summit...
"There in stately splendor, far about the squalid village below, they fight their petty battles over power and money...."
Yes, Hobbes. Right back to the Federalist Papers: "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition."
[ ] 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 veil of ignorance
and the Original Position are worth discussing, both in terms of PB2.0 "rules", but PB2.0 philosophy as well.
How we prevent corruption is certainly important. I think that is partially tied to our principles. I see a set of goals (health care, etc.), but not necessarily a set of principles vigorously debated and pursued. In my view, the real problem liberals face in the future are the Arnold Schwarzenegger/Libertarians. This is what has bothered me most about PB1.0 and Obama. We need to be able to counter their philosophy. Libertarian = You're On Your Own (YOYO or F-You) society.
We'll always have to pick off some dead leaves
The question is how to avoid losing an entire garden.
I think principles go to method, not policy or issue stances.
Supposing Single Payer could only be passed using truthy methods, not the truth. Should we then use truthy methods, because the goal is "good"?
I would argue no, and even leaving aside principle, it's still silly to think that way: There are plenty of people on K street who are very well paid to handle truthiness, and we can't outdo the professionals. So why invest in pale imitations? Because you know that anything truthy not only has to have a budget behind it, it will because truthiness is all that prevents the current shitstem, as the reggae artists would call it, from collapse. (They call it "confidence.")
[ ] 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
yoyo fu!
i see them as a big threat to progressivism/liberalism too. libertarianism is just a trojan horse for robber baronism. they endlessly tout liberty as their mantra and goal, achievable only by reducing constraints on people, but liberty is really only achievable when you have some kind of coping mechanism in place -- constitution! laws! -- for constraining the sociopaths.
which is a real shame, because now that i look at it on my computer monitor, i like the phrase yoyo fu.
If only we could have a grand bargain
Both the YOYO-FUs and we would like to at least drastically prune the empire.
Both the YOYO-FUs and we would like to restore Constitutional government.
And I think both the YOYO-FUs and we would like to end the drug war.
Could we do something like say they can have as many guns as they like if we can get universal health care?
The strange bedfellows thing... Why shouldn't that be a more general model?
[ ] 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
strange bedfellows
make for some very interesting liaisons. ;-)
i haven't got a problem with the strange bedfellows model, i'm an anarchist sympathiser from way back myself, but you might want to separate out the big-l libertarians from the civil libertarians. hard to do in many cases, i know, in part because there's a lot of overlap.
the civil libertarians are good people, including many of the ones who are up in arms over gun rights. they're generally very much in favor of the constitution, ending the drug war, pruning the empire, etc, all of which i heartily approve. they're not really yoyo fus.
the real yoyo fus: big-l libertarians [capital l, for libertarian party], who tend towards the robber baron profile. they're the ones wanting little or no regulation of business, including big business. especially big business in the case of robber barons. you might end up having to negotiate a deal with these types at some point, but an alliance would be problematic.
Not my place to participate here
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....
Oh for pity's sake
Totally your place; you add high value content, and that makes this your place.
So please drop the tiresome pretence of modesty and join in the discussion!
[ ] 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 tiresome pretense of modesty
Surely you jest; modesty is not one of my limitations. It is for me a question of propriety; just not my place to become deeply involved. On top of that you know perfectly well I will cause trouble and instigate dissent and with things actually moving along very smoothly here what good will that be?
Trust me on this one. I have enough messes to clean up already.
Yes, but
evolution is not necessarily the most efficient means to solve a problem. It could also lead to dead ends and catastrophe for large populations.
And the alternative to evolution would be?
And remember, that "culture" is, itself, a metaphor for how humans harnessed evolution. IIRC, dog breeders were just as essential to Darwin's thinking as the famous Galapagos finches.
[ ] 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
it is all evolution, gq
We are driven by it in everything we do whether we like to admit it or not, and both dead ends and catastrophe are part of the process. It isn't neat and clean, it is messy and awful and frightening and terrible. The best we can ever hope for, as a gnat or a dinosaur or a human being or a progressive blogosphere, is to breed before we are eaten. Grim, but it is all we have.
What were your lessons learned, bio?
A list, please.
NOTE And I thought I was the only one running the riff that the blogosphere 1.0 was really a beta, and a crash-prone one at that; the parallelism of great minds, and all that....
[ ] 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
Parallelism
Be afraid, be very afraid.
Didn't mean to swipe a riff, had heard that mentioned somewhere but couldn't remember the source. My brain is like a cabbage wagon, some new things stay on the pile and others roll right off.
But jeebus, what was expected? An all-comers construction by committee where 90% of the influence is from a handful of people who came from the competition and whose sole objective was/is to be part of the Big Show once again. First whiff of the familiar gravy train and away they went, reducing the structure to a pile of rubble in the process. Here's one lesson. Don't fool yourself into thinking you have a solid product just because the package sparkles and the brochure is shiny.
After the 2006 elections I argued that it wasn't a reversal of direction as much as the finding of a brake peddle that would not get anything more than experimentally tapped, and that nothing much substantive would change for another three cycles at best. I got told to STFU
because I was just a defeatist who wanted to spoil the victory party.
Yet here we are, and now I argue that the next step is getting the Republicans out of the White House and I'm still getting called names. Expecting the PB to do that, help capture the White House, AND revise the Congress AND defeat the BlueDogs AND drive the corporatists from all power AND enact a comprehensive progressive agenda of governance all at the same time is far too much; it creates an atmosphere of failure that depresses enthusiasm and breeds discontent, that masks actual forward motion.
Same with PB 1.1 or whatever; this is just a getting under way event, and we have a long haul ahead. Incremental victories are still victories and should be cherished and nourished; small nodes collected into diversified, decentralized networks are more difficult to infiltrate and resist being crushed; costs shared are always cheaper, organized bargaining power makes them cheaper yet; true communities share basic values and goals, and do not let disagreements over smaller differences in strategy divide them.
I'll try to make a LL list but I will want to edit it and couch it so as to not offend everyone all at the same time, again. Maybe I'll append it towards the end, when this thread cools down.
Shut the fuck up and send Obama more money!
What are you talking about, getting "called names"?
Haw.
UPDATE
"Small modules loosely coupled." Or some such.
I think this paragraph sums up a piece of consensus we're straggling toward:
I think there's got to be some money in it, otherwise, just like your shrink says, you don't value the therapy. Just not too much. And somehow, more evenly distributed.
What would be the minimum number to get a health insurance deal, I wonder? 10,000? (A big number...)
[ ] 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
how big a number
45 million is apparently not a big enough group to band together to get health care coverage, so I have no answer there. Maybe if they got pitchforks and torches....sorry.
If you want change, eh, it is still pain and pleasure that drives people - even politicians. The PB, like the progrssive community as a whole, isn't big enough to cause significant pain the way it operates and sure as hell not big enough to provide pleasure.
If you want a political focus, and why not, find a weak point and bore in on it. Health care is a good one, there are others. Then figure out how to get from talk to walk, or it will all just be hot air and no, I'm not being critical of bloggers, just saying.
of cabbages and kings and //
long haul. yeah, this is where republicans have been successful, they've been in it for the long haul, planned well ahead into the future, stayed on course, ec.
incremental victories. yes! cherish, nourish, celebrate them! the problem i have with the concept though, is settling for them. that dkos thread that was referenced in the hcan't post below has commenters repeating that it will take at least 30 years to get single payer here. damned incrementalists, they do let their tiny comfort zones keep them shying away again and again from cataclysmic changes. canada and australia each underwent what i would characterize as a series of seismic shifts, over a period of maybe 10-15 years in their march to universal health care/coverage. hunh. i had another example besides health care that i was going to use here, but that cabbage seems to have rolled off the pile.
small nodes, decentralized networks. terrorist cells! but yeah, i like being proprietor of my own blog, with full editorial control [not that i exercise it much]. i like saying whatever i feel like saying that day, in whatever format i feel like employing at that moment. corrente is an exceptional group, and i'm glad lambert let me in, but in general i don't want to have to have to belong to a club, group, organization, party [i'm a registered democrat purely out of pragmatism] to be heard or to be able to exert leverage. i'd rather be able to form a variety of short- and long-term alliances with different groups, not all of whom may approve of each other. ephemeral organized bargaining power, perhaps, rather than permanent, but it ought to be useable just the same.
parasite?
more an epiphyte, i would have said.
Love you too, sweetie
love you too
Heh
Cryptonomicon reference?
[ ] 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
Blogger ethics are not a political philosophy
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.
If you want something...
Well, you know what I'm going to say, gq. Right?
[ ] 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
D'OH!
I've been hoping for time to do it. I turned in the thesis a month ago, had to move and am trying to figure out where I'm going to be in 2 months. Heck, most of my blogging is done through my blackberry. Sigh.
Let me simplify for you, then
Since your dealing with a small screen and typing with your thumbs.
Pick one principle -- possibly the first -- and share that. Then we can move on from it!
I know, I know... "I didn't have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one..."
[ ] 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
What's Been Goin' On?
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.
the means determines the ends
Supposing Single Payer could only be passed using truthy methods, not the truth.
academic, because truthiness never works for ordinary people.
Explain, please
And I'm sure FrenchDoc would like you to explain "Ordinary people.."
[ ] 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
Blackberry?
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?
ordinary people
people for whom $50 is a large contribution. People who cannot afford to buy truthiness.
Points 5, 8 and 9
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'm not such a bad guy once you get to know me.
Truthiness is expensive?
I thought truthiness was the cheapest coin of the realm.
Truthiness is expensive
because IMNSHO maintaining it in a community setting requires "ruthless moderation." Humans are expensive, by blog standards (or poor).
[ ] 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
Defense against astroturfing/true believers
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.
Oooh, a trust chain
That is an extremely interesting idea and can be supported in software. Also, it scales beautifully. You don't go leaf by leaf, you prune a branch.
Any examples, cenobite?
[ ] 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