blogorrhea, worldwide.
one of my much-beloved blogs has a recurring segment called 'blogorrhea' that i think is a far more accurate moniker for the community of weblogs than lame-o wannabe sci-fi "blogosphere." this ain't no sphere. it's a random spewing of previously digested content that you'd be pretty unlikely to find anything worthwhile in. i mean, don't get me wrong; this would be the wrong venue for me to say that i hate blogs. but the percentage of worthwhile blogs is so very minuscule that it's getting kind of hilarious. when the majority of the blogorrhea is composed of crap like this, it's hard to be overly enthused about blogging as medium, overall.
and when you're not having your google results filled with useless crap splogs that are little more than a bunch of repetitive keywords designed to pull traffic towards advertisements, you've got to deal with crappy wannabe emancipatory blogs like this one: open source media. the talent show commented that this site was basically copying the mainstream media phenomenon of "intentional misuse of buzzwords." which is very true.
the current top line on the OSM site pretty much says it all: "compiled by OSM staff in Los Angeles."
now. if that's not setting off alarm bells in everyone's head, it should be. OSM STAFF? okay. let's go over the concept of 'open source.' essentially, to riff on the concepts put forth here, it means a piece of intellectual property that is freely shared with a blanket permission that it may be reproduced, copied, altered, reworked in any way. taken in the context of IP writ large, rather than simply the case of software, open-source would be clearly epitomized by something like wikipedia, in which the content is created by a set of individuals working together, at most moderated, and not produced by a staff. this definition would work to a lesser extent for a blog like dailykos or mydd, in which the majority of content is created by an individual blogger, but a good deal of supplementary content is created by the users of the site themselves in the form of diaries, which are recommended by other users and thus promoted to front-page status. in the case of the two aforementioned blogs, the most popular diarists are often promoted to quasi-editorial status. dailykos, for example, began as the individual endeavour of Markos Moulitsas (kos), but the promotion of diarists means that now, a good deal of the front page content is created by former diarists like Armando, Hunter, and Plutonium Page.
but the real kicker is the wretched doublespeak that pervades their whole 'about us' page. now, be warned that this is a blog which has been described as a "conservative circlejerk."
how's this for determinism? "freedom, openness and transparency in media is an inevitable result of the technological advances that have given every citizen the chance to breathe deeply of the news, thought and opinion that hovers in the ether between us." let's ignore the obvious grammatical flaw of that sentence, and evaluate the claim at stake. an inevitable result!? so little green footballs, that delightful forum which features thousands of parrots squawking out the 'daring' claim that the entire muslim world ought to be bombed into the stone age... is somehow a bastion of freedom, openness, and transparency. glenn reynolds, who won't even let people comment on his blog... is a defender of freedom? (digression: i just noticed that instacracker has an ad on his website for the ever-eloquent Larry the Cable Guy's new book, "Git-R-Done." which features the charming byline: "Why the United Nations is useless. Other than Ted Kennedy, what could be more unnecessary than these sumbitches? They can park where they want, fondle women, cuss out valet parkers and get away with it.") or perhaps the true defenders of openness and transparency are Redstate, with such understated, well-thought-out and rational headlines as "Hilary Clinton is a Racist." OR, maybe even michelle malkin's delightfully subtle characterization of Canada as a country with a "rogue, corrupt and repressive regime that [doesn't] know when to cut their losses and leave town."
blogs can just as equally serve oppression, secrecy, and opacity in media as they can serve freedom and openness. in fact, i'd say they're a good bit more likely to do so. because vast majorities of people are idiots. and if there's anything more mob-rule, backward, and populist than a miasma like freerepublic, i don't know what is. but hey, with such awkward rhetorical figures as "In the 1960’s, the medium may have been the message, but in the new century, it’s time for the medium to get out of the way," the toadies at OSM have certainly won me over. side note: what the fuck does that even mean? has this guy ever read McLuhan? does he know that McLuhan is a Canadian?
hell, he may as well be FRENCH!
and, to close an overlong and disjointed post, Open Source Media is, conveniently, not even close to open source. in fact, it violates the prime commandment of open source: free distribution. dailykos operates under the fairly simple rule: "Site content may be used for any purpose without explicit permission unless otherwise specified." 'Open Source' Media, however, has a lengthy page of legalese, which effectively states, in so many words, that the editors of OSM own your soul for eternity.
well, not quite. but let's compare this:
"Our Site and all its contents, which includes, but is not limited to, text, graphics, photographs, logos, video and audio content, is protected by copyright as a collective work or compilation under the copyright laws of the United States and other countries. All individual components of Our Site, including, without limitation, articles, content and other elements comprising Our Site are also copyrighted works. Additionally all of the weblogs linked to by us are likewise protected. You must abide by all additional copyright notices or restrictions contained on this site and our linked weblogs. "
with this, from opensource.org.
"The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale."
yeah. how's that for doublespeak. "open source" media that's all rights reserved. not... fucking... likely.
okay, that's enough.
and when you're not having your google results filled with useless crap splogs that are little more than a bunch of repetitive keywords designed to pull traffic towards advertisements, you've got to deal with crappy wannabe emancipatory blogs like this one: open source media. the talent show commented that this site was basically copying the mainstream media phenomenon of "intentional misuse of buzzwords." which is very true.
the current top line on the OSM site pretty much says it all: "compiled by OSM staff in Los Angeles."
now. if that's not setting off alarm bells in everyone's head, it should be. OSM STAFF? okay. let's go over the concept of 'open source.' essentially, to riff on the concepts put forth here, it means a piece of intellectual property that is freely shared with a blanket permission that it may be reproduced, copied, altered, reworked in any way. taken in the context of IP writ large, rather than simply the case of software, open-source would be clearly epitomized by something like wikipedia, in which the content is created by a set of individuals working together, at most moderated, and not produced by a staff. this definition would work to a lesser extent for a blog like dailykos or mydd, in which the majority of content is created by an individual blogger, but a good deal of supplementary content is created by the users of the site themselves in the form of diaries, which are recommended by other users and thus promoted to front-page status. in the case of the two aforementioned blogs, the most popular diarists are often promoted to quasi-editorial status. dailykos, for example, began as the individual endeavour of Markos Moulitsas (kos), but the promotion of diarists means that now, a good deal of the front page content is created by former diarists like Armando, Hunter, and Plutonium Page.
but the real kicker is the wretched doublespeak that pervades their whole 'about us' page. now, be warned that this is a blog which has been described as a "conservative circlejerk."
how's this for determinism? "freedom, openness and transparency in media is an inevitable result of the technological advances that have given every citizen the chance to breathe deeply of the news, thought and opinion that hovers in the ether between us." let's ignore the obvious grammatical flaw of that sentence, and evaluate the claim at stake. an inevitable result!? so little green footballs, that delightful forum which features thousands of parrots squawking out the 'daring' claim that the entire muslim world ought to be bombed into the stone age... is somehow a bastion of freedom, openness, and transparency. glenn reynolds, who won't even let people comment on his blog... is a defender of freedom? (digression: i just noticed that instacracker has an ad on his website for the ever-eloquent Larry the Cable Guy's new book, "Git-R-Done." which features the charming byline: "Why the United Nations is useless. Other than Ted Kennedy, what could be more unnecessary than these sumbitches? They can park where they want, fondle women, cuss out valet parkers and get away with it.") or perhaps the true defenders of openness and transparency are Redstate, with such understated, well-thought-out and rational headlines as "Hilary Clinton is a Racist." OR, maybe even michelle malkin's delightfully subtle characterization of Canada as a country with a "rogue, corrupt and repressive regime that [doesn't] know when to cut their losses and leave town."
blogs can just as equally serve oppression, secrecy, and opacity in media as they can serve freedom and openness. in fact, i'd say they're a good bit more likely to do so. because vast majorities of people are idiots. and if there's anything more mob-rule, backward, and populist than a miasma like freerepublic, i don't know what is. but hey, with such awkward rhetorical figures as "In the 1960’s, the medium may have been the message, but in the new century, it’s time for the medium to get out of the way," the toadies at OSM have certainly won me over. side note: what the fuck does that even mean? has this guy ever read McLuhan? does he know that McLuhan is a Canadian?
hell, he may as well be FRENCH!
and, to close an overlong and disjointed post, Open Source Media is, conveniently, not even close to open source. in fact, it violates the prime commandment of open source: free distribution. dailykos operates under the fairly simple rule: "Site content may be used for any purpose without explicit permission unless otherwise specified." 'Open Source' Media, however, has a lengthy page of legalese, which effectively states, in so many words, that the editors of OSM own your soul for eternity.
well, not quite. but let's compare this:
"Our Site and all its contents, which includes, but is not limited to, text, graphics, photographs, logos, video and audio content, is protected by copyright as a collective work or compilation under the copyright laws of the United States and other countries. All individual components of Our Site, including, without limitation, articles, content and other elements comprising Our Site are also copyrighted works. Additionally all of the weblogs linked to by us are likewise protected. You must abide by all additional copyright notices or restrictions contained on this site and our linked weblogs. "
with this, from opensource.org.
"The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale."
yeah. how's that for doublespeak. "open source" media that's all rights reserved. not... fucking... likely.
okay, that's enough.
posted by ali at 9:25 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home