I think not. People still like physical activity and touching each other.
This link has been bookmarked by 214 people . It was first bookmarked on 02 Mar 2006, by Joel Liu.
-
18 Jun 17
kevinoempty
-
27 Sep 11
-
02 Aug 11
-
07 Jun 11
-
the limitations and the flaws of the blogosphere - its superficiality, its emphasis on opinion over reporting, its echolalia, its tendency to reinforce rather than challenge ideological extremism and segregation.
-
The Internet is changing the economics of creative work - or, to put it more broadly, the economics of culture - and it's doing it in a way that may well restrict rather than expand our choices.
-
free trumps quality all the time
-
because of the ease of creation and dissemination, online culture is the culture
-
I hope he's wrong, but I fear he's right
-
-
30 Dec 10
-
04 Nov 10
-
20 Jun 10
-
11 Jun 10
-
18 Apr 10
-
I will take the professionals over the amateurs.
-
-
14 Feb 10
-
On the Internet, we're all bodiless, symbols speaking to symbols in symbols.
-
-
30 Nov 09
meanderinglaraThe promoters of Web 2.0 venerate the amateur and distrust the professional./ I'm all for blogs and blogging. (I'm writing this, ain't I?) But I'm not blind to the limitations and the flaws of the blogosphere - its superficiality, its emphasis on opinion
in:RoughType by:NicholasCarr Blogging Web2.0 Analysis Trends SocialSoftware
-
25 Sep 09
-
01 Sep 09
-
Add Sticky NoteWe will live inside this thing."
-
-
Add Sticky NoteAnd so all the things that Web 2.0 represents - participation, collectivism, virtual communities, amateurism - become unarguably good things, things to be nurtured and applauded, emblems of progress toward a more enlightened state. But is it really so? Is there a counterargument to be made? Might, on balance, the practical effect of Web 2.0 on society and culture be bad, not good? To see Web 2.0 as a moral force is to turn a deaf ear to such questions.
-
A glimpse of Carr at his most reasonable.
-
-
venerate the amateur and distrust the professional.
-
But I don't want to be forced to make that choice.
-
-
-
On the Internet, we're all bodiless, symbols speaking to symbols in symbols.
-
We become free-floating netizens in a more enlightened, almost angelic, realm
-
The Net turned out to be more about commerce than consciousness, more a mall than a commune
-
In the future, according to Kelly, the Web will grant us not only the vision of gods but also their power
-
Later that Machine may run faster, but there is only one time when it is born.
-
Every few centuries, the steady march of change meets a discontinuity, and history hinges on that moment.
-
The Machine provided a new way of thinking (perfect search, total recall) and a new mind for an old species. It was the Beginning.
-
When we view the Web in religious terms, when we imbue it with our personal yearning for transcendence, we can no longer see it objectively
-
When will the great Wikipedia get good? Or is "good" an old-fashioned concept that doesn't apply to emergent phenomena like communal on-line encyclopedias?
-
The promoters of Web 2.0 venerate the amateur and distrust the professional. We see it in their unalloyed praise of Wikipedia, and we see it in their worship of open-source software and myriad other examples of democratic creativity.
-
ts superficiality, its emphasis on opinion over reporting, its echolalia, its tendency to reinforce rather than challenge ideological extremism and segregation.
-
I will take the professionals over the amateurs.
But I don't want to be forced to make that choice.
-
The Internet is changing the economics of creative work - or, to put it more broadly, the economics of culture - and it's doing it in a way that may well restrict rather than expand our choices.
-
Implicit in the ecstatic visions of Web 2.0 is the hegemony of the amateur. I for one can't imagine anything more frightening.
-
Like it or not, Web 2.0, like Web 1.0, is amoral
-
-
-
My problem is this: When we view the Web in religious terms, when we imbue it with our personal yearning for transcendence, we can no longer see it objectively.
-
Web 2.0 represents - participation, collectivism, virtual communities, amateurism - become unarguably good things, things to be nurtured and applauded, emblems of progress toward a more enlightened state. But is it really so? I
-
it seems fair to ask exactly when the intelligence in "collective intelligence" will begin to manifest itself.
-
the flaws of the blogosphere - its superficiality, its emphasis on opinion over reporting, its echolalia, its tendency to reinforce rather than challenge ideological extremism and segregation
-
the mainstream media is able to do things that are different from - and, yes, more important than - what bloggers can do
-
The Internet is changing the economics of creative work - or, to put it more broadly, the economics of culture - and it's doing it in a way that may well restrict rather than expand our choices.
-
given the economics of the competition, it may well turn out to be a superior competitor.
-
Implicit in the ecstatic visions of Web 2.0 is the hegemony of the amateur
-
Web 2.0, like Web 1.0, is amoral.
-
-
31 Aug 09
-
18 Jul 09
-
12 Jul 09
-
From the start, the World Wide Web has been a vessel of quasi-religious longing. And why not? For those seeking to transcend the physical world, the Web presents a readymade Promised Land. On the Internet, we're all bodiless, symbols speaking to symbols in symbols.
-
But as the Web matured during the late 1990s, the dreams of a digital awakening went unfulfilled. The Net turned out to be more about commerce than consciousness, more a mall than a commune. And when the new millenium arrived, it brought not a new age but a dispiritingly commonplace popping of a bubble of earthly greed. Somewhere along the way, the moneychangers had taken over the temple. The Internet had transformed many things, but it had not transformed us. We were the same as ever.
-
We look back on those pivotal eras and wonder what it would have been like to be alive then. Confucius, Zoroaster, Buddha, and the latter Jewish patriarchs lived in the same historical era, an inflection point known as the axial age of religion.
-
Weaving nerves out of glass and radio waves, our species began wiring up all regions, all processes, all facts and notions into a grand network. From this embryonic neural net was born a collaborative interface for our civilization, a sensing, cognitive device with power that exceeded any previous invention. The Machine provided a new way of thinking (perfect search, total recall) and a new mind for an old species.
-
Like it or not, Web 2.0, like Web 1.0, is amoral. It's a set of technologies - a machine, not a Machine - that alters the forms and economics of production and consumption. It doesn't care whether its consequences are good or bad. It doesn't care whether it brings us to a higher consciousness or a lower one. It doesn't care whether it burnishes our culture or dulls it. It doesn't care whether it leads us into a golden age or a dark one.
-
-
25 Apr 09
-
20 Apr 09
-
passage into the cyber world as a process of personal and communal unshackling, a journey that frees us from traditional constraints on our intelligence, our communities, our meager physical selves. We become free-floating netizens in a more enlightened, almost angelic, realm.
-
but it had not transformed us. We were the same as ever
-
By necessity, we have to look at the Internet as a moral force, not as a simple collection of inanimate hardware and software. No decent person wants to worship an amoral conglomeration of technology.
And so all the things that Web 2.0 represents - participation, collectivism, virtual communities, amateurism - become unarguably good things, things to be nurtured and applauded, emblems of progress toward a more enlightened state. But is it really so? Is there a counterargument to be made? Might, on balance, the practical effect of Web 2.0 on society and culture be bad, not good?
-
At this point, it seems fair to ask exactly when the intelligence in "collective intelligence" will begin to manifest itself. When will the great Wikipedia get good? Or is "good" an old-fashioned concept that doesn't apply to emergent phenomena like communal on-line encyclopedias?
-
Forced to choose between reading blogs and subscribing to, say, the New York Times, the Financial Times, the Atlantic, and the Economist, I will choose the latter. I will take the professionals over the amateurs.
But I don't want to be forced to make that choice.
-
Wikipedia might be a pale shadow of the Britannica, but because it's created by amateurs rather than professionals, it's free. And free trumps quality all the time.
-
Implicit in the ecstatic visions of Web 2.0 is the hegemony of the amateur. I for one can't imagine anything more frightening.
-
Like it or not, Web 2.0, like Web 1.0, is amoral. It's a set of technologies - a machine, not a Machine - that alters the forms and economics of production and consumption. It doesn't care whether its consequences are good or bad. It doesn't care whether it brings us to a higher consciousness or a lower one. It doesn't care whether it burnishes our culture or dulls it. It doesn't care whether it leads us into a golden age or a dark one. So let's can the millenialist rhetoric and see the thing for what it is, not what we wish it would be.
-
Brilliant but pricey has difficulty competing economically with free and apparently adequate
-
-
15 Apr 09
-
11 Apr 09
-
10 Mar 09
-
24 Feb 09
-
09 Feb 09
-
20 Jan 09
-
16 Nov 08
-
It's a set of technologies - a machine, not a Machine - that alters the forms and economics of production and consumption. It doesn't care whether its consequences are good or bad
-
-
13 Nov 08
-
03 Nov 08
-
16 Oct 08
-
19 Aug 08
-
16 Jun 08
-
26 May 08
-
02 May 08
-
30 Mar 08
-
26 Mar 08
-
19 Mar 08
-
27 Feb 08
-
23 Feb 08
-
20 Jan 08
-
27 Dec 07
danashcoWrestling with the fact that the Web must be reckoned as a moral force in our lives. We speak about it with religious longing for transcendence.
-
19 Dec 07
-
30 Nov 07
-
26 Nov 07
-
04 Nov 07
Suvi KorhonenLike it or not, Web 2.0, like Web 1.0, is amoral. It's a set of technologies - a machine, not a Machine - that alters the forms and economics of production and consumption. It doesn't care whether its consequences are good or bad.
web2.0 blog internet technology analysis for:matrixx2.01 for:tuija for:tulevaisuus for:erkka for:cybersoc
-
31 Oct 07
-
22 Oct 07
-
26 Sep 07
-
24 Sep 07
-
19 Sep 07
-
10 Sep 07
-
28 Aug 07
-
23 Aug 07
-
14 Aug 07
-
26 Jun 07
-
24 Jun 07
-
21 Jun 07
-
20 Jun 07
-
07 Jun 07
-
16 May 07
-
27 Apr 07
-
25 Apr 07
-
14 Apr 07
-
27 Mar 07
-
18 Mar 07
paul reidShouldn't we trust that goodness will prevail? "Like it or not, Web 2.0, like Web 1.0, is amoral. It's a set of technologies - a machine, not a Machine - that alters the forms and economics of production and consumption. It doesn't care whether its conseq
blogging culture economics philosophy presentation reference research web2.0 wikipedia
-
-
Nice piece! I don't disagree with most of it. Except for the very last paragraph, which is really the only paragraph dealing with the point of your story. That the web, machines, and maybe even technology are not moral.
I've changed my mind on this. I used to think technology was neutral -- just a tool -- you could use it for good or evil. Pretty standard belief for us nerds. But in spending the last three years trying to figure out what the greater meaning of technology is I've reluctantly concluded that technology is a moral force (for the good). I'll need a whole book to make that argument (if I can) and that is what I am working on.
But you have to agree it is an important and vital question. I hope you continue your investigation of it.
Posted by: Kevin Kelly at October 11, 2005
-
Forced to choose between reading blogs and subscribing to, say, the New York Times, the Financial Times, the Atlantic, and the Economist, I will choose the latter. I will take the professionals over the amateurs.
But I don't want to be forced to make that choice.
-
In "We Are the Web," Kelly writes that "because of the ease of creation and dissemination, online culture is the culture." I hope he's wrong, but I fear he's right - or will come to be right.
-
Like it or not, Web 2.0, like Web 1.0, is amoral. It's a set of technologies - a machine, not a Machine - that alters the forms and economics of production and consumption. It doesn't care whether its consequences are good or bad. It doesn't care whether it brings us to a higher consciousness or a lower one. It doesn't care whether it burnishes our culture or dulls it. It doesn't care whether it leads us into a golden age or a dark one. So let's can the millenialist rhetoric and see the thing for what it is, not what we wish it would be.
-
But as the Web matured during the late 1990s, the dreams of a digital awakening went unfulfilled. The Net turned out to be more about commerce than consciousness, more a mall than a commune. And when the new millenium arrived, it brought not a new age but a dispiritingly commonplace popping of a bubble of earthly greed. Somewhere along the way, the moneychangers had taken over the temple. The Internet had transformed many things, but it had not transformed us. We were the same as ever.
-
In a profile of Internet savant Tim O'Reilly in the current issue of Wired, Steven Levy writes that "the idea of collective consciousness is becoming manifest in the Internet." He quotes O'Reilly: "The Internet today is so much an echo of what we were talking about at [New Age HQ] Esalen in the '70s - except we didn't know it would be technology-mediated." Levy then asks, "Could it be that the Internet - or what O'Reilly calls Web 2.0 - is really the successor to the human potential movement?"
-
Levy's article appears in the afterglow of Kevin Kelly's sweeping "We Are the Web" in Wired's August issue. Kelly, erstwhile prophet of the Long Boom, surveys the development of the World Wide Web, from the Netscape IPO ten years ago, and concludes that it has become a "magic window" that provides a "spookily godlike" perspective on existence. "I doubt angels have a better view of humanity," he writes.
-
Implicit in the ecstatic visions of Web 2.0 is the hegemony of the amateur. I for one can't imagine anything more frightening.
-
This isn't the language of exposition. It's the language of rapture.
-
The Cult of the Amateur
Now, lest you dismiss me as a mere cynic, if not a fallen angel, let me make clear that I'm all for seeking transcendence, whether it's by going to church or living in a hut in the woods or sitting at the feet of the Maharishi or gazing into the glittering pixels of an LCD screen.
-
My problem is this: When we view the Web in religious terms, when we imbue it with our personal yearning for transcendence, we can no longer see it objectively. By necessity, we have to look at the Internet as a moral force, not as a simple collection of inanimate hardware and software. No decent person wants to worship an amoral conglomeration of technology.
-
Might, on balance, the practical effect of Web 2.0 on society and culture be bad, not good? To see Web 2.0 as a moral force is to turn a deaf ear to such questions.
-
To Kevin Kelly, Wikipedia shows how the Web is allowing us to pool our individual brains into a great collective mind. It's a harbinger of the Machine.
-
In theory, Wikipedia is a beautiful thing - it has to be a beautiful thing if the Web is leading us to a higher consciousness. In reality, though, Wikipedia isn't very good at all. Certainly, it's useful - I regularly consult it to get a quick gloss on a subject. But at a factual level it's unreliable, and the writing is often appalling. I wouldn't depend on it as a source, and I certainly wouldn't recommend it to a student writing a research paper.
-
At this point, it seems fair to ask exactly when the intelligence in "collective intelligence" will begin to manifest itself. When will the great Wikipedia get good? Or is "good" an old-fashioned concept that doesn't apply to emergent phenomena like communal on-line encyclopedias?
-
I'm all for blogs and blogging. (I'm writing this, ain't I?) But I'm not blind to the limitations and the flaws of the blogosphere - its superficiality, its emphasis on opinion over reporting, its echolalia, its tendency to reinforce rather than challenge ideological extremism and segregation.
-
The Internet is changing the economics of creative work - or, to put it more broadly, the economics of culture - and it's doing it in a way that may well restrict rather than expand our choices. Wikipedia might be a pale shadow of the Britannica, but because it's created by amateurs rather than professionals, it's free. And free trumps quality all the time.
-
Now, all the same criticisms can (and should) be hurled at segments of the mainstream media. And yet, at its best, the mainstream media is able to do things that are different from - and, yes, more important than - what bloggers can do.
-
The promoters of Web 2.0 venerate the amateur and distrust the professional. We see it in their unalloyed praise of Wikipedia, and we see it in their worship of open-source software and myriad other examples of democratic creativity. Perhaps nowhere, though, is their love of amateurism so apparent as in their promotion of blogging as an alternative to what they call "the mainstream media."
-
-
13 Mar 07
-
02 Mar 07
-
29 Dec 06
-
25 Dec 06
-
06 Dec 06
-
01 Dec 06
-
26 Nov 06
avivajazz jazzavivaFrom the start, the World Wide Web has been a vessel of quasi-religious longing...On the Internet, we're all bodiless, symbols speaking to symbols in symbols...but the net turned out to be more about commerce than consciousness...Web 2.0 doesn't care whet
-
27 Oct 06
-
-
25 Oct 06
-
23 Oct 06
Gary BurgeFrom the start, the World Wide Web has been a vessel of quasi-religious longing.
-
18 Sep 06
-
12 Sep 06
-
18 Aug 06
-
02 Aug 06
-
31 Jul 06
-
14 Jul 06
-
10 Jul 06
-
27 Jun 06
-
26 Jun 06
Stefan Cordes"Web 1.0 may have turned out to be spiritual vaporware, but now we have the hyper-hyped upgrade: Web 2.0"
-
12 Jun 06
-
09 Jun 06
-
07 Jun 06
-
23 May 06
-
19 May 06
-
17 May 06
-
The Internet is changing the economics of creative work - or, to put it more broadly, the economics of culture - and it's doing it in a way that may well restrict rather than expand our choices. Wikipedia might be a pale shadow of the Britannica, but because it's created by amateurs rather than professionals, it's free. And free trumps quality all the time. So what happens to those poor saps who write encyclopedias for a living? They wither and die. The same thing happens when blogs and other free on-line content go up against old-fashioned newspapers and magazines. Of course the mainstream media sees the blogosphere as a competitor. It is a competitor. And, given the economics of the competition, it may well turn out to be a superior competitor. The layoffs we've recently seen at major newspapers may just be the beginning, and those layoffs should be cause not for self-satisfied snickering but for despair. Implicit in the ecstatic visions of Web 2.0 is the hegemony of the amateur. I for one can't imagine anything more frightening.
-
-
27 Apr 06
Daniel PoynterHe tries to debunk the evangelicism of web 2.0, wikipedia, and the transhumanist crowds.
wikipedia internet web2.0 future technology transhumanism singularity
-
25 Apr 06
Stephan RidgwayRough Type: Nicholas Carr's Blog:October 03, 2005
Nicholas Carr's critical piece on Web 2.0. He characterizes Web 2.0 as the "cult of the amateur", suggesting that the promoters of Web 2.0 venerate the amateur and distrust the professional. -
24 Apr 06
Public Stiky Notes
Page Comments
Would you like to comment?
Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.