Disqus - Latest Comments for scrawledinwax

Re: Wrong — Steve’s health is my business

scrawledinwax — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 22:10:51 -0000

I agree. Giz put up a post today with the usual libertarian 'it's about personal freedom and privacy' argument. Fair enough. But as you and Leigh said, when so much of the company's reputation rests on one man, then stockholders deserve to know what's going on. Claiming a right to privacy sounds like wanting it both ways - maintaining the Jobs cult of personality as a marketing tool but not living up to the responsibility that very tactic entails.

Re: Joss Stone: “Music should be shared”

scrawledinwax — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 04:27:36 -0000

I'm not suggesting it invalidates what she says. It's just that there needs to be an acknowledgment of the dynamic at work where it's only Stone's participation in the music biz's 'old model' and reaching a sort of critical mass of fame/success that resulted in you writing this post. I agree with what she's saying. I just also believe that the new model will mean that there will be no Joss Stones in the future as the mechanisms of marketing/distribution etc. becoming radically fragmented i.e. Rex's idea about microfame will become the only sort of fame there is for musicians.

Re: Joss Stone: “Music should be shared”

http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/06/26/joss-stone-music-should-be-shared/ — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 04:21:17 -0000

Well obviously her comments -- which she might just as easily have made even before becoming successful -- are more likely to be heard now that she is well-known. But I don't see how that invalidates what she's saying.

Re: Joss Stone: “Music should be shared”

scrawledinwax — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 04:06:33 -0000

This is hardly original, but how would Joss Stone be in a position to even had her comments about downloading heard if it wasn't for the sales of her records? Isn't there something a bit specious about an already established artist saying something like this? It seems kinda' like she's arguing *now* you can steal my music. I'm rich, what do I care?

Re: Billy Bragg should stick to singing

scrawledinwax — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 20:21:34 -0000

I think the Marxist reading is, on some level, still valid. One of the things the Web was,'supposed to do' (in my mind anyway) was transfer some of the means of production to the 'common person' so that, rather than going to a newspaper or record label, one could for no or very little investment, take control of the mechanisms of distribution, sales, marketing etc.

A potential problem with the monetization of human activity - ostensibly the business model of social networking - is that while individuals spend time doing the things they do (messaging, posting photos etc etc), very unlike work, there is no exchange of labour for a wage. The means of production, far from being democratized, are centralised in the hands of Zuckerbergs and Thiels. I guess there's an odd contradiction at the core of different aspects of Web 2.0 - some facets do democratise and open new opportunities for people while others, while certainly fun and even helpful, do a lot to maintain the disparities between 'regular folk' and those with tonnes o' capital and influence.

I know this sounds a bit conspiratorial and it probably is - I guess I mean this more analogously than a direct statement of "Facebook is exploitative". That said, even though I've probably oversimplified things it seems like there's something here worth thinking about in relation to a possible 'set of values' for Web 2.0.

Re: A literary and scientific giant dies

Wed, 19 Mar 2008 03:32:02 -0000

I know what you mean, Nav.

On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 11:29 PM, Disqus

Re: A literary and scientific giant dies

scrawledinwax — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 03:28:27 -0000

I remember feeling almost overwhelmed when I finished 2001 - it was as if my brain has been asked to consider things that were somehow beyond its reach.

But the Clarke moment that will always stick with me - and made a whooshing sound when I gestured toward it on Twitter - was the end of his short story "The Nine Billion Names of God". I don't want to ruin it for anyone, but it just seemed so perfectly understated that it's lingered somewhere in my mind ever since.

Re: One question on Flickr Video: Why?

scrawledinwax — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 19:55:28 -0000

That's true - I hadn't though of that. Maybe you had it with the 'Yahoo-inspired push'. ('Course, we can't rule out that it's simply a bad business decision ;) )

Re: One question on Flickr Video: Why?

http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/03/16/one-question-on-flickr-video-why/ — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 19:42:02 -0000

I suppose that's possible, Nav -- but even so, there are other sites
out there that focus on the artistic already, such as Vimeo.

On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 3:38 PM, Disqus

Re: One question on Flickr Video: Why?

scrawledinwax — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 19:37:59 -0000

Something I've been wondering about lately is the relationship between a certain ethos/ethic and particular destinations. Let's say you were going to write a real 'think piece' - you'd probably send it into the Walrus/Harper's rather than Maclean's/Time right? In much the same way, places like Flickr and Tumblr sometimes seem to attract more creative/artistic types, as if there's a kind of 'editorial slant' at these sites even though those terms don't really make sense for UGC/social media. I don't really know why this happens (I'm working on it) but it seems that it's possible that Flickr video might have more 'artistic' content than YouTube in addition to the videos of kids for the grandparents etc.

Re: Lacy and Mark Z: Train wreck or lynch mob?

scrawledinwax — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 03:35:23 -0000

What bugs me about this is how it reinforces my sense that a lot of the web 2.0 'technorati' are actually a bunch of elitist... wait, can I swear on your blog? I mean, I get it, a lot of people who are pushing the web forward are very smart, very young, and it bears saying, very cute - but even though the interview did seem to be a bit terrible, the reaction just seems... I dunno - petulant? Jealous? Or just pointless schadenfreude?

Re: Ankle-deep in the Newspond

http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/02/20/ankle-deep-in-the-newspond/ — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 14:32:01 -0000

Good one, Nav :-)

On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 9:23 AM, Disqus

Re: Ankle-deep in the Newspond

scrawledinwax — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 14:22:43 -0000

While I'm a sucker for a pretty site, unless I'm missing something, I don't see an RSS feed. Perhaps it's unfair, but to me that suggests a prioritisation of aesthetics over usability.

So Newspond is basically perfect for use on a MacBook Air ;)

Re: Drop that mouse and put your hands up!

scrawledinwax — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:19:32 -0000

It would also set a terrible precedent for North America where companies like Time-Warner and Rogers are simultaneously ISPs and content providers. Centralising both the distribution and policing of content doesn't seem like such a great idea.

Re: Artists’ coalition wants you to pay up

scrawledinwax — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 01:01:15 -0000

This may be a little tangential but I can't help but think of this in light of the recent Guardian piece on Facebook. In it, Tom Hodgkinson states that the VCs funding FB are ultra-right wing 'capitalist philosophers' who believe the next wave of business is the commodification of human relationships.

I raise this because it's at least plausible that online music and video will move towards an ad-supported model of some kind if the labels crumble. The choice then becomes what one wishes to support - a sort of new online version of 'voting with your dollars'. My participation in Facebook funds an ideology I oppose. If music and video move to the same model, does that mean that every time I download a track - be it fluffy pop or neo-Marxist hip-hop - that I also *have* to fund an ideology that I may or may not agree with? I guess what I'm saying is that I'd rather pay the artists, even if, as Vincent Celement points out, their desire does stem from a sense of entitlement. I dunno' though - too 'Soviet Russia'?

-Nav

Re: Gizmodo: Wrong, yes — but also right

scrawledinwax — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 20:18:30 -0000

I know the tech blogosphere's view of academics, but what the hey.... I think what's being missed here is the difference between practical and discursive effects - the latter being how ideas circulate. The practical effect is what all the Giz-haters are focusing on - that this casts a pall on blogging, that it was unprofessional or that it was just plain rude. It's a perspective that focuses exclusively on maintaining a given status quo. But if one looks at the prank as both an effect and producer of ideas, then it makes a lot more sense - it's a rejection of the symbiosis between tech journalism and its object of analysis and the necessary idiocy that such symbiosis creates.

No, I'm not saying that Gizmodo did this prank in order to stick it to the man. Far from it, they did it because of the masculine, juvenile subculture that exists in tech. But as Mathew so smartly points out, it doesn't make them any less right. What Gizmodo intended makes no difference whatsoever - the effects still remain. Fundametnally, you have to ask yourself what exactly is the function of new media? If the only purpose is to reproduce the ideology of the past in a new, fancier form - then not only can you count me out, you can also throw all the revolutionary potential of blogging out of the window.

Re: Gizmodo: Wrong, yes — but also right

scrawledinwax — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 19:32:08 -0000

Mathew, I think you've been a voice of reason in this kerfuffle. Yes, if Gizmodo wanted to make a point about the inanity of CES or the parasitic relationship between tech writers and tech companies, they could have chosen a more mature, professional way to do so. But - it still worked and got way more attention than a 'thoughtful, carefully prepared' blog post. Isn't that 'new media's' job? To shake up the establishment, point out its flaws, all while injecting a bit of fun into things?

Re: Drop that compact disc, music thief

scrawledinwax — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 16:59:04 -0000

To me, it seems like the second part of this argument is always missing. For the sake of it, let's assume my brain fell out of my ass and I agreed that ripping a CD was stealing. What then? Does that mean I need to repurchase electronic copies of all my CDs? Or individual, DRM'ed copies of each song for each different device I have? The mentality that underpins the RIAA's approach is a desire for digital music to have never been invented. How else can you explain their statements or their complete lack of a workable business model?

Re: Fake Steve: Techmeme uber-troll

scrawledinwax — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 03:56:01 -0000

Yeah, I see what you're saying. Maybe I was trying too hard to not descend into some sort of high-and-mighty "seriously?! you're kidding me right?". Also, it's just possible I wasn't boozed up enough at the time. Now that that serious problem has been rectified, I love everyone - even those who believed that a satirical site was being sued in a suspiciously similar manner to Think Secret. ;)

Re: Fake Steve: Techmeme uber-troll

http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2007/12/23/fake-steve-techmeme-uber-troll/ — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 01:06:02 -0000

I know what you mean, Nav, but I'm not sure whether Techmeme makes it
better or worse. It may have pumped things up when the first post came
out, but I think the number of skeptical posts may also have
short-circuited it faster as well.

Re: Fake Steve: Techmeme uber-troll

scrawledinwax — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 23:42:09 -0000

I tend to vacillate between two extremes on this: one, where I'm understanding and think that Lyons played off the post-Think Secret tone of the blogosphere; and another where I basically think people should be punished for their stupidity. I'm trying to force myself to lean towards the former as the blogosphere is full of enough condescension. Still, satire seems to be the ostensible - if not explicit - purpose of FSJ. I think this may be one of those moments where the downsides of the 'wisdom of crowds' came through - in this instance, the fact that the aggregation of opinion we see through Techmeme or the mix of feeds in our readers can really influence how we approach a story that, in a vacuum, we might otherwise be very sceptical of.

Re: Ego alert: Me on TVO’s The Agenda

http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2007/12/17/ego-alert-me-on-tvos-the-agenda/ — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 13:10:01 -0000

Good points. And thanks for the "handsome" comment. You're very kind :-)

Re: Ego alert: Me on TVO’s The Agenda

scrawledinwax — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 05:29:55 -0000

Wow - I gotta' say, those of the 'opposing side' certainly came out swinging. The industry lawyer seems to have quite the gift of the gab. That said, they both seemed to trot out the fallacy that those who support fair use are somehow opposed to creator compensation ("why should entertainers work for free?"). It seems to me that fair use and stipulations in any potential DMCA-style legislation for parody etc. are also part of a sustainable business model. If they would like to institute rules that say I have to buy 2 copies of a movie - one to watch on TV, the other for me PSP or iPod - they can go right ahead. I'm sure they'll make billions in their efforts to 'adequately compensate artists'. What they didn't seem to mention was the potential obsolescence of artistic middle men when the internet provides the distribution network.

Anyway, good on ya' Mathew... and who knew you were such a handsome fella'? :D

Re: It’s a good thing you can’t burn blogs

scrawledinwax — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 06:07:27 -0000

I find myself oddly on the Carr-ish, almost Keen-esque side of this debate (I know,I know, I hate myself). While I am a big proponent of blogs and 'tech' in general, I think that there is a sort of depth-of-thought that comes from reading long-form books that we haven't really done a particularly good job of replicating online. And I think it should be replicated, not only because of the kind of introspective space that reading creates but also because some ideas are just kinda' hard and long - you can't really examine the relationship between capitalism, identity and social networking in blog form.

Also, when Carr says "text", is he dissing just SMS-ing? Or post-structuralism as well? I only ask 'cause I'd guess he has a similar disdain for both ;)

Re: Is Kindle the iPod of books?

scrawledinwax — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 05:39:13 -0000

I'm a grad student in a literature program, so I'm totally biased... But I think the thing people are sorta' missing about the Kindle is the enormous cultural import of books. The book is perhaps *the* cultural artefact that we have chosen to define ourselves by. Even us bloggers look to books for crystallizing and distilling big ideas (i.e. the Long Tail). As a result, I think the digitization of books will take a long time, not only because of the practical concerns, but because of the enormous cultural transition it will entail - what Sven Birkerts suggested was the shift from a text-based culture to a screen-based one. Birkerts is a bit of an alarmist luddite, but I think his insight still holds - how we think of books and printed language relates to how we conceive of meaning and knowledge. It'll take time for this shift to happen as literacy and reading undergo this fundamental shift.

All that said - please release one in Canada soon!