526 stories
·
46 followers

The End of the Awl and the Vanishing of Freedom and Fun from the Internet

1 Comment
Jia Tolentino on the blog site the Awl, which announced this week that it will cease operations at the end of January.
Read the whole story
cjmcnamara
2 days ago
reply
"in 2018, the economics of online publishing are running everyone off the map"
Share this story
Delete

A New Year

2 Comments and 3 Shares

This is not the first time I’ve gone quiet on this blog simply because I was busy. Fall 2017 was in many ways the busiest semester I’ve ever had at Swarthmore: I taught two courses, I chaired my department, I became the co-director of the Aydelotte Foundation, and I sold my house and moved.

But I have gone quiet for other reasons as well. I am struggling to understand what the good of writing in public is at a time when I’m prepared to encourage others to do so.

When I began blogging in a pre-WordPress era, I was already a long-time participant in online conversation, all the way back to pre-Usenet BBSs, including the pay service GEnie. So I think I held no illusions about what were already problems of long-standing in online culture: trolling, harassment, mobbing, deception, anonymity, and so on.

Nevertheless, I started a blog for two major reasons. First, to have an outlet for my own thinking, as a kind of public diary that would let me express my thinking about professional life, politics, popular culture and other issues as I saw fit, and perhaps in so doing keep myself from talking too much among friends and colleagues. I don’t think I’ve succeeded in that, because I still overwhelm conversations around me if I’m not thoughtful about restraining myself.

The second was to see if I could participate usefully in what I hoped would grow into a new and more democratic public sphere, one that escaped the exclusivity of postwar American public discussion. I think I did a good job at evolving an ethic for myself and then inhabiting it consistently. That had a cost to the quality of my prose, because being more respectful, cautious and responsible in my blogging usually meant being duller and longer in the style of my writing.

In the end, I feel as if both goals have ended up being somewhat pointless. It’s not clear to me any longer what good I can contribute as a public diarist. Much of what I think gets thought and expressed by someone else at a quicker pace, in a faster social media platform. More importantly, the value of my observations, whatever that might be, was secured through combining frankness and introspection, through raising rather than brutally disposing of open questions. This more than anything now seems quaintly out of place in social media. I feel as if it takes extreme curation to find pockets of social media commentary given over to skepticism and exploration, through collectively playful or passionate engagement with uncertainty and ambiguity.

More complicatedly, the more I am tied to my institutional histories and imagined as being a “responsible agent” within them, the harder it gets to talk frankly about what I see. It was comforting to think that almost no one read my blog and almost no one cared about it, in some sense. Now I’m only too aware that if I speak, even if I’m careful to abstract and synthesize what I’m observing, I can’t help but seem as if I am testifying about the much larger archive of real experiences and painful confidences I have been entrusted with. If I abstract too much, I find that friends and colleagues politely gaslight me: I can’t have seen what I think I’ve seen. But I can’t be more direct, and I don’t want to be. Trying to observe real stories and real problems with some degree of honesty can curdle into the settling of scores, and can tempt people–older white men especially–into a narrative of institutional life in which they are always the heroes of the story. Some stories and experiences explored honestly end up with everyone muddling through with good intent; others end up implicating everyone in certain kinds of bad faith or short-sightedness, including the people doing the exploring.

This brings me to the second goal: to be part of a new and more democratic public sphere. I have been for thirty years a person enthusiastic about the possibilities and often the realities of online culture. I am losing that enthusiasm rapidly. It’s not just that all the old problems are now vastly greater in scope and more ominous by far in the threat they can pose to participants in digital culture, but that there are new problems too. The threat to women, to people of color, to GLBQT people, is bigger by far, but even as someone who has all sorts of protections, I find myself unnerved by online discussion, by its volatility and speed, by the ways that groups settle on intense and combative interpretations and then amplify both. I remember only dimly that for a long time I saw myself as trying to create bridges in conversations to online conservatives. With a blessed few exceptions, those conversations mostly felt like agreeing to trust Lucy to hold the football steady one more time, like being the mark in a long confidence game whose goal was to move the Overton window. What did I think I was doing talking to David Horowitz, for example? Or writing critiques of ACTA reports as if anyone writing them cared remotely about evidence or accuracy? And yet I’m not feeling that much more comfortable about online conversation with people with whom I ostensibly agree or among whom I have allegedly built up long reservoirs of trust. That sense of trust and social groundedness felt very real as recently as five years ago, but now it feels as if the infrastructures of online life could pull any foundation into wreckage in an instant without any individual human beings meaning or wanting to have that happen.

I almost thought to critically engage a recent wave of online attacks on a course being taught by my colleague here at Swarthmore. I even tried one engagement with a real person on Twitter and for a brief moment, I thought at least the points I was making were being read and understood. But the iron curtain of a new kind of cultural formation snapped down hard within three tweets, and it was difficult for me to even grasp who I had been talking to: a provocateur? an eccentric? a true believer? The rest of the social media traffic about the issue was rank with the stink of bots and 8chan-style troublemaking. Even when it was real people talking, even if I might be able to have a meaningful conversation with them in person if I happened to be in their physical presence, nothing good could come of online engagement, and many bad things could instead happen.

So I need to think anew: what is this space for? What’s left to say? Public debate, per se, is dead. Being a diarist might not be, but I will need to find ways to undam the river of my own voice.

Read the whole story
cjmcnamara
3 days ago
reply
a bummer to read this the same day the awl announces it's done. where do weird and sometimes smart things get written on the internet anymore
Share this story
Delete
1 public comment
matthewjmiller
3 days ago
reply
Yikes. This tracks with a lot I'm hearing among thoughtful people recently.
STL, with Nebraska in my heart

The real Adam Smith

1 Comment

He might be the poster boy for free-market economics, but that distorts what Adam Smith really thought

By Paul Sagar

Read at Aeon

Read the whole story
cjmcnamara
4 days ago
reply
AS thinks the needle factory is going to rot your brain, too, so there's that
Share this story
Delete

Google Memory Loss

4 Comments and 11 Shares

I think Google has stopped indexing the older parts of the Web. I think I can prove it. Google’s competition is doing better.

Evidence

This isn’t just a proof, it’s a rock-n-roll proof. Back in 2006, I published a review of Lou Reed’s Rock n Roll Animal album. Back in 2008, Brent Simmons published That New Sound, about The Clash’s London Calling. Here’s a challenge: Can you find either of these with Google? Even if you read them first and can carefully conjure up exact-match strings, and then use the “site:” prefix? I can’t.

Why?

Obviously, indexing the whole Web is crushingly expensive, and getting more so every day. Things like 10+-year-old music reviews that are never updated, no longer accept comments, are lightly if at all linked-to outside their own site, and rarely if ever visited… well, let’s face it, Google’s not going to be selling many ads next to search results that turn them up. So from a business point of view, it’s hard to make a case for Google indexing everything, no matter how old and how obscure.

My pain here is purely personal; I freely confess that I’d been using Google’s global infrastructure as my own personal search index for my own personal publications. But the pain is real; I frequently mine my own history to re-use, for example in constructing the current #SongOfTheDay series.

Competition

Bing can find it! DuckDuckGo can too! Both of them can find Brent’s London Calling piece, too.

What Google cares about

It cares about giving you great answers to the questions that matter to you right now. And I find that if I type in a question, even something complicated and obscure, Google often surprises me with a timely, accurate answer. They’ve never claimed to index every word on every page.

My mental model of the Web is as a permanent, long-lived store of humanity’s intellectual heritage. For this to be useful, it needs to be indexed, just like a library. Google apparently doesn’t share that view.

What I’m going to do

When I have a question I want answered, I’ll probably still go to Google. When I want to find a specific Web page and I think I know some of the words it contains, I won’t any more, I’ll pick Bing or DuckDuckGo.

Read the whole story
cjmcnamara
4 days ago
reply
"My mental model of the Web is as a permanent, long-lived store of humanity’s intellectual heritage. For this to be useful, it needs to be indexed, just like a library. Google apparently doesn’t share that view."

Huh, interesting to reconsider Google's original aim "to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful." If not a mega-library, tough to find some other useful metaphor.
Share this story
Delete
1 public comment
matthewjmiller
3 days ago
reply
Yiiikes. I'm glad this favors DuckDuckGo, though, which I love.
STL, with Nebraska in my heart

Warning: Graphic Content

1 Share
The Library of Congress has digitized its Popular Graphic Arts collection, nearly 14,000 19th century prints available in extremely high resolution public domain scans, searchable by subjects and browsable by thumbnails. You can read more about the work required to bring this collection to your computers on the library's blog. Below the fold, a few favorites to get you started.

The Porcineograph, a whimsical map of the US in the shape of a pig.
A bizarre Darwinian satire/ad for "Merchant's Gargling Oil"
A bird's-eye view of Boston.
A delicious-looking dessert
The Poultry of the World
A dramatic full color baseball poster from 1895.
A Currier & Ives rendering of the Tree of Life from the Book of Revelations
Read the whole story
cjmcnamara
6 days ago
reply
Share this story
Delete

Daniil Trifonov: Tiny Desk Concert

1 Comment
Daniil Trifonov performs a Tiny Desk concert on Nov. 13, 2017 at NPR Headquarters in Washington, D.C. (Jenna Sterner/NPR)

Watch the young Russian musician, who The Times of London calls "the most astounding pianist of our age," play a smart, Chopin-focused concert on a grand piano, precisely wedged behind the Tiny Desk.

(Image credit: Jenna Sterner/NPR/NPR)

Read the whole story
cjmcnamara
7 days ago
reply
come for the chopin, stay for the chopin
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories