Experts say …
June 18th, 2009 | by jz | Published in Future of the Internet | 2 Comments
This blog isn’t that active — I haven’t quite figured out the right rhythm, and what should count as blogworthy enough to post. The past couple days have been active, though, with the events unfolding in Iran. I’m part of OpenNet, which tracks Internet censorship around the world, and we just released an update to our study of Internet filtering in Iran. There’s also the Herdict project, designed precisely for situations like these, so people can report filtering as it happens. And I’ve also been thinking a lot about Twitter and its cousins — how much social media is making a difference in what’s happening.
Apart from blogging I’ve been interviewed some by the media, and alas, one of the more provocative quotes — just featured by Andrew Sullivan — was to BBC and picked up by an Economist blog. It was provocative for its wince-inducing inanity and self-importance:
“It’s just too early to say but my expertise tells me what is going on is extremely interesting.”
It’s reminiscent of the classic Newsweek article ending: “The future is uncertain but one thing is clear — if things don’t get better they could certainly get a whole lot worse.”
Sigh. I think what I had in my mind was a real tension. On one hand there’s the excitement about what these new technologies are doing — such as the story of people like Austin Heap rallying people around the world to convert their laptops to proxies to help Iranians get Net — and the knowledge that we’re still in the middle of the situation and we’ll need time to really sort out what’s been happening, and how much of a difference social technologies are making. (When experts aren’t busy saying nothing, they’re often overhyping …)
I guess I’ve gotten my comeuppance for calling Twitter inane. In the meantime, I’m as glued as everyone else to what’s going on, and how many people are becoming a part of it. Go, civic technologies! My expertise tells me I should stop writing now …
June 18th, 2009 at 1:27 pm (#)
Funny – I’ve been thinking something similar, but from almost the reverse angle.
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jun2009/tc20090617_803990.htm
“”Social media is not at all a prime mover of what is happening on the ground,” says Ethan Zuckerman, a senior researcher at Harvard University’s Berkman Center for Internet & Society. “The reason social media is so interesting [for the press] is that the international media doesn’t have its members on the ground.”"
And I still think twitter is inane. This is actually a perfect case study of the unholy alliance between techno-hypers and the media beast which must be fed with punditry, no matter how vapid.
June 18th, 2009 at 3:04 pm (#)
FYI, did you see my Twitter column from a little while ago?
“Twitter: sucker’s game that boosts elite”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/may/07/twitter-is-a-suckers-game
Bingo – “And Twitter evangelism has gone down a path similar to blog evangelism. There is the same two-step of arguing: roughly, it can be both diary/chat and journalism, thus a promoter can switch back and forth between those two concepts whenever convenient.”
Also:
“Twitter is low-level celebrity for the chattering class”
The chattering class really likes a story of chatter overthrowing a repressive government, truth is irrelevant.