You are right on all fronts. But it is all good, though.
These things will be replaced by something better. The value of 'truth' will shoot up. IP may count for nought but maybe Creative Rights will replace it. (IP is an oxymoron right?)
The ubiquity of porn will make it seem less interesting - and so forth.
Great post & I should mention your ebook is great too. Required reading for my MBA class this semester
The Internet is also responsible for the the rise of narcissism and pettiness at unprecedented levels.
Hi there TAC, love your blog, and love how you manage to talk about advertising in a non-cliched non-cheesy way!! there's far too many other blogs where people talk like yoda about their myterious advertising powers!
One thing I will say to confirm your 'web zealot' statement above, is that yes the internet is currently reducing the income of people who had previously relied on their copyrights, however it is allowing a new generation of people to make success for themselves if they are talented and good at self promotion. So, as long as you join the new school, there's nothing to be sad about.
In this repect, I applaud the 'democratization' of the web. However, I also realize that this process lowers the quality control threshold considerably, which is a negative process I think. And as for dumbing down - don't get me started!!
Great post, as ever. Point 4 especially chimed with me. People who've grown up with the internet seem to view it as a kind of shared, global brain where all knowledge resides - meaning their own brain can be left to go brown and shrivel. Need to know who Aristotle was? Google it. The capital of Ecuador? Google it. What to do when your own hair is on fire? Google it. Personally learning something, retaining it and being able to use it later is a worryingly absent ability in a lot of the kids coming into my agency.
Oh, and yes - fucking Twitter. As we say in England, what a load of bollocks.
Just the other day I wrote about the web being responsible for the devaluation of design. To the point that I advise young people against going in to it unless they love it so much they're willing to make $15/hr for the rest of their lives. The cult of he amateur.
And I don't believe for a minute that having a gazillion flavors of porn readily available eventually makes it less interesting. It works in the opposite manner, in fact. Desensitization, escalation. It makes me sad that kids are growing up with such skewed perspectives and expectations.
There are huge positives as regards the internet, but not all the changes it's brought are good ones.
Excellent post.
I think I'll tweet it!
Good post -- I like your think pieces.
As a counterpoint to the 'Google is making us stoopid' meme: Google is making us smarter argues that Google isn't much different than a notebook you might carry in your pocket and a stick is a precursor to a robot arm controlled by your brain (a monkey's brain in this case, but there's little distinction for some folks.)
Another counterpoint: Newspapers and thinking the unthinkable, makes a great point: "Society doesn't need newspapers. What we need is journalism". (But what form that will take is anyone's guess.)
Change happens--shake your fist at it or shake its hand.
All of what you just said was said about television 60 years ago.
Did those predictions come true?
Uh, Josh, aside form the comments about dumbing things down, nothing in his post was said about television 60 years ago. And if you got that misinformation online somewhere, I'd say you're actually proving his point.
While I mostly agree with TAC's POV, the exception being Twitter, which I find quite useful, there may be a bigger idea here.
When the steam engine was invented it allowed manufacturing to be centralized which led to the growth of cities, the Industrial Revolution, and society as we know it. I don't think even the brightest thinkers of that era would have predicted so much would come from one invention.
The things TAC hates about the internet are symptoms of the change being fostered by it. Predicting what the ultimate changes will be is as difficult today as predicting the impact of the steam engine was in the early 19th Century. All I can say for sure is hang on, it's going to be a bumpy ride.
Hey Ad Contrarian!
Bet you don't hate the fawning and sycophantic masses the internet brings to your virtual doorstep each day...
TAC, please allow me to add one more to your web loathing syllabus.
The unnatural propagation of experts. Who is F is NOT an expert these days? I mean are you fu$%inkg kidding me? Any Tom, Dick, Harry and whoever can get a blog/site for free, slap a nice name to it, hang it on their shingle and open for business as the expert of everything from paperclips to cow dung.
And the best part? The best part is we are all left to evaluate the validity of the information/advice/counsel/etc they dispense.
As much as I agree with your 5-point stance, I think without question this needs to be added to the list.
Just because God gave all men and women the power to make babies doesn't mean everyone's cut out to be a parent.
Just because the Internet gives you a platform and forum, doesn't mean you're cut out to be an expert on anything.
Hey Krinsky!
Don't forget all the money and the super-hot nymphos...
TAC,
Big fan, big-big fan. BUT, let's not go nuts with the porn thing okay? Everybody getting dumb, ripping people's intellectual property off and running newspapers out of business gets me a little stressed. Let's not go crazy here.
jC:
Sorry, dude. Didn't mean to disparage your profession.
Bob,
As promised:
Are we allowed to criticize pizza because it's impersonal, but we all feel like we're a part of "the web" so a critique feels like a personal attack?
Just a thought.
Shirky's newspaper diatribe took forever to read but it rocked my socks off. What a wonderful, thoughtful, what-the-heck-are-we-going-to-do-next post.
True, #1's been on my mind a lot lately (and I like your perspective on it), but #3, and especially #4, are the ones I never stop puzzling over. In spite of rampant and increasing levels of stupidity, everybody's an author and an expert now (as Steve says), and anyone who's left is an artist, a designer, a musician, a "film"maker... scary.
A bumpy ride for sure.
Regards,
Kelly
Hey TAC,
I'm guessing you won't like this much:
Paste the link below to watch :
http://www.ted.com/index.php/
tal...ixth_sense.html
Cheers
re: point #3 (the devaluation of IP):
One of the most prominent professions this effects is photography. On the weblogs (and I'm guilty as charged) we smash and grab any image from the Google that will give our posts that tangy zip, from anywhere with no regards to who shot the image, or who might have the rights to use it.
The flip side is that the proliferation of digital photography has allowed more and more people to make a living in the field. Ergo the charlatans Steve O complains about above who probably call themselves "digital photography experts," or some such jive.
A perfect example of this dichotomy is commercial photographer Ellen Stagg who has shot for fashion brands, and magazines (Interview, Jane, Vogue), but also has a nice little web business (and IFC series) where she shoots nudes of pornstars.(NSFW)
Could it be that the web is simultaneously making everything better and worse at the same time?
Posts like this one make this one of my favourite blogs out there, Bob. You're very right, however... what would you suggest to improve the situation? I'd appreciate some comments about this too.
From Peru,
Tedel
Those are the truest words about the "wonders" of the web I've read in a long time.
Funnily enough I today had a conversation with a leading person at a big magazine on how to survive on the web. The magazine industry's biggest problems is the loss of advertising money, and news stand sales. Free web content leads to less news stands sales. So it's a double whammy.
Online they have nobody paying for content and they find it hard to attract advertisers.
To survive, the paper editions suffer, they need money from somewhere to pay for the cost of creating content. Journalists can't do their job if they cant travel to places. Meet people. Research things. Be there. Be there means they have to cover for transportation and the need to sleep someplace, eat a meal or two a day, coffee, get paid enough to feed their families, phones, computers, etc. Same goes for the photographer that might follow in their foot steps, or the illustrator/designer who will make the page look intriguing. And all other costs, back office, front office, side office, office space, etc. If advertising money is being too closely tied to the journalistic product we will not be served as well as we have been. Although publishing of news and information and entertainment have always, to a rather great degree, depended on the advertising money, it has miraculously managed to keep a distant. It's integrity, it's professionalism. Maybe it was almost like a gentleman's agreement?
But if online news need to, have to, get forced to, work closer with advertisers to make "advertising" worthwhile we will se a shift in powers which clearly will affect the freedom and quality of journalism. The nod of approval is also a nod to kill.
Just so you know the previous Josh was not me!
That last one, especially.
I could give a shit about losing paper news.
It's losing journalism that freaks me out.
Commenting by HaloScan
