Walled Gardens
I've been thinking a lot lately about the internet as owned and run by the people. It still feels like a free place - America before it was fully settled. We certainly share the space with the ruling class - media outlets, corporations, and the government - but largely our content is only limited by our own access and experience. I get airtime whenever I want it, and no one can stop me.
What I've noticed recently is that the people (on the web) and the ruling class have been in their own separate walled gardens. It's fair to say that because I haven't ever been very directly involved in politics, that I feel like I have absolutely no power to give feedback to these groups (I hear you can write your senator and things like that, but does that REALLY get anyone anywhere?). There is also dialog in protest, but its hardly ever direct or immediately responsive through anything but the police.
What's interesting is that this is the first year (that I've noticed) that politicians, candidates for the presidency, are actually reaching out to people (largely the youth) through the internet. This is a very very interesting move. So far, access to politicians has been through their own mini walled gardens - their own .coms where they get to control all the content. For them to step into OUR world (I like to think it is), where we control the information, and they are subject to our interpretations, our feedback, our opinions, is very brave. It seems like a logical evolution but it's still shocking to me. This is uneven ground, uncharted territory.
The initial shock was really that this seemed to imply that politicians were suddenly interested in the internet, which says to me everything I've thought about web 2.0 since I first learned about it: "There are truly two superpowers in the world; the united states, and world public opinion". The internet is world public opinion, and if they're starting to listen, I think we can say confidently that our voices are finally being heard. The net is suddenly a respectable (and feared?) medium for political campaigns.
What I'm curious about is the outcome of this. The big project I'm working on could potentially bring together the ruling class and the people in one place - if they can take the heat. I asked Mark Britton from Avvo.com how his lawyer felt about officially identifying with a site that lets users rate them for quality of service - his answer was predictable. Those with good reputations LOVED the site, and those with bad reputations either spoke against it (while still engaging with the site) and the rest I'm assuming, didn't join up.
I'd be interested to see a system where people with bad reputation were still willing to publicly connect with that reputation and make active choices to change it. The trick as I see it is making this reputation high profile enough that they're forced to react. To change.
Very interesting times.
What I've noticed recently is that the people (on the web) and the ruling class have been in their own separate walled gardens. It's fair to say that because I haven't ever been very directly involved in politics, that I feel like I have absolutely no power to give feedback to these groups (I hear you can write your senator and things like that, but does that REALLY get anyone anywhere?). There is also dialog in protest, but its hardly ever direct or immediately responsive through anything but the police.
What's interesting is that this is the first year (that I've noticed) that politicians, candidates for the presidency, are actually reaching out to people (largely the youth) through the internet. This is a very very interesting move. So far, access to politicians has been through their own mini walled gardens - their own .coms where they get to control all the content. For them to step into OUR world (I like to think it is), where we control the information, and they are subject to our interpretations, our feedback, our opinions, is very brave. It seems like a logical evolution but it's still shocking to me. This is uneven ground, uncharted territory.
The initial shock was really that this seemed to imply that politicians were suddenly interested in the internet, which says to me everything I've thought about web 2.0 since I first learned about it: "There are truly two superpowers in the world; the united states, and world public opinion". The internet is world public opinion, and if they're starting to listen, I think we can say confidently that our voices are finally being heard. The net is suddenly a respectable (and feared?) medium for political campaigns.
What I'm curious about is the outcome of this. The big project I'm working on could potentially bring together the ruling class and the people in one place - if they can take the heat. I asked Mark Britton from Avvo.com how his lawyer felt about officially identifying with a site that lets users rate them for quality of service - his answer was predictable. Those with good reputations LOVED the site, and those with bad reputations either spoke against it (while still engaging with the site) and the rest I'm assuming, didn't join up.
I'd be interested to see a system where people with bad reputation were still willing to publicly connect with that reputation and make active choices to change it. The trick as I see it is making this reputation high profile enough that they're forced to react. To change.
Very interesting times.
Posts
