I have a theory

[gominokouhai]

The blogosphere will be the end of us all.

Blogoculture (shut up, that is so a word) allows us to select what we read from a vast panoply of subjects written from an infinite range of viewpoints. And we all choose to read those opinions we already hold.

Right-wing bloggers read other right-wing bloggers, and sycophantically work each other into a conservative frenzy (wow, there are two words you never thought you'd see together). Then they rail against liberal media bias every time they peek outside their own self-imposed claque and notice that the rest of the world is less right-wing than they are. This merely encourages them to withdraw further into self-reinforcing lunacy, which is how people start to believe that the retarded son of a former President is the Second Coming.

Of course everyone else is more liberal than you are. They are, by definition, not you.

I read Charlie Brooker, Wil Wheaton, Ben Goldacre, Feòrag, and you lot. All are people who, I already know, will tell me things I already agree with. All keep me safe and comforted in my protective blanket of fear. It's okay, Paul, the voices whisper. You are wise and correct in all things, and strong against Catholicism. The mean different people out there cannot hurt you inside our protective bubble of the known.

It is this process that means I can get away with saying shut up, that is so a word without any evidence or justification. (Arrogance also helps, but that in turn is helped by the self-supporting nature of the blogocube in question.) Later in this article, I plan on getting away with a generalization from `stuff I do on the internet' to `stuff everyone does on the internet', but you should stick with me. (I know you will, because everyone reading this is already inside my self-referential blogocube.)

Googling for information is the act of stepping outside of one's protective shell and venturing into a less familiar landscape. It's the informational equivalent of walking into a random bar while wearing football colours. Are you going to be bought a pint, or will you presented with one at a significantly higher and less comfortable velocity?... the only way to know is to peek inside first, and, if necessary, run away before anyone spots you.

We already do this on the internet. Every time I google for something and discover a new page, my first impulse is to determine who wrote it and what their agenda might be. This initial filter stifles any possibility that I might be exposed to conflicting opinions.

Extrapolating into the future, we are going to see the balkanization of the blogosphere. It will not be a series of tubes, it will be a series of independent cliques who never communicate with each other and become more and more tribal as time goes on. One of the most disturbing aspects of this process is that we will be able to refer to the internets without being ironic.

Also, it means that the US two-party political system is permanently, irredeemably fucked. But then we all knew that anyway—of course, that is to say that we all knew that anyway, but those in separate blogocubes know differently.

(The word blogocube is already listed 831 times on Google, but that won't stop me trying to sequester it for my own purposes: at least until somebody teaches me enough graph theory for me to use the appropriate information-theoretic terms.)

Comments

[digitalraven.livejournal.com]

You're reinventing media coccoons, I see.

Every idea you've had, I had first.

[gominokouhai]

And so did Cory and some other guy. I don't claim to be original, just witty and charming and socially relevant.

[digitalraven.livejournal.com]

What can I say, I think some links to show which work you're building on would be good. But I realise that I might possibly be wrong, because I've been drinking red wine and playing Guild Wars.

[gominokouhai]

You write your posts your way, and I shall write mine in mine, which was largely the point of the post in the first place.

And I am not building on work if I arrive at a similar conclusion independently (apart from having read your article fourthree years ago). You don't see Newton citing Leibniz.

[digitalraven.livejournal.com]

Think more. Work out how to destabilise the system you've identified.

Also: You need sensible hours at work that we can plan weeks around.

[gominokouhai]

I shall leave the throwing of molotovs and the daubing on any available wall of `FUK SYSTEM' to the anarchists.

Also: dinner Sunday?

[digitalraven.livejournal.com]

All the anarchists I know can spell. Especially "Fuck". Alison and Jon and Justin would be rather put out if people were to suggest otherwise...

Yes. Dinner Sunday. Four of us? And where?

[stormsearch.livejournal.com]

Iglu?

[gominokouhai]

s/anarchists/activists. My mistake.

Was thinking the Green Door if I can get a table. Your lassie's not veggie, is she?

[figg.livejournal.com]

Work out how to destabilise the system you've identified.

Invented more like.

In the end, mass communication will encourage more long links between groups, not the opposite.

So, let's review the facts

1. People form tribes locally, which are often by nature exclusive.
2. People form non-local tribes online, which usually non-exclusive. (You don't even have to use the same identity)
3. People have a wide variety of interests, sharing a varying amount with friends.

The interests you can share in a group depends on the social norms, but with some anonymity on the internet, really fucking bizzare stuff happens.

I.e.: weird sexual fetishes. There are many things you're normally the only one interested, but there is almost someone else as obsessed as you are on the internet.

The things everyone have in common aren't clearly defined, and are often vague. My political view is not your political view, but we have a large intersection at times. Although there clear political divisions on many topics, it's foolish to think it's the same people on each side every time.


I don't think people will try to form closed systems, avoid contact with others, unless it's a cult. Even so, cults aren't all powerful or controlling. The occasional outed gay fundamentalist should confirm this.

I argue that the daily-me won't break up the groups, it will encourage more weak links between people.

Look at your livejournal friends list. You've got a number of distinct groups of friends who all know each other, and usually one or two random friends that noone else has.

Netcraft confirms it: Your theory is dying.

[scattergather.livejournal.com]

Well, those long links tend in general to be quite subject-specific; you'll only discuss certain things with them (usually clustered around the topic which drew you to encounter one another) or do most of your talking in a particular subject themed forum or IRC channel.

But even if you ignore that, those one or two randoms that might be significantly different from the homogeneous lump of friends... they're just one or two. And numbers do matter, especially when it comes to something woolly like politics (even more so given that political bloggers are largely ignorant of the issues they happen to be commenting on), as the imbalance can allow for strong group polarization effects. If you get group polarization effects in opposite directions for the dominant political factions in a country, that could potentially get quite unpleasant -- and I don't think the weak links are likely to help.

I.e.: weird sexual fetishes. There are many things you're normally the only one interested, but there is almost someone else as obsessed as you are on the internet.

Yes, and members of these groups can drive each other to even weirder behaviour, which the great majority of times is not harmful. But there are more pathological cases; people with pretty antisocial or damaging ideas who might just have adapted themselves to society can now simply look up like-minded loons online and keep that insanity alive while they spur each other on to worse -- all the while ensconced in their own little informational enclave where little can get through to cause them to moderate or change their views. Thus you end up with more undesirables like pro-anas, white supremacists, and libertarians. And nobody needs that.

[stormsearch.livejournal.com]

Every idea you've had, I had first.

It's not quite as simple as that. After all, you taught him everything he knows (which is not the same as everything you know), but then, he did teach you everything you know, (which is not the same... etcetera).

Also, I watched Inferno (Jon Pertwee 1971 I believe) this evening. There is a character who has a startling resemblance to you (including the beard) when he is / you are, ranting. Except he's not quite as good as you. Of course.