Categories
Net Culture Personal Publishing Politics

On the responsibility of linkage…

Ok. Right. This is where things start to get interesting. Firstly, a metaphor. Imagine if you will a solar system – let’s make it a binary system with planets that fly around it. Watch the suns move around one another. Watch the planets move around the suns. Watch the moons move around the planets. Watch their stable arcs cascading around one another. The reason they do this? We all know the answer – the various entities have an influence on one another that we call gravity… This influence, exerted by each and every participant in this system, is what keeps the system stable. If the gravity was dramatically lower, the celestial bodies would fly off from one another into deep space. If the gravity was dramatically higher, the celestial bodies would collapse in on themselves, forming one body – a symbolic monolith…

Let’s move in a different direction for a moment. Must we as liberal individuals believe in a world that gives each and every opinion equal weight. Are all views equally “valid”, “worthwhile”, “right”? And where does this leave us when we vehemently disagree with the tactics that people promoting these views start to use? And where do we end up when the views we must consider “valid” are precisely those views which don’t believe other views to be “valid”, “worthwhile”, “right” and are prepared to say so, and/or do something about it.

This last assertion is one of the simplest paradoxes of liberalism. But it’s not a model worth operating with. And here’s where the solar system comes in. Because a world in which we – as individuals or groups – are unable to extert any kind of pressure on anyone else for doing what we believe to be wrong resembles a solar system without gravity – an immediate explosion occurs, critical divergence, utter lack of stability. And a world in which we – as individuals or groups – are able to extert total pressure on anyone else for doing what we believe to be wrong resembles a solar system with absolute gravity – an immediate imposion occurs, monolithic thinking, totalitarianist repression, totally lack of motion, inertia, death.

The weblog space is a space that bends under the pressure of traffic and influence. But mostly it bends under the strength of reputation (earned by “good work” or unearned by association and / or tacit sanctioning by those who have done “good work”). And I now believe that as an individual operating responsibly in this sphere, I have to be aware of any and all potential abilities I have to legitimately (ie. without lying, cheating or unfairly manipulating the situation in any way) exert whatsoever influence I might have in order to stop what I perceive to be morally wrong, corrupt politics, cheap argument and potentially warmongering. (And yes – if you’re beginning to catch on – I am again talking about warbloggers). I think I’ve come up with something that I believe to be appropriate action in these circumstances, and it’s to do with the responsibilities of being linked to

At the moment one very specific site is in my mind. This site, which I will not link to, links to a considerable number of intelligent and interesting people. Many of whom don’t share the politics or attitude of the man in question. Each one of these people is in a situation to act in such a way that would demonstrate their profound disagreement with those views simply by dint of their link being on his page. What I’m suggesting is that there is a power that comes with being linked to – and it’s a power that one should not only be aware of, but should feel the responsibility to employ – whether by sending a simple e-mail askind the link to be removed (“I do not wish to be associated with the bile-ridden drivel on your site”), or more proactively and campaigningly by using an .htaccess file or something similar to serve up a page which declares that you refuse to be associated with the views of the person whose site you’ve just left.

It’s not a lot, I know, but it’s the first thing that I can think of that actually represents some kind of weblogging ‘direct action’ – some kind of (almost negligible at the individual scale) gravitational influence that can be exerted by a site to act in such a way that it makes itself known as protesting without driving additional traffic to the thing they’re protesting about… And the best thing about it is that it’s entirely non-violent, non-flaming, non-confrontational. It’s a kind of passive politics – refusal to participate – refusal to allow yourself to be referenced – a bizarre kind of work-to-rule… The power of the inbound link should not be ignored…

PS. To clarify, maybe I can give a couple of examples… Let’s say a site links to yours that is homophobic – not a specific link to a specific page, but rather a general blog-rolling style link. To mention that site – to link to it – will promote their agenda, give them more page impressions, more people reading the crap they write. So what you could do instead is use an .htaccess file to shunt them through to a site that debunks myths about being gay.

Follow-ups:

Categories
Random

On the insecurity of Blogger…

First things first – here’s a quick (rough) timeline of what happened from my perspective:

  • 3.30pm Phil Gyford notices that something has gone wrong with the listing of plasticbag.org posts on Haddock blogs. My assumption? Something has gone wrong with haddock blogs…
  • 3.40pm A quick glance at my RSS feed revealed that each and every link attribute on my RSS feed now read as ‘hacx0red’. My assumption? Someone has hacked into my server…
  • 3.45pm In still logged into my Blogger account so I go and check the settings. There’s something very wrong going on – my password, my e-mail address and the URL for my site have been replaced with the word ‘hacx0red’. My assumption? Someone has hacked into my Blogger account…
    Screenshot One
    Screenshot Two
    Screenshot Three

  • 3.50pm Beacuse I’m nervous about logging out, I try logging in with a different user name in a different browser. This does not work. My assumption? The world’s gone freakin’ craaaazy
  • 3.53pm I start telling people that I think Blogger’s been hacked. People freak out.
  • 4.00pm The UK’s weblogger mailing list becomes full of nervous people, and the information starts going out. Various people try to work out how to get in contact with Ev. We finally manage to get the word to Anil Dash who sends the word on further…
  • 4.10pm Danny O’Brien and Phil Gyford are getting the word out to Scripting.com.

So where does this leave us? It leaves us nervous, I think. It leaves us with less faith than before that it’s safe to leave the collective writings of years in the hands of a centralised service like Blogger. What would be lost if 700,000 people lost days, weeks, months or years of writing at the same time? Significantly I think if there was an import / export facility to Blogger that would allow people to keep their own back-ups, then this would be less of an issue. In the meantime, I’m afraid I have to confess that while I’m very impressed by the speed of Blogger’s reaction, I’m not overly impressed by the stuff that they’ve written about the experience. I think it’s important that someone explains to us why we should not be worried by this hack on an archive of content that – after all – was created and belongs to each of us…

Further reading: Slashdot.org, Anil Dash, Quicktopic thread, Blogger Status.

Categories
Random

A summary of Doonesbury Day Five: Weblog Gibberish (and links to the episodes you might have missed)…

October 26 I’ve had it with Linux! Regime Change has failed! Let’s think inside the box, people! It’s time to put the pedal to the paradigm! Join a sleeper cell, then quit and turn everyone in! Got war? Is our children learning? Mark my words, so you can find them later!” That’s right… I am Jenny McTagarthy, Girl Pirate! (You may have missed how big is my fan-base and a crush on Jenny…)

Categories
Random

Looking for people to try out new community project…

I’m looking for people to try out a new community project that I’ve been developing at work. It’s a completely new way of organising message-boards and I think potentially it’s quite exciting. If you wish to participate or are interested, then e-mail me at tom@plasticbag.org – it’s going to be of most interest to people who live in the UK…

Categories
Personal Publishing Politics

On the horror of warblogging…

This is a difficult post to write. It’s difficult because I’ve avoided writing it for far too long. It’s difficult because it forces me to face some things that I’ve tried to pretend weren’t happening. And it’s difficult because it undermines my faith in humanity and forces me to give up some of the illusions that I’ve desperately operated under for several years now.

About one year, one month and two weeks ago, the World Trade Center in New York was destroyed. All around the world, people looked on with horror at what was occurring. And before all the recriminations started, before the rhetoric became overwhelming, before the civil liberties were eroding, and before dissent became unpatriotic, there was this bizarre moment of pause, of stunned silence. And in that moment, there was a remarkable unity of feeling and purpose around the world. It was only when we all opened our mouths again that everything went to hell.

It was in this moment of shock that webloggers first started broadcasting their tiny, newly-vulnerable voices into blogspace. Some talked of their experiences of being in New York or of the feeling of vulnerability that all Americans suddenly felt – a vulnerability they’d never felt before. Some responded with exclamations of disbelief or anguish. But I think a large number couldn’t say anything at all – how could one say anything valuable in these moments.

Most of the people I know in the UK who ran weblogs didn’t know what to say or do. There was nothing that could be expressed that would be useful – nothing that could be done but sympathise from a distance. Many of us felt utterly powerless and yet desperate to do something. We came up with a project at the time that I think did some good. But then it’s really impossible to tell.

In most of this stuff, most of us tried to be impartial, non-confrontational and politically of a space that wouldn’t offend people who had just lost friends and family. That was the most important thing in the immediate aftermath – the orphaned, the widowed, the bereaved. As it should have been. Not political point-scoring or the use of those deaths as justification for military action. No flag-waving or advocating of interest groups that needed a say.

It would be months later before I would become aware of the phenomenon of the warblogger – months where information had filtered out gradually, where stances had calcified and battle-lines were beginning to be drawn. I started to notice politically radical statements appearing with semi-regularity on some people’s sites – and entirely new sites appearing out of nowhere advocating extreme universalising positions of every kind – evil muslims, the hypocrisy of Europe, the righteous thunder of America…

To my shame, only once did I make any kind of stand. I sent an e-mail to Stephen Den Beste about (what I considered to be) his overblown anti-European rhetoric – and he responded. I got a fair amount of short-term fallout in the form of highly unpleasant e-mails and comments posted on people’s sites. And I think at the time I decided that several things should stop me continuing with any kind of debate on these issues in public. Some of these I think are still valid, some of which I now think I could characterise as cowardice or laziness, nothing more…

The fact is I believed warblogging in its most hawkish, blood-hungry mode to be the short-lived rantings of extremists – and not representative of American online communities or weblogging communities in general. And because of this, I’ve got on with talking about the things that I personally find manageable or stimulating, and have kept far away from discussion of wars in Iraq, or bombings in Afghanistan, or racist violence in Europe and America, or the way all these events have been cynically used for party political ends, or the way in which state-sanctioned warfare is being transformed into a continuous enterprise just as civil liberties in all areas are being slowly limited. I haven’t said a word about the level of irony I felt when it became clear that Hollywood’s grasp on file-sharing technology meant more to most people than the fact that people were being held illegally across the world.

I’ve kept my mouth shut through all of this stuff. And I’ll probably continue to keep it shut, to be honest. But I needed an outburst today because of the stuff that I’ve been forced to come into contact with recently – the verbal attacks against Anil Dash for example – appal me beyond measure. I feel actual physical sickness at sites declaring whole religions to be at fault for the actions of tiny groups of often pooly-educated poor extremists. And this is the tiniest tip of the ice-berg.

I don’t know how to say it in any other way except to say that as an episode in web history, I personally believe that Warblogging has been shameful, horrific and a stain on us all. The escalation of warblogs is a disaster for development of personal publishing, and a crippling blow to the individual integrity and worth of weblogs and weblogging. This whole media – a media which was supposed to be about freedom of expression, allowing everyone to have a voice and a space to talk openly and honestly – has turned increasingly into the worst kind of soapbox punditry, witch-hunting and as a platform for violent warmongers and nationalists. And I’m afraid I feel partly responsible…

Categories
Random

Remember…. You're a FAG…

I probably shouldn’t be posting this, but Davo sent it to me when I was at work, and I nearly spat my drink across three quarters of the office. God only knows the intention of the person who created it. God only knows if it’s supposed to be silly or hurtful… But when sent from poof to poof, it’s like being in on the funniest joke ever…

Categories
Random

On participation in online communities…

So I was reading a post at Meg’s site called You – yes you – at the back: you may not talk in class. Best post title ever. Anyway… That’s not the point. I had a comment to make about it, so I went and started to write it, and then next thing you know it’s about a year and a half long and still incomplete. So like a fairly large seedling, I decided to transplant it to my site, intially for the normal part of the site, but then – you know what – it got even larger, so now it’s stuffed like an embarrassing piece of furniture in the attic of my site:

Who’s afraid of community participation?
The most interesting aspect about discussing “UK weblogging culture” is how uncomfortable people seem to be with the concept of being part of a “community” at all. Perhaps more fascinating still are the assumptions of what participating in a community involves…

Categories
Random

A screen-cap from earlier today…

Taken by young Jamie Cronin, this screen-cap from earlier today will forever preserve the day when the train from London-South Wales was delayed by a large inflatable hamburger on the line…

Categories
Social Software

Who’s afraid of community participation?

There’s a fascinating post about the emergence of the UK Weblogging Community at notsosoft.com at the moment. One of the tools that has strengthened relationships between UK-based webloggers (of which there are several – pubs being a significant one of them) has ceased to function – the GBlogs Update Tracker has shut down so that its creator can concern herself with (considerably) more important creative work. But does the removal of a tool signal the end of a community project? And was UK Weblogging’s emergence as an active and vibrant interconnected community ever a project?

The most interesting aspect about some of the debate that has ensued in the responses to Meg’s post is how uncomfortable people seem to be with the concept of being part of a “community” at all. Also fascinating is the assumptions of what participating in a community involves. The assumption seems to be that being a member of a community is something chosen, something that involves heavy participation, and something that requires each of its participants to be friends with one another and socialise.

These aspects of participation are almost held up as spectres – huge achievements that one would have to wish to overcome in order to participate. I can’t tell whether it’s because we’re English or because we’re bedroom-bound webloggers that being part of such a community seems to terrify so many people. It could be just the reification of individuality that has brought us to this place. But I think it’s unfounded. And I think it’s unfounded because this sense of community is artificial and overblown…

Let’s look at a couple of examples – when people talk about the local community of people in a village do they mean that (1) they all go drinking with each other all the time, or (2) that they are familiar with each other’s existence, may know each other (sometimes only by several degrees of separation) and share a vague vested interest in their local environment? I would contend it’s the latter. And when people talk about the ‘gay community’ or the ‘Jewish community’, they’re not referring to individual social groups of friends, but instead to a roughly shared set of goals, aspirations, interests or cultural principles.

In web circles, community has come to mean different things. Mostly we think of specific sites or services designed to create communities, like Habbo Hotel, Metafilter or Barbelith. If we push ourselves we might extend this to Usenet groups or even Instant Messager communities or e-mail. But fundamentally these are tools for helping communities to germinate, develop and extend themselves – not the communities themselves. Just as the communities themselves are not necessarily defined by drinking with one another, or by believing exactly the same things. Do all members of Metafilter go drinking with one another? Do they all participate to the same extent?

In fact what community represents, what community is is something much looser than a definition surrounding the activities that the members undertake with one another or the tools that they use to communicate with one another. These can be sidelines in fact – at best, they strengthen the bonds – maybe they make possible communities between people who would not be able to form them otherwise. But that’s all…

I do consider myself a member of a community of UK webloggers. And I feel that way because we all have something in common – a shared experience maybe, or a desire to learn from one another, an interest in other people who validate our ‘hobbies’ or maybe it’s just because what matters to one of us is more likely to matter to other ones of us. I don’t share my politics or my sexuality with many of these people. Nor my gender, many of my interests, my ethnicity or my obsession with Buffy.

I also consider myself part of an online community of webloggers in general – an ever-growing group of people who share certain things with me, including the fact that they might be at home writing a huge post at eleven o’clock at night, or that they feel a need or a desire to express themselves.

I also consider myself part of a community of gay webloggers, and gay people on the internet in general, and in fact gay people in general. And then there are the communities surrounding the issues of design that I’m interested in. And the communities of people who are interested in Buffy.

Some are communities which manifest themselves through geographical proximity, closely shared values, friendships, sex even. With other communities there will be none of that at all – simply a shared characteristic, or chromosome, or interest.

We’re all members of hundreds – thousands even – of different overlapping communities all the time. Some are tiny, some are huge. Some are more important to us than others, but all are important to an extent. And it’s nothing to be ashamed of!

Categories
Academia Gay Politics History Politics

A piece of writing from a book about Baudrillard pertaining specifically to Nietszche and history…

I’ve been re-reading a little book on Baudrillard because it’s the only thing that fits in the pocket of my brand new coat (excessive money spent – we’ll say no more about this). In it I’ve stumbled upon a section about Baudrillard’s relationship to history and his debt to Nietszche that really appeals to me. It goes like this:

Friedrich Nietzsche, in his Unfashionable Observations of 1874, criticised historical inquiry in his time for making the present look just like another episode, and the creative acts of individuals humble by comparison. It burdened individuals with more knowledge than they could absorb; it encouraged a resigned relativism because change implied that the present was unimportant; and it generated irony and cynicism because it engendered a sense of late arrival…”

When I was doing my doctorate I got really excited by a passage in Forster’s Maurice – it’s a fairly iconic passage used in a lot of scholarship in a fairly throwaway fashion. In it, the character of Dr Cornwallis, teaching young undergraduate men (including our hero) says of a piece of translation that they are about to undertake, “Omit: a reference to the unspeakable vice of the Greeks”. I remember thinking this was extraordinarily radical considering how we now approach history. Current academic practice is one of dislocation – people in the past were nothing like us. They are incomprehensible to us by the standards that we generally operate by, and we have to hygenically and distantly analyse their behaviour with none of the emotional outbursts and resonances that we might use to examine contemporary matters.

This is considered true in basic historicist approaches, but even more true in historicist approaches to literature, where the assumption seems to be that one of the implicit acts of criticism is some kind of model-making of the minds of the audience (or author) of a work. Only by understanding the people do you understand the work. Personally I always thought this was a highly dubious intellectual move – particularly when undertaken in an absolutist fashion. Too many questions emerge from this kind of behaviour: Whose is the mind? Who does it represent? What about divergent readings from the period? Does it idealise a particular kind of reading or intepretation? Is the mind that we use to understand the text simply itself generated by us from the text itself?

Similarly there are problems with a complete lack of historicism, of course. It would be delightful to think that one could try and force a modern mind through a text without any historical information whatsoever, in such a way that they were encouraged to think about the text purely in terms of contemporary society – but it’s simply not possible. The mind constructs a fictional world as it reads – it contextualises, it tries to fit disparate and apparently nonsensical elements together. The practice of reading a work removed from historical context is simply an exercise in the conceptual reconstruction of that period. And this is never more true when you’re thinking about texts in other languages, where even basic comprehension the text requires a reconstructive leap.

So why is the statement in Maurice so challenging? Because it amounts to a statement that texts from outwith your cultural frame of reference aren’t just there to be examined analytically and distantly, nor even merely to undermine your assumptions of ‘normality’ and push you towards total moral relativity. Instead they can have very real and potent social and political effects. They are inevitably political, weapons / devices with no function other than to stimulate, entertain and use in argument and discussion to forward a case, a goal, a political end…