Web 2.0: Blogs and Social Sites

On a side note, I find it funny that I have to talk about blogs... on a blog. Anyways! :

In Blogging, the nihilist impulse, Geert Lovink attempts to "make general statements about their 'nature' and divide them into proper genres" despite his acknowledgement of the impossibility to accomplish such a task. He defines a blog as: "... a frequent, chronological publication of personal thoughts and Web links, a mixture of what is happening in a person's life and what is happening on the Web and in the world out there." I do think this is close to being accurate, except that sometimes people do make blogs that focus on one topic (like cake making...) or a blog may exist that does not focus on both the web and events in one's personal life. So I don't think that his definition is perfect, but it is still better than I could have done. Additioanlly, he does talk about the varieties of blogs that exist and their purpose for existing throughout his piece.

Lovink goes on to describe the relationship between blogs and mainstream media. What blogs do that networks like CNN fail to do, he writes, is to integrate open, interactive messages from their constituencies. They are "feedback channels" which means they allow anyone to hastily write their opinion-- whether they agree or disagree, what was interesting and what was not-- on a popular (or not so popular) topic. He notes that, aside from a few, bloggers do not have time to research. The posts are not "scholarly." In general, this is probably true. A lot of the blogs I have seen are all narcissitic in nature (again, said a lot, not most or all)-- ex: "I like this, I don't like this... you care about what I have to say because I'm awesome... " (slight exaggeration). I agree with Lovink when he says that bloggers rarely add new facts to a news story.

It is rather simple yet true: Blogs do make up the public opinion. But that's OK. There is nothing wrong with that. As Lovink writes, blogs mirror conversations that occur in cafes and bars and that blogs are not actually a new format of writing, but digital orality.

I also want to discuss "truth-finding" on the Internet. Different people will hold different beliefs to be true, and it is improbable that there is any one truth out there(besides what science tells us, anyways, but then again even scientific conclusions come from observations which still could be wrong), but I think the Internet is the best at being a conglomeration of opinions on any topic.

The Internet connects me to information all over the world. I do not usually start with a book when I want to know about something. I like to see many differing opinions so I can choose for myself which seems more rational, so I start with Google. It is impossible to have completely objective opinions or information, but I try to be open-minded and learn about as many opinions as I can. Like Lovink writes, "blogs assist users in their crossing from Truth to Nothingness." Older generations, he notes, used to find truth in whatever the TV said. Now, we just watch TV for entertainment and take everything for a grain of salt.

I think there is something very special about what David Kline said in Lovink's piece:
"bloggers are often eloquent in the way that those who are not self-consciously polished often are – raw, uncensored, and energized by the sound of their newly awakened voices. And by keeping a daily record of their rites of passage, bloggers often give a shape and meaning to the stages and cycles of their lives that would otherwise be missed in the helter-skelter of modern existence."

Despite what I said earlier about bloggers having a narcisstic aspect to their writing, they often do write with an unparalled enthusiasm and insightfulness that cannot be found in mainstream media. And if they didn't keep blogs, their knowledge would only exist in their brains. It feels great to live in an age where knowledge is so accessible and varying.