With a big red beacon, and a flag, and a man on the rail.

Last night I wrote in another post that people who think the blogosphere is their road to riches don’t want to engage those who raise issues that might make people think the oasis up ahead is a only a mirage.  I implied that the reason they don’t is often because they have not thought about some of the issues raised and prefer to try to ignore the skeptics into silence.

And then I fire up my feeds this morning, and find one of the most unbelievable posts I have ever read.  Strike that- one of the most unbelievable things I have ever read.

Mike Arrington, the head cheerleader for Web 2.0 and the blogosphere’s biggest star, bashing the guy who writes Dead 2.0.  Let’s examine some quotes.

Mike says “He’s taken some hard and sometimes unfair shots at startups and at individuals (yes even me), and a lot of people probably don’t like him very much for what can be considered unfair attacks on them or their companies.“

Where to start?

Well, for one, the “unfair shot” at Mike was a post, partly critical, partly complimentary and likely somewhat tongue in cheek, about the happening that is known to some as TechCrunch 7.  In fact, Mike himself responded to the post and, at least then, didn’t seem too upset by it.  Regardless, while the post did poke fun at the blogstar mentality, I didn’t find it to be all that mean spirited.  If you want to be a star, that sort of thing comes with the territory.

And it was certainly not as bad as calling someone as asshole in a post title, as Mike has been known to do.

And then this little nugget, from Mike’s post:

Should he be fired?

???

Later, Mike changed “Should” to “Will” and added a new final paragraph suggesting that this (whatever this is) will likely blow over.  And he even gave lip service to freedom of speech.  But even with the change, is Mike honestly suggesting that the Dead 2.0 guy should or might get fired for expressing his opinions in an anonymous blog?  What if his opinions had mirrored Mike’s exactly?  Should/would he be fired then?

Either there is a lot more to this story than meets the eye, or Mike is so far off base here that he can’t hear or see the game.

The so-called outing of the Dead 2.0 guy came via this post by Nic Cubrilovic.  His post also contains some good information about anonymity- or the lack thereof- in the blogosphere.  Nic did not give the name of the Dead 2.0 guy, a decision I applaud.  He just made it clear that he knows who he is.

Isn’t Nic the same guy who is rumored to be the editor of the new TechCrunch enterprise blog?

So a friend/employee of Mike Arrington outs (sort of) a guy who has been critical of both Mike and his beloved Web 2.0.

Hmmm.

I’ll leave you with one last quote, from Mike in a comment to his post:

“Startups have enough variables to contend with to reach success without loose cannons creating yet more hurdles to overcome.”

I have a question for Mike (which I bet he won’t answer).  What defines a loose cannon?  Is skepticism about the Web 2.0 business model a loose cannon?  Is it being critical of you?  Or is it something else?  Please clarify this for me.

And, by the way, I voted No.

Tags: blogs, blog building, web 2.0

I’ve continued to subtract and add to my blogroll as I put into action my conversational manifesto.  I’ve found some good new blogs, and I’ve dropped a lot of blogs that seem to talk at you and not with you.  It’s a work in progress, but I’m getting there.

TDavid has a very interesting post today on the conversational blogosphere.  He makes some good points that I’d like to respond to.

He gives a pretty accurate summary of the Web 2.0 movement, in which so-called companies try to get traffic by giving stuff away in the hopes that either Google or some clever VC will monetize that traffic for them.  The biggest mistake Web 2.0 made was the de facto requirement that everything be free.  It turns web sites into billboards and results in an upside down measuring stick by which the cost side of the balance sheet, traffic and use, is hailed as a worthy substitute for the revenue side and traffic matters much more than the prospects of the application that draws the traffic.

It would be hard to create a more upside down business plan.  It will work for some, the way the lottery works for some.  But it will fail for the vast majority.

TDavid’s not very excited about my archive search capabilities here at Newsome.Org- and I can’t argue with a thing he says about it.  I used to use a Perl script to do searches, but I dumped that in favor of Google.  I’d welcome any suggestions for a better search platform.  Once I find a better search approach, I’ll move the search box up.  Stuff like this is exactly why I enjoy blogging.  You never know how something you create works until people other than you try it out.

He also makes a very good point about blogs that are designed to make money- that some of them are very good, notwithstanding their purpose.  He cites Lifehacker and Download Squad as two such blogs.  I agree and would add TV Squad and Techdirt to that list.  I am a huge fan of Techdirt.  Having said that, while some are closer than others, I don’t really view those sites as blogs.  They use blogging platforms for content management, and they are interactive- but I see those sites as more of a new media news site or magazine than a blog.  For me a blog is, ultimately, a way to engage in distributed conversations with others.  Or maybe a way to exercise your writing skills- as TDavid suggests.  It might be splitting hairs- and by no means am I discounting the value of those sites.  They just aren’t traditional blogs in the way I think of blogs.

The problem with many money-oriented blogs is that, because they are selling something- be it an idea or an ad- they aren’t interested in entertaining the other side of the argument.  It you try to engage them on the issues that they hope or believe will make them money, they simply ignore you.  Which, at least in my mind, validates the other side of the argument.  It’s fine to use the blogosphere as a flea market to try and make a quick buck, but if you are going to claim to be a citizen of the blogosphere, you should at least be willing to engage other viewpoints.  If not to convince them, then at least to show that you’ve thought about some of the concerns they express.

TDavid affirms the argument made by Shelley Powers the other day- that we can get plenty of traffic without diving into the chaotic and ultimately unfulfilling echo chamber that is, too often, the A-List blogarena.  I enjoy talking with some high traffic bloggers, but when I do, it’s not because they have traffic.  It’s because some of them still value conversation and the exchange of ideas over self-importance.  The ones who start believing their own bullshit get booted from my blogroll in favor of those who view blogging as a mode of expression and not as a way to make up for real world inadequacies.

The more I think about it, the more I start to think that it’s only a few of the mega-bloggers who screw the whole system up for the rest of us.  Many mega-bloggers seem to be interested in the same sort of stuff that the rest of are seeking.  The problem is that a lot of the normal exchanges get drowned out by the bluster of the attention-mongering children that sometimes pose as the blogosphere’s resident intellectuals.  Plus, real world friendships bond some of the good guys to some of the not-so-good guys.  How else can you explain Doc Searls‘ continued involvement with Steve Gillmor.  No one, not even Doc, can convince me that Doc isn’t secretly dismayed by at least half the insanity that comes out of Steve’s mouth.  But Doc stands by someone who, I assume, is a long time real world friend.  You can’t blame him for that.

The trick is for those of us who share the same blogging philosophy to create a de facto discussion group, build some momentum, and welcome the new voices who wonder over to our campfire and take a seat.  If we can do that, all of these collateral issues will take care of themselves.

TDavid is a good and thoughtful writer.  I’ll take him up on his offer to look back at things on 9/6/11 and see how the blogosphere, and our roles in it, have changed.  Put it on your calendar.

In the meantime, take a seat by the campfire and tell a story or two.  Otherwise, this blogging thing starts to feel like work. Low paying, thankless and boring work.

It doesn’t have to be that way- if we work together.

Tags: blogging, blog building, conversation