Jennifer’s comment sparks questions for me about the ethics of interacting with other people’s audiences. The first time I recall deliberately doing this was in the late sixties at a local campus event organized by Weatherman SDS. I showed up, either alone or with a single accomplice, I forget, and proceeded to leaflet the incoming audience with a flyer expressing my own viewpoint, which as I recall was vaguely anarcho-pacifist at that point. One of the Weatherpeople fronted me and accused me of “ripping off their energy”.

Fast forward to the present. The very immediate present in my role as a commenter on danah’s blog. Although I don’t consider myself a “troll”, I try my best to be a provocateur – in the good sense – to provoke relevant and useful lines of thought outside the conventional shared viewpoint of the venue. Part of my motive is, quite frankly, based on my respect for danah’s celebrity and power – to the exent I might provoke a divergent direction in her own thinking, I have, by proxy, exerted an influence on whoever she gpoes on to influence. To me, this is a legit tool to use in trying to leave one’s mark on the world. And, perhaps the thing that keeps it from being opportunist, is that although danah and myself occupy vastly different positions in the cultural matrix, I feel a genuine intellectual resonance for the questions she chooses to consider – and a real respect for her continuing quest to maintain integrity in an adverse environment.

And what of others here? I’m sure there are relevant scholarly treatemnts of the nature of audience of which I’m blissfully unaware. To my mind, a first approximation would put one’s collected audience somewhere between an “extended self” and a “collective organism” with onself at the focal point – much like a cell nucleus. So, as I use this venue to try to foster dialogue with danah, I am also seeking dialogue with her audience – whatever that may imply. And the goals are similar – to the extent I spark a useful thought, I have left my mark. Note that this model of intellectual dialogue in inextricably bound up – in the most practical terms – with attention itself. Getting attention is central to the process.

And as counterpoint, an image. Rock concert with huge crowd, there because of the celebrity energy of the band (which includes but is definitely not limited to their music as such). Guys and gals at said concert. Dressed to impresses! There to bee seen – to make ones small mark of celebrity within the audience assembled by the energy of the superstar.

So, shift gears and consider danah’s response which highlights “monetization” What an ugly, ugly term! But admittedly one which is central to the models of Bubble 2.0 (excuse me, I meant, of course, to type “Web 2.0″. What *could* I have been thinking).

In the long run, I firmly believe that the spirit of “monetization” is anthetical to the spirit of genuine intellectual inquiry. I have not yet Googled “Treaty of WestPhailia” and come up with “Find Treaty of WestPhailia on Ebay”. But it wouldn’t surprise me. I won’t belabor this point. You will either see what I’m talking about – or not. How many legit searches for knowledge come up wit ha dozed garbage sites enntitled “Best site for comprhensive information about …”. This is monetization in action.

Now, why do I refer to “Bubble 2.0″. This started a year or two ago when I inherited oversight of a small publishing company’s very small adwords account. I, of course, Googled adwords tips and advice t otry to get up to speed. I read a lot. After a while I noticed something interesting and ominous. Most of the Adwords tips and Adwords advice products were not greared to how to use Adwords as an adjunct means to publicize an existing tangible product. (We publish a small selection of craft and hobby magazines, most of which predate the Internet.) Rather, the field was dominated by advice on how to sell internet-based internet-delivered product. Indeed, one outfit in particular speciualizes in doing search query analysis to help the aspiring internet enterpreneur choose an online niche and develop a product.

What’s wrong with this picture?

Well, it strikes me that this is the same picture – seen from a different angle – that motivates spammers and adware purveyors. These guys don’t care if people hate them – as long as they get paid for clicks. And they get paid even if a site visit is the product of a noxious infection which forces the user unwillingly to the site. More monetization at work.

Now there’s obviously a huge cash flow going on behind all this. And the sales of tangible product is probably a miniscule element of that cash flow. I would purely love to be a “fly on the wall” while somebody who knows announced the multiplier figure relating money spent on clicks and eyeballs versus money spent on tangible product purchased by clickers and eyeballers. At some point all this has to collapse under it’s own weight. Youall can only take in each other’s laundry for just so long. I expect somewhere out there are massive quantities of venture capital seeking outlets, and that this is keeping the party afloat – just speculation – I couldn’t prove it. But I fancy I can smell it.

Just a provocation,
-Steve

I don’t see it as a matter of arrogance of digerati as much as a dynamic of automatically calculated link traffic as a means of capital in the attention economy. That’s what I find frustrating. Does that make sense?

I totally get the Lakoff approach here. Not entering into traps/frames or becoming a strawman is critical for those of you producing legitimate and meaningful works. But I think there’s a problem concealed in all of this that is really concerning.

One of things that always bugged me about the digerati was the assumption that anybody who was interested in their ideas just wanted a piece of their power or status – and not an authentic interest in their stuff. This is pure arrogance. Especially given that many internet celebrities have nothing especially inspired or intelligent to say (but are merely famous).

The digerati – i.e., those who are entitled, power holding and well connected – get to talk about their status as though it materialised out of pure merit (and not the existing social capital they acquired from their existing social status, money, power, jobs, academic affiliations or any other source of social privilege).

It’s very easy for holders of power to label somebody who is outside of the power sphere as “attention seeking.” But the act of creating and responding to participatory and social media draws attention to oneself. Should those of us whose voices have not be properly endorsed by academic institutions, media or corporate power remain politely silent until we are *deigned* worthy by you folks who have the status? The very possibility of taking part in otherwise exclusive conversations is what made all of this stuff so very revolutionary.

danah: you are a respected voice on the internet. I’ve followed your stuff since 2003 for intellectual and political reasons. You’re fierce, smart and openly political. you’ve continually drawn attention to things others do not. Either because they are too compromised or cannot risk it. You say things some of us cannot (back to your post on risk and ordinary people). Please keep in mind that a lot of the people who follow and draw attention to your work are allies – not status seekers (though I’m sure some are). If I thought, for one moment, that you assumed people like me followed you just to get your attention I’d conclude that you’ve become so intoxicated in your celebrity that you’ve lost site of the genuine reasons people enjoy your work. I don’t doubt that it’s tough being famous but please consider the difference between allies and parasites.

American culture has a breathtaking preoccupation with popularity and status. American culture is saturated in narcissism, classism, competition, celebrity and popularity. And this is consistent with the popularity of your neo-liberal far right political ideology. I challenge you to reflect on the effects of living in a culture like that and how it might alter your perception of motivation. Please keep in mind there are a great many people in other countries who do not engage your insufferable corporate cultural production (reality tv in particular) and see it for the ideological manipulation that it is. I feel genuinely sorry for all of you whose consciousness is so saturated with status that you have lost site of genuine civic mindedness and human connection.

You have opened a large and interesting subject. I’m not sure where to begin trying to address the various issues implied. Rather than try to compose a coherent response, I think I’ll just throw off ideas as they occur – in no particular order.

Is trying to get attention somehow reprehensible? Atention is a fundamental human need. Isolation is often used as an adjunct to brainwashing practices designed to break a captive’s spirit – and isolation within society can have an analogous effect. Nobody wants to be invisible – nor should they have to be.

Now, if there is a problem with some people trying to garner attention by behaving badly – which I will stipulate – this should immediately imply the question why the {expletive} can’t they get attention by behaving well? If you’re a “good boy” (or “good girl”) most people will find you boring – and whose fault is that?

Okay – maybe we shouldn’t expect to be famous to more than 15 people – but what if you don’t even have those 15? Saying a lonely person shouldn’t get extreme to garner an audience is like saying a hungry person shouldn’t shoplift food – i.e. a viewpoint that serves those who have full stomachs or a loyal following.

I sometimes like to find sites discussing a recent mass shooting and when a bunch of {expletive}’s are having a fine feel-good session about what a pathetic creep the shooter was – I challenge them – what about those that drove him (and it almost always is “him”, for some reason) to that final level of desperation. Am I being a “troll” when I do this? Perhaps – but I really believe some of these smug self-righteous individuals need to have their nose rubbed in a contrary viewpoint.

Note that this is far different than the most cited historical example of trolling in rec.pets.cats (I forget the particulars – recipies?). The difference being that those guys just wanted to stir up controversy for the heck of it. Not to make any kind of legit point.

Now one of the commenters above (Joe Blo?) brings up Holocaust deniers, Global warming critics, and those who take the opposite view from his on the JFK assasination – and I can’t even infer which view of that last issue he holds). These are all legitimate topics for discussion, IMO. I have my own views on each of them, which are not relevant in this venue – but in a venue where those questions are on topic, one should be able to take the minority view without being demonized as a “troll”.

Back to attention. Suppose one holds a minority or underrepresented viewpoint, that one nonetheless believes to be both true, and worthy of wider consideration. How does one deal with the problem of getting heard? Surely shock tactics and the polemic style have their downside, in that they may discourage calm and reasoned consideration of the issue. But on the other hand, they also have their effectiveness. They attract notice to the viewpoint, and force a consideration of what otherwise might be dismissed or ignored. Plus, polemics lend a needed element of emotional passion to subjects about which one ought *not* to be calm – e.g. child abuse, world hunger, etc.

All that being said, there are some people who are just {expletive}’s – and whose goal is to cause trouble and prevent discussion. I say, either ignore them, and/or call them on their behavior – rather than the ostensible content of their argument – and/or in a moderated environment ban them. But for cryin’ out loud, don’t apply those remedies to somebody who is actually trying to make a point – regardless of how unpopular or abrasive.

And, to return to what I think is the most important point I made above – how can we create a society which will get people at least as much attention for behaving well as for behaving badly. And, parallel concern – what should be our stance toward the socially isolated – the lonely. Is this not as much a problem in its own way as homelessness or hunger?

Just some thoughts,

-Steve

Would it be better if the community and moderators deleted such posts? Or is it more important, in the long term, to argue? I do not want a government elected that espouses James Dobson’s equivalent of Sharia Law. I feel that it is my duty, on some level, to not leave absurdities unchallenged.

If normal, moderate, people don’t speak out, the lunatics will rule.

Sometimes find the actual genuine question in the flurry and go from there.