Marko critiques Clay in Is the Blogging World Fair? which, in turn, made me think critically about the questions of equality in blogging. Mind you, i’ve only recently started going meta on blogging and bloggers (blame Joi for making my mind swirl on blogs).

I love hearing that blogging is a great equalizer… from straight white men.

Privilege is a funny thing. Often it opens up opportunities that we don’t even realize. Take time, for example. Who has the time to sit online and read, write and discuss all day? A working mother? A migrant worker? Time is money. Very few people have both time and money and most people spend most of their time trying to make ends meet or trying to calm their nerves from the stress induced by the former. Having time to “waste” is privilege.

Next, take voice. Who is taught that they have the right to vocalize any thought about the world to the rest of the world? A proper lady does not spoke unless spoken to. Who has the privilege to critique those in power?

Take a look at the public self-referential blogging culture. We’ve often noted that there are few women. Yet, what percentage are people of color or queer? More notably, what percentage are of working class? And btw: the goal isn’t to be able to successfully name one… but when i look around the blogging world, i will think that it is an equalizer the day that people are represented at least proportionately to their representation in the rest of the world. Until then, i’m committed to my belief that there are factors embedded in the blogging culture that only draw specific types of people. And that those factors edge along notions of privilege. Until we decipher how our technologies promote privilege, we cannot create equalizing technologies.

When i tried to frame my hesitation over Skype, i was sent through the wringer both online and offline. I felt like a heretic. As such, Dave Weinberger’s frustration today made me grin.

Even IM tends to drive me batty and i turn it off when i need to work. (Of course, somehow, i feel as though i’m allowed to blog while i’m writing a paper even if i’m not allowed to be interactive.) Voice takes things to the next level. I have no qualms ignoring IMs while i’m working or telling people that i’m working and can’t talk. I don’t give out my IM to the world at large; i don’t allow IMs from people i don’t know; and i rarely have time/hand power to just chat on IM. Voice is a whole new level of not-OK.

Just because VOIP solves certain economic problems (particularly for members of a diaspora) does not mean that it alters my conniption fits about my relationship with voice interactions. I *hate* the phone and i HATE being interupted while working even more. Of course, there are exceptions and i usually answer my cell for friends, even if only to say that i can’t really talk right now. But the idea of getting random calls from strangers is about the most horrifying thing that i can imagine. Eek! I definitely feel for Dave…

There’s a discussion going on at We Quit Drinking over whether or not one can view AA as a religion. Personally, i draw parallels between the two regardless of whether or not i would label AA as a religion.

First, i take severe issue with Webster’s definition of religion (used in the debate):

1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2.A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
3.The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
4.A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
5.A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

This proposed definition sits at the heart of the discussion, which is a bit problematic. First, it is *very* easy to read Western hierarchical organized religion into this definition. It is hard for me to tell if that is the intention of the definer or if that is simply my own Wester predilection. My own religious beliefs are very much not Zoroastrian in foundation (i.e. not Jewish/Islamic/Christian). Thus, i have to look particularly close at this definition to find myself; it is not the first read that one might do. In fact, it is precisely that Western version that most of the discussion focuses on. Only in Western religions are religions exclusive and define ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ or ‘one true way.’ I view myself as religious but i don’t identify with any of those classifications.

I’ve never found a definition of religion that feels comfortable to me. That said, Bob Jesse of the Council on Spiritual Practices offered me the best perspective i’ve ever heard, noting that religions have three tiers of participation: scriptures, traditions/rituals, primary religious experiences. Community forms out of religions because of shared scriptures, traditions/rituals and goals to experience primary religious experiences. Anyhow, i could go on about this but i’d like to return to Alcoholics Anonymous for a moment.

AA is a fantastic organization that helps many people. In many ways, i feel as though its effectiveness comes from its clear parallels to religious organizations. There are a set of scriptures, traditions/rituals that bind people together and a goal of reaching a primary state of ecstasy from sobriety. Just like civic and religious groups, AA brings people together from all walks of life, allowing for an education in tolerance.

It’s funny because i know the debate on We Quit Drinking fundamentally surrounds how people feel about the term religion. It’s a hefty word with a lot of connotations that make people run screaming. Also, people automatically conjure Western religion when they think religion which can be truly limiting. At one point, one of the debaters noted that AA is not about worshipping a higher power. Yet, in many ways, AA is precisely about that. Only, the higher power is not a white bearded man in the sky. The higher power is found within you. Rather than drowning out that power, AA is about finding the strength internally to worship yourself, those around you and the ground you walk on. It’s about finding your own unique path and following it one day at a time.

Annalee has a new article out in Security Force about security, privacy and social network. It’s a nice blend of the technological and social concerns that emerge in social networks software.

I have to admit that i’m a sucker for ridiculous and quirky articles. Thus, it brought a complete smile to my face to wake up to a Salon article entitled Osama bin Laden: Caught by Friendster! Here’s a few quotes:

But Friendster, the popular online social networking tool, proves to be OBL’s undoing. Through a series of unlikely relationships — which folks like Michael Moore have long been whining about but which were not quite clear until Friendster graphically demonstrated them — George W. Bush turns out to be connected to bin Laden.

See, Bush knows this guy (an acquaintance, not a friend) from his DKE days, and this guy’s wife has a sister who knows this dude with great hair who once, when he was young and very drunk, spent the night with this woman who is a huge fan of the MTV show “Cribs.”

Small world! Bin Laden’s second wife also loves “Cribs”! FBI investigators, who now routinely use Friendster in their searches for terrorists, piece together these connections and hit the jackpot — Osama bin Laden’s profile complete with an e-mail address, OBLbKickin@aol.com. Investigators initiate a virtual romance with the terrorist leader, and he invites what he believes to be his virtual paramour up to the cave for drinks. Sadly, none of OBL’s 49 Friendster friends — although many give him glowing testimonials on the Internet — spring to his defense in the real world.

If Friendster’s network map wasn’t broken, i’d offer up links to Osama, Michael Moore, Bush, etc. But, not surprisingly, you can’t actually access their Profiles. Thus, if it’s working again, just do a user search for these characters – great Profiles!