On Weblogs
Mar. 7th, 2003 05:09 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
coalescentDave Green writes about the trouble with weblogs. Ironically, given his argument, this comes via Blogdex (or ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-syndicated.gif)
blogdex, if you prefer).
He starts off with the banality of weblogs:
And moves on to their stupidity:
(Although he fails to mention the inverse scenario: Someone who shouldn't inadvertently finding the journal and getting a bit upset by its contents. Maybe he thinks nobody is dumb enough to actually let that happen...)
Anyway. He rails against mindless meme-propogation. And he must have known full well this would zip around the blogosphere, so he figured he'd guilt-trip everyone into actually debating what he says. The cunning swine.
Trouble is, there's not much to debate; what he says is essentially true. Self-indulgent ramblings can be cathartic, but ultimately, they are self-defeating. I know that. I don't understand why it happens any more than he does, though, and I've actually been there, got the t-shirt, and had the urge to go back again.
There's the argument that it's the internet-age equivalent of venting to your friends in the pub, but it's not. It's the internet-age equivalent of standing in Hyde Park and shouting at the passing crowds. It's a fundamentally crazy thing to do, but it seems that more of us than anyone ever imagined want to do it. It seems that we want to be heard, but most of us don't have anything to say.
blogdex, if you prefer).He starts off with the banality of weblogs:
On the other hand, it's getting so easy to update a weblog that some users seem to type in their thoughts willy-nilly, posting unimaginable banalities, like a nation of Alan Partridges trying to fill an internet's worth of dead air: CDs they're listening to, scintillating accounts of their day at work, URLs of sites they feel they should acknowledge, despite having nothing new to say about them. It is like one of those terrible Christmas family newsletters for every single day of the year.
And moves on to their stupidity:
Is it really that sensible to do it on the internet, the most public medium ever devised? As highlighted by no less an authority than a recent episode of Grange Hill, a blogger who documents his personal life in enough detail to be remotely interesting is a stalker's dream come true.
(Although he fails to mention the inverse scenario: Someone who shouldn't inadvertently finding the journal and getting a bit upset by its contents. Maybe he thinks nobody is dumb enough to actually let that happen...)
Anyway. He rails against mindless meme-propogation. And he must have known full well this would zip around the blogosphere, so he figured he'd guilt-trip everyone into actually debating what he says. The cunning swine.
Trouble is, there's not much to debate; what he says is essentially true. Self-indulgent ramblings can be cathartic, but ultimately, they are self-defeating. I know that. I don't understand why it happens any more than he does, though, and I've actually been there, got the t-shirt, and had the urge to go back again.
There's the argument that it's the internet-age equivalent of venting to your friends in the pub, but it's not. It's the internet-age equivalent of standing in Hyde Park and shouting at the passing crowds. It's a fundamentally crazy thing to do, but it seems that more of us than anyone ever imagined want to do it. It seems that we want to be heard, but most of us don't have anything to say.
