Andrew's view of the Internet and the media was changed by writing his book The Cult of the Amateur, still in favor of authority, likes standing on a podium above the crowd, this isn't the Internet.

Was a mid-90's Internet entrepreneur after being a music journalist, classic old-fashioned writers, paid them a lot of money to write about jazz and classical music, but were right in the middle of the Web action. Was greedy, founded his own company, was exciting then for media people to put high-quality content on the Web quickly and efficiently. Wasn't disintermediation of existing outlets or empowering individuals, was exciting to distribute as an entrepreneur. VideoCafe failed, but remained an evangelist, continued to drink the Kool-Aid. In 2004, in Sebastapol north of San Francisco, Tim O'Reilly was the leading evangelist of Web 2.0, "FooCamp," Friends of O'Reilly, FooCamp is an unconference, no heirarchy, no formal structure, everyone spends the weekend with sleeping bags and a vision of a new world. Represented a sneak preview of Web 2.0 anarchy. Went from being a digital believer to a digital skeptic.

We weren't just talking about the new media, we were the new media, everyone was simultaneously broadcasting themselves but nobody was listening. Digital Darwinism was dawning, no authority, everyone talking simultaneously. First book to attack Web 2.0, not a professional journalist, professional journalists say they're glad to hear it. Author wanted the subtitle "How Today's Internet is Killing our Culture," he doesn't think it now. But the more user-generated content there is, the less they read a paper and go to the movies. People invest less in high-quality and professional content. MySpace, YouTube, Wikipedia replacing high-quality professional content.

But the Internet can't kill anything, the Internet is not a person, doesn't have a mind of its own, it's just technology. Not surprising that you get a countercultural movement out of San Francisco via this technology, was an outgrowth of 1970s culture. More people think that they have something to say, it's an authority issue. It's a premonition of something more profound, the people are rising up, they want to be the author, they want to be the source, you can't blame the Internet for that, it was already in place, the Web simply unleashed it. Now traditional media has to cope with the rising of the people. Left and right bash The New York Times, it's actually the 1960s 2.0.

Put myself in the most dystopian mood possible, future could be both "Brave New World" and "1984". I think that I was wrong to be deeply dystopian, but it's just a moment, a moment that will pass away. People are already bored with this stuff, the Lessigs and other crazy people in Silicon Valley still talk but most people are realizing the dangers in user-generated content. People are coming to their senses, entrepreneurs are coming to their senses also. The Web 2.0 revolution has ended in Silicon Valley, met Jason Calacanis, he expressed same sentiment, said that Web 2.0 wasn't going anywhere, can't monetize, too much content with dark forces behind it, he founded Mahalo, a curated search engine, employees are real people putting good content into search engines. You need hierarchy, you need authority. Citizendium takes on Wikipedia, e.g.

The new, new thing is professionalism, no value economically in amateur content, it's a scam, Facebook's a scam, 15 billion valuation is a scam, this year is the year of the professional, the year in which authority will make a comeback. Don't get swept up by the Silicon Valley garbage, when the Lessigs come argue back. The probem in this country is that authority is afraid of the people's revolution. Professional media needs to unapologetically take charge. Colbert said he is an elitist, he said yeah. Without that media we're in the deepest s**t imaginable. Things may not be as bad as they may seem. Need to fight anonymity, the ability for old to become young, to deny our physicality.
.
QUICK TAKE: Well...where to begin. I agree that the ability to curate user-generated content is a key growth area this year, but it's clear that user-generated content is becoming authoritative in more ways than we can imagine. Professional authors need to come to terms with this more deeply. The ability of content to collect an affirming and trusted community is as important in many instances as the ability for people in an hierarchical structure to declare content to be authoritative. Social media underscores the need for authority to flow from people who have to live with the consequences of authority - democracy, in other words. Democracies have designated, trusted representatives, administrators and leaders, and this will continue, but inherently it's the market's responsibility to seek out its own view of what is authoritative content if we are to have the efficiences to cope and thrive in a rapidly changing global economy. More at Content Nation and in my upcoming book. I am not saying that Andrew's view is all tosh, but I do find it interesting that he sidestepped all of the highly positive, high-quality and monetizable initiatives that publishers have taken on in social media. It's an appealing position for traditionalists, but the money is not in the traditionalists' models any more. They need to redeploy their editorial staffs to manage quality user-generated content more effectively.

Labels: books, SIIA Information Industry Summit 2008, social media