Re: [projectvrm] "I am not a brand."

[Alec Muffett < >]

Alan wrote:

> I used the term 'Net specifically rather than "Web", as spam and various 
> other hosebag tactics seem to work on the Web, but also work on email, and 
> on non-web social media platforms as well (arguing here that Air based 
> Twitter is not Web per se).



There seems to be a little confusion here, so speaking as a technical person 
who actually understands what he's going on about:

1) the internet (or 'net) in its purest sense is the space of IP-connected 
devices which can connect to one-another directly via TCP/IP

2) in addition: most people today will allow you to speak of 
internet-connected machines as including those which can reach the internet 
indirectly via some form of proxy or NAT, although such a mechanism 
frequently prevents "the internet" connecting directly *back* to said 
machines - and thus such machines aren't properly on the internet

3) the "web" is a space of data comprising HTML, XML and other 
URI/hyperlink-aware data, elements of which data are accessed typically (but 
not exclusively) via HTTP/S over the Internet

4) the likes of "twitter" is a net-connected service which offers and permits 
exchange of web-data, via a traditional (browser) web-interface, or via a 
custom application.

5) it might be argued that such a custom application means twitter is "not 
the web", but the counter-argument that the custom-application is merely "a 
microbrowser" is equally valid, so anyone who engages in such debate is 
merely wasting their breath in the face of people who are too busy tweeting 
to give a damn what your opinion is.

Readers argue about these definitions, but just because you have an opinion 
doesn't mean that you're right; whereas with the above I could (but choose 
not to) bore you all for several pages with references to technical 
literature from people whose opinions _actually_ count, to demonstrate that 
the above is approximately in line with their thinking.


Alan further wrote:

> Getting people to group together is unlikely to work vs a few driven people 
> who believe they can make a large return - the paybacks are too mismatched. 
> Plus the evidence on the 'Net to date is that these hosebag tactics do seem 
> to work at a higher success rate than the cost of using them, thus they 
> will continue to be used.
> 
> There is a bigger underlying issue, in that the 'Net promotes "winner takes 
> all" markets where the prizes for winning are so huge that they:
> 
> (i)  suck in more people than they rationally should (people are always 
> overpotimistic about their likelihood of success)
> (ii) make those people behave in more outrageous ways to diferentiate 
> themselves
> 
> What is more likely to work is if the 'Net had some form of feedback 
> mechanism to show these people - very clearly, to discourage les autres - 
> that what they are doing isn't helping them.
> 
> But beware if it shows that it is helping them, which, sadly, I suspect it 
> would............



So what you're saying is:

1) people who can be focused, make profit in spite of pissing off 
disorganised hordes of folk
2) the "network effect" has a downside as well as an upside, and 
3) what the net needs is an effective way to pillory the bad guys [ED: But 
that has a whole host of other issues]

My feelings are: 1) yes 2) yes 3) dream on.

I believe Adriana's already made the point that it's not the _Internet_ but 
the _Web_ which would benefit from some means of tarring and feathering those 
who annoy us; and I believe the above explains the fruitlessness (and, 
probably, negative value) of trying to partition "Twitter Space" from "The 
Web" - because if we determine that @freecloud in Twitter space is worth of 
being pilloried, then that probably goes for the primary author of 
http://www.broadstuff.com/ too.

Of course, that opens up the concept of internet identity, which is an 
entirely other kettle of stupid.

HTH. HAND.  Enjoy bacon.

        -a

--

 
http://dropsafe.crypticide.com/