Benkler Discusses Blogs, Culture, and More
This past week on kottke.org, as part of a week-long series on how "blogs are changing how we create, disseminate, and critique our culture," Berkman Faculty Co-director Yochai Benkler spoke with guestblogger Joel Turnipseed about publishing and freedom, Lewis Hyde's The Gift, the networked public sphere, and more.
In his inaguaral kottke.org post, Joel comments, For better or worse, blogs seem to be the new dispensation. But what, really, are they good for--or: what are they really good for--and what don't they do very well?
JT: The Wealth of Networks was described, I believe it was by Time magazine, as "utopian." I didn't see it that way, but rather as a book that was as full of sense as it was of hope. But it was a contingent hope: one based on things like 'Net neutrality, gift economies, open access to information, and so on. Can you leave us with your most hard-headed vision of the hope contained in — and possibly sustained by — The Wealth of Networks?
YB: I agree that The Wealth of Networks is not utopian. I think
realistically we can see a large improvement in the number of people who can effectively participate in the production of information, knowledge, and culture. I think more people are creating media; more people have access to a community or site where they can speak their minds. More does not mean everyone. Disparities in access and skill continue. But there are many more, and more diversely motivated and organized voices and creative talents participating than was feasible ten years ago, much less 30 years ago.
You can read the entire interview at kottke.org, and while you're there, be sure to read blog interviews with Cory Doctrow, Jane Ciabattari, and Steven Berlin Johnson.
In his inaguaral kottke.org post, Joel comments, For better or worse, blogs seem to be the new dispensation. But what, really, are they good for--or: what are they really good for--and what don't they do very well?
JT: The Wealth of Networks was described, I believe it was by Time magazine, as "utopian." I didn't see it that way, but rather as a book that was as full of sense as it was of hope. But it was a contingent hope: one based on things like 'Net neutrality, gift economies, open access to information, and so on. Can you leave us with your most hard-headed vision of the hope contained in — and possibly sustained by — The Wealth of Networks?
YB: I agree that The Wealth of Networks is not utopian. I think
realistically we can see a large improvement in the number of people who can effectively participate in the production of information, knowledge, and culture. I think more people are creating media; more people have access to a community or site where they can speak their minds. More does not mean everyone. Disparities in access and skill continue. But there are many more, and more diversely motivated and organized voices and creative talents participating than was feasible ten years ago, much less 30 years ago.
You can read the entire interview at kottke.org, and while you're there, be sure to read blog interviews with Cory Doctrow, Jane Ciabattari, and Steven Berlin Johnson.