Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Business Press Pays Attention To Blog Industry

timothy posted more than 9 years ago | from the money-changes-everything dept.

Software 139

prostoalex writes "Right after Business Week named WebLogs, Inc. one of the five Net companies to watch in 2005, the Associated Press has a feature on SixApart, the company behind Movable Type, Typepad and (after acquisition) LiveJournal. The article talks about the company starting to 'think big' after being approached by venture capitalists, and has some stats on the blog industry in general."

cancel ×

139 comments

1st! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11728097)

yeah!

As a blogger, (1)

KC9AIC (858812) | more than 9 years ago | (#11728099)

That's great to hear.

Dot.Com Bubble again (4, Insightful)

onion2k (203094) | more than 9 years ago | (#11728117)

These blogging sites are great for getting stats with big numbers that will impress the money men, like page impressions, and users, and gigs of bandwidth.. but what about the revenue? People aren't actually very willing to pay for somewhere to write their blog, you can't run a multi-million dollar business on the back of T-Shirt merchandising sales, and online advertising is a business model shown to be flawed in the late 90s..

So if I were to invest in on of these companies, where would my stock dividends be coming from?

Or is it another case of a dot.com investor not really understanding what they're buying into?

Re:Dot.Com Bubble again (2, Funny)

Stanistani (808333) | more than 9 years ago | (#11728144)

Do you think we're experiencing a mini-bubble?

What's the proper nomenclature...

iBubble?
dot-bam?
dot-pop?
dot-pup?
gumball rally?

Re:Dot.Com Bubble again (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 9 years ago | (#11728273)

blogospheric inflation dotoblogical elephantitis

Re:Dot.Com Bubble again (5, Funny)

natrius (642724) | more than 9 years ago | (#11728163)

Or is it another case of a dot.com investor not really understanding what they're buying into?

It makes me cry whenever I hear people say this. I dry the tears with my Webvan stock certificates.

Re:Dot.Com Bubble again (3, Insightful)

grazzy (56382) | more than 9 years ago | (#11728201)

Online advertising with big flash banners leading to a empty webshop - yes

Much has happen since... like, amazon, ebay, paypal. Wanna tell them that "online advertising is flawed"?.

Re:Dot.Com Bubble again (3, Insightful)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 9 years ago | (#11728258)

Much has happen since... like, amazon, ebay, paypal. Wanna tell them that "online advertising is flawed"?.

All those companies have real services and don't just survive off of advertisements. That said, if your blog pages are generating enough hits you can survive on just adds. What do you think keeps Google alive?

Re:Dot.Com Bubble again (1)

ahdeoz (714773) | more than 9 years ago | (#11729182)

Slashdot pays many salaries with just big banner ads.

Re:Dot.Com Bubble again (2, Interesting)

SallyMac (815623) | more than 9 years ago | (#11728348)

I'm not so sure you're dead on with the money part - I know that LiveJournal has a large portion of their accounts (large for me, anyways) that are paying accounts, and with blog platforms like Moveable Type you have to pay to get any of the good features. Perhaps if more companies starte delivering easy to use blogging interfaces for the average user they won't be able to charge, but for now they're making a decent bit of change.

Re:Dot.Com Bubble again (3, Interesting)

Znork (31774) | more than 9 years ago | (#11728705)

If your buisness plan can be implemented by a pimplefaced teenager in his parents basement, you should be prepared for the competition of several hundred thousand pimplefaced teenagers doing just that.

The value in such a simple buisness is just too small to support a public company as anything other than a short-term investor aberration.

Re:Dot.Com Bubble again (1)

shark72 (702619) | more than 9 years ago | (#11729435)

"If your buisness plan can be implemented by a pimplefaced teenager in his parents basement, you should be prepared for the competition of several hundred thousand pimplefaced teenagers doing just that."

Very astute. Being prepared, in this case, is doing a better job than those pimplefaced teenagers.

"The value in such a simple buisness is just too small to support a public company as anything other than a short-term investor aberration."

Not in this case. Those pimplefaced teenagers have been launching their own little blog hosting sites for years now. There's a metric squillion of them. Yet Six Apart (the blogging company mentioned in The Fine Article) has seven million users and growing fast. The pimplefaced teenagers are losing this one.

Re:Dot.Com Bubble again (3, Insightful)

shark72 (702619) | more than 9 years ago | (#11728464)

"People aren't actually very willing to pay for somewhere to write their blog"

That's an extremely general statement; can you clarify? What people? Your friends? You're correct, in the tautalogical sense, that people who don't want to pay don't want to pay, but the important thing is that there are people who do.

The fact that your post was modded "insightful" shows that there are many who agree with you, but this may be similar to the "lots of people pirate music, thus people aren't willing to pay for it, thus the value of music is zero" fallacy. As the volume of piracy grows, so has Apple's business in paid downloads. And despite more and more free blogging services popping up, more people are paying. I'm able to measure this not in the abstract, let's-post-hunches-on-Slashdot sense, but by the amount of money that's put into my bank account each day.

To your credit, the "there's no business in blogging" sentiment is a popular one, but I'm just not seeing the evidence to support that.

Blogging is just hype. (1)

FatSean (18753) | more than 9 years ago | (#11728492)

Geocities Homepage of the new century. At the core, it's a bunch of tools bullshitting. The 'good' blogs have some guy in industry...and you don't think there could be astroturfing?

God people just want to belong to the latest *whatever*.

Re:Dot.Com Bubble again (2, Interesting)

PerlDudeXL (456021) | more than 9 years ago | (#11728522)

companies like Six Apart have an actual product and a weblog platform for people that can't setup their own.

selling the weblog/cms software, sponsored links or banner-advertisements on weblogging platforms seems to be a decent concept. compared to the dot.com bubble with companies without an actual product to sell.

Re:Dot.Com Bubble again (1)

jseraf (809561) | more than 9 years ago | (#11728650)

online advertising is a business model shown to be flawed in the late 90s.. Dude, there's this site called Google (something to do with a really big number). They totally are making money with ads! It's Crazy.

Re:Dot.Com Bubble again (1)

ahdeoz (714773) | more than 9 years ago | (#11729125)

Here's the thing. Someone pays $500 for a "spot ad" (1x2 inch) in your local paper with a half million circulation, but in truth only about 10% of the papers in circulation get an actual reader. Not to mention that's relative to the dozens of 24x24 inch pages. A banner add on a targetted site with the same stats should be worth much much more. But here's the real kicker. A website costs next to nothing to create, and absolutely nothing to publish. It costs millions of dollars a year to run a major paper, and millions of dollars more to print it. A website costs the price of layout tools (nothing, okay, maybe $100,000 for a fancy CMS system.) and about a hundred dollars a year to publish. Oh, and you get links.

Just what I always thought (1, Troll)

Roland Piquepaille (780675) | more than 9 years ago | (#11728120)

We all know blogs can be big money, right? :-)

Re:Just what I always thought (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11728131)

LOL!

Am I the only non-blogger out there (4, Insightful)

mattspammail (828219) | more than 9 years ago | (#11728125)

I never have caught on to the blogging thing. The only times I ever look at a blog is when it's sent to me as a link (usually because a pic of a hot chick accompanies it).

Blogging, IMHO, is overrated.

Re:Am I the only non-blogger out there (1)

ggvaidya (747058) | more than 9 years ago | (#11728135)

Woah! Which blog is that?

I ask strictly because I want to read the content, of course :).

Re:Am I the only non-blogger out there (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11728216)

Blogging, IMHO, is overrated.

Would you not consider slashdot to be a blog? Sure the frontpage is controled by an select few and is considered to be a good source of news for geeks, but let's face it. This is a blog.

Re:Am I the only non-blogger out there (1)

yotto (590067) | more than 9 years ago | (#11728551)

Would you not consider slashdot to be a blog? Sure the frontpage is controled by an select few and is considered to be a good source of news for geeks, but let's face it. This is a blog.

A friend and I had this discussion the last time slashdot posted a "bloggers on the rise" story. In my opinion, while slashdot may fit the technical criteria of a blog, it really isn't a blog when you consider what is really important.

What makes a blog a blog is that there is one central voice, and that central voice is a person who has opinions. Any replies to that person are largely that: Replies to that person.

Slashdot is the exact opposite. The articles and main posts are the spark to generate a much larger discussion. The important part of slashdot isn't the article, but the discussion that ensues from the article. We even make fun of people who read the articles, asking them if they're new here. In that way, slashdot is much more like usenet than it is LiveJournal.

Re:Am I the only non-blogger out there (1)

Leo McGarry (843676) | more than 9 years ago | (#11729009)

What makes a blog a blog is that there is one central voice

A great many blogs have more than one author. So that's not it.

No, if anything separates Slashdot from blogs, it's that blogs usually have original content on them. Slashdot just reprints anything that anybody submits, basically without discrimination.

Of course, that doesn't mean that Slashdot isn't a blog. It just means that, if you judge Slashdot by the standards of blogs, Slashdot is a really bad blog.

Re:Am I the only non-blogger out there (1)

ahdeoz (714773) | more than 9 years ago | (#11729207)

Actually "blogs" just post links to other content. A blog is someone making a "log" of "web" sites they've seen or heard of. An online diary is what you are thinking of.

Re:Am I the only non-blogger out there (1)

Leo McGarry (843676) | more than 9 years ago | (#11729277)

Actually "blogs" just post links to other content.

You don't read many blogs, do you? Blogs haven't been about posting lists of links for a couple of years now. There are still list-of-link sites out there like Fark and MetaFilter and Memepool, but these sites are not blogs. Blogs have evolved.

Re:Am I the only non-blogger out there (1)

BossMC (696762) | more than 9 years ago | (#11728233)

Your post is a little short; I trust you have a longer writeup on a blog somewhere?

Re:Am I the only non-blogger out there (2, Informative)

samael (12612) | more than 9 years ago | (#11728244)

Or, for instance, when you look at Slashdot, which pretty much an archetypal blog:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weblog

Re:Am I the only non-blogger out there (1)

BenjyD (316700) | more than 9 years ago | (#11728247)

It's an interesting phenonmemon, it's just not deserving of "Next Big Thing" status. I know of maybe five blogs where most weeks I will read something interesting I wouldn't have seen otherwise. The majority of them (mine included) are painfully dull.

planet.gnome.org is a good example - kind of a microcosm of the blog sphere. You get people like Miguel and Havoc posting interesting stuff about GTK/GNOME which provides an insight into the dev process you wouldn't get otherwise. You also have people who post "got up. read my email. fed baby" as if anyone cares.

Re:Am I the only non-blogger out there (4, Interesting)

sploo22 (748838) | more than 9 years ago | (#11728274)

...it's just not deserving of "Next Big Thing" status.

I beg to differ. Technorati currently has over 7 million blogs tracked. 3 million of those have popped up just since last October -- that's one every 3 minutes. no matter what the quality is (and I do tend to agree with you there) blogging is big.

I guess the real appeal is that it's finally an "idiot-friendly" way of publishing content. People are starting to get the desire to make the Web a two-way communication system.

Re:Am I the only non-blogger out there (2, Interesting)

BenjyD (316700) | more than 9 years ago | (#11728306)

7 Million! - that's a lot of stories about people's pets. I wonder what fraction are regularly updated and read. In order for there to be two-way communication, someone has to be reading those blogs ;).

Blogging is important, of course - just look at how many Slashdot/OSnews etc. stories link to a blog post these days. But extrapolating from 7 million people moving their journals online to a revolution in journalism is too big a leap for me to believe.

Re:Am I the only non-blogger out there (1)

Leo McGarry (843676) | more than 9 years ago | (#11729026)

I wonder what fraction are regularly updated and read.

All of them. Technorati has a system whereby blogs that aren't updated regularly are dropped from their index. I don't know how regular you have to be to meet the threshold; I think it's something like once a week, or once every four days, or something like that.

Re:Am I the only non-blogger out there (2, Insightful)

Jerf (17166) | more than 9 years ago | (#11729058)

But extrapolating from 7 million people moving their journals online to a revolution in journalism is too big a leap for me to believe.

No-one's asking you to believe that. However, "the blogosphere" becoming the source of an increasing number of stories, increasingly able to set the agenda (to an extent you may not even realize if you're not reading blogs; the evening news has been worthless for a while but for me it's now redundant for a lot of stories), and taking down various importent entities should be enough to believe that the blogosphere is having an impact.

"Revolution" may be a bit strong at the moment, but the evidence that it can get there is pretty strong.

At this point, trying to pretend that the blogosphere is having no impact is just willful ignorance, whether because you're too elitist to believe "the masses" can have anything to say (actually, it's all individuals, you know...) or because you think the word "blog" is stupid or whatever reason you have. It doesn't change what's happening.

Re:Am I the only non-blogger out there (1)

BenjyD (316700) | more than 9 years ago | (#11729259)

The evening (TV) news has been redundant for a long time, anyway. Even the BBC's news is a waste of time these days. Not because of blogs, but because it's been simplified down to one-idea-per-story and news readers shouting at politicians to "answer the question".

I watched News at Ten the other day where a journalist was doing a voiceover saying "As the British military plane touched down...", as a C-5 with a big star and the letters "US" on the side landed. If they're making that kind of mistake, it wouldn't take much skill on the part of the bloggers to make them redundant.

News and current affairs coverage like BBC Radio 4 - "From our own correspondent", "PM", "Today in Parliament" - and Channel 4 - "Unreported World" - are the kind of real coverage that I don't believe blogs come near to.

I can't think of any stories where blogs have been the source, though. I guess Alistair Campbell's four-letter email tirade to the BBC almost counts.

Re:Am I the only non-blogger out there (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11728252)

RE:Blogging, IMHO, is overrated.

i totally agree...

Blog = bullshit log...

Am I the only non-(insert X) out there (1)

ediron2 (246908) | more than 9 years ago | (#11729072)

If you aren't a participant or former participant, the H in IMHO probably should be incremented to I, for Irrelevant:
I never have caught on to the (crafting, hockey, NASCAR, gay, neocons, rap, college, intarweb, wine, art, photography, religion, burning-man, PTA, michael jackson) thing. The only time I ever hear about X is when a friend mentions it, especially when they talk about all the hot chicks there.

X, IMHO, is overrated.

Hoo boy... (5, Insightful)

aendeuryu (844048) | more than 9 years ago | (#11728134)

The article talks about the company starting to 'think big' after being approached by venture capitalists, and has some stats on the blog industry in general.

Pardon the skepticism, but...

You know, it's crazy, but you'd think that after the dot.com bubble burst the venture capitalists would be a little more careful with their money when it came to tech, yet here they are, wanting to get in on an industry where the main product is something that is already available for free. Where will the revenue, and further, the return on the investment, come from? (Firing Berman out of a cannon?) What's worse is that if there's another burst like the last one, investors are going to go back to shying away from small tech companies that actually produce something.

I think this whole thing is a result of all the press that the mainstream media is giving blogs, and the only reason why I think they're getting all that press is because the media LOVES an opportunity to navel gaze.

Don't get me wrong, I think blogging is cool and all, and offers a chance for political/media/other watchdogs out there, and there are some blogs I find entertaining, but really, I can't help but think that all that money is just going to go right down the drain, and the only thing they'll have to show for it is a bunch of webpages of people and their cats.

Re:Hoo boy... (1)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 9 years ago | (#11728142)

Where will the revenue, and further, the return on the investment, come from?

I don't know, let's ask him [primidi.com] . He seems to be doing okay [slashdot.org] ...

Re:Hoo boy... (3, Informative)

ggvaidya (747058) | more than 9 years ago | (#11728150)

the venture capitalists would be a little more careful with their money

Actually, I, Cringely [pbs.org] predicted this a while ago. Apparently, any money the VCs collected in '99-'00 which they haven't invested has to be returned to the investors in five years, along with the VC's management fee. To avoid giving the fee back, the VCs have to invest in something - anything - and soon.

VCs love a bubble ... (2, Insightful)

verus vorago (843807) | more than 9 years ago | (#11728198)

"you'd think that after the dot.com bubble burst the venture capitalists would be a little more careful with their money when it came to tech"

I *strongly* suspect that venture capitalists (and brokers) made a killing during the dot com era regardless of the collapse.

It's the bigger fool idea - each person buys at stupidly inflated prices assuming there is an even bigger fool who will buy after them - but the VCs get in first so there was very often much bigger fools begging to be ripped off.

I seriously doubt that another bubble is going to be seen as anything but an opportunity by VCs.

Re:Hoo boy... (2, Interesting)

trufflemage (860010) | more than 9 years ago | (#11728245)

the main product is something that is already available for free.

This has interesting ramifications. It's free, anyone can do it (and does) and it's spreading. The problem for the reader is sifting the interesting bits out of the sea of inanities. However, a couple of facts prevent this from being too big a problem:
1. what's of interest to me is not necessarily of interest to someone else
2. even after culling the 90%, the remainder is still a huge number. There exist enough relevant, interesting blogs to give me, the reader, choice.
3. "free" is contingent on size. A popular blog consumes bandwidth and at some point that bandwidth must be paid for. I believe that's a built-in check that will promote many small blogs over a few giant blogs. It's naturally resistant to monopolization.

The problem of too much to choose from and low quality is not really a problem but an asset(especially considering Google the Glorious to help me pick my way through): a plethora of choices is a good problem to have.

Re:Hoo boy... (2, Interesting)

disserto (817046) | more than 9 years ago | (#11728378)

Cringley talked about this [pbs.org] last week. The VCs are running out of time to use the money they have, so instead of giving it back (as well as refunding the fees they charged to manage it), they're going to start putting it into everything they can.

This is both good and bad. Obviously, money is going to go into things that aren't really going to go anywhere. Money will also go into things that sorely need it and will produce something good.

The question is whether or not we remember the lessons learned just a short time ago. Will we all follow those investors and jack up the market on pie-in-the-sky dreams of hitting it big the easy way? Or will we hold back, actually research these things, and maybe play it a bit more conservatively?

Judging from the spam I get, I think more people will be into putting their life savings into the hot stocks again. Maybe the rest of us can use that to our advantage.

Re:Hoo boy... (1)

shark72 (702619) | more than 9 years ago | (#11728526)

"You know, it's crazy, but you'd think that after the dot.com bubble burst the venture capitalists would be a little more careful with their money when it came to tech, yet here they are, wanting to get in on an industry where the main product is something that is already available for free."

Yet the paid blogging industry is growing. Perhaps this seems counterintuitive, but it's true. I think many Slashdotters are basing assumptions on the fact of free blogging platforms (MSN Spaces being the latest of which) being readily available. I'm guessing the thought process is that with all the free solutions out there, the paid market can't possibly still be growing. But it is.

It appears that at least in this particular case, the VCs have analyzed the situation better than Slashdotters have.

Re:Hoo boy... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11728985)

What I think many /.ers don't believe, is that this growth is going to be enough to create/sustain "the NextBigThing".

Sure, Six Apart and others will become somewhat bigger, but personally I really can't see them becoming even close to 'huge'.

I think these tools/services will - sooner rather than later - be incorporated into the application fabric of the PC/intarweb. E.g. one or several "1GB free webspace @ webhostX" controlled by a set of free apps/plugins (RSS-feed reader/creator + del.icio.us-style bookmarks + blog editor, etc.).

It's already well under way to become part of the Mozilla Suite (plugins), or maybe your PIM (Chandler, etc.) will do it, or any other framework.

It happened to email, we now have IMAP/POP access and tweak/control the service at the edge - no need for a centralized entity (like a weblogging company).

Re:Hoo boy... (2, Insightful)

ArmchairGenius (859830) | more than 9 years ago | (#11728547)

I think the big difference between this situation and the bubble is that the investors are investing in the software and hosting companies that power blogs (for a fee - revenue stream is good), and not specific blogs (i.e., Bob's blog isn't getting 2 million dollars in investment based on his 10,000 unique hits per day).

I think investing in the moveable type company is a smart investment. You have millions of people willing to pay a monthly fee, and millions more likely to sign up in the coming months. That is a good revenue source.

And you are correct that blogger is free, but that could always change, and blogger has limits. I personally use blogger right now, but I often think of changing to moveable type because it is simply a better product with more features (but I am cheap, so I don't :P)

Moveable type is the best blogging software on the market, and again, it is a big market, so it sounds like a pretty smart investment to me.

And as for the all you will have is blogs about cats, sure there are many blogs that are like that. But there are also that are very professionally run that provide good information. Slashdot is essentially a blog for example. Instapundit, Vodkapundit, and probably a thousand more I don't know about are all run very professionally. I suspect they are both turning a profit.

I would compare blogs to magazines. There are a million crappy or very niche magazines out there. I am sure hundreds of them fail every year, and hundreds more are started every year. But no one thinks all magazines are going to go away anytime soon. If you turn out a quality product that attracts a broad following, be it a magazine, a newspaper, or a blog, you will be successful. If you have a poor quality product about a topic no one cares about, then you won't.

Re:Hoo boy... (1)

Leo McGarry (843676) | more than 9 years ago | (#11729084)

the main product is something that is already available for free.

It's not free. Yes, you can sign up for something like a Blogspot account for free, but your site is going to be hard to use and difficult to customize. The point here isn't that the services are available for free; the point is that they're cheap -- practically anybody can afford $5 a month. And for only a little more than that, you can have your own dedicated server at a data center like Hosting Matters. It's incredibly easy to make $5 a month in ads and tips, and apparently it's even becoming the norm to sell content through a micropayment system.

hmm (1)

improfane (855034) | more than 9 years ago | (#11728139)

SixPart Blog(s) - "You will be a assimilated -- Resistance is futile!"

Reality Check (4, Interesting)

Xpilot (117961) | more than 9 years ago | (#11728148)

The internet is shit [internetisshit.org]

Seriously, why is such a big deal being made of blogging?

Re:Reality Check (1)

nametaken (610866) | more than 9 years ago | (#11728172)

I spent a long time wondering why everyone made a big deal out of it. All I came up with is, for every 4,000,000 blogs published, 1 is made by someone with something important and meaningful to say.

The bar for posting something on the web has been lowered even further than it used to be. Of course this means (now more than ever) any dumbass is putting up crap to see on the internet.

The upside is that a handful of people that have something important to say can do so with ease.

Also, these "blogs" generally have relatively strict templates to keep the material organized in such a way where people can actually read what people post without having to scroll past 8 pages of animated gifs on a geoshitties page.

Re:Reality Check (2, Insightful)

Leo McGarry (843676) | more than 9 years ago | (#11729071)

All I came up with is, for every 4,000,000 blogs published, 1 is made by someone with something important and meaningful to say.

That's not actually how it's turning out, though. See, out of the 7 million blogs out there, there might be only 10 that are even remotely interesting to you. Somebody else has his own 10. And somebody else has his 10. The net result is that every blog has an audience.

Ed Driscoll had an article on Tech Central Station about this a few weeks back. He talked about the fact that the vast majority of blogs operate in a high-trust environment. A blog is read by the author's friends and family, his co-workers, people in his town, people who share his interests. A blogger who's really good will pick up some audience on merit, but generally his audience is gonna be limited to people who know him, either personally or professionally, directly or indirectly. A big blog might only have an audience of a few thousand people a day, but every one of those few thousand people trusts the blog's author.

See, you're thinking of a blog that's only of interest to a few hundred people as a waste of space. That's the wrong way to look at it. Instead, you need to look at it as a six-degrees-of-separation type thing. Consider the Eason Jordan story from last month. I know about that because I read about it on a blog written by a woman I work with; she heard the story from another blogger she collaborates with; she heard it from a Congressman, who was there.

Compare and contrast to the old model of news distribution where a reporter writes a story which may or may not be true, and that story gets distributed by a wire service that you may or may not trust, to end up in a newspaper you may or may not read.

Think about the tsunami videos. Within hours after the Indonesian quake, home videos were available on the Internet, passed from hand to hand from the people who shot them to bloggers who shared them with friends. Within a day, the whole world had seen them. It was a classic "tell two people" expansion.

Blogs with small audiences are not failures. They're part of the web. See?

Re:Reality Check (1)

stil__maar (848945) | more than 9 years ago | (#11728219)

The creator of the website your pointing to there seems to have an incorrect idea of what the internet is.
The internet is way more than websites or usenet postings.

Is it me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11728224)

or does that site read like the ending to Metal Gear Solid 2?

Re:Reality Check (1)

CrackedButter (646746) | more than 9 years ago | (#11728289)


That website is either the best on the net or it is the typical "I'm trying to speak out against the tide in my own ironic sort of way so I can distinguish myself and be noticed."
But it has a point either way.

Re:Reality Check (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11728903)

I'm not sure the internet is shit but websites that serve xhtml as text/html definately are!

Quick someone register theinternetisshitisshit and serve html3.2 as text/plain, just to make that point.

Kiss your karma goodbye! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11728157)

Anyone that posts anything along the lines of:

"What's so big about blogging?"
"I don't get it."
"Blogging is for losers."

Can kiss their karma goodbye. Slashdot is filled to the brim with a vocal contingent of blog- evangelists that through years of posting on Slashdot have a cornucopia of mod points to mod you down with.

Good luck to you!

And now... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11728162)

What rolls down stairs, Alone or in pairs, Rolls over your neighbor's dog? What's great for a snack, And fits on your back, It's Blog..blog..Blog!! ... It's Blo-og, Blo-og It's big, it's heavy it's wood! It's Blog, Blo-og It's better than bad It's good!!! Everyone wants a Blog, come on and read my blog!

By Blamo

BLOGS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11728164)

Oh man, blogs! How about that eh??

let blogs replace mass media (5, Interesting)

trufflemage (860010) | more than 9 years ago | (#11728174)

From the article:

The potential of blogging itself elicits strongly divided opinions.


Denizens of the so-called blogosphere believe the practice is destined to revolutionize the way people distribute and get information, increasingly marginalizing traditional mass media outlets. ...

Critics, though, view all the fuss about blogs as the latest bout of Internet hyperbole, one that will eventually fade away ones readers realize they are rife with inaccuracies and mundane minutiae.

The critics are correct--reading blogs means reading a single writer's private quirks--but that works to the reader's advantage as well as disadvantage. Who wants to get all their information from a single, monopolistic, sensationalistic source? That's how I view the local television news--to be fair, they make an attempt, but to me it's obvious their bottom line is ratings. So today we have an alternative model for the dissemination of information (or rather, many models), and one of the sturdiest is the blog.

I'm reminded of analogies I've heard made between modern AI computing algorithms (ie, neural nets) and the human brain, in which there are so many tiny, self-contained fundamental units (connections, say) that a great many of them can fail without destroying the performance of the whole. Robust & degrades gracefully.

Blogs may forge that sort of network online. No longer will it be easy to mislead the masses, because the masses are not drinking from a single spring. Each person is reading a finite number of blogs and processing and making their own blog. Everyone is (gasp!) thinking for themselves.

I like the direction this is going....

Re:let blogs replace mass media (2, Interesting)

Tethys_was_taken (813654) | more than 9 years ago | (#11728280)

Each person is reading a finite number of blogs and processing and making their own blog. Everyone is (gasp!) thinking for themselves.

Do not think, even for a minute, that this will happen. We (the people) will just find a different way to be sheep. Some blogs will get more attention than most, and everyone will again be thinking the same things, controlled by similar people.

A medium may encourage free-thinking, but people don't seem to like it too much. Most people prefer to be told what to think while going about their lives.

Original Content (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11729066)

#!

Well, blogs CAN have original content [fu3.org] too; don't generalize.. ._

Re:let blogs replace mass media (1)

Leo McGarry (843676) | more than 9 years ago | (#11729163)

You're a fucking elitist asshole, and what's more, you're completely wrong.

Everybody has opinions. Having an opinion is one of the easiest things in the world to do. Go try and find one of these "sheep" you oh-so-smugly talk about. Go try and find somebody without an opinion. You can't. They don't exist. Everybody has opinions.

Are most people motivated enough to go to a lot of trouble to express their opinions? No, they've got better things to do with their time. But that's where outfits like Six Apart come in. By making blogging easy and cheap, they've lowered the activation energy of the reaction. Blogging is no more difficult than sending an e-mail now. (In fact, many blogging services offer an e-mail interface. They call it "moblogging," for "mobile blogging.")

What does this mean? It means we've got a world full of people with opinions. Of those people, some fraction have access to a computer and a few dollars a month to spend. These people are blogging. They're blogging by the millions.

There's a blog, I can't remember the name now, run by a Christian missionary woman in Kiev. She used to write about her missionary work, the friends she was making, what life was like in the Ukraine. It was basically a letter to her friends and family, delivered in blog form.

Then, one day, the people of the Ukraine had an election, and it didn't go well. The people took to the streets, dressed in orange, to demand a fair election. They were lining up and camping out by the thousands ... right outside this missionary's window.

She took some pictures. She talked to some people and wrote down what they said. During a week when the Western press were running hundred-word blurbs about the Ukraine on the back page of the world section, this woman was providing in-depth, on-the-spot coverage of one of the biggest stories of 2004.

Was she one of the "sheep" that you speak of so dismissively? Or was she one of the "free thinkers" you seem to like so much? Neither! She was just a woman with a camera and a desire to tell her friends what was going on in her life. That she happened to be an eye witness to one of the most important events of this young century was just a coincidence.

People like you piss me off, frankly. You're oh-so-smug, oh-so-convinced that only you are enlightened and everybody else is a "sheep." The truth is, you're either completely ignorant of or deliberately choosing to ignore the things that are happened around you that put the lie to your "us and them" dichotomy.

Re:let blogs replace mass media (1)

Tethys_was_taken (813654) | more than 9 years ago | (#11729346)

Do you trolls even bother to read anymore?

Anyway, I have time and patience...
Everybody has opinions. Having an opinion is one of the easiest things in the world to do. Go try and find one of these "sheep" you oh-so-smugly talk about. Go try and find somebody without an opinion. You can't. They don't exist. Everybody has opinions.

Who claimed that we don't have opinions? We (the sheep) do have opinions, which are shaped by the people we pay attention to. That was my original claim. You have not refuted it.

Was she one of the "sheep" that you speak of so dismissively? Or was she one of the "free thinkers" you seem to like so much?

I know nothing of this lady, but she is most definitely a free thinker. She did what very few people around her did.

only you are enlightened and everybody else is a "sheep."

My post said: We (the people) will just find a different way to be sheep

I put myself in the same category knowing fully well that most of my thoughts are influenced by those around me. On most issues, I do not know enough to have an opinion, but if necessary to have one, I will choose that of the people I know. I did not try to introduce a dichotomy, since I knew that I can't. ( Human society doesn't provide fine-grained locking :) )
You're a fucking elitist asshole, and what's more, you're completely wrong.
Statements like this do not add to an argument, or add to the issue at hand. Oh wait, you don't care about that.

Re:let blogs replace mass media (2, Insightful)

LtOcelot (154499) | more than 9 years ago | (#11728346)

Unfortunately, there's a major downside to having a plethora of news outlets: each ends up catering to a narrow target audience, and people tend to gravitate towards those outlets which slant the news in keeping with their own personal biases. Why bother confronting uncomfortable issues when you can switch to a blog that spins them your way or ignores them altogether?

No longer will it be easy to mislead the masses

The greatest fault, dear trufflemage, is not in our stars, but in ourselves....

Re:let blogs replace mass media (1)

MtViewGuy (197597) | more than 9 years ago | (#11728386)

Blogs may forge that sort of network online. No longer will it be easy to mislead the masses, because the masses are not drinking from a single spring. Each person is reading a finite number of blogs and processing and making their own blog. Everyone is (gasp!) thinking for themselves.

Indeed, in the political realm that is already happening, thanks to the fact blogs can outrun the so-called mainstream media when it comes to information dissemination and fact-checking quite easily. It was the blogosphere that pretty much destroyed the reputation of CBS News when a lot of fact-checking from multiple blogs showed that the 60 Minutes II story claiming inconsistencies with President George W. Bush's service with the Texas Air National Guard were based on fraudulent memos.

In short, a well-written blog can act as a means to fact-check all news sources, which means news organizations from now on better be much more careful in disseminating the news, especially if the organization claims to be non-partisan.

Re:let blogs replace mass media (1)

Leo McGarry (843676) | more than 9 years ago | (#11729148)

Everything you said here is true, but it's wrong to think of blogs as replacing mass media. There's still a big place for mass media. Blogs provide an adjunct, picking up and disseminating stories that otherwise don't get covered, picking apart unfair coverage of stories (or utterly made up stories), and providing a network by which ordinary Joes can share their opinions about stuff. But the mass media isn't going to go away because of blogs. It's going to have to change its model a bit, become more accountable and responsive, but it's not going to go away.

Blog entrepreneurs (2, Interesting)

mparaz (31980) | more than 9 years ago | (#11728179)

More people are looking through cashing in on their blogs, like through Adsense [problogger.net] , and other schemes like BlogKits BlogMatch [blogkits.com] which show that AdSense doesn't work for blogs. Then we have the commercially sponsored blogs from companies like Gawker Media - such as Lifehacker for Sony.

Here's some analysis [paraz.com] on commercial blogging. (Yes, it's from a blog!)

businessweek is a day late (3, Informative)

rifftide (679288) | more than 9 years ago | (#11728180)

FORTUNE ran a cover story on the impact of blogging on business [fortune.com] last month, featuring Six Apart among others.

Not long after, Bill Gates did an interview with Gizmodo. Coincidence? (Gizmodo was not featured in the FORTUNE article - Engadget and Microsoft's own Bob Scoble were).

bleh (1)

operato (782224) | more than 9 years ago | (#11728189)

tbh they mustn't have done too bad if people are actually walking up to them to back them instead of the blog sites going to investors.

I got £45bn to advertise IBM on my blog (5, Funny)

Realistic_Dragon (655151) | more than 9 years ago | (#11728194)

20/2/2005

Woke up. couldn't find any clean underpants because the lighbulb is broken. Maybe the underpants gnomes stole the lightbulb to cover up the missing pants until they made their getaway.

19/2/2005

Posted in my blog today.

18/2/2005

Man I shouldn't have eaten those beans. I had to destroy all my underpants.

gmail invites (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11728205)

This is nothing new. The rebulican party has been paying bloggers big bucks for some time now. "Grassroots" propaganda. Dig deep into the "Jeff Gannon" story for more details.

On another note, I have gmail invites for the first 50 who ask at safety.account@gmail.com

Re:gmail invites (3, Interesting)

strelitsa (724743) | more than 9 years ago | (#11728331)

A poster at conservative website FreeRepublic.com [freerepublic.com] is credited as first discovering evidence of CBS News' and Dan Rather's clumsy attempt to rig a US Presidential election by exposing the incredibly bad Bush Killian memoranda forgeries that CBS had "authenticated". Here is the historic "Post 47" that exposed Rather's perfidy:

Post # 47 To: Howlin

Howlin, every single one of these memos to file is in a proportionally spaced font, probably Palatino or Times New Roman.

In 1972 people used typewriters for this sort of thing, and typewriters used monospaced fonts.

The use of proportionally spaced fonts did not come into common use for office memos until the introduction of laser printers, word processing software, and personal computers. They were not widespread until the mid to late 90's. Before then, you needed typesetting equipment, and that wasn't used for personal memos to file. Even the Wang systems that were dominant in the mid 80's used monospaced fonts.

I am saying these documents are forgeries, run through a copier for 15 generations to make them look old.

This should be pursued aggressively.

47 posted on 09/08/2004 8:59:43 PM PDT by Buckhead

CBS executives Betsy West, Josh Howard and Howard's deputy Mary Murphy as well as producer Mary Mapes acted as human shields for Rather with their jobs. Memogate was only the most recent attempt by supposedly unbiased "journalists" at CBS to subvert the will of the American voter. And bloggers were the first ones on the scene to expose CBS' treachery.

Of course, Dan Rather has a documented history of bias against Republicans. Rather's refusal to cover Juanita Broderick's rape charges against former President Bill Clinton during Penisgate was another black eye for CBS and its bell cow. Rather's incredible claim that the story was "an intrusion into Clinton's private sex life" was both disgusting and horrific. Rape is a crime even when committed by a sitting President, not a political football. Further, Rather's Jan. 25, 1988 interrogation of then-candidate George Bush trying to link him to Iran-Contra was a harangue so vitriolic that even Mike Wallace said his co-worker had gone too far, and CBS affiliates called the Bush campaign to apologize for Rather.

Along with Michael Moore's nazi-esque propaganda film Fahrenheit 9/11 and the stunning testimony of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth documenting John Kerry's cowardice and misdeeds during the Vietnam War, Dan Rather and Mary Mapes' evil machinations will be remembered by history as one of the primary reasons that George W. Bush won the 2004 election. The American people can smell a skunk in the woodpile, and Rather's shameful curtain call in March when he retires as anchor and managing editor of the CBS Evening News means that they finally, thankfully, have started to pay attention to the rampant liberal bias that infests the American "old media" television networks.

Re:gmail invites (1)

JeffTL (667728) | more than 9 years ago | (#11728730)

Them and the Democrats both. The Dean presidential campaign was bribing bloggers with kickbacks -- commentators and amateur journalists are especially susceptible to this sort of stuff (back to the red side of things, Armstrong Williams makes a good example). The reason the politicians are so big on blogs is that they provide an outlet for manipulable amateur journalists. Bribing the paper for an endorsement is the oldest political dirty trick in the book, and now it's a lot easier to do it, particularly if you can get a well-read blogger to start cooperating. (p.s. I supported Kerry, and I haven't heard anything yet about his campaign bribing journos, though I wouldn't be extremely surprised)

Re:gmail invites (1)

klang (27062) | more than 9 years ago | (#11728810)

-1 off topic

I think everybody has 50 invites .. I've been trying to use mine, but they keep refilling .. Furthermore I've been invited by the Gmail Team .. the result of signing up for further information 8 months ago ..

even this initiative [isnoop.net] has 291,820 invites available to share. ...

Anybody who doesn't have a gmail account by now, hasn't figured out how to write gmail account invite [google.dk] in google ..

Re:gmail invites (1)

Leo McGarry (843676) | more than 9 years ago | (#11729250)

The rebulican party has been paying bloggers big bucks for some time now. "Grassroots" propaganda. Dig deep into the "Jeff Gannon" story for more details.

Yes, please. Dig deep into the Gannon story. Because when you do, you'll find that it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the Republican party, or with bloggers, or with anybody paying anybody for anything.

I wouldn't have bothered to reply but for the fact that some Slashdot moderator with more points than sense felt the need to call this completely false post "interesting." Is "interesting" a code word for "big fucking lie" these days?

Oh. My. God. (5, Insightful)

samael (12612) | more than 9 years ago | (#11728248)

The whole fuss over people on both sides of the debate "Blogging will change the universe!" and "Blogging is just pointless!" misses the point.

Blogging is _exactly_ what happened at the start of the internet craze - it's _home pages_. Blogs are just home pages that are easier to update than they used to be back in the olden days, so people don't have to worry about HTML in order to create them.

Blogs: Just easy-to-use web pages, nothing more, nothing less.

Re:Oh. My. God. (1)

trufflemage (860010) | more than 9 years ago | (#11728354)

Technically you're correct, but I believe there's a significant difference in user attitudes. A home page has the flavor of the-face-I-show-the-world, almost an online resume, and all the extra care that goes along with that: are my photos flattering? Do I highlight my strengths? It's self-advertizing.

Blogs seem somehow more candid. Maybe there's an appeal to exhibitionism, or maybe few users understand exactly what's happening, but for some reason it is very easy to rattle out the most personal thoughts on the keyboard. On a few notable recent occasions users who did not trouble to guard their anonymity have paid RL consequences for blogging a little too candidly (ie, at Google [com.com] ).

I think blogging as a cultural phenomon is well worth some scrutiny.

Re:Oh. My. God. - citizen journalism is here. (1)

davids-world.com (551216) | more than 9 years ago | (#11728407)

You're looking at the blogging craze from a purely technical viewpoint. But the real news is not the technology (homepage plus CMS). The news lies in the fact that citizen journalism, sometimes paired with a bit of personal exhibitionism, has suddenly become reality. The blogosphere has good potential to change the way society deals with information exchange, reducing the power of media monopolies. It gives back control over information management to the readers, but leads to more scattered, biased and often error-prone reporting. The movement is very promising, yet poses a lot of problem that we all have to deal with, on a technical, sociological and economic level.

Mod parent DOWN (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11728527)

Navel Gazing, Mac using bitch. Oho and I wouldn't leave him alone with the kiddies either ;)

On an unrelated note, can anyone tell me what the fuck a cameltoe is?

Blogs: Just easy-to-use web pages, nothing more, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11728515)

Yes yes yes yes yes: http://www.blog-n-play.com/ [blog-n-play.com]

Just easy-to-use web pages, nothing more. But nothing less either. And they can be free, as here. Very cool. Anyone here tried creatng one yet?

Re:Blogs: Just easy-to-use web pages, nothing more (1)

jg21 (677801) | more than 9 years ago | (#11728583)

Seems like a very easy to use interface. I love the idea of having these illustrious blog domains [htp] for free - what's the twist? Is there one?

[link fixed]Blogs: Just easy-to-use web pages, (1)

jg21 (677801) | more than 9 years ago | (#11728593)

Seems like a very easy to use interface. I love the idea of having these illustrious blog domains [blog-n-play.com] for free - what's the twist? Is there one?

Re:Oh. My. God. (1)

jomagam (512625) | more than 9 years ago | (#11728580)

Mod parent up. He understands what is the kind of blogging that really makes sense from a business perspective: everyday people uploading pictures of their trips, writing reviews of restaurants they discovered or discussing last week's Apprentice. Multiply [multiply.com] is one company that's kinda like it where blogging is married with social networking. Just look at my homepage [multiply.com] . If you're not registered, you only see stuff I posted for the whole world. People in my network see more; then there are photos that only my friends can see but not my family... You get the idea. This kind of approach makes business sense because it reaches so many people. You're a potential user as long as you have friends or family you care about.

Re:Oh. My. God. (1)

pez (54) | more than 9 years ago | (#11728699)

Most blogging sites are exactly that samael, and you've hit the nail on the head.

Multiply.com is a bit different though; they've integrated blogging with social networking and basic communication (like e-mail), so the people in your life who might actually care to read your blog, get automatically notified. Between that and it's support for Photo Albums, it might have a leg up on basic blogging sites like blogger and LJ.

Check out my Multiply site [multiply.com] or start your own [multiply.com] .

Disclaimer: I work for Multiply.

Re:Oh. My. God. (1)

samael (12612) | more than 9 years ago | (#11728817)

Cheers for that. I'd be very tempted, but I already use Livejournal, which also have email notification, photo albums, security settings, etc. Your site looks pretty cool too though. Good luck with it.

Re:Oh. My. God. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11729418)

So does that mean in five years blog sites will be stuffed to the gills with pages that haven't been updated since two presidential elections ago?

Blogs (2, Interesting)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 9 years ago | (#11728271)

I have to say that blogs are a good way to generate traffic. I read about 4 blogs a day, most just from friends. However, most of my friends, like myself, have their own domain name, and pay some kind of hosting service. Geocities was one of the first free web page services. But nobody knew HTML and everybody's page looked really bad. It also took a lot of work to get what you wanted to say onto the web in a nice organized fashion. But still, Geocities was immensely popular, and is still around, although bought out by Yahoo. People want to express themselves on the web. And even if each blog only generates 5 hits a day, if you can get 5% of web users to have a blog, you're still going to generate a lot of hits, while only paying for bandwidth and servers.

Blog poem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11728299)

Read my post please sign my guestbook
I've got cheeto crumbs in every nook
I've added you to my friends list
Real desparate for attention, get my drift?
CowboyNeal's life in the blogosphere
Day after day, wonder if you're queer

History repeats (3, Insightful)

HMarieY (316249) | more than 9 years ago | (#11728309)

First, in reference to those who don't get blogging: It is finally a way for all of us would-be writers and journalists to express our humble opinions in a place where they might actually be read. It is a diverse community without the usualy limits and editing done when something is written within major media.

Historically speaking this has happened numerous times. Each time a new media appears it changes the way all previous media performs, killing that which is no longer viable, gradually reshaping "old media" and creating a new means of information. Think about how the printing press, television, and computers have all changed the way major media reacts with the masses. As the price of producing in that media lowers more people will begin to produce in that media, creating a more diverse body of knowledge than "popular opinion" that big media tends to stick with. For instance as the prices of printing came down during the industrial revolution many would-be activists printed pamphlets of their beliefs. I actually own a pamphlet printed from that time insisting that we should move to a 12 digit numeric system, not exactly something that would be put forth by main stream media at the time, especially with the push for metric. And so it is to be expected that blogging will recreate media, providing a check and balance system for main stream media, just as has happened in the past.

That said, part of the point is that the price must be low in order to be used. Bloggers that are read daily by large masses: Instapundit and Lileks for example can easily manage to pay for their bandwith costs and to use purchased blogger software, but the average blogger doesn't have a ton of readers and unless he gets discovered, more than likely eats hiis bandwith costs each month and will prefer the free model for blogging apps. So, as far as investments go, I am not sure that that particular model will prove productive.

And some businesses are attacking... (3, Informative)

night_flyer (453866) | more than 9 years ago | (#11728399)

I submitted this a couple of days ago, but it seems it wasn't important enough for its own story.

A local news paper, The Tulsa World [tulsaworld.com] , sent out a cease and desist letter saying to stop quoting their opinions/articles (in whole or in part) and to stop deep linking to their unprotected .pdfs to these websites:
Batesline.com [batesline.com] , Chris Medlock's blog [blogspot.com] (a city councilor who is the subject of a recall), and TulsaNow.org [tulsanow.org] because some messages in the forum include links to articles.

The Tulsa World's webmaster apparently didn't know how to stop unauthorized linking until just recently. Wednesday he said it couldn't be done, today it is fixed. [tulsaworld.com]

Two other websites are involved in this story of so called copyright infringement, freedom of speech and deep linking. Tulsans for election integrity [tulsansfor...egrity.com] also received the letter, they are against the recall. The coalition for responsible government [coalitionf...rnment.org] are for the recall and has directly copied, in their entirety, articles from the Tulsa World and have received no such letter (the we know of) the Tulsa World has been informed, so either the coalition for responsible government is ignoring the demand or the Tulsa World has given them blanket permission to do such a thing.

This story has been covered locally [ktul.com] and nationally [cnn.com]

I hate the word "Blogging" (1)

DebianDog (472284) | more than 9 years ago | (#11728430)

I would first off like to say that I hate the word "blogging". The first time I saw it I thought it was something "new and exciting". Just shook my head in disgust when I found out it was "glorified HTML".

I avoided the weblog thing not really seeing the value. One day I realized I have a bunch of information I would like to post but it really did not "deserve" a full webpage dedicated to it... Duh!

Hell it may not deserve a "blog" but here is The iMovie FAQ News [danslagle.com] If nothing else it looks "clean and neat".

Re:I hate the word "Blogging" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11728581)

it's == it is
its == possessive
its' == syntax error in line 3 of grammar.rb

Also, all those quote-marks are not necessary if you're quoting yourself.

Re:I hate the word "Blogging" (1)

DebianDog (472284) | more than 9 years ago | (#11728618)

Damn "Web Gammer Nazi's"!

Re:I hate the word "Blogging" (1)

DebianDog (472284) | more than 9 years ago | (#11728637)

I know... spealling tooo

OMG LOL! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11728477)

I'm posting this story to my blog right away!!

Not a good thing (1)

Turn-X Alphonse (789240) | more than 9 years ago | (#11728642)

Blogs are fine and dandy for private use, or for little people to have a voice, but yesterday evening (about 3amish) I was watching BBC world news (in the UK). So I'm watching this ABC broadcast I believe it was and they had some story about an Iraqi girl some army unit saving a little girl.. and the source quoted was "A blog". Now this is where I get problems, as soon as blogs become "well known media" we start to see them corrupting.

No long is it "An opinion and no media bullshit" it's just "media bullshit based on an opinion of some no one can prove is even real". All I can say is thank god the BBC arn't doing this... yet

Re:Not a good thing (2, Insightful)

Jerf (17166) | more than 9 years ago | (#11729112)

So I'm watching this ABC broadcast I believe it was and they had some story about an Iraqi girl some army unit saving a little girl.. and the source quoted was "A blog". Now this is where I get problems, as soon as blogs become "well known media" we start to see them corrupting.

I don't see blog corruption in your example, I see a Major News Organization who either didn't research the story enough to verify it, or convey the fact that they did that research well enough to convince you.

All stories start out as uncorraborated rumors, unless the media has people and cameras directly on the site of the story. But ultimately, whether or not a story starts out as video footage or something I mumbled in my sleep last night is utterly irrelevant... the question is, is it true?

By the way, if you honestly think you've been getting "no media bullshit", you're nuts, absolutely nuts, and grossly misinformed. I had no idea that there were still so many people who still thought the media was some sort of mystically holy and unbiased source of news until I read the comments for this article. I mean, isn't the history of the term "yellow journalism" part of the standard history course in school still? An entire war largely manufactured by journalists? This isn't news, people...

Revenue (1)

Luthair (847766) | more than 9 years ago | (#11728787)

I can't see much revenue for the blogging hosts, they still only really have banners/popups.

Heavily viewed blogs could be used to promote products, ie give the blogger a free product in exchange for a favourable mention.

Re:Revenue (1)

shark72 (702619) | more than 9 years ago | (#11729399)

"I can't see much revenue for the blogging hosts, they still only really have banners/popups."

That's an interesting observation. I just bought a Lotus Elise with blog host revenue. TFA points out that Six Apart has seven million users -- larger than Slashdot's userbase by an order of magnitude. If their take rate to paid accounts is like mine, they're grossing about $1.5 million a month, and their company has fewer than five employees.

Reading the comments to this article shows that many other Slashdotters similarly don't see the revenue potential for blog hosting. You're not alone, but nonetheless, a little research will probably open your eyes.

blog? oh you mean online diary. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11729034)

gay gay gay stupid gay stupid stupid.. dotcom bubble all over again. nobody gives a shit about whats on your mind you self pretentious smug piece of shit.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...