Why the Web Mustn't Become the New TV 240
An anonymous reader writes "This article argues that Rupert Murdoch's bid to own complete control of BSkyB is only part of an ongoing process to make the internet a totally 'linear' experience. The increase in the use of paginated content and the proliferation of video over transcribed interviews are, the author argues, part of a tidal shift from a browsable internet experience to a linear one that will move the user's experience of media from genuine choice to a series of locked-down 'information rides,' in order to re-secure advertising exposure. The author also writes, 'Current worries among publishing houses that magazines and newspapers will succumb to the digital written word on the internet are perhaps analogous to Victorian fears about mechanical horses taking over from real horses in the drawing of carriages. The point is being missed, the wrong fear being indulged.'"
Good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Rupert Murdoch is 79. He can't live forever.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I think there's a lot of money to be made here.
Re:Good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
There's already an Internet that has a liberal bias. It's called "The Internet".
Conservatism has been often described as a political philosophy that denies or tries to prevent change. Remember Buckley's famous line about conservatism standing at the portal of history, yelling "Stop!".
Well, that pretty much means that the Internet, by definition, is a liberal institution. A politically liberal institution, just by its very existence. Sure, there's lots of conservative stuff on the Internet, but the medium itself is liberal. Ever notice that whenever you see a political website change it's always from conservative to liberal and never the other way around (Little Green Footballs comes to mind)? And if you find a political blog that does not allow comments (moderated or not) it's always a conservative site? It's because the Internet by itself, just by its egalitarian nature, tugs to the Left. Yet television, by its nature, tugs to the Right. Ted Turner gave an interview not long ago where he talks about a lot of discussion went on at CNN at the end of his tenure to make it more Right-Wing. And in fact, in the past year it has indeed moved to the Right. If you look at the Sunday morning network news shows over the past 30 years, the guests have trended conservative by a 5-3 ratio. Because that's the nature of a one-way medium.
This is why some of the biggest corporations are working so hard to transform the Internet into a "linear" experience, where information is helpfully provided through the corporate filter and non-complying voices are marginalized or negated.
The clock is ticking, too. Without Net Neutrality laws very soon, the Internet is going to become a dystopic mutation of what we thought it might become a decade or two ago. It will become the Bizarro-world, opposite of an open forum where anyone can reach a wide audience without having to pass through the gates of money and power. It will do for the free exchange of ideas and information what Fox News has done for news.
In other words, it will become television, except you'll have to pay for it and watch commercials.
Today, I read about how the networks are trying to force the manufacturers of DVRs to disable the fast forward button during commercials (again). Think about this approach applied to your Internet.
In ten years, there's a good chance that when two or more of us meet, the main topic of conversation will be how great the Internet used to be. When it comes, the change will have happened so fast we will barely believe it. And remember, the Internet as we know it today was the happy accident of a technology becoming available before the richest and most powerful could "prepare it" for our consumption. Once it's gone, it will be gone forever.
"Free" markets, my ass.
Re:Good thing (Score:5, Interesting)
>>>Conservatism has been often described as a political philosophy that denies or tries to prevent change.
Which is why I've never liked the word "conservative". I'm registered Republican and yet want to repeal the Patriot Act, shrink government to the enumerated powers in the Constitution, and legalize marijuana, cocaine, et cetera. I can hardly be called conservative, despite people's attempts to attach it to me
Meanwhile the so-called "liberals" seem intent to roll us back to Serfdom. It's as if they want to restore a 1500s-style political system in modern society, where the common man is treated like wards of the government. Rolling our individual liberty back 400 years, like serfs, is true conservativism.
.
>>>Yet television, by its nature, tugs to the Right.
Maybe in the UK but not in the US. The networks of ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and MSNBC all lean left and it's been that way since the 1950s. The only right-leaning channel is FOX News and that's a recent development (it didn't pass 50% coverage until 2002).
.
>>>Without Net Neutrality laws very soon.....
Or we could just break-up the Cable monopolies. If I were free to choose Comcast or Cox or Time or Cablevision or GoogleTV or Verizon or ATTT or..... it wouldn't matter if they chose to block websites. I could just change companies the same way I change grocery stores. Companies would quickly realize that censoring the net is a sure way to lose customers, and stop doing it.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Which is why I've never liked the word "conservative". I'm registered Republican and yet want to repeal the Patriot Act, shrink government to the enumerated powers in the Constitution, and legalize marijuana, cocaine, et cetera. I can hardly be called conservative, despite people's attempts to attach it to me
TBH these qualities you list sound more Libertarian than Republican or conservative. Are you sure the Republican Party is best representing your interests? It's hard to find authoritative definitions on this subject, but my reading is that the American Republican Party is a Conservative party who's goals are to retard cultural and scientific progress, make war and consolidate power amongst large business and the church.
I mean, I know that sounds harsh and all, but I honestly can't determine what other goals
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Thus people end up joining a party they do not agree with, simply because they agree with the other one even less.
I guess that strategy makes sense if you actually vote. Do people still do that? Who are these people, and why would you want to associate with them if they put Bush in power twice in a row?
Put simply, no matter who you vote for you're voting for wealth and incumbent power. Only they can afford to purchase the mind share required to woo millions of JoeThePlumbers at a time. I view this as a flaw in the purely democratic (and democratic republic) system: requiring too much specialized education from the laym
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
TV in the UK pulls left, just like in the US, and probably even more so. Consider the BBC. The other channels are quite similar, editorially.
The UK does have some Fox-like media, some of it even owned by Murdoch, but like Fox it has basically zero political influence. It is merely another way for the establishment to keep the serfs in line by pretending that someone is speaking for them.
PopeRatzo recognises that the establishment does this, but he still believes that better democracy is the answer (ha), tha
Re: (Score:2)
"TV in the UK pulls left, just like in the US..."
Exactly what definition of "left" are you using? If by more liberal than Fox news, sure. If you mean left of political center, you are incorrect. As a reference point, Obama is best described as moderate conservative.
"The UK does have some Fox-like media, some of it even owned by Murdoch, but like Fox it has basically zero political influence."
Which explains a great deal. Fox is not a news organization. It is a political organization that pretends to be
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
...
Meanwhile the so-called "liberals" seem intent to roll us back to Serfdom. It's as if they want to restore a 1500s-style political system in modern society, where the common man is treated like wards of the government. ...
Clearly you have no idea what governments and social conditions were like in the 1500s. "Wards of the government"?! Perhaps you have your education from Glenn Beck University?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or, perhaps, it was moderated like that because it contains nothing substantive. A generic, "you Glenn Beck lover" jab should be considered insightful? He starts off asking a question, a good start, but doesn't back it up with examples or something to further discussion. That comment is no more useful than "You are poo."
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
I count myself as a liberal, of late, but I'm probably more conservative on drugs than you are. I support full legalisation of marijuana, but for now at least, I wouldn't go past decriminalizing simple possession of the harder drugs and would keep dealing illegal until we see more about what the pot law changes actually do. It bothers me that there are currently 17 federal agencies where some agents have full automatic weapons carry powers (outside of the Military itself). I don't just want to repeal t
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
>>>Yet television, by its nature, tugs to the Right.
Maybe in the UK but not in the US. The networks of ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and MSNBC all lean left and it's been that way since the 1950s. The only right-leaning channel is FOX News and that's a recent development (it didn't pass 50% coverage until 2002). .
All these stations (and most opinion) are center to right wing from the point of view in my country, people from the US hardly know what is left wing due to the dominant right wing bias prevailing for centuries. Though even in my country the majority of people are shifting to the right.
Problem is that people have a choice to either dictatorial left wing or indifference right wing, both are extremely corrosive last 30 years, and since people mostly want to be left alone they choose for indifference.
Anyway, t
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I was a Libertarian for many, many years until I realized that no matter what you do, Libertarianism could never address the 'tragedy of the commons'. This is at the heart of ecology, global warming, clean water, public education, and too many other things to name.
By my reckon, the United States is the first modern 'first world' country to actually try Libertarianism, with the orgy of deregulation, privatization, and 'free market' gospel.
It's destroying us - our economy is crumbling along with our infrastru
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good thing (Score:4, Interesting)
It's actually pretty easy (philosophically, not necessarily practically) for libertarianism to handle the tragedy of the commons. Libertarianism is not the same thing as anarchism. Libertarianism's claim is that the only proper internal role of government is to arbitrate where there is a conflict of rights. "Your right to swing your arm stops at the end of my nose" and all that. The tragedy of the commons exists because there is a conflict among people's right to use a common resource. Not everyone can use it all up. Therefore, libertarianism would claim that it is the government's job to arbitrate among everyone who wants to use a common resource, and thereby prevent the tragedy of the commons. Rule of law (often strongly associated with libertarianism) would further claim that the government should so arbitrate not by having a bureaucracy of officials who, on their own judgement, say "yea" or "nay", but by having a written, almost algorithmic, process for arbitrating, to remove graft, favoritism, and other bad things.
Now, of course, how you go about writing the laws to accomplish this is a very very difficult question, and the answer might well lead you to something that doesn't look much like what we think of as libertarianism. I don't know. But libertarianism, considered properly, at least desires to address the tragedy of the commons.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a Republican, and I feel much the same way. I'm not a Libertarian because they go much too far for my beliefs, and they seem to be more wacko than even the hard-left Democrats I know.
For now, Republican is my best shot. But they are just as corporatist as Dems, and I may have to jump ship. I've already voted for a primary candidate not of the party's choice this year, and I may have to vote for a Democrat or two to be able to sleep at night this November...
Re: (Score:2)
The clock is ticking, too. Without Net Neutrality laws very soon, the Internet is going to become a dystopic mutation of what we thought it might become a decade or two ago. It will become the Bizarro-world, opposite of an open forum where anyone can reach a wide audience without having to pass through the gates of money and power. It will do for the free exchange of ideas and information what Fox News has done for news.
I like being an optimist about this one. Everyone who makes internet work is completely hooked on it, especially on the freedom of expression bit. It looks like most people who actually develop and maintain internet are some of our biggest allies. Anyway, it's too late. Majority of people here in the US already know what wealth of information and interaction they can buy from a good ISP, and they know how much it costs. The consumer base is moving on, and there is absolutely nothing TV can do to reverse thi
Muroch's Expansion Plans (Score:2)
After the BSkyB purchase, Murdoch plans to go on an acquisitions binge buying up The New York Times, Barrons, Comcast, Cox Communications, MSNBC, CBS, and ABC. After that he plans to focus on controlling at least 85% of internet bandwidth in all US markets, at which point he plans to push for 2 tiered service, a slow internet and a fast internet that will be reserved strictly for paying customers with $350/month minimums, with extra fees to be added for each mouse click. Republicans are already falling a
Re: (Score:2)
Rupert Murdoch is 79. He can't live forever.
The New York Daily News [1919] didn't die with the death of Joseph Medill Patterson. The Daily Mail [1896] wasn't buried with Alfred Harmsworth, Viscount Northcliffe, in 1922.
It would appear that "The Great Man" theory of history is revived whenever it is convenient.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The New York Daily News [1919] didn't die with the death of Joseph Medill Patterson. The Daily Mail [1896] wasn't buried with Alfred Harmsworth, Viscount Northcliffe, in 1922.
It would appear that "The Great Man" theory of history is revived whenever it is convenient.
I have never heard of any of them...
Re: (Score:2)
...and like Harper, his ideological attacks won't either.
If he's sold his immortal soul for physical immortality, you might be wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
What if they scan his brain and 70 years from now this data will be uploaded into an artificial brain. And at that point Murdoch II will uncover an old hidden will that will transfer the corporation back to him, and then he will resume normal operations for the rest of human existence.
F__k Ruppert Murdoch (Score:2)
He F__ks everyone else.
There is a new book coming out (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Rupert Murdoch is 79. He can't live forever.
Maybe not, but I suspect he'll be around for a while yet. His mother [wikipedia.org] is still going strong, although she's a much more pleasant character than her son.
It's a pity more of that character didn't rub off on her son.
Re:Good thing (Score:4, Interesting)
And nearly everyone stopped visiting his (London) Times Newspaper website after he started charging for it. Readership down from 10,000,000 to 10,000.
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming for simplicity that those 10,000 are all web-only readers (though print subscribers also have free online access), that's 10,000 x £2/week = £20,000, or just over £1 million a year.
Even if only half of those are web-only readers, half a million pounds/year is probably more than they were making on web ads when it was free.
They also have less load on their servers and less bandwidth costs by serving 1000x fewer viewers.
The upside is that there's fewer people reading Murdoch-sponsor
Re:Good thing (Score:4, Insightful)
I think that it is a great loss for Murdoch, like Berlusconi he is more interested in using his opinion channels to influence every day live and politics than making a direct buck from it.
10.000 people reading his bias is generating way less influence than 10.000.000 people doing that, personally this makes me happy not sad.
Re: (Score:2)
With 10 million readers he would only need ad revenues of £2 per thousand readers to make the same revenues. If each reader views a few pages, it would take very low ad CPM rates.
That is keeping your assumption that all current readers are paying the full rate: that ignores both print subscribers and people on the £1 for the first month trial rate.
Japan's Golfcart & Exotic philosophy != car ch (Score:2)
You would be right, except for the fact that it's not self-correcting or a market. There's more choice for news than there is for car designs(thanks to the bland "global platform" cars). I can get CNN, MSNBC, and flip to Murdoch's "news" channel on occasion; then I can go read/view/create actual news elsewhere.
Detroit's Big Three do make fine large cars, available to all people. They don't make it a point to hand you a blinged-out golfcart with a turbo for anything under $20k.
When the rest of the world c
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you would have read the entire comment, I clearly stated "a few decades ago". As in the 1970s. Back when Detroit had a strong majority market share in the USA. And thanks to their arrogance then, they lost that lead to Japanese makers who have continued to carve up their once mighty empire. I wasn't talking about what YOU like, I was talking about the majority of people, which is obvious if you look at actual sales numbers. And by the way, most of the popular Toyota models sold in the US are actual
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They're light - most of them are under 1600kg, MANY of them are under 1300kg.
They have independant rear suspension since the late 70s - GM was still putting leaf springs on Corvettes up until the second most recent model.
Many have front double wishbone suspension - the Toyota Supras have double wishbone suspension front and rear.
Their motors are
Nothing but a Murdoch hit piece. (Score:4, Insightful)
Move along, nothing to see. Seriously, don't like what Murdoch is doing? Click elsewhere. This isn't rocket science.
Hell you can even make a competitor to BSkyB if you like. The rampant Murdoch hatred is just so irrational. No one is forcing you to watch/read. Get the fuck over it.
Re:Nothing but a Murdoch hit piece. (Score:4, Insightful)
That would work if this was just being done by some out-in-the-sticks local newspaper.
Murdoch is rich and has influence. He has the political power to set a precedent for how to do things. Simply ignoring him is not going to change that one bit.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, because his attempts to use his wealth, influence and political power to get everyone else in the News business to erect a pay wall in front of their websites is working out really well. So well, in fact, that he's even stopped going on about it himself lately after his own trial ended in a dramatic fall in readership.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm wondering how long it will take them to realize that only a dozen or so people visit their website every day now. It's not a large paper, and the bulk of their readership are 50+. If they're going to paywall, they might as well just get off the internet. I highly doubt it's worth keeping an internet presence for the money generated
Re: (Score:2)
>>>Murdoch is rich and has influence. He has the political power to set a precedent for how to do things
If I accept your viewpoint, then I fear Bill Gates and Steve Jobs and Steve Burke (NBC-comcast's new CEO) more than murdoch.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>>>Bill Gates and Steve Jobs have no inherent interest in shaping the internet into a pure 'consume, consume, consume' form.
(gives poster odd look)
What???
>>>Not familiar with Steve Burke so not going to comment on him.
Me neither but I know Comcast (or more properly: Comsucks). I can see the previous acts he did as COO, and now he'll be CEO of the new maerged company.
Re: (Score:2)
The major difference between Murdoch and Gates, Jobs et al is the use of influence. If Gates or Jobs don't like a government you'll probably never hear about it, but when Murdoch doesn't like a government you will not see a single positive story about them from any of his news outlets.
Re: (Score:2)
Like most rich people, he inherited his father's newspaper business. He really began to make his money when he realized he could extort money from politicians. Ever notice how nice republicans are to him and how he has democrats quaking in the shoes? The former, he owns like pets, the later are too afraid to say anything.
What's wrong is the consequences (Score:2)
He's trying to shape the net to his advantage and doesn't care if it breaks in the process. He's called the lot of us pirates and thieves just for reading things on
Re:Nothing but a Murdoch hit piece. (Score:5, Insightful)
Until he streams lobbyists into Congress and starts burning cash on attack ads. Remember, in America men like Murdoch have more rights and influence with the government than you do. The Supreme Court said so.
Murdoch and the rest of the Media industry don't like the two-way, interactive nature of the web. They hate it, in fact, because it lets people ignore them.
I know, it's so easy to jump into the business of being a satellite media service company. Real easy.
Nah, Murdoch deserves all the shit he catches. I'm sure he'd not blink at killing everything you like about the internet if it served him in some way.
Of course not, but it's a shit deal to have only the options of "Murdoch controlled media" and "nothing," which is really how he wants it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You sound like Luddites. Like this quote from the article:
"To a certain extent this is all reminiscent of the furore in the sea-change from practical to digital newspaper production in London's Wapping in the early 1980s, engendering protracted but ultimately futile strikes from the pre-digital technicians who were made jobless by new, computerised automation of magazine and newspaper production."
You cannot stop progress simple because you don't like it. The horsewhip makers were laid-off when cars took o
Re:Nothing but a Murdoch hit piece. (Score:4, Insightful)
You sound like Luddites. Like this quote from the article:
"To a certain extent this is all reminiscent of the furore in the sea-change from practical to digital newspaper production in London's Wapping in the early 1980s, engendering protracted but ultimately futile strikes from the pre-digital technicians who were made jobless by new, computerised automation of magazine and newspaper production."
You cannot stop progress simple because you don't like it. The horsewhip makers were laid-off when cars took over, and so too were these pre-digital technicians.
So lets get this straight. Reducing the internet to the type of linear media that existed before the web is "progress" that cannot be stopped. Continuing to take advantage of the non-linear nature of the web and building on it is "Luddite". Er, well, keep taking the dried frog pills.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Adding video interviews because more-and-more people are no longer stuck on dialup - That is the progress.
Re:Nothing but a Murdoch hit piece. (Score:4, Informative)
Who cares about satellite media? The future of tv is internet based video on demand.
Re: (Score:2)
Really all the IPTV stuff is ideally suited to satellite for its effortless multicasting abilities. If instead of 200+ TV channels a satellite broadcasted continuously the top 200 or so torrents on TPB it would go a long way towards freeing up the tubes. If the satellite has any free bandwidth you could use
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, Murdoch hater, you've been outvoted. (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, don't like what Murdoch is doing? Click elsewhere.
Even if you don't like it, there are enough other people who like it that Mr. Murdoch has gained influence over countries. I don't like what Mr. Murdoch is doing to U.S. politics by having built the Tea Party protests into a nationwide movement, but FOX News Channel has attracted enough people to this reactionary movement that it has a significant chance of setting policy that can cause me to be imprisoned or die despite my vote against it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Sorry, Murdoch hater, you've been outvoted. (Score:4, Insightful)
The REAL purpose of everything that happens is to cause you to be imprisoned.
Changes to the law cause people who follow the old law to go to jail for not following the new law.
Re:Nothing but a Murdoch hit piece. (Score:5, Insightful)
The rampant Murdoch hatred is just so irrational. No one is forcing you to watch/read. Get the fuck over it.
If an idiot is standing on the street corner spewing lies and no one listens to him, then you can just ignore it and it's not a problem. If a significant portion of your country and voters start believing in it, that's mainly a problem with your country, yes, but it's no longer in the realm of "just ignore it and it won't be a problem." Murdoch's lies are affecting US policy. He's having a substantial impact, increasing partisan politics, preventing Washington from doing -anything-, encouraging ignorance, pushing us towards more of a police state, and distracting people while our rights get sold to corporations.
I'll get the fuck over it when he's dead along with his whole propaganda machine, when most people who watch fox news and believe the BS voluntarily give up the right to vote, when Washington has fixed every problem they've created, and when large corporations stop trying to neuter the internet.
Re:Nothing but a Murdoch hit piece. (Score:5, Insightful)
Thank you for proving the parent's point.
Re:Nothing but a Murdoch hit piece. (Score:4, Insightful)
Ya know - it helps if you read the actual bills your Democrat Congress passes.
For example the ability of the FBI to demand copies of your cellphone bills/locations without warrant? It's in the recently-passed Financial Reform bill. I've seen the language in the bill myself.
i'm relieved (Score:3, Funny)
to learn that when the republicans sweep back into power next month that the FBI won't be able to get that bill through congress. Republicans would never let it happen, right?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
to learn that when the republicans sweep back into power next month that the FBI won't be able to get that bill through congress. Republicans would never let it happen, right?
NO they won't. They'll kill the bill and replace it with something worse.
Re: (Score:2)
As usual, I disagree with both of your posts (Really? Two?) but it sounds like we should be able to agree that
1. There can be more than one bad guy
2. Murdoch is more of a "bad guy" than a good guy
3. The democratic congress has not done that great of a job, for various reasons
4. Obama extending the patriot act was bad
Also, for the record, I didn't imply Fox news viewers shouldn't be allowed to vote. While I think it would be good if they voluntarily gave up the right to vote, that's not something that I wo
Nothing to See Here? Look Closer (Score:3, Interesting)
>The rampant Murdoch hatred is just so irrational.
Ahem, your ignorance is showing.
If only it was irrational, however his desire and ambition to dominate the various maouthpieces of the media plus his willingness to laud the politicians who chime with his views, and their subsequent fear of him (outlined rather concisely in the current UK issue of him taking over BskyB and politicians openly admitting their fear of pissing him off) make him a king-maker and fundementally a threat to the democratic proces
All Paths Are Taken (Score:5, Insightful)
The increase in the use of paginated content and the proliferation of video over transcribed interviews are, the author argues, part of a tidal shift from a browsable internet experience to a linear one
And the rise of features like Safari Reader (and Firefox equivalent from which it was born), along with video heavily annotated and searchable also mean the web is moving to a totally non-linear, take it as you please kind of mechanism.
Both things are true, the web can and will take all possible paths. If people do not like confinement than overly narrow paths will grow dusty with disuse over time, but even if they mostly like it the other paths will remain for those that want to take them.
I never did see the point in freaking out about any super-powerful titan "taking over the web" since there is no web to take over, there's just islands that people can build up as high as they like in order to entice people to visit.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This. Especially the video section.
Youtube is heavily annotated, from both manual annotations to automatic speech parsing algorithms, language translation getting better all the time, and even some basic structure recognition for content in video.
This is only Youtube, admittedly, but no doubt in the years that it will take for video to become the centerpiece of online content, this stuff will be trivial to implement for the average person.
And as you said, nobody will ever really take over the web, even Goo
Did I read a different article? (Score:4, Interesting)
Where is the discussion about why the internet can't kill classic TV? The article started out worrying about Rupert Murdoch's increasing empire, and then devolved into a "everything I hate about the internet" speech. In particular, how video interviews are inferior to the printed word, because they're harder to search, you can't pick just the bit you want to read, and you can't "space out" while watching it.
The author seems to think all the "popular" sites will squeeze out the "old school" content, because if they don't join in the "linearized" content, they can't monetize their content. Hopefully, not everyone will feel a need to monetize what they provide, and we'll be able to share in people's passions, not just their livelihood. I may not like what you're selling me, but I'll be interested in what interests you, and Rupert Murdoch can't have that.
Re: (Score:2)
Hopefully, not everyone will feel a need to monetize what they provide, and we'll be able to share in people's passions, not just their livelihood. I may not like what you're selling me, but I'll be interested in what interests you, and Rupert Murdoch can't have that.
Amen. I seldom visit "commercial" sites, save for advertising-supported blogs like this one. If you spend a lot of time looking at websites that are run by media conglomerates with their roots (and the bulk of their profits) in television, film, music, and print, you can't really claim surprise when the people running those sites try to make them more like the rest of their empires. In other words, if what you're interested in can only be produced by gigantic corporations, then you're going to have to dance
Meaningless peice (Score:5, Insightful)
While I agree that maybe big media companies would like to make the web a linear experience, they can't. Reason is the web is too large to control. The barrier or entry is extremely low. As such there are sites all over the damn place, that do whatever they please. There is just no way for a media company to control all this. They can take everything they control and make it suck, but all that'll do is make people go elsewhere.
Because of the distributed, low cost nature of the web it is just not really possible for one group to control it. With TV, sure they can do that to a large degree. Not only are TV programs inherently linear, but running a TV station is expensive. It isn't like someone can say "Ya I think I'll set one up." Even if you had a TV station, you have to deal with contracts to get on the distributors, and then of course produce content people want.
None of that is a problem with the web, other than content. You can get a website for $10/month or less with a reasonable host, and probably free if you sniff around a bit. That's all it takes and your site is now on the same level with every other, there is no barriers for people to get to it. The only question then is producing things people want to see. Also people like some extremely cheap things on the web. Look at Maddox's page. It is nothing but his writings and drawing. No big budget productions, nothing fancy, but people like it.
That is just an environment big media can't control. This goes double since the closest things to gate keepers there are is search engines, and they are run by companies way bigger than big media. Fox isn't going to scare Google or Microsoft. They'll keep running their search how they want.
I'm not at all concerned. The web will continue to be a massive collection of any and everything. Different people/groups/companies can make parts of the web that are however they like, and as many people are as interested can go and enjoy it. Maybe some people want a real locked down, linear web experience and if Fox provides one they may enjoy it. But don't worry about them forcing it on everyone, they just don't have the ability.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Until 2 tier access comes into play and "Net Neutrality" goes out the window then you'll be stuck with what ever "Howling Mad" Murdoch thinks you need to see...
Ya... I'm thinking no... (Score:2)
Sorry but so far all this has been nothing but a geek scare story from what I've seen. My ISP has made no move, at all, to restrict or limit any kind of access to anything and shows no signs of wanting to since they rather like making their customers happy.
Also here's some news: Murdoch doesn't own the world. I know that he's a popular conspiracy target for "OMG he's controls the media!" but he really doesn't. Plenty of other companies out there who are not interested in playing ball.
Re: (Score:2)
Until 2 tier access comes into play and "Net Neutrality" goes out the window
Precisely. The reason why TV is full of crap these days is the "channelization" of content into pre-packaged streams selected by those running the cable and satellite networks and the content providers. This oligopoly [wikipedia.org] power over the TV content markets gives them the ability to choose what people see while at the same time preventing effective competition. Even Steve Jobs, when presenting the Apple TV as a "hobby", acknowledged the difficulties of breaking into and being disruptive in the media business, reg
Videos on websites... (Score:4, Insightful)
I hate it when i go to read a news story, or a howto or something else online and it's only available in video form...
Especially technical guides, where a howto would let me cut and paste but a video won't...
Say "Show me the SRT plz" (Score:2)
I hate it when i go to read a news story, or a howto or something else online and it's only available in video form
Open a help ticket and say your hard-of-hearing family member couldn't enjoy the video or the advertisement before it due to lack of SRT captions [whatwg.org]. If your country has a disability discrimination act, and you have a lawyer in the family, you can probably push this even harder.
Re: (Score:2)
As someone already posted, "Youtube is heavily annotated, from both manual annotations to automatic speech parsing algorithms, language translation getting better all the time, and even some basic structure recognition for content in video."
It's only a matter of time until this is common place everywhere there's a video posted on-line. (Perhaps as simple as a browser plug-in.)
Meanwhile, may I suggest you stop "hating it" and do something about it--such as contacting the author of the video, asking for a wri
Videos vs Text (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Videos untranscribed (Score:2)
Sucks when you're deaf. Guess I should do what the blind groups have done and sue everyone til they listen.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't even need to be deaf, you just need to be browsing with the speaker on mute because you are at work.
i doubt it will happen to the entire WWW (Score:2)
14 years too late (Score:5, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September [wikipedia.org]
Sorry, internet: this is your new audience.
Their purchasing determines what is profitable on the internet.
Their attention span determines the type of information that will be profitable.
You, the old school user, are maybe 1% of the net. You are irrelevant except as a niche market.
They are comfortable with TV, "rides" and planned, advertising-funded adventures in alternate realities to distract from their depressing existences as corporate serfs.
They (or rather, what they will buy) will determine the content of the internet. Not you.
What do they like?
* Television
* Fast food
* Coca-Cola
* Movies like X-Men
* Disco
* Corn dogs
That is your future, internet. You are only ruled by the nerds at night.
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September [wikipedia.org]
Sorry, internet: this is your new audience.
Their purchasing determines what is profitable on the internet.
Their attention span determines the type of information that will be profitable.
You, the old school user, are maybe 1% of the net. You are irrelevant except as a niche market.
They are comfortable with TV, "rides" and planned, advertising-funded adventures in alternate realities to distract from their depressing existences as corporate serfs.
They (or rather, what they will buy) will determine the content of the internet. Not you.
What do they like?
* Television * Fast food * Coca-Cola * Movies like X-Men * Disco * Corn dogs
That is your future, internet. You are only ruled by the nerds at night.
Soma! Soma! Soma! Soma! Soma!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Are these the same kids that just won't get off your lawn?
Re: (Score:2)
Hellz yeah BOYYYYEEE!!!!
We ownz da night, muthafukka!
Nerds is da new gangstas, ya Digg?
Re: (Score:2)
That's actually an interesting observation. Originally it was expected that in September hordes of newbies will get their Internet access at school and start posting inane things until either novelty wears off or sufficient amount of clue is obtained.
Now it's supposedly the other way around, kids on summer vacations flood 4chan with [even more than usual] idiotic remarks.
it's the author that's "missing the point" (Score:2, Insightful)
Unless (Score:2)
you buy up 80-90% of the ISP's. Then you get to be in charge.
Its only a step away from charging extra for your IP packets to be routed through News Corporation routers on its destination. Some ISP along the way says I won't pay and packets will have a way of getting lost.
Don't panic (Score:2, Interesting)
I agree that Rupert Murdoch is one of the biggest dickwads in media outside conservative talkshows, but this article is exaggerating the danger.
Murdoch does not have a monopoly over internet news media by a long shot, and the unpopular decisions he has made (such as paywalls) are costing his companies market power.
If Murdoch tries to turn internet news into television, the internet will not become television; rather, Murdoch's internet news companies will compete with Murdoch's television networks.
Re: (Score:2)
One theory is he keeps his newspapers because they are a good tool for political influence. He certainly uses them that way - the "Australia
The Web as TV? (Score:2)
I'll believe that when I see Slashdot lose vertical hold.
You kids who don't understand that, stay off my lawn!
Re:The Web as TV? (Score:5, Funny)
I'll believe that when I see Slashdot lose vertical hold.
You kids who don't understand that, stay off my lawn!
Murdoch: We control the vertical. We control the horizontal.
We need to move beyond artificial scarcity (Score:2)
My site on the problem: http://artificialscarcity.com/ [artificialscarcity.com]
Alternative solutions collected by me: http://knol.google.com/k/paul-d-fernhout/beyond-a-jobless-recovery#Four_long(2D)term_heterodox_alternatives [google.com]
/. you are to blame (Score:2, Insightful)
The web has been getting more linear for a long time. Greedy businessmen are only part of the problem. The other part of the problem is the emphasis on recentness. The most recent articles are placed first creating a linear organization. Blogs, /., twitter, reddit are all part of this trend. In the past content was more likely to be organized hierarchically (e.g. most personal websites) or with the most recent comments first (message boards and newsgroups). The consequence of this trend is that now articles
murdoch bought myspace (Score:2)
Re:lol (Score:4, Insightful)
bingo. this will never happen, nobody wants TV to be equal to internet, and the demand is nonexistent. It's not too different than 3d tv, which has also been underwhelming. [thewrap.com]
Re:lol (Score:5, Insightful)
No, you're missing the point. They don't want TV to be equal to the internet; they want the internet to be the equivalent of TV . Demand - at least, what the existing inhabitants demand - also has very little to do with it; they're experts at steering the wants and demands of the incoming population by supply-side manipulation. They've also got the temperament to wait until the tide turns their way, the experience to know that it almost inevitably will, and the deep pockets to stumble around making expensive mistakes until it does.
What, you think /. or other similar crowsourced-ish news/blog sites are the future? No, if you want a glimpse at the future, it's more Fox and Gawker Media than anything else.
Re: (Score:2)
there is no difference in expression between tv being == internet or vice versa, if the two are attempting to be brought together.
It still won't happen.People screamed how webtv was awesome, and yet it sucked, and we all know it. It was all advertiser/supplier hype.
This is no different. Netflix on your TV? Facebook on your TV?
Re: (Score:2)
this isn't a case of equality testing, it is a case of assignment. The Internet's current value gets clobbered to take on the value of TV. At least it'll be "on demand" :-/. Web 3.0 is going to suck even harder than web 2.0, but I say that as the sterotypical guy who doesn't have a TV. Well, my roommate and I have one, but refuse to pay for cable and don't watch broadcast, so its just there for watching DVDs.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The point is about which direction things are heading. Murdoch would like to make the internet be like tv, and has many of the resources required to force this upon the rest of us. He does NOT want to make TV like the internet.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Murdoch wants to make money, and will abandon any plan that proves itself sufficiently unprofitable. Business men are tiresomely predictable where their wallets are concerned.
Maybe. But there are plenty of examples of failed business models churning along, long after they die. Can we look at music industry, or, increasingly, the newspaper industry, please? Big businesses are slow moving, conservative, behemoths, they love the status quo, and fear new models (for the most part). Murdoch wants to turn t
Re:lol (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And off-road transport has never been more fun...that's the internet. Anywhere you want to go, 24/7, & no 18 minute EAS right in the middle of my HBO program for which I paid extra & is one of the many reasons I am getting rid of cable all together. (Entity x) bless Archive.org. Kind of a weak car analogy, though.:(
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You have to dedicate time to watching TV because it needs 100% of your attention to be watched. But you can listen to the radio while driving a car, while writing code, while fiddling with the engine of a motorcycle in the workshop, while working on a building etc.
In the last 10 years, prime-time TV has went through a bit of a resurgence. TV shows have payed more attention to writing, acting, and production value. Now that shows can be watched on demand via the web, DVDs, and DVRs, episodic shows are becomi