To Limit or Not?
In their recent posts, Shabadu and UB have a discussion about whether limiting who can post content on the internet is a good or bad idea. Here’s my response.
Shabadu:
You can’t limit the internet! Limiting the internet is like putting a leash on Lassie when she is out there trying to save Timmy. The internet, for all its ridiculous memes, articles, pictures, and videos, has created innovation through its low cost, its efficiency, its depth, and, most importantly, its freedom. If you limit what people can put on the internet, then you are, in effect, limiting the way that the internet can morph itself and change the things that are connected to it. That is bad.
UB:
On the other hand, Shabadu has a point. The internet has evolved in many ways. The combination of cheap computing power, expensive services moving to the cloud, and more advanced web technologies allowed the internet to blur the line between a website and a desktop application. But that’s not the only thing that’s changed. Right now, it seems that web technologies are taking a backseat to content. Internet content has the spotlight right now; though it seems like it may have cold feet.
I think people are waiting for the internet to solve all content problems. The slow collapse of traditional (filtered) media is causing people to look towards the internet to become the main content provider. And I would say, for a decent amount of people, it has become the number one source of content.
This is where Shabadu’s argument comes in to play though. Shabadu says:
So, no, the average person shouldn’t be able to create their own websites or edit their own videos or write their own stupid blogs (Note: I do understand the definition of “irony”) just because they can afford broadband internet access. These “creative types” would be better served helping actually talented people further their endeavors instead of filling the world with mediocrity. For every legitimately funny person, there are thousands of idiots with too much free time on their hands who think they’re accomplishing something of value when all they are doing is making it harder for me to find a clip of a guy getting hit in the nuts.
And he’s right. This is a big problem. Anyone can blog, Twitter, Facebook, FriendFeed, LinkedIn, Wordpress, Tumblr, Flickr, Vimeo, YouTube, Delicious, Digg, Reddit, Mixx, Blogspot, Typebad, Blogger… I think you get the point (yes, I used them all as verbs). This is a too much though. On the other hand, if the internet was limited to pristine content such as the NYTimes OR to highly visible blogs/websites like CollegeHumor, then it would miss a huge section of information that people are inhaling as we speak.
Here’s the question: How much value do you lose if you ignore the Social Media aspect of the internet? The answer is very unclear and this is where internet content is getting coldfeet. The internet needs to convince the masses that there is value in the firehose of Social Media that is out there. I don’t think it has done this yet though. Sure some of enterprise has taken to it; but the majority of people are just not engaged in it. And when they become introduced, will they embrace, or become frustrated like Shabadu?
The verdict on internet content is still out. Will it prove its value over all other mediums or will there be a backlash to the massive amount of information?
In conclusion, Shabadu, and UB, you are both wrong.
[I’m not usually this mean, but Shabadu deserves it, sorry UB.]
