Paradigm Shift

[Barringtonia]

I went to a talk this morning by a reasonably famous journalist about social media and its effect on media overall. He felt that part of the value of traditional media was lost in that in-depth feature articles were not being paid for. I raised a point that led into a rather heated discussion since I basically accused him of whining when he had an enormous opportunity.

Essentially he has a blog with a couple 100, 000 contributors and I said that not only could he raise sponsorship and advertising off this but that he also essentially had 100, 000 researchers to help allay any travel costs and etc., as well as basic fact-checking. Strong solid articles will only serve to increase his contributors and so he's really missing the point of the paradigm shift we're only just beginning.

It then moved onto further shifts, an example is that Ebay has seen enormous growth since the recession in terms of people popping over to Shenzhen, buying cheap goods and selling them. This raised issues about companies, tax issues and global trade.

Essentially I was saying that it's no use whining about the loss of traditional forms of how we live given the enormous opportunities for personal control over our lives. We've only just tipped the iceberg in terms of the potential of the Internet and I made the comparison between music downloads, that traditional distributors are simply going to have to suck it up and that it's just the start of wht's going to be an enormous power struggle between governments, because ultimately this all leads into tax revenue, and the people; and I'm afraid the people will eventually win.

At that point he said 'well, I guess we'll all essentially be libertarian'?

What thinks NSG?

[Lunatic Goofballs]

It's amazingly tricky to ship pre-assembled tacos, but I have the knack.

[Pope Joan]

We don't have the attention span for long articles any more.

When it comes to commercials, we get two 15 second spots instead of one 30 second one, because advertisers know we just can't focus that long.

Of course, there are always the infomercials.

It's like usually getting fast food, but sometimes the buffet.

So maybe you need an all-you-can-eat blog environment for long articles?

[Lunatic Goofballs]

We don't have the attention span for long articles any more.

When it comes to commercials, we get two 15 second spots instead of one 30 second one, because advertisers know we just can't focus that long.

Of course, there are always the infomercials.

It's like usually getting fast food, but sometimes the buffet.

So maybe you need an all-you-can-eat blog environment for long articles?

I'll have you know that my attention span is perfectly adequa- Ooh! there's still a muffin left! *munches*

[Pope Joan]

*munches*

A veritable "sound bite".

Or would that be "bite sound"?

[Lunatic Goofballs]

*munches*

A veritable "sound bite".

Or would that be "bite sound"?

I think munch is an onomatopoeia. I'm not certain though because I can't hear myself chewing over the sound of me chewing. *nod*

[Triniteras]

Essentially I was saying that it's no use whining about the loss of traditional forms of how we live given the enormous opportunities for personal control over our lives.

These don't essentially mean anything.

[Barringtonia]

Right you 2, go stand in the corner until you can come back without disrupting class, especially you young Goofballs, you're corrupting the good students!

I'll be speaking to your parents later.

[Barringtonia]

Essentially I was saying that it's no use whining about the loss of traditional forms of how we live given the enormous opportunities for personal control over our lives.

These don't essentially mean anything.

These what?

[Triniteras]

These what?

Exchange of traditional forms for more personal control over ones life.

[Sarkhaan]

Well, it depends. Part of the issue with the paradigm shifting to eliminate traditional newspapers is that the investigative reporting they do is incredibly expensive: it cost the Boston Globe in the range of a million dollars total to fully crack the preist abuse scandal. Even with the potential new incomes, it will be difficult to create a system that allows for this kind of reporting to continue. While I agree that it is pointless to whine about losing traditional business models, I don't take it all as whining. I take much of it as "Okay, we have new paradigm X. How do we move traditional business 1 to best fit it?"

[Barringtonia]

These what?

Exchange of traditional forms for more personal control over ones life.

Oh, I think I see what you mean.

One example he gave was the printing presses and distribution, these were enormous investments that were essentially 'property', they were also protection because not everyone, in fact reasonably few people, can afford to invest in these, thus ensuring the media was owned by powerful interests vested in reporting the news in a certain way.

The Internet changes that, printing and distribution is essentially the cost of a computer and a connection, interestingly he said that the printing presses and traditional distribution channels were an asset and now they're a burden, an enormous cost.

Another topical example is Michael Jackson, one might argue he was a particular product of the MTV generation, when music videos were rotated and controlled by, essentially, a single channel. Could there ever be someone of the scale of Michael Jackson again, with 100 million sales? the Jonas Brothers reached No.1 with something like 250, 000 sales, and that's above the odds these days, they'll probably only last about 3 weeks max whereas before an album could stay at No.1 for months, certainly stay in the charts for a very long time.

This channeled distribution is dying, we're at the start but at some point, even Wal-Mart will see that its shops are a cost rather than the asset they've been in terms of rolling them out on the size and scale they have.

I can undercut Wal-Mart.

Again, the real issue is that this will lead to tax and global trade issues, I can wander over the border, buy 5 remote helicopters for $1.50 and sell them on Ebay, no shop can compete with me when I buy direct from the manufacturer with no real property, salary, maintenance and far lower distribution costs. I've not paid tax either at the border nor when sending the product to, say, America.

[Triniteras]

So basically, what you are saying is that you predict that monopoly will make a comeback.

[Barringtonia]

So basically, what you are saying is that you predict that monopoly will make a comeback.

No, the complete opposite, unless you're talking about the game in which case, maybe,

Well, it depends. Part of the issue with the paradigm shifting to eliminate traditional newspapers is that the investigative reporting they do is incredibly expensive: it cost the Boston Globe in the range of a million dollars total to fully crack the preist abuse scandal. Even with the potential new incomes, it will be difficult to create a system that allows for this kind of reporting to continue.

I suspect it could be far cheaper under a multi-contributor system, I think legal issues might also be overcome but it's a fair point.

While I agree that it is pointless to whine about losing traditional business models, I don't take it all as whining. I take much of it as "Okay, we have new paradigm X. How do we move traditional business 1 to best fit it?"

If I want to get into an industry, my options can be limited by the companies that own that industry, the benefit of large companies is economy of scale and bargaining power, yet I think this can be jsut as easily, if not easier managed through networks.

Actually, there was an interesting article on the power of traditional networks, Alumni networks for example, and digital networks, LinkedIn.com for example, I'm just not sure I can scratch my head enough to remember where it is.

[Triniteras]

So how do you think monopoly will make a comeback?

[Kizarvexia]

Keep in mind, however, that currently the Old Boyz big companies still have plenty of money to throw around the legal system to whack-down any and all little guys who try to muscle in one their territory. The RiAA and Pirate Bay cases are just examples of what happens dying elephants decide to chuck money at the courtrooms to save their hides from the grinders of change.

To that effect, sure you could open a tiny store next door to Wal-Mart and, through various global shipping, border crossing, and e-bay surfing tricks manage to undercut their big box glory. However, once they found out about it yo'd find that your mailbox is now exploding with lawsuits that have been filed against you by Wal-Mart and their million dollar a minute army of lawyers.

So how will the shift continue? To many flies, not enough fly swatters. Yes, Wal-Mart can sue your store out of existance. But then six more stores pop up placed by other people in other states around the country. It's now costing Wal-Mart more money to squash the competition than they were actually losing to them, and someone in accounting tells them to put their ego dicks away and just give it up because it's no longer cost-effective to persecute them.

Now you have weeds growsing in the pavement cracks, and the end result is inevitable. More pop up, and more, and more. They killed Napster and Pirate Bay pops up. They arrest the leaders of that one site after spending X time & money in court and a quick Google for gives you 126,000,000 hits. Yes, you have to live in fear that their big money sledgehammer of court bribes never comes your way, but in the end there are just too many small timers for them to ever get them all. The monopolies are elephants being chewed apart by ants, trying to pull the weeds out of the cracks in their pavement.

Their only real chance is in stopping the problem at the root through the suppression of information & basic access to goods. That is to say, first they have to make sure people don't realize that there even are any alternatives, much the way the media tries to deny that there are more than two virtually identical political parties in order to assure that none of there alternatives ever win. The second is sweeping laws that give vast control, such as internet monitoring, broadband filtering & censorship, massive border watches, tighter customs laws, etc. All these things are done, naturally, at the taxpayer's expense and not their own, which is why they love these methods the most as once they get done bribing the courts then it no longer costs them anything. Now the little people have to pay for the enforcing of the very same new laws that are keeping them under the thumb of the monopolies. Eat your heart out, Halliburton.

In the end Linux still hasn't beat out Microsoft, and the latter is still throwing around money to bribe companies to make sure their wares are not Linux compatible. Linux is only allowed to exist by Microsoft because their user numbers are too small to threaten them. If Microsoft felt for a minute that Linux was putting them in any real danger there would be C-130s making it rain money on the lawns of the Supreme Court justices and within a week a battery of new laws passed banning the use of Linux and a Fox News story about how Linux is a threat to democracy, etc etc.

So the weeds in the pavement are here to stay, but they will never be allowed to grow into trees. There is simply too much money in these giant companies for them to ever die from anything but their own stupidity, and even then they know that the government will happily rush in, pull out the wallets out of the taxpayer's pockets and say "Here, take it, take it all! Ha ha ha!" So they're not really going anywhere.

Maybe, just maybe, if the small time players get organized they can take on the giants, but that won't happen. Part of the whole shift in itself is the decentralization & thus disorganization of the product. Giving it cohesion only raises it's threat level & makes a solid form for the megacorportations to strike at.

So, in the end, were not seeing the corproate hi-rises going anywhere. We're really just seeing the vacuum caused by the death of the middle class, and it's businesses, being filled by an explosion of the global black market expanding into it's place.

[Barringtonia]

So how do you think monopoly will make a comeback?

Actually I think sales of Monopoly hold up quite well, I think they had a reasonably poor foray into a computer version but then they went with the strategy of localising, I have a rather nice Hong Kong version of the game.

So the weeds in the pavement are here to stay, but they will never be allowed to grow into trees. There is simply too much money in these giant companies for them to ever die from anything but their own stupidity, and even then they know that the government will happily rush in, pull out the wallets out of the taxpayer's pockets and say "Here, take it, take it all! Ha ha ha!" So they're not really going anywhere.

I've snipped only what I roughly agree with, but I think that the paradigm shift, which you also explain reasonably well, is that many small, regardless of whether they're working together in an organised way, will beat out the large simply by virtue of ignoring them.

I agree that the government has the most to lose in this,

[Triniteras]

Actually I think sales of Monopoly hold up quite well, I think they had a reasonably poor foray into a computer version but then they went with the strategy of localising, I have a rather nice Hong Kong version of the game.

How do you think monopolies will make a comeback?

[Barringtonia]

Actually I think sales of Monopoly hold up quite well, I think they had a reasonably poor foray into a computer version but then they went with the strategy of localising, I have a rather nice Hong Kong version of the game.

How do you think monopolies will make a comeback?

I don't, or at least the cycle in which anyone can hold a monopoly will be considerably shortened, most likely at the early adopter to mass stage.

[Triniteras]

I don't, or at least the cycle in which anyone can hold a monopoly will be considerably shortened, most likely at the early adopter to mass stage.

So you think they will willingly just drop dead?

[Barringtonia]

I don't, or at least the cycle in which anyone can hold a monopoly will be considerably shortened, most likely at the early adopter to mass stage.

So you think they will willingly just drop dead?

Look, can you read what's been written, Kizarvexia has given a pretty good account and I merely took it to the end issue, which is..

and that it's just the start of what's going to be an enormous power struggle between governments, because ultimately this all leads into tax revenue, and the people; and I'm afraid the people will eventually win.

[Triniteras]

and that it's just the start of what's going to be an enormous power struggle between governments, because ultimately this all leads into tax revenue, and the people; and I'm afraid the people will eventually win.

Governments can cooperate if they see too much danger coming from the people. They're not that stupid.

[Barringtonia]

and that it's just the start of what's going to be an enormous power struggle between governments, because ultimately this all leads into tax revenue, and the people; and I'm afraid the people will eventually win.

Governments can cooperate if they see too much danger coming from the people. They're not that stupid.

It will be interesting, then, to see whether downloads of music continue to rise or whether they'll fall, despite government cooperation.

There's some theory in terms of prisons, whereby guards are simply not enough to control the prison population, the fact is that prisoners, to some extent, acquiesce in being controlled. Yet there is a clear and present retribution to not acquiescing, whereas there isn't in terms of downloading, despite headlines over $81M law settlements.

There's a line at which a given number of people can skirt any regulation, where the public consciousness simply ignores the rules.

China can do all it likes to try and censor the Internet, people easily find their way around it, and do because the numbers are too large for the Chinese government to be able to genuinely do anything about it. they could shut it down but they fear doing so would cause their own collapse, there's a fine relationship between the controller and the controllee once freedom has been given

You can point to historical instances where this is not the case, but then I'm talking about a current, and one in its infancy, paradigm shift that obviates history to some extent.

The mere printing press caused tremendous social changes, with limited means of distribution, the Internet compounds that enormously.

[Triniteras]

There's some theory in terms of prisons, whereby guards are simply not enough to control the prison population, the fact is that prisoners, to some extent, acquiesce in being controlled. Yet there is a clear and present retribution to not acquiescing, whereas there isn't in terms of downloading, despite headlines over $81M law settlements.

If it becomes a problem, you can just execute enough prisoners to regain control.

[Barringtonia]

There's some theory in terms of prisons, whereby guards are simply not enough to control the prison population, the fact is that prisoners, to some extent, acquiesce in being controlled. Yet there is a clear and present retribution to not acquiescing, whereas there isn't in terms of downloading, despite headlines over $81M law settlements.

If it becomes a problem, you can just execute enough prisoners to regain control.

I suspect not for much longer, in a top-down media society sure, as I said, we're only at the start of a paradigm shift.

It's certainly debatable though, and how it pans out is certainly not for certain.