Thinkcorps

There’s a fundamental disconnect between life online and in meatspace, one that’s creating clashes on many different fronts, as you probably well know. However, it’s a mistake to portray these conflicts as battles between rights holders and pirates, laws and lawlessness. Again, most everyone knows this. Information wants to be free, and all that. What is interesting to me is that this is really a culture war in which two societies (not individuals) are battling for supremacy.

I should probably modify that last statement, since it’s really a more of a siege—meatspace society attacking predominantly ambivalent online communities, who when they are successfully infiltrated, do not generally strike back, but rather pack up, disperse, and coalesce somewhere else. You might as well attack the four winds, for all the good it does.

It’s not people that are important in this discussion—they are of course a fundamental component of any society—but rather the society itself, and what it needs to function properly. There is usually some difference between what individuals believe their society needs, and what it really needs. Sometimes this creates an opportunity for some creative arbitrage, other times, fierce protests in defense of societal “pillars,” without which life would ostensibly end as everyone knows it.

What We Are Taught
We are all taught from an early age that “sharing” is good, in fact, fundamental to getting along. This is a very early meatspace societal pillar, I think, and probably the clearest practical analogue to the Christian “Golden Rule” (do unto others as you would have them do unto you). Early societies depend on sharing and (if I could be allowed to extend its definition) cooperation for their very survival.

At certain point, however, (probably somewhere during America’s industrial youth) society had maximized cooperation and mastered survival. Now, competition became more important, and the resulting industrial fracas creating a staggering wealth and diversity of goods and services. Competition is important because it forces optimization, improvement, and progress. If you can identify an arbitrage opportunity, you stand to make money.

This, of course, is where we’re at today. We have mastered competition, and the success of our society is measured by how much we buy and consume.

You’ve Got Mail
Which brings us to online society. Once admitted to one of a million different communities, we are tossed back to an earlier age, in which it is not what we consume that matters, but what we contribute. And since the entire plane is digital and able to clone itself and its components almost perfectly, it is extremely easy to contribute.

Interestingly, the fact that the online society is digital (copyable) destroys most of the competitive opportunities, not that a few don’t remain. Google has capitalized on opportunities in meta-information (search) and the online/meatspace intersection (advertising). Alternately, there are opportunities in subterfuge (spam, identity theft).

But traditional competitive opportunities are difficult to come by. The democratization of the “printing press,” in the blogging sphere has created an extremely open and powerful community, in which what you contribute measures your output. Despite several popular opinions to the contrary, I believe that this naturally destroys the competitive opportunity to dominate. Because blogging is so naturally fluid (in content and infrastructure), it is an almost perfect medium for reaching its intended audience.

That means it’s going to be niche, and it means that even the new kid can (with superior creativity and content) unseat the old guard (if only for a moment). Maybe you dispute this, and I’d agree with you in the context of today, but with tomorrow’s continuously improving tool set, all bets are off.

I don’t mean to say that there’s no point in doing anything larger than yourself. My point is simply that with a niche business come niche returns. And the value of cash returns is generally discounted. Using a blog to promote your expertise is brilliant. But if you’re only in it for the money (blog as business venture), you will get overtaken by some irrational soul who’s willing to go far and beyond what you’d ever consider.

The reasoning is simple: if you’re going to be competitive, you have now instantly aligned yourself against everyone and anyone who might have any (one) thing to say in your domain expertise. Used to be, you could still be the guru, because you talked widgets 24-7. But online, I can aggregate a thousand different conversations on widgets, of which your voice is only one. Doesn’t matter that you talk more, you are still drowned out by the cacophany.

What About Web 2.0?
The advent of what some are calling Web 2.0 is really the re-emergence of online society’s original spirit—youthful, idealistic, and inquisitive. We started here folks, then got sidetracked when someone let in the old men in suits. And sadly, the suits remain in a few places, fueling irrational dreams. Yahoo and Flickr, I’m looking at you (and others too). I don’t begrudge the Flickr folk, but I (try to) look at their windfall like I look at the lottery: a wonderful happenstance that could turn out to be more trouble than its worth. Yeah, that’s a difficult pill to swallow, but hey, it’s good for you.

The money is not the point, after all.

This is why it’s funny when some big media company president gets up and says, “Our television anchors need to be blogging!” Umm, why? It might be interesting to get inside their heads and behind the scenes, but I sincerely hope you don’t think these talking heads can define the online discussion. Putting them online is like setting up a tent at the end of a (very long) carnival sideshow.

I do appreciate that everyone has something to offer, and that everyone gets to participate (literally: the more the merrier). But Big Media still believes they can control, rather than just participate. They cling to that ever-flimsy belief that somehow, some way, they can make a comeback.

My Actual Point
I realize that I’ve rambled on here for quite a while (longer to write than to read). So here’s the point: the future is niche.

When I spend more time online, I find more online communities in which I can share and express a particular interest. And once I find the perfect community for that interest, I move in and begin to contribute whatever I have of value. Then, I discover another interest, and I venture out and join another community.

Again, this is why portals fail. There is almost always a small site somewhere that fits me better, and I can bookmark them all and visit every day. I don’t need them integrated—I need them uncontrolled and unfiltered.

Online society is perfect in this way: I can join a thousand tiny tribes that best reflect my thousand different interests. I only have to contribute a little to gain a lot. There’s no need to integrate these communities in any way, they should exist only to serve that one interest/obsession. We (our persons) need be the only aggregators.

And within those communities, we will share. Society teaches us that sharing trumps competition. And information itself wants to be shared, which trumps any artificially applied intellectual property right.

We share because it’s the right thing to do.

[You know, this is messy and there’s at least a couple different threads in this post, but screw it, blogs are naturally disorganized. Do with it what you will.]