Ideas From?

In the article Unleash Your Ideavirus, the author talks about ideas and how traditional supply and demand company practices are fading and being replaced by ideas. When the author says ideas, he means trends and word of mouth exchange about products. He states:

"Ideas are driving the economy, ideas are making people rich, and, most importantly, ideas are changing the world. So even though we're clueless about how best to organize the production of ideas, one thing is clear: If you can get people to accept, embrace, adore, and cherish your ideas, you win! You win financially, you gain power, and you change the world. "

This article begs the question, where do ideas come from? Though I am an advocate of innovation and invention, the author of this article seems to equate ideas to financial success. However, there are many companies that make money from taking someone else's idea. Even further, most ideas that come about are not that original.

NOTES TO PONDER: Is technology the best example of ideas generating financial success? Does the author put too much emphasis on ideas and not enough emphasis on the application of those ideas?

Beyond Just Online Fundraising

In terms of fundraising, the internet has obviously made a huge impact. As the IPDI reading pointed out:

"One of the most compelling differences between online and offline fundraising is cost. Pieces of direct mail, postcards, letters and newsletters that your campaign sends its constituents typically cost between 40-60 cents a letter. Higher volumes of mail of course decrease the per-unit cost."

One thing that is important to consider in online fundraising is that it targets people who would not traditionally be able to afford typical political fundraisers. The internet is key in raising money from people who are in lower tax brackets then the typical political donors. This link to a whole new group of donors is revolutionary for fundraising.

NOTES TO PONDER: Is there too much emphasis on the internet as just a fundraising tool? How will changing the nature of political donors change campaign practices? How have they changed campaign practices already?

Anarchy and Revolution

In one of my first blog posts, I commented about the power of the internet to transcend borders and unite people based on other commonalities, apart from geographical location and nationality. I brought up the example of Tienemen Square and how the Chinese government has lost its ability to contain that story because of the flow of information. In a very idealistic sense, the internet has the ability to unite the world. The biggest question is will the current power holders allow this globalization to continue? Obviously, it may not be in their own best interest, so its doubtful that they will allow the internet to act against their own interests. The real question: is globalization, especially in terms of information flow, in the interest of not just American citizens, but citizens of the world?

NOTES TO PONDER: Does anarchy lead revolution? Will the internet be a tool to revolutionizing politics?

Damn the Man, Save the Empire

Why are people so afraid of changing the status quo? The internet has an extraordinary way of dispersing power, so those in power are very afraid of the internet. As the Anarchy book points out, they use their influencing abilities to harness the power of the internet because they don't want to lose their own power. But if the people who are holding back the power of the internet are indeed afraid of unleashing that power, it begs the question as to why? If their power is truly genuine, honest, and necessary, then they have nothing to fear.

NOTES TO PONDER: What does is say about our leaders, who are elected to ratify and change our laws, when they themselves are afraid of change? Who will emerge as the new leaders? Will it be those who embrace the internet, or more of the same?

The Age Old Battle of Changing the Status Quo

In the introduction of The Anarchist in the Library, the author introduces the correlation between technology and anarchic perception. Viadhyanathan makes the point that because technology has the power to decentralized the power base in the flow of information, it is a threat to the current state of affairs. Applying this to political campaign practices, one cannot help but think about how the internet has the capabilities to change the flow of information from campaigns to constituents. Currently, however, the internet seems to serve as a centralizing tool in campaigns. Web sites become the trunk of the tree, so-to-speak, in that all branches of the campaign can be centered around the internet (i.e. fundraising, press relations, scheduling, etc...)

NOTES TO PONDER: When, if ever, will the internet be used as a tool decentralized campaigns? What happens to the flow of information if that decentralization takes place?

Going Wireless

The readings for this weeks class bring up one crucial subject that has permeated web consultants and internet techies: wireless technology.

What would be the future of the internet if it wouldn't fit on to your cell phone screen? The latest crazes in technology are all about less cords and smaller sizes. Besides making my new laptop seem huge, wireless technology has the potential to allow people to not just have the features of a blackberry, ipod, and digital camera in one, but to make things as convenient as possible.

NOTES TO PONDER: When does convenience become more important then purpose? Will wireless technology allow professionals to live life outside of the office?

Finding Purpose in the HYPE

My last posting has manifested interesting feedback. Those who have commented agree that for the most part blogs have two main purposes. The first, blogs are simply chat-like forums that do NOT elevate discussion unless the hosting web site has some interactive, action-type purpose, like a campaign. The second, (as my colleague Dimmy was quick to point out) blogs have become forums for alternative media.

I further contend, however, that these two main purposes apply to but a small portion of the blog-o-sphere. For the most part, blogging is just a "feel-good" medium for people who think they have something interesting to say. Though I am consistently one of those people, I think its important to realize that blogs are more HYPE than anything.

NOTES TO PONDER: Will blogging evolve to any higher purposes? If the blog-o-sphere keeps growing at such a fast rate, will it diminish the persuasion powers of each individual blog?

The Importance (or lack thereof) Of Blogging

After discussing the recent blog-mania with my boss, an expert in the field of political internet consulting, I am beginning to realize that many of the online crazes that occur happen because too many people have a vested interest and want to be the FIRST or one of the first to tap into the upcoming innovations in technology. Being one of the first makes you one of the most experienced. Further, by showing knowledge of the latest craze, clientele and the general public become impressed because they know nothing about it. It truly is a niche market, especially for those in technology consulting.

The problem is the internet has had many bad cases of hype in the past. Not only with market speculations about websites, as it occurred in the late 90's, but also with implementation of seemingly pointless or confusing innovation like mystery meat. Those innovations provide little utility, leaving people wondering why in the hell they implemented those innovations in the first place.

I contend that blogs are all hype with little actual value beyond just easing communication. They help provide venues for communication, but do little beyond that. Blogs are just a soap box, and though soap boxes are vital to democracy and part of our freedom, most blogs are just talking to the wind.

NOTES TO PONDER: What is the true value of posting on a blog daily? Beyond just discussion, can blogs be utilized in other ways? What, if anything, will help channel discussion blogs that are not just talking to the wind?