It was great while it lasted
We are a commercial society. Obviously.
In the early days of the Internet, after the porn, came Amazon and eBay, and then the tech explosion of the late '90s. Once people figured out that you could make money on this thing (huge, obscene amounts of money in some cases), the masses flooded AOL and Compuserve with new accounts, and soon everyone in America was cleaning out their basements and holding a nationwide yard sale on eBay. Things calmed down somewhat, but the main question most people ask of a new tech venture is, "Sounds great, but how can I make money off of that?" Blogs rake in the ad sales, for example; cell phone companies rake in massive amounts of cash from hip young kids too lazy move anything but their thumbs. (Though the folks who designed the Live 8 text fund-raising plan didn't even consider trying it over here, because "hardly any" Amercans use text messaging.)
So what does this do to politics? It's not a profitable business, in the traditional sense of a commodity. On a medium where everyone can have power on a generally even playing field, the concept of power as it applies to politics may not seem so appealing. New media organizational tools--things like smart mobs--tend to work best with people who are already connected and engaged. But we've yet to see a tool that will not only convince the masses to get involved with politics, but to do it online. Digital music had the iPod, but what do voters get?
In the early days of the Internet, after the porn, came Amazon and eBay, and then the tech explosion of the late '90s. Once people figured out that you could make money on this thing (huge, obscene amounts of money in some cases), the masses flooded AOL and Compuserve with new accounts, and soon everyone in America was cleaning out their basements and holding a nationwide yard sale on eBay. Things calmed down somewhat, but the main question most people ask of a new tech venture is, "Sounds great, but how can I make money off of that?" Blogs rake in the ad sales, for example; cell phone companies rake in massive amounts of cash from hip young kids too lazy move anything but their thumbs. (Though the folks who designed the Live 8 text fund-raising plan didn't even consider trying it over here, because "hardly any" Amercans use text messaging.)
So what does this do to politics? It's not a profitable business, in the traditional sense of a commodity. On a medium where everyone can have power on a generally even playing field, the concept of power as it applies to politics may not seem so appealing. New media organizational tools--things like smart mobs--tend to work best with people who are already connected and engaged. But we've yet to see a tool that will not only convince the masses to get involved with politics, but to do it online. Digital music had the iPod, but what do voters get?
2 Comments:
I think that there is a tool to get disengaged people involved in politics online. The viral marketing stuff. I send out emails to family and friends on issues that I think they are interested in - for instance, my sister, who is a-political, didn't even vote this last Presidential, is really into helping kids, especially those kids who have been abused, but totally disenchanted with the political process. I sent her some info on the cuts to social services programs, and she sent an email in to our Rep. A small step, but definitely a step.
Though I agree the idealist on the viral marketing tactics to involve more people in politics, I think that you make a great point about the fact that though it's easier and faster then ever, that does not mean people will WANT to be involved more.
I think that the power of the internet in politics is not inspiring people to want to be involved. Instead, the power of the internet is to break down status quo enough that it will change the nature of politics all together.
Post a Comment
<< Home