Showing posts with label interwebs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label interwebs. Show all posts

Sunday, October 15, 2023

Why blog? It's essential for writers!


Peromyscus

This is a blog. At one time, anybody who wanted to write had a blog. 

In the mid-nineties, search engines heaved into view. If someone wrote a blockbuster piece on their Page on the World Wide Web, no one except their mom would be able to find it. Some people who were terminally online, for nineties values of terminally online, would visit their favorite pages and write about them on their own page. The search engines, on learning that someone had linked to a webpage, would be more likely to index that page and show it to others. (Search engines ranking sites by the number of links to them is still a thing thirty years on.)

These early online people were logging the web, web-logging. Blogging. My blog, which started in 2006, was also a place where I could write about music, art and news. I could express myself to my full capability.

Blogs can help writers in many ways

They can serve as a base camp, establishing personal credibility and stability, as well as demonstrating expertise in your craft. Publishers can see your passion and commitment to your cause or genre. A long-term, regularly updated web presence gathers more search engine credit and ranks higher in searches. 

A blog is also platform for advertising your pieces. Publishers rarely pay for press junkets or book tours these days, and so the burden of raising public awareness of your writing falls on you. There are not many places where you can just say, “Hey, I got a story published. Here’s the link! Hope you like it!” I mean, try it sometime. If you do it on someone else’s Facebook, or do it too often on your own, you’ll get unfriended. To build an audience, you need regularity as well as quality of output.  And pieces on blogs keep your name in the readers’ minds between published articles.

As I became more interested in writing fiction, I let the blog languish. I took a class from Bob Cohen and I’m following it up with a college class on non-fiction writing helmed by Scott Hays, both at Saddleback.  I’m working my way back to regularity – updating at least once a week.

A daily writing discipline is healthy practice for a writer, as well.

What’s my audience? My blog gets about 27K views a month. That’s tiny, given that most of the views will be people who clicked on a Google result, realized it wasn’t for them and clicked away immediately. That’s why I’m taking the class right now!

Finding Blog subject matter

What should you write about? Writing is writing. If the plot twist in your latest story or research on your article has you banging your head against the wall, close the document, open Blogger or Medium or Substack or Wordpress and write a couple of hundred words about your garden, your motorcycle engine rebuild or if all else fails, what your cats did today.

There! Blogging done, writing practiced, and head cleared, all in one sitting.

Taking notes

A blog can also serve as a notebook. You’re in Starbucks and a couple opposite is arguing? Write a character study. Sunset is fantastic today? Describe it. Incredible writer M John Harrison does this on his microblogging site.

Writing “story behind the story”

As well as publicizing stories and articles as they are published, your blog can support the work you have out in the wild. I recently wrote a short horror story about a plant biologist on the Welsh coast encountering ghosts of Vikings. It drew on a trip I took to that area to study seaweed. When the story is published, I’ll follow up with a blog post about my long-ago trip. Seaweed’s really interesting!

What do I write about? Here’s the frequency listing for the labels on the posts.

Word frequency listing for Peromyscus blog (same as sidebar)

So go start your own blog!


Friday, October 02, 2020

Online all the time



Social Media looms large in our lives these days. Almost everyone has a Facebook account or a twitter account, and we all are tempted to share the posts that engage us the most.

Some of the posts are from, or about Qanon orphans. These people, we're told, are younger people who have "lost" their older relatives to a rapidly-spreading conspiracy theory called Qanon, after its supposed founder, who hold a "Q" (top secret classification) in the government administration.

This phenomenon follows on from similar social scares ranging from the Satanic Panic of the Eighties to the Fox Widows of the Oughties – people who have been radicalized by the media and then isolated from their "normie" – non-radicalized – relatives.

My own experience with online communities is very different. I emigrated to the US in 1989, just as the wired community was ramping up. I was online immediately, using the ability to talk to my friends in the UK and make hundreds of friends all around the world. Friends who have lizard pets. Friends who watched (and obsessively detailed) the X-Files. Led Zeppelin fans. Jack White fans. Star Wars fans. All of these had messageboards – or ‘communities’ as people now call them – dedicated to the topic, and quite often had messageboards limited to a few friends, dedicated to talking about the people on the main messageboard. There was LiveJournal, Archive of Our Own, Fanfiction.net, the comments sections of popular blogs. Many people have had a similar journey, from listservers to Compuserve, Deja News, AOL, to Facebook and Instagram in the twenty-twenties. From modems in the early nineties to cable or free wifi in cafes, the experience has been positive and encouraging.

What, then has gone wrong in the relatives of the orphans and widows mentioned above?

In my opinion, two things. First, personally, I wanted to make friends and involve them positively in my life and thoughts. I looked for similarity in hobbies and outlook and sought to think of mutually interesting topics to write about. I did not wait for people to find me and attempt to influence me. Secondly and more importantly, old fashioned message boards did not have "algorithms". These computer programs are written by such as FB and Twitter to work behind the scenes and bring you, the reader, content you will engage with (click on or linger on). They know you will engage with it because you have done so with similar items before. This is a positive feedback loop – if you click on something, you will see more of it. You will click on it again, and so the algorithms are trained to show you EVEN MORE.

Unfortunately, it's a feature of the human psyche that we click on (and linger over) items that make us angry. Get us up in arms, as the cliché goes (alas, literally these days). The algorithms have taken us away from our friends, who post pictures of their cats and lasagnes, and into the arms of Q, who gets us mad about crazy happenings elsewhere that we can't take care of ourselves, and so we go back, over and over again, to make sure that SOMEBODY is doing something.

We can't do much about FB's algorithms and their tendency to show us a world where things are out of control. We can, however, trim our own behavior and look for – and click on – posts from those we trust, and join in the celebration of togetherness.


--
We were asked to write an opinion piece in our non-fiction writing class, and this was mine. 

Monday, September 10, 2018

Why I haven't reviewed Applied Ballardianism yet (non review)



I thought it would be quite easy to review Simon Sellars' Applied Ballardianism.

In fact, reading the book was quite easy - and enjoyable for a number of reasons, including the several They Live-style beating scenes.  The non-places - airports, parking lots, freeways and hotels. The Heart of Darkness/Lovecraft island of Nan Madol, which I thought was fiction at first and had to look it up.

Reviewing it is proving harder, however, because of my woeful lack of knowing who the hell Baudrillard was.  On attempting to remedy this, I hit a patch where the entire world dissolved into an unsorted pile of unreferenced signs which interfered with my ability to write anything down. In fact, I was so discombobulated, I wasn't even happy working at my Twitter mine.  I usually put my shift in pressing the "like" button and occasionally "retweet" for several hours a day but Baudrillard took the fun out of it.

You know Searle's Chinese Room? After I got to a certain point in the Baudrillard thing I realized Baudrillard thought of us as the AI in the Chinese Room, taking in signs from the left door in one language, looking up the corresponding sign in the second language and handing that word out of the right door.  Maybe a bit more, as we occasionally add a "LOL" or "AYFKM" as we hand it back out.

Except I'm not seeing an argument for us as Strong AI, i.e. all of the handling of the signs is done by an unthinking, inhuman machine. Which means I don't exist.

Of course, that may be because I'm reading Baudrillard For Dummies, but that's about my level.  I don't usually do this, but a scan of the book is available online. It's Chris Horrocks's and Zoran Jevtic's Introducing Baudrillard 1999. I have some other books in the same series - Derrida, for example - but came across the full text of Baudrillard while I was investigating whether to buy it.  I thought it would take me a day to figure it out. I'm still stalled on day 8. The relevant part starts on p 103.

French philosophers are weird. It's 28 been years since the reunification of Germany so there must be a crop of German philosophers just about ready to harvest and then we can drop the French ones.

Wednesday, August 22, 2018

Verizon Throttled Fire Department's "unlimited" Data During California Wildfire



So many news items these days read like sarcastic dystopian stage plays. To me at my age, Spike Milligan (e.g. the Bedsitting Room) always comes to mind but I'm sure people still write them.

This item isn't about "net neutrality" per se, it's about throttling data when you go over an arbitrary limit on your "unlimited" plan, i.e. for we the people, the amount of data you can download is unlimited, but after a while it downloads so slowly that there is a de facto limit on how much data you can download...Catch 22. 

For the fire department, who were not simply trying to stream a bootleg of Crazy Rich Asians, but trying to coordinate ops to stop the whole state burning, it became an emergency during an emergency. 

But Verizon doesn't have an emergency department, just their offshored procrastination service. Can you imagine being a firefighter in full gear next to an all-consuming blaze, hanging around on hold with the 'supervisor' (the guy in the next cubicle who is brought over when you ask for the first guy's supervisor) going through these hoops:
"Verizon representatives confirmed the throttling, but rather than restoring us to an essential data transfer speed, they indicated that County Fire would have to switch to a new data plan at more than twice the cost, and they would only remove throttling after we contacted the Department that handles billing and switched to the new data plan."

(On the one hand maybe you shouldn't buy your mega-ops-truck just one phone line, but on the other hand maybe ten people from Verizon should be selected as enemies of the state and executed, pour encourager les autres.)



Thursday, March 01, 2018

Las Vegas Strippers Accept Bitcoin via QR Tattoos

I know this sounds like the fyootcher, but it's not actually the real future until someone's thought of a way to hack it or 'disrupt' it or 'disintermediate' it to their advantage.
I shall expect to see *that* headline tomorrow.

Saturday, December 02, 2017

Twitter is paralysed by Trump's tweeting - BBC


I remember someone, probably the NME, puncturing the ego of a massive rock star by saying, "C'mon, you're just some bloke who runs a danceband!" Someone needs to tell Twitter's Jack Dorsey, "C'mon, you're just some guy who runs a bulletin board." He has no clue how to steer his glorified BBS now 45 is using it to promote his fave racists. 

Can you imagine the owner/moderator of Birmingham Area Sega Fans or whatever message board you grew up on handling international diplomacy? Those mods couldn't handle the split when two members divorced and stopped speaking to each other. The weird one who kept saying she had cancer just to get attention?  The one who wouldn't shut up about his collection? Nobody's ever managed to deal with that, never mind a standoff between two nuclear armed states.

People ought to stop treating Twitter like it's the First Amendment and the Second Coming wrapped up in cute 280 character packages. Similar goes for Facey McFacebookface, whatever his name is.

BBC story here: 
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-42191166


Saturday, November 11, 2017

Culture, jammed

I've seen this image doing the rounds on Twitter lately, and garnering quite a few "WTAF?" comments. 

It's a picture of a rather raddled looking woman in a dressing gown in a kitchen, with a glass of Smirnoff vodka (the bottle is on the table) and the caption "Every Morning's a Smirnoff Morning."

It's presented on Twitter as a real ad which common sense should tell you Smirnoff would never do. A reverse image search (through Tineye or Google images) would...eventually, after some patience, tell you where it's from.  Most of the hits are people laughing about the Bad Old Days or saying one version or another of "Jeez! Promoting alcoholism. Nowadays relegated to the bin along with tobacco and sexism in advertising. How did they every thing this was a good idea is beyond me!" 

Only one hit on the first couple of pages gives its actual provenance. The "ad" is a piece of "culture jamming" from the early 90's, a fake ad from Adbusters.  The mention is in an LA Times Op Ed from 1992, and does not include the matching picture, only a description. 

Culture jamming. A new dance fad? No, the new dissent in America.
How does it work? Simple. Take a commercial message and turn it against itself. Sabotage advertising, sabotage television.
Just as the entertainment-consumption complex filched America's most cherished images, language and values, so now culture jammers use the same tactics to obstruct their adversaries' ideology. To defend culture jamming as a First Amendment freedom is to support an insurgent idea--and that's precisely what these new radicals want.
Their strategy is to meet the enemy on its own turf. They take space on billboards, in magazine ad slots and on commercial television--they even distribute T-shirts--to plant critical messages in the style of the targeted offenders. Some examples:
* Magazine ad of a riderless horse in a cemetery with the caption "Marlboro Country."
* Billboard ad showing a bedraggled woman sitting at a breakfast table with a glass of vodka in hand. The caption: "Every morning's a Smirnoff morning." [...]
Another source a bit harder to find, Culture Jamming in the Carnival, gives an exact reference for the image:
ADBUSTERS Q., Winter 1989 ­90, at inside cover. Consider another such example: an advertising photo of a high­ gloss and expensive coffin with the caption "Absolute Silence" and the subtext "The birthdays, the graduation, the wedding day ... we were there to toast them all. So from one great spirit to another, here's to the most enduring ritual of all." 
And so there you have it. It's a splash page at Adbusters, a magazine I never bought but often eagerly read in one of those bookshops that had racks upon racks of magazines and a cafe, so you could read the magazines without buying them. Younger people don't remember those because they all went bust in the oughties for some unknowable reason. Adbusters itself is still going strong.

Adbusters' aim - to get people to think about consumer culture, by any means necessary - was admirable and still is, though of course, since it's not possible to do anything about consumer culture it's very irritating.  However, the current air of mild disbelief about this "ad" - were the Bad Old Days really that bad? I guess so! - reveals that the persistence of the memes outside their intended context simply shores up the status quo. Culture is now so distorted, and 'truth' is now so kaleidoscopic that this "ad" becomes just another brick in the wall. Culture jamming just jammed the culture tighter into place.



"Ad"dendum September 12, 2021.
With regard to the comment posted below, the so-called ad is from Adbusters Quarterly 1989-1990, vol1 issue 2.  There is a reference to it in The Death of Discourse by Ronald Collins and David Skover, 2005:





(Edit: link has been updated.) There's a second reference to it in Contested images: the politics and poetics of appropriation by Michael Alan Glassco (thesis), 2012 at the University of Iowa:



(I guess the Skover book is derived from the webpage I quoted above.)


Saturday, July 08, 2017

Important notice re: Earlier images on this blog are disappearing

Photobucket, the 3rd party serving photo-hosting service, has emailed me (and all others) to say they will no longer host 3rd party images.

To continue using Botophucket, all I have to do is pay $400 a year!

Needless to say, I'm not going to pay $400 a year (actually it's $399), but to help force the issue, Photofuckit are replacing all the hosted images with thumbnails containing their ransom demand. So those of you who read my blog here at http://peromyscus.blogspot.com/ are going to find it looking a little measly with many of the older pictures replaced by those thumbnails. 

My apologies, but it it will take some time - perhaps forever - to change all those links, especially as Photobucket's download button only downloads one picture at a time. One at a time!

If you are searching for a picture (e.g. one of the historical Led Zeppelin pictures) and think the image may be underneath the ransom demand email, leave a message here and I will attempt to find it on my hard disk and re-upload it or send it to you. Same deal for any postings in message boards or fora that you think may have been by me (e.g Elixir_Sue, Lyle Hopwood, Peromyscus). 

Sheesh.







Wednesday, April 12, 2017

Black is black (I'm feeling blue)


Remember the blue and black (or, for some, white and gold) dress from two years ago?



At the time, I said on this blog,

The picture was 'obviously' light blue and gold - to me. I assumed the people who saw black and blue were somehow processing the white balance in their heads, which is pretty damned clever. It's as though they weren't seeing what color the picture was, but estimating what color the real dress is and reading it back without realizing that's not what was on the monitor. The real dress is, equally obviously, blue and black.
But apparently, I couldn't have said that, because nobody knew how color perception worked at that time, at least according to this Slate researcher.


Two Years Later, We Finally Know Why People Saw “The Dress” Differently
Remember “the dress”? It disrupted our understanding of color, and, yes, it took science two years to catch up.
No one had any idea why some people see “the dress” differently than others—we arguably still don’t fully understand it. It was like discovering a new continent.
Two years later we have a much better idea of what may have been a reason for the varied perceptions: People’s perceived color is also informed by their perception of lighting. And the image of the dress, taken on a cellphone, contained a lot of uncertainty in terms of lighting conditions. Was it taken inside or outside? This matters because it implies artificial or natural light. Was the dress illuminated from the front or the back? This matters because if it was back-lit, it would be in a shadow, otherwise not.
 
I'm glad they cleared that up. 


 

Monday, April 03, 2017

Mastodon

I joined http://mastodon.social . If you're my friend here and you want to be included, why not join and follow? I'm LyleHopwood there. :)

It promises to have fewer assholes and more granularity than Twitter, but I'm yet to experience that because I don't have any friends. Luckily there is a timeline that streams everything 'local' so if I want to respond to a stranger's post, I can. (And they can respond to mine.)

I haven't found a button to share these posts to Mastodon yet. It's kinda new.


Tuesday, March 28, 2017

Recite the names of the Wi Fi

Via Simon Coffey (@urbanautomaton) who said:

someone at the British Library is doing fine work 



Internet of shit

The internet of things.  All fun until the kid three doors down kills you with your garage door opener.


I stayed in a hotel with Android lightswitches and it was just as bad as you'd imagine

Sunday, January 15, 2017

Posting frequency update

These days I post mostly on Facebook. This is where 'They' (heh heh heh) WANT you to post, but it's inescapable as that's where everybody *is* and that's where you get the reactions.

But Facebook belongs to Whatsisface, and is carefully tailored to ensure there are walls around the product -the writer- to keep readers within Facebook itself. A few break out. I read exactly one person (out of a billion or so FBers) who can encourage me to read his blog, and one more where I'll click the 'read more' button to get the whole post because it's vaguely interesting.

But you can't find those posts again. They belong to Facebook and disappear in the swirl in a few hours. The web, where Google at least gets to index text, is a much better medium if you have something to say that is meaningful for longer than a wedding anniversary, or a birthday.

Accordingly, I'm going to try to put some of those posts here as well. Some will be pretty trivial, but at least I (and you) will be able to find them here in a week, or a month, if it suddenly becomes relevant, or a historical footnote.

Some few of you may then have to suffer through them twice. I hope this will not be too damaging.

Sunday, October 23, 2016

Cyberpunk'd


I feel I'm living in a cyberpunk book, but not a sexy, fashionable Japanese AI cat-actress one. More a dusty, cold, Junior Anti-Sex League, Ministry of Truth one.

Esquire article: How Russian pulled off the biggest Election hack in US history

Many Americans don't believe things that are true are actually really real, so the 'real' identity of these hackers, and whether the infodumps are 'real' or altered, and whether Wikileak's Assange has been poised by Pamela Anderson's vegan sandwich or whether your internet-connected garage door opener really did participate in bringing down Twitter last week and why Trump facilitates Putin's attempt to destabilize the US...are all moot, really. (Yes, really.)

As Karl Rove once said: 
"Guys like [the reporter documenting this conversation] were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

The article only mentions an old-fashioned mole once, but Arthur Rackham's
illustration of rat and mole is more fun than pictures of Putin. 

In the end leaks are unlikely to matter. Those who don't know there's such a thing as objective reality aren't necessarily going to begin believing in it just because it's in a Wikileaks dump. The overall effect may be for people to stop believing anything they're told, since it doesn't matter.  Unlike in the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, where out of date news items are disappeared down the memory hole and corrected news items take their place, whether we've always been at war with Eastasia or not is of no consequence, and whether the chocolate ration is increased or decreased can not be determined by the average person, since the bar size is variable inside the same-size wrapper and price is a tag on the shelf, where it is replaced weekly, not on the package where you can compare it to the last one you bought.



Saturday, September 24, 2016

Ten Year Anniversary

This post marks the ten year anniversary of this blog.

When I started, in 2006, blogging was already past its peak, and social media was beginning to make inroads into society. As you can tell from the drastic fall-off in posting on this blog, it began to make inroads into my life as well.

I spend far longer each day on Facebook than is strictly healthy, and it gains me very little. I assume its addictiveness is carefully engineered into it. In terms of personal writing, it's worse than useless as each post there appears (or may not appear) on a friend's wall for a few minutes or hours, and then pretty much disappears. You have to take special measures to find a post you once liked. If you forget about it for an hour, it's buried under an avalanche of newness, many of which are memes, shares, and photographs of text. (The latter is a way to get around the lack of fonts, colors, italics, bold and strikethrough on Facebook; simply write it in Word, take a screenshot and post it as a picture.)

Facebook postings benefit Mr. Zuckerberg (and the missus and Little Zuckerberg) by providing content that keeps people coming back and reading ads and sponsored posts between the updates. The benefit to the individual is small, but obviously must be of some net positivity or we wouldn't keep doing it.  Blogspot and Wordpress missed the boat on that one - here we write what we like and it doesn't make a cent for the website owner. The downside being that, unless you are one of the blogosphere's superstars, no-one reads it, either.  This blog has sixteen followers, most of whom probably haven't checked their RSS Feeds (their what?) in five years. Quite a few people get here through a Google search for an interesting topic, but, as I have done thousands of times in the past myself, they read that article and move on, and have no intention of following or checking back in later. (Nor should they.)

But this is plainly the place to continue to write long-form essays and articles that stay visible, and searchable on the internet. More to come in the next ten years.

Friday, August 19, 2016

Trolls, Trawling and Usenet

On Facebook we were talking about trolls, and trolling. As far as I can tell, the definition of "troll" today is "person I disagree with on the internet". As an example, if someone says, "I can't vote for Hillary because she'll get us into WWIII," it's likely to attract the simple dismissal, "Go away, troll." 

But it wasn't always thus.

Before the Netscape browser was released in December 1994 - call it 1995 - the World Wide Web (the www that often appears at the beginning of website's URLs, like this one above your screen right now: www.blogger. com) didn't actually exist in any meaningful fashion. I know, it's unthinkable, but it's true. So what did people do without Facebook?

We actually had something that was at least as good, though it was without graphics (pictures) except in certain cordoned-off areas. (Just as well, since we were all on Dial-Up and downloading pictures (binaries) could take all night.)

This was a text-based network called Usenet.

I'm not going to write a scholarly appraisal of Usenet, mostly because if I do, thousands of oldbies will pour out of the woodwork to say why I'm wrong. So this is a personal memoir. In a nutshell, Usenet was a hierarchy of messageboards that you read and posted to with a type of proto-browser called a newsreader. If you were lucky, you had a "threaded" newsreader. Academics had their own superior (in their eyes) newsreaders and other people normally obtained a "news client" to be their newsreader. With your newsreader, you would "subscribe" to a "newsgroup" and it would show you the messages that were there already in a "threaded" fashion. This meant that they didn't come out in chronological order, but in a hierarchy.



[1]

If you're wondering how, prior to the WWW existing, and without using email, the newsgroup messages got from where they were written all the way to your computer and back, all I can say is it's clever and complicated but can be done, just as the ancients obviously did build pyramids, even if they didn't have JCBs.

The overall organization of the newsgroups was hierarchical, and you specified what you wanted to "subscribe" to by calling out to its sort-of-Linnean full name. There were, according to Wikipedia, 20,000 active newsgroups and over 100,000 created groups. One of my favorites was alt.folklore.urban, which was "alt" (i.e. alternative, not centrally organized), concerned with folklore; and the sort of folklore it was concerned with was urban, as in the Jan Harold Brunvand books. Talk.origins was another, a talk group (i.e. heated discussion) about evolution, which spent many a long hour talking with those who held other views.

I joined well after Usenet had escaped the confines of Academe and become popular (after an upheaval called The Great Renaming) in 1987, and just before the world-shaking judder called The September That Never Ended in 1993. I was a happy poster in those days, using my real name and real email address in messages and never really seeing any trouble or even any animosity, not even in the group about evolution. (Ah, the good old days.) But one day someone on alt.folklore.urban told me I'd been "trolled". I'd never heard the word. He (I assume it was a he) replied that the word meant someone had been trolling to see if he could catch someone, like a fish, and I'd been caught. I'd never heard of that either. "You mean, trawling?" No, he said, trolling, and he explained how fishermen troll for fish. After that the scales (sorry) fell from my eyes, and I could see the trolling going on in front of me. The full phrase was "trolling for newbies" as the Old Hats were too experienced to rise to the bait, but new people were more eager to teach people the ropes and took a lot longer to realize they were on a hook. A troll who could signal to the Old Hats that he (usually a he) was trolling by some subtle wording in the inquiry (or in the headers), and yet still catch a newbie, was a hero. People then told the newbie, "YHBT" which the latter would have to tediously work out (no Googling then) meant You Have Been Trolled. They'd often add, "HTH" - Hope This Helps and "HAND" - Have a Nice Day. There is literally no limit to the number of times it raises a laugh when someone introduces themselves and says they're from Austria and a troll asks them whether the koalas are cuddly there. The first person then tries to tell the clueless American (who already knows full well) that Austria and Australia are two different countries. The clueless American appears to be confused and asks follow up questions. Hilarity ensues.

AFU developed and perfected the art of trolling. Snopes, a valued Old Hat of the group, certainly did his fair share, which may seem odd as Snopes' website now is a fortress of fact in a battlefield of lies. It all seemed like such a good idea at the time.

Maybe I wasn't the only person who'd never fished, because often the trollers were often referred to as trolls, and people talked about them as trolls, not fishermen; that they lived under bridges, ate goats and so forth. Since the one thing a troll craved was a reaction, "Don't feed the trolls" was a mantra; it was quite in your power to simply ignore them. A troll might (and often did) post a message to alt.folklore.urban saying that glass in old windows was thicker at the bottom because "glass is a liquid and flows" and the afu folk would have to bite their collective lips not to respond, because they felt they'd proved this was not true to everyone's satisfaction and rising to the bait would just waste everybody's time as they went through the whole rigmarole of trying to convince someone who was probably just an alumni with a fake name trying to rile people up anyway. The oldbies might find themselves rising to the bait rather than let others assume they did not have a satisfactory come-back. The newbies would obviously rise to the bait because they were in the happy fog of the newly-converted. "Glass Flows" threads could go on for months.

And that's where things could turn ugly. Clever trolls who know what the facts are but feign obtuseness are irritating after a while, and a preponderance of them can easily tilt the conversation into dark waters. But worse than that, mean and abusive trolls soon appeared, and were far more destructive, as they didn't just feed on innocents rising to the bait; they enjoyed driving people away from otherwise happy groups. Some of the techniques that arose around the beginning of the World Wide Web in 95 necessitated pretty much every public space to have moderators, and by the time Twitter rolled around, people being driven off the internet, doxxed, or even driven to attempt suicide, became a commonplace. Asking fake-clueless follow-up questions became the marginally-hostile sealioning.

Troll these days has a very nasty connotation. Wikipedia says,

"Two studies published in 2013 and 2014 have found that people who are identified as trolls tend to have dark personality traits and show signs of sadism, antisocial behavior,psychopathy, and machiavellianism. The 2013 study suggested that there are a number of similarities between anti-social and flame trolling activities and the 2014 study suggested that the noxious personality characteristics known as the "dark triad of personality" should be investigated in the analysis of trolling, and concluded that trolling appears "to be an Internet manifestation of everyday sadism."

Among a lot of other stuff.

But it started when people on newsgroups like alt.folklore.urban would post something like, "According to Gene Roddenberry, Captain James T. Kirk's middle name is Timothy," crosspost it to the entire rec.arts.startrek newsgroup hierarchy, then sit back and watch the feathers fly. 

They were better days.


[1] That's not Usenet, it's SFF.net. But I don't have a threaded newsreader to display the former. It's a good illustration of what threading looks like.
[2] Usenet still exists. I refer to it in the past tense, but it's still there and doing its thing.


Saturday, March 19, 2016

Web bloat woes

Reading the interwebs on a laptop is a miserable experience anymore.

I assume the pages have been optimized for reading on a phone screen (portrait orientation) which along with the gigantic amounts of cruft each page loads means there's almost no actual
information per page.


Screen capture from today

In the screen capture, there are 79 - seventy-nine - words of news story and about an acre of other stuff. It's not that most of the real estate is taken over by pointless stock photos (a problem on many other sites). In this case there's part of a real photo, two or three sidebars of other available content, a social media sharing widget that I can't work out how to minimize, a pop-up link to the video I skipped watching in case I want to share it with others (I don't, and I don't know how to get rid of the pop-up) and a banner along the top advertising yet more content, but this time in categories instead of titles. 

And I dread to think what it'd look like without AdBlocker switched on!

79 words per page. I think I was doing better than that with Compuserve in 1989.  Simply scrolling down enough screens to get the gist of the news story is wearing out my left-click mouse button. 

Update: 

Eh, this one's even worse. 


No words in the news article visible for three screens down. 

Saturday, February 06, 2016

I hate the internet. Well, Jarrett Kobek does.

Did you know the 'literary' novel was invented by the CIA? I knew Modern Art was their baby but I hadn't realized that about books.

Picture from Lithub










I’m a recovered tech person and much of my life has revolved around this shit. For what seems like a thousand years. And I still like the early ethos of tech, back in the hobbyist days, when computers were not interchangeable and no one had realized that this thing the Internet could be used to trample the gullible with advertisements for car insurance. Or before an even more unsavory lot realized that they could make beaucoup bucks setting up unprofitable companies as money laundering events for war criminals and investment bankers. That’s why I did a prequel of I Hate the Internet for the Sinclair ZX Spectrum, an old British microcomputer. It felt like there was some virtue counterbalancing all of that disgust with an acknowledgment of a time you using computers did not require you to participate in several overlapping systems of global evil.
More fascinating insights here by JARETT KOBEK(*), of whom I had not previously heard(**) on the meaning of modern life and its relationship to 'the novel', among other things. On the strength of this I'm buying his ahem novel, I Hate The Internet, and probably Sister Souljah's 'literary novel' The Coldest Winter Ever, as well.

(*) Doesn't he look like Kato Kaelin?
(**) I'm writing proper like.

Tuesday, November 10, 2015

Benevolent Stalker guilty of being not very benevolent

I see the "Benevolent Stalker" - a writer who bottled a woman who gave him a one-star review, has pleaded guilty.

I wrote about him in detail here. I didn't use the full names of the people concerned as it was all still a bit mysterious at the time. Now he's guilty, I guess it doesn't matter anymore.

Here is Metro's write up on the court appearance. Excerpt:
Brittain, who lives in Bedford, pled guilty to engaging in conduct which caused Ms Durant fear or alarm by repeatedly pursuing her, approaching her, following her and publishing a story about stalking her in September 2014.
He also admitted assaulting Ms Rolland with a bottle on October 3, 2014 at Asda, Fullerton Road, Glenrothes.
Glasgow Sheriff Court heard Brittain uploaded part of a published book of his [...] Miss Rolland read the excerpt and left comments.[...] ‘The feedback was negative. [...] ‘He went to the alcohol aisle and picked up a bottle of wine, he then went to the aisle where the complainer was working. [...]the accused approached without warning, any provocation or words and he struck the complainer on the back of the head with the bottle.
He traveled a couple of hundred miles just to hit a Wattpad critic over the head. And then people wonder why some people prefer to use pseudonyms on the net.

Wednesday, August 12, 2015

Speaking Birb

So a friend turned me on to an article that said, in part, that teen girls are the real driver of language change. Shakespeare, not so much. Teen girls are were it's at. They make the modifications to language.
It takes about a generation for the language patterns started among young women to jump over to men. Uptalk, for example, which is associated with Valley Girls in the 1970s, is found among young men today. In other words, women learn language from their peers; men learn it from their mothers.
The new language then misses a generation. The new words are passed on to the babies of the original girls.

So, I thought, if this is true, then Lolcat (2007) must have millions of young speakers. They learned it natively from 2007, making the youngest native speakers eight, and a large number of pidgin speakers between eight and fifteen. So what language are the teenage Lolcat speakers using?

It turns out the predictions are correct. Young people raised on Lolcat are modifying their native Lolcat speech and speaking Birb.  It's even less like English than Lolcat. I can speak Birb easily enough, since I follow @ProBirdRights but its corollary  Rate-my-reptile is a little tough to parse at first.

No problem. I can read it and sometimes write it. On the other hand, there are millions of people out there who purport to write English but don't know the difference between "lay" and "lie", which pisses me off a lot more.


LinkWithin

Blog Widget by LinkWithin
I sometimes mention a product on this blog, and I give a URL to Amazon or similar sites. Just to reassure you, I don't get paid to advertise anything here and I don't get any money from your clicks. Everything I say here is because I feel like saying it.