Charlie Rose

esantoro  06/10/2010 11:21 AM Report

Here are some interesting comments regarding NING:

http://techcrunch.com/2010/03/15/gina-bianchini-replaced-ning/

A look at the dark side of present and emerging social media:

http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/DENVER-CO/KKZN-A M/Thursday%206-10-10%20Hour%202.mp3?CPROG=PCAST&MARKET=DENVER-CO&NG_FORMAT=&SITE_ID=650&STATION_ID=KK ZN-AM&PCAST_AUTHOR=David_Sirota&PCAST_CAT=Spoken_Word&PCAST_TITLE=KKZN-AM_Podcast

http://www.democraticmedia.org/

fredgleeck  03/23/2010 11:30 AM Report

Gina gave a very thoughtful yet pithy description of Ning and how and why it works. As an information marketer, I can see Ning as another powerful way to share my message with like minded people in the tight, NICHE markets she discusses!

http://www.FredGleeck.com

esantoro  03/19/2010 05:05 AM Report

Here's an aspect of the dark side to all this electronic social networking that I suppose we're aware of, but we rarely really think about how it works on more subtle levels, as we are too eager to derive what benefits these forums do offer:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/technology/17privacy.html?src=me&ref=general

esantoro  03/16/2010 05:49 PM Report

I’m really trying to find something positive to say: The bullshit detector didn’t go up quite as fast as it has done with previous discussions of Twitter, Facebook, and MySpace.

There.

But something about the optimistic American business approach that deludes itself into thinking it is undertaking philanthropy when all it really is doing is trying to leech from those who have tangible talent just doesn't sit well with me.

I'm beginning to see in a different light those early colonists who told John Smith to take a hike and refused to do the work necessary to benefit the trading companies back in England.

It seems to me that the most useful Internet sites are still simple targeted bulletin board type forums that have now been spruced up with Forum software. These are all pretty straightforward: you gather like-minded individuals in one place to discuss relevant topics. One of the few ways this can be monetized, other than subscription fees, is selling participants to advertisers, which is fine because that self-selected group would be interested anyway in what those merchants are advertising.

Anything other than this is suspect, NING included.

One of the darker aspects of electronic social networking is that it seems to encourage a social self-policing of identity that ultimately fits into some aspect of a Wall Street model (individual identities, aspirations, hopes, dreams, etc. as derivatives and credit-default swaps) . The manner in which corporate journalists , and others, self-censor themselves in the name of self-preservation and paying the bills is how our own personal and work identities seem to be being shaped by electronic social networking. At least in the old days, before the Internet, one could return home from the demands of playing office politics/diplomacy and debrief in private. Now the show never stops. There is less of a possibility to heed the advice of Ellison’s Dr. Bledsoe: “’[Y]ou learn where you are and get yourself power, influence, contacts with powerful and influential people – then stay in the dark and use it!’” The whole thing, as D.H. Lawrence said of the factory model of Democratic-Capitalism aboard Melville’s _Pequod_, is so “maddeningly practical,” and yet it is still “doomed to death and destruction.” This farce would be wildly entertaining if it wasn’t so damn frightening.

I am reminded of a passage from Tocqueville’s _Democracy in America_, cited by REMant not long ago:

"I think then that the species of oppression by which democratic nations are menaced is unlike anything which ever before existed in the world: our contemporaries will find no prototype of it in their memories. I am trying myself to choose an expression which will accurately convey the whole of the idea I have formed of it, but in vain; the old words "despotism" and "tyranny" are inappropriate: the thing itself is new; and since I cannot name it, I must attempt to define it. I seek to trace the novel features under which despotism may appear in the world. The first thing that strikes the observation is an innumerable multitude of men all equal and alike, incessantly endeavoring to procure the petty and paltry pleasures with which they glut their lives. Each of them, living apart, is as a stranger to the fate of all the rest - his children and his private friends constitute to him the whole of mankind; as for the rest of his fellow-citizens, he is close to them, but he sees them not - he touches them, but he feels them not; he exists but in himself and for himself alone; and if his kindred still remain to him, he may be said at any rate to have lost his country. Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications, and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent, if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks on the contrary to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness: it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances - what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living? Thus it every day renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful and less frequent; it circumscribes the will within a narrower range, and gradually robs a man of all the uses of himself...After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp, and fashioned them at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a net-work of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided: men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting: such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to be nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd...They devise a sole, tutelary, and all-powerful form of government, but elected by the people. They combine the principle of centralization and that of popular sovereignty; this gives them a respite; they console themselves for being in tutelage by the reflection that they have chosen their own guardians. Every man allows himself to be put in leading-strings, because he sees that it is not a person or a class of persons, but the people at large that holds the end of his chain. By this system the people shake off their state of dependence just long enough to select their master, and then relapse into it again. A great many persons at the present day are quite contented with this sort of compromise between administrative despotism and the sovereignty of the people; and they think they have done enough for the protection of individual freedom when they have surrendered it to the power of the nation at large. This does not satisfy me: the nature of him I am to obey signifies less to me than the fact of extorted obedience."

Two very underrated films worth a second look: Peter Weir’s _The Truman Show_ and Werner Herzog’s _Stroszek_.

Now I must go vomit.

powerpeacemaster  03/16/2010 02:55 PM Report

Gina has now left NING. She got married in December 2009. I think we will see baby NINGS in the future.

eternalpeace.ning.com

Bernie  03/14/2010 05:04 AM Report

This guest sounded so pre-packaged with buzz words and just generally fake that I'm sure I have no interest in the website which is no doubt filled with more of the same.

doodahdaze  03/13/2010 07:23 AM Report

nachtengel,

Your grammar is just fine the first time. As a computer illiterate, I learn this crap as the necessity arises. I've seen enough to know, that 98% of the internet is crap. And why would I want to spend time struggling how to figure out how to access crap. Facebook was downright annoying; how do you not offend people you're not interested in communicating with?. I think the whole concept is downright rude. And all the bells and whistles! Who the hell needs it?. Kids? (the new internet generation) that's fine. But for professional networking is pretty damn shallow and they should get what they deserve; a whole lotta crap.

On a positive note, I do appreciate that 2% of the internet that isn't crap. :)

nachtengel  03/13/2010 12:14 AM Report

*lead to an awkward and clumsy user experience. (much like my grammar..)

nachtengel  03/13/2010 12:10 AM Report

agreed. not much on the level of offering what similar guests usually do, wrongly or not, about 2.0 (and 3.0 if there is even such a thing...).

i didn't really gain any further insight with deep sociological trends and observances on the web either, which is something i would thing ning should be completely on top of.

though she did clearly describe the present state of the 2.0 companies that have survived in this environment, and how they are essentially on cruise control at this point, with zero ideas of how to make it better (and ning being being optimistically valued at 750 mil, why should they?).

also she's right that niche groups will eventually guide the future of the web, in that pertinent content will bring the the most relevant sites to the forefront, while the rest fall to the wayside.

ning itself is fairly hit or miss, and while it does follow this niche grouping ethos, i don't think it provides an engaging enough experience to keep all but the most lost sheep from migrating to something like facebook inevitably (because even you grandmother has an account their these days). it's to busy and it just doesn't do simple things well (not as bad as myspace, but getting there).

moving forward the "web" will be about mash-ups, i.e. places/platforms that pull twitter, facebook and even aim (and getting everything accessible via sms and phones), all on one place, instead of things like single pointed focus platforms like ning/meetup.

but quite frankly all of these services offer an off-the-shelf relatively banal experience. what i mean is that they all present hideous interfaces

(unlike this bespoke site designed by method for charlie, to meet the aesthetic of charlie rose.), which inevitably lead to awkward an clumsy user experience.

all of them just need heed the words "keep it simple, and do it well" (or at last make it look effortless).

rmorland  03/12/2010 08:40 PM Report

For this longtime viewer, this was a difficult episode to watch. Substantively weak and beyond unconvincing, this was a substandard guest.

REMant  03/12/2010 06:16 PM Report

Facebook, Linked In, Ning, Yahoo and Google Groups, Flickr, various blogs, etc - are basically forums for people who don't know how to set websites up for themselves, which make money for the programmers and hosts primarily via ads, or are supposed to. But I surely wouldn't "value" one of them based on the potential audience they might deliver. They have been around for a long time, actually predating the Internet, but seem to have taken quite a while to catch on, I think only with the appearance of large numbers of less sophisticated users. Many have provided very useful services, but many are childish, and many more just exist to capture some of the ad market. I would not want to guess how much space and traffic is lost on the latter. The increased volatility of the jobs market these days is undoubtedly behind a lot of networking, and, like dressing for success, the ability to use these sites probably counts a lot to some employers. But I recently joined Facebook to "re-connect" with old friends and realized for the first time how really bad it is, only marginally better than Classmates.com. MySpace seems to have become a billboard, particularly for the sex industry, which seems to have been quick to understand the point of all this. In my experience it is very difficult to keep this from happening to any such forum, the original purpose being quickly supplanted by advertising and "organized" activity. In a real sense networking and marketing are opposed. They wouldn't be if businesses did what marketing textbooks say they should, but they don't - they merchandise. Networks on the other hand are supposed to create opinions about what might be merchandised. Designers are faced with the quandary whether to organize their sites via information or discussion. Most of them try to do both, the forums setting up FAQ in "stickies" at the beginning. On the other hand, Wikipedia has had to increase the portion of it devoted to discussion. In fact, a weakness of many sites is trying to find something on them, particularly amidst the discussion. I frequently have to use Google to turn up even the exact name of something. I think in general merchandisers would be wise to create forums for discussion of their products on their own sites. I do have to acknowledge tho the Web's possible power in keeping politicians and other fat cats in line, much of which only happens because of these major hubs. John Adams remarked that the Revolution occurred long before Lexington and Concord, in large part because of newspapers, which were then mostly full of opinion. That power now resides with the Web. Unfortunately, it also allows ppl to erect monuments to themselves.

WesRolley  03/12/2010 05:29 PM Report

Actually, Gina was more articulate than most of the Web 3.0 proselytizers that we occasionally get online or the self promotion of an A. Huffington. However, what I have yet to hear / read is an intelligent discussion of social media as contributing to the increased Balkanization of the online world where people seek reinforcement of the biases rather than a challenge to new and creative thinking.

Charlie Rose would be the right person to moderate such a discussion.

doodahdaze  03/12/2010 12:13 PM Report

Very excellent conversation on internet technology. I use it mostly like a dictionary or reference book that I can cuss at.

And it makes me feel better.

But not as good as air-conditioning.