The first two readings got me thinking about ways to get some kind of balance of power in the cyber world. One quote that stuck out to me was "diversity plus freedom of choice creates inequality, and the greater the diversity, the more extreme the inequality" I was thinking how could everyone get an equal piece of pie in the dot com world, but it is not possible. The way I see it, for every web log, or blog online, there has to be a certain amount of traffic in order for it to be successful. The main reason why people know about one over another is the popularity. I'm using the word popularity here to define a rank in a search, let's say Google or MSN. Even if the top ten most searched weblogs got nearly the same amount of traffic, they would be separated by the amount of visitors to the site.
Competition is good for the internet because the people get variety. So, to answer the, question posed in the first article, yes, I think weblog inequality is fair. I compare this to rival businesses. If all the supermarket chains in one city had the same slogans, the same prices, and used the same signs in their stores, wouldn't this confuse the public? In terms of website interest among people, they want to find what best suites themselves, the consumer. How boring would it be for every blog to be on the same subject, or by the same person, with the same writing style. BORING. As I have said before, the internet is catered to the consumers, they call the shots through the amount of traffic that runs through a site. To keep it simple, it is up to the weblog to interest the consumer, and it is the job of the consumer to ensure the site's life span.
I think traffic to websites can be in some ways compared to the problem of monopolies in business, except on the internet there is nothing like government regulators to prevent unfair practices. This is where things get tricky.
ReplyDeleteCompetition can breed quality in theory, but if we look at the way that websites are ranked based on page-views on popular search engines (though the algorithms are extremely tweaked beyond this simple method at this point), we can see that it works in a circular fashion.
The reason for Website A being at the top of the list may have been that it had the best content and more people found the answer they were looking for there, but over time, being at the top of the list will create a continuous feedback loop of sorts and the website doesn't have to worry about continuing to provide the best content for page-views.
They are at the top of the search listings, so they will be clicked on the most inherently.
It's true that search engines will openly try and combat this being the case, for example, but it doesn't erase the problem so much as it make things even messier from a market-driven perspective.
The power of government regulators that (are supposed to) break up monopolies is most closely related to the search engines, which also exist as an oligarchy (Google, Yahoo, Bing..) that introduces another set of problems altogether.
But instead of existing as a representative for the public good, they are profit-driven corporations free to modify search results to their benefit if they so choose.
What happens if the site at the top of the search listing forms a financial partnership with the search engines? Sponsored searches are highlighted, but what if the link between the search engine and the websites are less than direct. Like with political campaign financing that is funneled through dummy groups to create an opaque environment in which money changes hands, there isn't really any way to know. Only to trust.