More often than not these blogs are merely instruments used to flog whatever the blogger is selling, whether it be silver, threads, or golden needles. Or stocks, bonds, bombs or bondage. Or I know so much more than you do, you should give all your money, adulation, adoration and applause just because. And if you don't have it handy, put it on your credit card. Trust me.
I suspect some of this come from a genuine need to "weblish" everyday. In order to be considered a serious candidate for blogger or blogette of the day, one must weblish or cut bait, or something like that. It is much, much easier to take someone else's thoughts, and put them in your blog, with full attribution, of course - OF COURSE - than conjure up thoughts on one's own on a consistent basis.
Oh, but wait, we are on the internet, aren't we? The vast majority of content of which, probably over 99% in word volume, comes from legitimate sourcing. So what's the problem?
"That 1% can't really mean anything, can it, Santa?""Yes, Virginia, it can."How, Santa?""Because, Virginia, that's where most web visitors get their opinions.""Why is that bad, Santa?""Because that's self validation by 'tuo quoque' "."What's that, Santa?""You'll just have to look it up yourself, Virginia. That's what this rant is all about."
Next time you google (like kleenex, the initial capital letter will be soon dropped from the lexicon) something, take time to read five or so entries. The phenomon of spontaneous co-generation can only go so far in explaining what you will find.
Yes, the blogoshere has no rules, but it is beginning to show the edges of the Emperor's fashion show. Yes, the internet is the new Fort First Amendment, standing steadfastly against censorship and control.
1 comment:
Let me see if I understand ...Do you mean like how many blogs can one person read that is the cut and paste of People Magazine's article on Jennifer Anniston and John Mayer's split? Et tu Daily Beast.
Post a Comment