Douglas Rushkoff’s Comments On BoingBoing

Media commentator and author, Douglas Rushkoff, left some interesting comments on a recent BoingBoing post in a discussion about the role of blogs; the relationship between the readers and authors; and the impact of turning a hobby into a business:

The whole thing really boils down to money, doesn’t it? That’s the part that’s interesting to me.

I had a debate a couple of years ago with Jeff Jarvis, where I argued that accepting ads on a site changes the character of the site – even if the writer(s) of the site haven’t changed in their intentions. The context is just different.

If BoingBoing were still an absolutely unprofitable zine done for the pure fun of it, then removing something or changing their minds would be fair game.

But because a bb link now equates – for some – into business value, the removal is somehow more pertinent. Add to that the fact that BB is, to some extent, a profitable business itself, and readers feel there’s a different sort of obligation implied.

If I cut something on my blog, chances are no one would care. That’s because my linkage doesn’t really help so much financially (unless I really really push, as in the case of saving Arthur or RAW) and because my site is unsponsored… What fascinates me is whether the energy spent here might have been directed at Blackwater or some other malfeasant corporation, and how to generate the same sort of outrage for more significant crimes against humanity

And more

BB is much more a part of the GIFT economy than the business economy. Although the people doing it now hope to make a little something off all their work, the ethos is that of a culture, not a business. Posts are still personal, dictating more by social networks than any official or sponsored connection. So the removal of something is not a business decision or policy maneuver – but a personal reflection of what a writer does or doesn’t want his name associated with.

The whole discussion of censorship and transparency really is not germane here. This isn’t government. This isn’t the FDA removing a study that shows a drug had dangerous side effects. This is blog from a posse that quite randomly finds stuff they like or don’t like. This is not a case of institutional, commercial, or government trust; it’s a social situation. In social situations we are free to sulk, to change our minds, and to stay silent about why we are.

If that doesn’t meet the expectations you had when you came here, you are free to ask for your money back.

This is a blogger deciding she doesn’t really agree with what she posted earlier, but thought that calling attention to the removal would have actually created more harm than good.

I’ve tried really hard to wrap my head around the upset, and I think it’s more a matter of projection and web-polarity than substance.

A blogger on BB felt she no longer wanted to be directly associated with what she obviously felt was some negative energy.

Some of you seem to feel she’s not allowed to do that [without] disclosing more, or announcing it.

To me, making that demand is not consistent with the code of the happy mutant.