At 10:08 PM 6/17/96, Mike McNally wrote:
That reminds me. As someone who hasn't yet given up on WiReD in disgust (instead, I get it and read it faithfully in disgust), I was particularly pissed-off at the latest "Kids Net Rights" issue. Jonathan Katz huffs and puffs about how "nobody in the digital world" protests the idea of rating schemes to keep non-adults away from information, and indeed claims that "the digerati" (grrr) are pushing rating schemes with great gusto to save themselves from censorship.
I guess by "nobody", he probably means "nobody who hangs out in the same trendy espresso bars as the WiReD trendmeisters". I've seen plenty of invective directed at the concept of rating systems in general, from a variety of people including Tim May and li'l ol' me. That's been here and on some various newsgroups.
Indeed, I have not only written _against_ such mandatory rating and age-declaration schemes, I have also written about how such schemes may be used counter to the intended purposes (e.g., the way LolitaWatch helps connoisseurs of young girls locate targets). I happened to pick up that issue of "Wired" today and skimmed it at the bookstore. The same old points of view recycled, refried, retreaded, and ready to be retired. I suspect that author didn't know about our criticisms because we're not published in "Wired," nor in "Netly News" and other such travesties. Most importantly, we're not journalists, "online activists," or moonlighting science fiction writers, and so we don't count. Nearly every issue of "Wired" has the usual columnists, the usual feature writers, and the usual focus on _personalities_ over substance. (Who the fuck cares that on a long drive through the desert Jean Louis Gassee opined to a budding Hunter S. Thompson that "that makes my nipples hard"? I stopped reading that issue of "Wired" when this shit bubbled up out of the sewer.) (I'd go back exclusively to "Scientific American," except they now charge $4.95 for a much-thinner magazine than the old thick and meaty issues of the 60s and 70s, where an issue sold for 60 cents, then 75 cents, then $1.00, etc. Also, the old article format has been replaced by shorter, flashier, more personality-oriented pieces. Still, better than the fluff of "Wired," which is "tired.") And notice that increasingly the "journalists" are the quoted thinkers and strategists in important areas? Someone majors in English, starts writing for "Netizen" or "HotWired," and the next thing you know they're debating crypto policy with Conrad Burns and Dorothy Denning. We're in an age where the medium truly is the message. I do think "Wired" has a few good items, buried deeply in the muck. I dislike their typography and color styles (but then, who doesn't?), but mostly I dislike their hipper-than-thou techno-freneticism. The hundreds of little sound bytes about technolog, what's hot and what's not (wired--tired), the focus on ephemeral personalities (a la "People," it's true inspiration), well, it all makes me glad to never spend more than 15 minutes flipping through it at the newstand. Someone told me recently that "Wired" is either already public, or is about to go public (stock-wise), with an estimated market capitalization of $400 million. (I guess some of those journalists are suddenly very rich....) Caveat emptor. --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."