Facebooks philanthropy is to be financed by the 200 million people it knows better then they know themselves. If you haven't realized, the goal of this infernal software is to get everyone in the developed world hardwired to the grid for the purpose of efficiently weeding out anyone whoever had a unique idea, when the social atmosphere is right... The funny thing is this PR stunt couldn't have been more blatantly deceiving, what it should have read was "Facebook hits 200 million, and will encourage its users to buy 'digital gifts' (likely one of the highest profit margined commodities ever to exist) to fund its administrative costs". Facebook itself isn't contributing a dime, largely because they haven't devised a viable means of income other then their shadowy investors. *Picture of facebook in ten years.

Digg it, Reddit, Stumble it, connect it, link it, like it, FUCK it

Its safe to say the blogosphere, has to some effect, empowered people to circulate news and information and as such has yielded a new generation of outspoken and raging pseudo journalists like yours truly. However, it was only a matter of time before this required regulation so not to be a liability to the people that own everything and everyone. In response to this democratic exercise, venture capitalists embarked on a plan (like Google) to organize and classify this plethora of information into something palatable that is suited to a viewers interest, and by and large amendable to the status quo.

The premise is that with so much information being circulated its impossible for any individual to find what they are looking for, thus algorithms based on ones interests and past usage of the internet are used by the sites in question to determine what is relevant to your tastes. "Your tastes" as determined by someone else's software program.

In this way then web 2.0 was the death of the internet (which was dead on arrival anyway as its a product of the US military duh). No longer can something be viewed in its own right and guaranteed site accessibility on the basis of its content. Rather it now boils down to how many people "digg it" or "like it" or "link it" etc. If something doesn't have many diggs its safe to say that it isn't a worthy read, and will thus be buried by these websites, who can easily manipulate view counts, diggs, ratings of their content etc. Yes indeed, the ziosphere plays on our vulnerability to this digital plague of consensus validity, in that if some trolling other bloke didn't digg it, then why should I bother.

So be careful when swarming to something thats been "dugg" simply because its been dugg, its likely going to digg you a fucking ditch and disinformative on some level, because any authentically critical literature is easily tucked deep into the sands of digital history with the push of a reset button.

Leave a Reply