From today’s Times (London) :

Web 2.0 may be destroying civilisation. That, at least, is the view of Andrew Keen, a Silicon Valley-based British entrepreneur and author. He has written The Cult of the Amateur: How Today’s Internet Is Killing Our Culture (due out in June), which argues that the web is an anti-enlightenment phenomenon, a destroyer of wisdom and culture and an infantile, Rousseau-esque fantasy. “It’s the cult of the child,” he says. “The more you know, the less you know. It’s all about digital narcissism, shameless self-promotion. I find it offensive.”

The vicious abuse of programmer and technologist Kathy Sierra by a few psychos is deeply regrettable but sadly, par for the course.

Human life is a matrix of the good and the bad, the sublime and the appalling. In an open communications medium like the internet, each of these qualities will be represented. In fact, the bad and the appalling will be in evidence more than might be expected numerically as these people will be filtered out of most other channels by editorial barriers.

This is not new, of course. It has been present since the start of the online world and of blogging in particular. Freedom of speech can never eliminate the horrendous or it would not be freedom of speech.

The internet is the only really free broadcasting recourse for foul-mouthed abuse of the kind Kathy Sierra has endured for almost a month, which includes death threats.

What can be done about it?
Firstly, it shouldn’t be beyond modern police forces to track down the individuals concerned. I suspect they will be revealed as sad cases rather that dangerous urban terrorists.

Secondly, Kathy Sierra should get her life back on track. She is sure to have enormous support and sympathy at the conferences she addresses. Locking herself in her home will only give victory to the bad guys at the expense of her lifestyle and career.

There’s a big Techmeme discussion on this topic.

The panic in the blogosphere is palpable. Some rotter hacked into WordPress 2.1.1 before the code was released, potentially allowing Al Quaeda a backdoor into our homes. Well, that’s how it sounds.

We are being urged by all manner of worthies to upgrade IMMEDIATELY to WP 2.1.2.

Now that’s all very well, but I guess the majority of users will be on hosted servers and rely on Fantastico (or its equivalent) to present upgrade options. I just checked on one of our hosted servers and the upgrade option is — you guessed it — 2.1.1, and has been for days. It’s still there as I type at 11.30 GMT Sunday morning, March 4.

Shouldn’t someone at WordPress ping the Fantasticos and tell them, “Houston, we have a problem”? Come on Matt. I can hear Osama sharpening his sword.

Paul Scrivens has posted on the topic “Why blog networks failed” over at Wisdump.com.

Do you remember those things that we called Blog Networks? You might have paid attention or you might have gone about your life like nothing changed and that’s one of the reasons why they failed. ‘Failed’ might be a harsh term to use, but of the hundreds of blog networks that started in 2005 and 2006 which ones are thriving and by ‘thriving’ I don’t mean staying above surface?

His line of reasoning, which is mostly sound, follows the Calacanis line that atomized blogs are less effective revenue earners than major titles, like Engadget or Boing Boing.

Readers of Syntagma may recall we’ve been considering this proposition for up to a year. The reason we’ve amalgamated our 50 domains into three network magazines, and pruned a great many others, is our recognition that the model was not flexible or attractive enough to make the breakthrough in revenue terms.

I believe “blogging” as content provision peaked possibly as far back as a year ago. Other, more traditional or hybrid, models have more to offer, I believe, in connecting with a technology-and-information-bemused audience. Blog networks are fading as Web 2.0 is slowly sinking into a rosy sunset.

But I also think Scrivs underestimates the amount of time it takes to get a content business going. Even Weblogs Inc took 18-24 months to build a site to a decent readership. That takes staying power as well as trust in the model.

What has happened is that following the success of a few sites which grew rapidly in a market with little competition, thousands of copycat operations have appeared like mushrooms in a damp forest.

We have saturation point in gadgets, autos, gaming, and gossip. The failure of many blog networks is largely one of imagination and genuine innovation. Just look at the derivative stuff out there.

As for the model, it can evolve, adapt and morph into newer forms. But, as we well know, it takes an immense and constant effort to accomplish this. It’s not for the fainthearted or the easily discouraged.

Content as a business is not synonymous with “blog networks”. There are some great content sites out there that are not blogs or networks.

I agree with Scrivs that the blog network model has failed as a road to easy riches. But, if you’re in it for the longer term, and innovate while bringing in traditional publishing skills, there may yet be solid achievement round the corner.

Bottom line : There will always be a need for good, informative, well-researched content with commentary while search engines expand and refine their techniques. How that content is presented is important but less so than its usability by the audience.

The only constraining factor is excessive competition squeezing out some operators. But then, that’s always been the case in every industry since wheelwrights started up in the Stone Age.

In reflective Saturday mood, I want to continue the discussion of the last two days on digital networks. This time not singling out specific networks or people. I’m also restricting the networks to those that start off as microbusinesses and build to at least mid-market positions.

This is the question : How do we measure success in a digital network?

The simple response is : against the goals set by the founders when the network was started.

That’s a bit fuzzy because goals can change; ambitions can grow or recede; new horizons can beckon; the original goals may have been unattainable or too easy because of lack of experience in the founders.

So we need an objective measure. I believe there are two :

1. The network sells to a deep-pocketed buyer, leaving the founders rich and satisfied.
2. The business becomes a viable company, paying salaries and fees to others, and a tidy income to the founders, while also growing asset value as time passes.

I suspect many an online publisher would settle for either, whatever way their initial preference leaned.

There are other measures too. For example, a business may not make much money, but gain credibility and respect among the audience it serves. The founders may then launch ancillary careers as consultants or advisers. But here we’re concentrating on publishing income from content delivered, so we’ll eliminate these sideline activities.

I’m guessing that anyone who becomes an online publisher starts out with one of the above two objectives as their main goal. What then do they need to do to reach digital Nirvana?

1. If you’re rearing a business for sale you are essentially a digital farmer. Agricultural methodology should be built into your plans.

For instance, be aware of the weather, by which I mean the internet climate, which can go from euphoric (1999) to dustbowl dismal (2001) in very short order. Sniffing the digital wind should be an important part of your day.

At present there’s a general feeling that Web 2.0 is in a mini-bubble state, with no-one currently launching IPOs on their startups. There’s also a dangerous belief that Google, the classic 2.0-timer, will protect everyone else in the space with its long coat-tails. Not a good frame of mind to adopt.

You also need to get your product right. Is it a generic thing made to be branded fully by someone else after purchase? Or is it an exotic offering that needs good branding now? I can think of examples of both out there as I write.

If it’s a shell of an idea, it will fail or succeed by the state of the market at the time and should be brought to sale as quickly as possible and in the right conditions. Such mass market fruit ripens quickly and begins to rot before you know it.

If it’s the exotic variety, it requires a unique selling point to carry it into the arms of an eager buyer. In many ways this type of network is more suited to Objective 2 than to 1. However, it can be very attractive if its branding is well-thought through and admired in the marketplace.

So, as a digital farmer you’re either selling raw chicken carcasses or chill-counter Chicken Kiev. You definitely need to know which it is, or you’ll end up giving someone indigestion.

2. If you are incubating your network as a viable business you should attend to all the things that such businesses require, from infrastructure to branding and product excellence.

This is the slower path as your objectives are longer-term. But it’s the traditional path. Few people in the past built businesses to sell under bubble conditions, catching the big wave as it forms. Only the surfing, internet generation has specialized in this kind of California dreaming.

Conditions are never less than dangerous for those who venture out into the swell. Such people really do need a gameplan for when it all goes horribly wrong. Like an alternative business plan that allows them to morph easily from Objective 1 to Objective 2, with scarcely a flutter of attention from eagle-eyed onlookers.

In the interim, success is measurable by where you are now in terms of the market conditions, the grasp you have on the situation, and the positioning you’ve achieved in the light of the outcome aimed for.

If that sounds complicated, it’s so because, until the wished-for outcome is met, you are still in no-man’s-land, that messy hinterland where the future is dark and the present edgy.

Taking home a good paycheck is some consolation for these uncertain times. In its absence, it should at least be imaginable sometime soon, or you’re in the wrong business.

And Syntagma Digital? Where do we stand? … Maybe I’ll tell you one day.