Andreessen on blogging

Mike Masnick mike@techdirt.com
Thu, 06 Mar 2003 15:26:54 -0800


First off, I blog for a living, so maybe my comments should be 
discounted.  My day job *is* blogging, so I can't necessarily speak 
accurately for those who blog outside of work.

At 11:37 PM 3/6/2003 +0100, Eugen Leitl wrote:
>On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Tom wrote:
>
> > Ya know, Ive just about had it with folks who think that every blog should
> > or even can be the apex of journalistic endevours. You folks suck all the
>
>You don't have to pull a Pulitzer on your blog. But what's the point in
>running one? The average monkey is governed but by a few elementary
>forces; how does the blogging thing fit into that greater frame of things?

This is the complaint I hear most often about blogs and the one that makes 
the least sense to me.  What do you care why other people blog?  If it's 
important to them, then it's important.  If it's not important to you, then 
don't read them.  Done deal.  Life is good.  Everyone is happy.

>What's the ulterior motive behind expressing stuff? Don't need full inner
>state dump, but I'm still curiour what the differences between the
>obsessive-compulsive mailer vs. blogger are, if any.

Who needs an ulterior motive?  People (oh my goodness!) are all different 
and have different reasons for anything they do.  Some blog for fun.  Some 
do it to remember stuff.  Some do it to be popular (c'mon, everyone's doing 
it...).  Some people do it for work.

I don't deny that most blogs out there hold no interest for me 
whatsoever.  But, that doesn't mean the format and the concept are useless.

Blogs are simply a new medium for conversation - and they're useful for 
certain types of conversations.  Just because you don't grasp that doesn't 
mean they're no good.

>Blogs are pull, I can't even manage to wade through my push.

And, thus, everyone should stop blogging?  Because you don't have enough 
time to read them all?

Interestingly, though, plenty of people are working on ways to make blogs 
more "push" mechanisms.  That is, for those who find them useful as such.


> > The omnivoraholic simply has to be there are else it simply has to not
> > happen.
> >
> > If people are so insecure that they can not bear that something is goign
> > on without thier devine being being a apart of things then maybe its time
> > to cut the cat5 and seek bliss elsewhere.
>
>Maybe God reads all the blogs. I'm no god, even the thought of potentially
>being able to makes me rather nauseous. Then, rather, give me plastinated
>corpses.

Maybe God reads all the damn fork messages that are going back and forth 
each day, because (clearly) no human could.  What does this have to do with 
anything we're discussing here?  The point isn't to read all blogs - or 
even to read any blogs.  It's just a tool that some people find useful.

> > --]Those who can't, blog.

Looking at the vast collection of people who do blog, and who do *do*, I'd 
have to say empirically you don't have much to stand on.  Make an extreme 
statement and it only takes a single example to throw you off.

In the end... just like any technology, the blog is a tool.  It's useful 
for some, not useful for others.  And like any tool, people will misuse it 
to their own liking.  Tossing out the whole concept because some people use 
blogs in ways that you don't find interesting shows a lack of creativity on 
your part - not on those of the bloggers.

Mike