Comments on: Digg's Jay Adelson Speaks!

By: links for 2008-04-09 | Richard Hartley

links for 2008-04-09 | Richard Hartley — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 18:41:44 +0000

[...] regulators over how long personal data related to searches should be retained. Source: PC WorldDigg's Jay Adelson speaksAt some point and sooner than later, if I had to make a bet, Digg will be sold. And, likely as not, [...]

By: rod sandcones

rod sandcones — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 18:23:50 +0000

Well, in the beginning, what I term web 1.0, it was about information, and “links” cross-references between physically separate pieces of information. Surfing the web. Hypertext. Then people discovered that they could be their own publishers. They could publish themselves for little or no-cost. Then people discovered other people who also had the same idea, to publish themselves. Then people started connecting with people of like-minds, which led to the birth of social networks. The next step is what are the meanings of these social networks? What are the meanings of these connections(and sometimes disconnections) that we and others make? Relationships are built on trust. People value friends they can trust. People disvalue friends they can’t trust. You can extrapolate that to media sources, as well, like The Times, or the Journal. On a tangent, one might check out Marshall McLuhan, if you want to really have a firmer grasp of media. That’s all I have, for now.

By: Norbert Mayer-Wittmann

Norbert Mayer-Wittmann — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 13:00:03 +0000

Very interesting interview — though it raises more questions than it answers.

The definition of term “blogger” may indeed be changing quite significantly.

In web 1.0, it was unknown — the term was basically “created” / “explained” to the wider population during this era. The original meaning of the term was something like: someone who keeps a diary of musings online (derived for the verb “to log”).

In web 2.0, it became what it is now known as throughout the tech community (though perhaps the wider population is still stuck on the web 1.0 definition): today a blogger is basically a meta-reporter. The fact that bloggers rarely create original content is a recurring theme that was also recently commented on in a “This Week in Tech (TWIT)” mp3-cast. But blogging is still seen as a “destination” thing insofar as bloggers seem to expect users to visit “their” (proprietary) weblogs — so it is somewhat ironic that Jay seems to be criticizing “old media” for acting as if “you need to come to us”.

I feel that in the future (3.0? 4.0? 4.6? see e.g. http://www.squidoo.com/finding ) web-logging will be entirely distributed (whenever I think of this I am reminded of the liner notes to Brian Eno’s Nerve Net — but I am dating myself here ;)… — so people will more and more go to “SEMANTIC” locations (e.g. “news” or “movies” or “baby” or “digg” or “live” or whatever [indeed, in a facebook post I made a couple months ago, people actually DID comment that they use "digg" as a verb -- hmm, didn't the Beatles do a song called "Digg It"? ;]) — and INDIVIDUAL (whether personal or corporate) comments/remarks will become less and less significant (compared to the social/community commentary).

Note, however, that a still significantly undervalued data point is the “content” known as the “domain name”. This is AUTHORIZED content — unlike most (if not all) other web content, this data field must be registered and linked to an administrator, who can be held responsible for the information published at that location (see also my comment on a businessweek.com article that raised the “value of content” issue: http://app.businessweek.com/Us.....840#248840 ).

Sorry for rambling…

:) nmw

By: Kara Swisher

Kara Swisher — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:46:30 +0000

Greg:

It is in Share button. Click it.

By: Greg German

Greg German — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 19:45:24 +0000

I just wanted to point out how you guys have a link to put this on the Digg clone Yahoo! Buzz, but a Digg link in the same sense is nowhere to be found. C’mon, really?