Structured blogging is an effort on the part of a group of companies to exploit bloggers and people in general. Here is a list of the Structured Blogging Participants. These companies think it’s a good idea if bloggers format their posts according to certain “syndicated formats” developed according to the content.
Marc Canter, the CEO of Broadband Mechanics ‘announced’ the launch of StructuredBlogging.org, a non-profit initiative supporting the development and deployment of syndicated formats in blog posts. Mr. Canter’s company is focused on ‘digital lifestyle aggregation.’ Mr. Canter runs a company that looks to aggregate information into different segments, ACCORDING TO THE CONTENT.
Interestingly enough, Mr. Canter’s company is not one of the Structured Blogging Participants. However, while his company isn’t a participant, it is a ’sponsor.’ In fact, his is the only company that is a sponsor, but not a participant. If this is an attempt at avoiding a conflict of interest, it’s wholly transparent. Perhaps Mr. Canter will include his company as a participant once he realizes it was left off of the list.
Jean-Francois Clavier blogged about the ‘announcement’. It just so happens that Jean-Francois is involved with one of the participating companies, Edgeio. Besides introducing StructuredBlogging and admitting that he’s personally involved with a company that is supporting one of the syndicated formats, Jean-Francois states that:
StructuredBlogging is an orchestrated manipulation by a group of individuals and companies to have bloggers adopt syndicated formats. One way they’re attempting to do so is by framing their efforts as brilliant, or heroic, while in truth they’re simply exploiting people. If these companies open up their source code, as they’re claiming to be an open source initiative, then they will certainly be undertaking a hero’s exploit. Otherwise, they’re simply making a buck on the backs of bloggers; exploitation plain and simple.
The StructuredBlogging “Participants” look to position themselves in between the bloggers and the end-users. And while they will claim that they add value with their aggregating schemes, the truth is that the biggest part of their effort is happening right now, manipulating the bloggers. If they succeed, the money that flows into their pockets lessens the value of the original content and further depersonalizes the greatest asset the web has, individuals!
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...Tags: aggregation, bloggers, broadband mechanics, Clavier, Computer, Computer User, conflict of interest, Jean-Francois Clavier, Marc Canter, Web 2.0
.
I’ll admit, the current value proposition is backwards. PubSub, Technorati, Google, Yahoo and the like have way more to gain than bloggers do at this point. However, if the value doesn’t shift to the end user, there is no way people are going to use it. Period. People are busy(lazy?), they are not going to add structure for the sake of structure.
If people start publishing structured content everybody wins. Yes, Google, PubSub, Technorati, etc. all get lovely structured content for their services - but we as users can derive the benefits of not only those services, but we can build our own based on the same open and transparent standards. Structure helps us to manage, share and publish our content in new ways - without it we’re stuck with the same blob of text we have now.
If you don’t like the proposed standards - speak up. Get involved - state your case, but for your own peace of mind stop looking for a conspiracy.
I’ll bet you’ve got a solid theory on who shot Kennedy, too! Relax… IMHO, structured blogging could enable some seriously cool and liberating services on the web… we individuals are still safe… online!
I have to digest (and find more facts) about your statement on StructuredBlogging.
However on the other hand, we desperately need a format that human can read easily (rather than machine or bots) — hence, the web for human. As far as I can see, the microformats trend should also includes the new trend on search engine that return the result that matters to us (again, human centered website).
It’s debatable how much structure is enough but it’s certainly not terribly useful without standards, usually. Which I think is really what something like StructuredBlogging is all about.
I recently sent a link to my university lecturer on the HP research project on Semantic Blogging. I don’t think the StructuredBlogging guys are the only people out there thinking about this. Will post on both soon, to the best of my limited ability.
The Structured Blogging extensions for Moveable Type and WordPress are open-source. Any suggestions that there is some kind of grand conspiracy going on are simply wrong. From the very earliest moments of this idea, we have recognized that any attempt to build proprietary formats or tools would simply kill the idea.
The first version of the Structured Blogging extensions for WordPress were delivered last spring. They were built by Duncan Werner at PubSub and were released as Open Source. PubSub funded Marc Canter’s BroadbandMechanics to improve the original WordPress extension and to build additional open-source extensions for other platforms — the first released is Moveable Type.
It was stated during announcement at Syndicate that these extensions are open source. It is stated on the website (http://structuredblogging.org) and in many other places. Anyone suggesting that this is not open-source code is simply ignoring reality. There are no conspiracies here.
bob wyman
CTO, PubSub.com
A little too much conspiracy theory going on… Marc’s company, BroadBand Mechanics, is not a participant because it does not have a product or web service. It is a consulting shop, so that is my logical assumption as to the reasons why. It’s not about avoiding a conflict of interest.
And I know about BroadBand because we are their client.
It doesn’t matter if conspiracy theory or not, really. In my opinion there is another point, we forget to often, when talking about the necessity of structure.
What is the Web? - In the nineties everyone (I knew) was just aware that it is a totally chaotic collection of content. And it hasn’t changed - and it won’t change. Even if the habitude of googeling through the web gives the user a different impression.
And what is structure about? Imagine a big parking place, where the lines are replaced by walls. What are you going to do, if you’ve a car, that is to big for these litte compartments formed by the walls? - Structure is fine if you want toorganize something. But in the moment you organize things, you will exclude (perhaps even forbid) everything, that doesn’t fit in your structure.
What is the use of organizeing the web, - or, more precisly: it’s content? I think there is just no need for more organization in the web. I always prevered the old, not at all outdated link from one page to another. In this way I found my favorite pages, in this way everybody starts building his own structure. (Question: How many of your favorites did you found by google? - For me: Not one.)
But, as more structure is given by yahoo, by google and even by wikipedia (which I love, but hwo doesn’t) to the web, as more structure is forced on the web, the web will loose little by little his chaotic (in a not political way anarchic) appearance - and I think, what we will loose if we try to structure the web is just what we love about the web.
P.S. Sorry for my english …
Hey Ken
Great post.
Let me respond - if you don’t mind.
The definition of the word exploit is correct. However what you didn’t analyze or define is the word ’standard’. Is a standard an exploitation or cooperation? How do standards evolve Ken? Through standards committees or the free and open marketplace?
The source code for the plugins and libraries is open source. But for you to insist that every tool that uses the code be open source - is a little - well I’ll save us both the usage of any term. But I really like all those little icons you put along the bottom of your posts. Is all the source code for those servcies available as open source - or is it the ’standard’ which you yourself are supporting - excuse me - being exploited by - acknowledge that its US - the people - who have to build standards?
You’re right - my company is not a supporter - yet. We don’t have a product on the market - yet. But Ken once we do - it’ll be clear that we whole heartdely support a number of open standards. See #6
Ken I appreciate your enthusiasm - love yah babe (not in a homo erotic way.)
I’ll now react to some of your other comments:
1Bryan - yes Bryan is right that PubSub and Technorati have the most to gainand are insertign themselves in teh middle between content and the people who are supposed to benefit from it. THAT’S WHY WE’RE DOING WHAT WE’RE DOING KEN! To improve the situation abnd get others to do otehr things to bring value to teh equation. Hello! That’s our motivation! See #2
3Oskar probably doesn’t realize that we’re 1,000,000,000,000% microformats compatible and we support it whole heartedly.
So again - I thank you for your concern - but I’d be more afraid of Google Base - then us.
Moshi-Moshi Marc, Thanks for your comments.
When used as a noun, the word ’standard’ tends to imply an ideal. In this sense, a standard is a conceptual end towards which one turns their attention. Through action, one might thereby strive to approach the ideal, the standard. When used as an adjective, ’standard’ indicates the norm; designating that which lacks qualities or features considered exceptional. As such, a ’standard’ thing may not be considered exceptionally good or bad with regard to other things in its class.
Considering whether a “standard” is exploitive or cooperative, one ought to consider both the formative process, and the operative function of a standard. A group generally engages in the process of standard formation and its motivations serve to characterize such efforts as cooperative or exploitative. More specifically, one ought to consider each participant?s motives as potentially exploitative. See Rambus v. Infineon, for example. Additionally, one must consider if there was an exploitative intent on the part of the group as a whole?
Once formed, some willingly adopt a standard. Others are unwillingly subjected to it. One must view the effects of the standard on each of these two distinct populations. Generally, a standard is cooperative when each of those expected to abide by the standard, or to strive to reach the standard have either participated in its formation or have willingly accepted it. Regarding those unwillingly subjected to a standard, one needs to consider whether the standard promotes an ideal that is more elevated than the ideal which it replaces. The lowering of a standard serves to exploit some group, usually the unwilling subjects (i.e. slavery).
With regard to structured blogging, Marc, you state that the intention of the group is not
exploitative. Given that you’re in a far better position to know the intentions of not only the group as a whole, but individual members as well, an analysis must then shift to the function of the structured blogging standards.
I recently read a journal article detailing the results to a novel physics experiment.
Much like the popular executive toy, a number of spheres hang from a cross-bar, each by a connecting string. In the experiment, an oscillator is placed at the point where each string attaches to the cross-bar and the oscillators are made to oscillate in phase. The result: the spheres move chaotically. When the oscillators are set to be “out of phase” and their motion is randomized, the motion of the spheres unexpectedly becomes synchronized.
I hypothesize that when an environment is ordered and stable, randomness is generated by elements internal to the environment. Concomitantly, when an environment is disordered and chaotic, order tends to be generated by the environment’s internal elements.
We find that people are striving to generate the standards (such as structured blogging) necessary to give the web more structure and order. When such efforts result in the formation of normative standards (standards that define what is average), one sees the sacrifice of exploration, discovery and growth in the name of co-operation. In essence, one finds exploitation.
It is in the formation of an ideal that one promotes exploration, discovery and the cooperation between those striving to reach such an end. The hope being that one day such an ideal becomes simply that which is standard. The question one ought to ask then is this: What structure might be broad enough to serve both as an ideal and as a means for identifying the norm? It is in this structure that one will find the means for bringing order to the web in a way that promotes personal expression and creative experimentation.