Forum Moderators: open
[edited by: Brett_Tabke at 4:14 pm (utc) on June 29, 2003]
[edit reason] fixed no registration url [/edit]
While this isn't one of his great columns, it's my sense that people here are perhaps criticizing his metaphor more than his message. I think Friedman's main point is that Americans have got to become more internationally aware, that international opinion counts a lot, and here are some reasons why. He uses Google as a touchstone for his message. I don't think the international nature of the world is any surprise to him at all.
The fact that we're an international group on these forums, communicating in real time, is testimony to the truth of what Friedman is saying, and also the reason some here think that his message is naive. But most Americans aren't very internationally aware at all, have no idea how our policies might affect world opinion, and probably have no idea how easily information and opinion are now spread around the world.
This is what he says the column is about, with my emphasis in bold:
And that brings me to the point of this column: While we may be emotionally distancing ourselves from the world, the world is getting more integrated.
Again, not profound to us... but perhaps to many Americans something that requires a reminder.
Because people outside America will be able to build alliances more efficiently in the world we are entering and they will be able to reach out and touch us — whether with computer viruses or anthrax recipes downloaded from the Internet — more than ever.
Foreigners will be able to 'touch us' through computer viruses or anthrax recipes. All this after we did so much for them!
And get this: only one-third come from inside the U.S. The rest are in 88 other languages.
I must say I find this statement rather curious. So no one in the rest of the world queries in english (can you say "England").
I guess this is just another example of the fine work done by the New York Times. Maybe the editors should try learning some basic logic. :-)
It seems to me you just need to be able to rehash facts and opinions that you stumble across, into a piece that you think might sell newspapers. Whether it is the truth or not hardly seems relevant. That's my opinion of most journalists, after having read about many things that I witnessed myself, and then almost not recognising the newspaper write up as being the same event.
which is why I say that Google, combined with Wi-Fi, is a little bit like God. God is wireless
I'm not religious but that has to be the most ridiculous comparison I have ever seen.?
Google destroys the ability to control this flow of information. I am not sure if anyone read Al Jazeera during the Invasion, but if you did, you got presented with a view that I had NEVER heard before: thge Arab perspective. The West often forgets that the rest of the world has an opinion, and this is mostly cause we are force fed the same information from a variety of sources. Think about it, how often are the front pages of supposedly competitive news papers different?
With Google around, this is dead. All of a sudden, information has no central point of control. No choke point. News is now a "pull" media, where you can find whatever you want, whenever you want. Ppl have access to litterally thousands of opinions, with two or three clicks and the the odd keyword search. And, quite frankly, that scares some ppl.
To my mind, free speach is vital to the development of any society, and especially a Global community. Throughout the build up to war, I was never presented with the Arab perspective, which is surely insane. With Google, I was able to find it with a click or three. There are downsides to all of this, to be sure, and it is how we manage to maintain free speach, while protecting the lives of people, that is the key. Free speah, Liberty and freedom are ideals that need to be embraced, and extended to the whole world, not horded by the lucky few.
But most Americans aren't very internationally aware at all, have no idea how our policies might affect world opinion, and ...
Reading the NYT piece it surely seems so. The statements presented were trule scary to read, i've thought about them for a while now, and they just can't get out of my head.
Do you americans (i'm an european) really think that the whole world hates you? are you really convinced that all non-americans have only one mission in life, ie. attacking americans? That the internet is only intended for distribution of wmd's, viruses and diseases - and in only your direction?
This view seems utterly paranoid to me - as in the psychological diagnosis, not as in the commonly used term. Really, i am worried - if i had heavily armed neigbours thinking like that in my neigbourhood i would surely call the police.
Apart from this, there's some lessons that might be learned from the american movie "Bowling for Columbine" about the media-angle of this thread, but that's ..well perhaps not more OT than the rest of this thread.
/claus
> it means the number of searches in the US has not gone up at all in the last three years (while number of web pages have gone by maybe 10+ times.)
>Bodes bad for all SEs and webmasters.
Only if you're a USer trying to sell stuff via the www. to other USers.
There's only 300 million of "you" (USers) and there's 5.7 billion of "us" (lowercase), why are you so surprised that the (apparent) total search on Google from the US now amounts to only 33% of the total activity, what with Google propogating 2LDs worldwide like the proverbial rabbit?
The rest of "us" know a good thing when we see it too y'know!
And why should that be bad news for "all SEs and webmasters"?
Or is this just your global superiority complex slipping?
Cheers and Hooroo
(that's Australian English for "Cheers and see you later!")
JP.
P.S. rabbits are feral pests here ... ; -)
Naively, I thought that it might be possible for us on WW to have a cordial and insightful conversation regarding the role of the Internet in Geo-Politics without getting into 'us versus them' banter. I thought this was an opportunity ...
I was wrong.
Hence forth, I will refrain from any political conversation on WW. Let me say, in doing so, that I am saddened by this fact.
Yet as an individual and businessman, I will not stop trying to close this gap, nor in my opinion will MSFT, G and others of whom boundaries are meaningless in the scheme of things.
Bottom line for me- The Internet is SUPRANATIONAL- a term that describes institutions that exist above a nation. No one, anywhere, regardless of opinion can ever take that away. I will embrace this truism with passion.
[edited by: Chicago at 3:03 am (utc) on June 30, 2003]
role of the Internet in Geo-Politics without getting into 'us versus them' banter
These types of discussions tend to polarize communities at the best of times. I suppose thats why Politics and Religious topics are against the forum charter.
Do you americans really think that the whole world hates you?
The average american couldn't care less what the world thinks of them. And the article was pointing out that americans should.
are you really convinced that all non-americans have only one mission in life, ie. attacking americans?
Most americans feel that they are good and that our country's intentions are good. That is why many are perplexed over the events of 9/11. Consider this, if someone breaks into a home and victimizes family members the first impulse may be to install security systems and cameras and even firearms. Some people, after being victimized feel insecure and are wary of others, and this mood is very evident in much of what is going on. It's not that americans are afraid of all non-americans, but many americans feel a need to enhance their security.
That the internet is only intended for distribution of wmd's, viruses and diseases - and in only your direction?
This should be viewed within the context of the article which was that americans are a part of the world community. In this context, he was illustrating that the internet bridges the gap of geographic distance.
I hope that this clarifies for you some things that you, by virtue of living outside of america, may not have been able to be aware of. And as Chicago stated, let's keep this discussion cordial- this pointing of fingers and saying, "You americans" or "american leftist" does nothing to enhance the conversation. Think about what you want to say, then phrase it in a manner that is polite. Let's try to be cordial. :)
[edited by: martinibuster at 3:48 am (utc) on June 30, 2003]
Perhaps I should get a handle on how to insert the emoticons, to avoid the usual "TOV" (tone of voice) confusion that comes with written speech.
My "global superiority" question was just a facecious jibe ... OK?!
My question re ">be bad news for "all SEs and webmasters"?" was genuine. I'd like more on this bald statment as to why someone should think that Googles' global reach is "bad for ALL SEs and webmasters", and whether anyone else reading this thread agrees/disagrees.
I LOVE being able to google.com.au, (although I am curious as to why the default radio button is still .com rather than .au., seems to rather defeat the purpose doncha reckon?).
All I can say is <smiling> the folk at Google had better watch out, or the next "global" survey that's done, will see them surplanting Coca Cola as the ROTW (Rest Of The World's) "top of mind" USian brand! (see [abc.net.au...]
Chaio!
JP
Sorry, I have offended you. I think you have misinterpreted my interpretation of the facts in the article. ;)
When I said that number of pages has gone up perhaps 10 fold but number of searches in the USA has remained the same in the last three years - it is a bad sign for all SEs and webmasters/webmistresses, I was serious. In any new technology if the curve becomes flat, it is not a good sign and shows perhaps no bright future for Google and others. 3 years is a very long time in the history of SEs and no growth in the USA means the market has become saturated at just 200 million searches which is less than one search per person. Companies want to be in the growth businesses and not in a mature or declining business.
Number of searches worldwide has increased but if the US trend, which might be ahead of other countries by a couple of years, is repeated in other countries, means SEs in other countries will similarly face no growth after a few years. Bad of them then.
...is one of the patterns which are less prevalent on the web, wich is one of the most attractive things about living on the web.
So to an extent what we are seeing here is the difference between print and webpublishing.
In any case the points Chicago and Martinibuster were making about sweeping generalisations are well made.
Participating at WebmasterWorld for me has definitely made it harder to stick with such generalisations :)
Really, i did not intend to offend anyone. My use of "you americans" was not ment to be rude - the phrase was used only to clarify who i would like to hear an answer from. I apologize to anyone that felt bad about it.
And thanks a lot for the fine answers martinibuster, i thought that the statements in the NYT piece were very far from what i see and hear elsewhere, especially since my primary contact to americans is through the web.
The paranoid attitude in the article was simply something that i had not met yet - which, by itself, is comforting. I take it as a sign that once again, the media does not show the full picture. And: There are real people out there behind the screens.
Apart from that, i'm really not that political. The "Geo-political" stuff Chicago refers to is simply way over my head, but i get the impression that he is simply saying something like: The net is a nice place to interact with all sorts of people regardless of language, country of origin, sex, religion, color, and political standpoint - ie. the UN charter of human rights restated, which isn't that bad at all.
Enough jibberish for now - having worked in my own countrys media industry for a few years, i know about so-called journalism, and i think this forum is a very nice example of what the net can be when it's best :) :)
PS: Shouldn't this thread be moved to "Foo"?
/claus
Wonderfully restated.I just love what ever it said and Implied.
Looking at internet and the discussions we have at WW,I belive it enriches each one of us.
I was not all that happy after reading the article, but when I re-read and again saw the discussions here, I liked the way the article is projected(interpreted) here at WW by MartiniBuster and Others.(Perhaps if not for your clarification I would have gone ahead with my own interpretation which would have been Baised.)
A nice polite stand :-)
Aravind
And get this: only one-third come from inside the U.S. The rest are in 88 other languages.I'm sure there are more languages than 88, so I was wondering where this number of 88 languages was coming from?
On the Benefits of Advertising on Google [google.com] page it says:
Google users search from more than 200 countries using any of 88 language interfaces
The 88 'languages' [google.com] include the famous "Bork, bork, bork!", "Hacker", and the almost extinct "Elmer Fudd".
If you want to know more about the English used on Google, go to the Zeitgeist [google.com] page and look at the graph showing 'Languages Used to Access Google'. In the last 26 months the percentages of English went from 66% to 50%.
There is a list of the world's languages, called "Ethnologue" (Grimes 1996). There are 6,500 living languages listed. Of these, 6,000 have registered population figures. 52% of the 6,000 languages are spoken by less than 10,000 people, and 28% are spoken by less than 1,000 people. 83% of them are limited to single countries.
Apparently, only languages recognized by Google count. Kind of puts a dent in the Global Village idea, as only 1.3% percent of living languages are represented in Google... :)
Oh well, Google as God needs a translator.
- It's not a NYT editorial, it's an opinion piece, i.e. an essay which does not carry the endorsement of the NYT editors. The so-called op-ed section is a traditional feature of US newspapers, where multiple points of view on some issue or event are raised. The leading US newspapers are all pretentious to a fault with claims to objectivity.
- The NYT is not a national newspaper in the sense of Britain's national papers-- there are no truly national US newspapers-- and at no point does it represent the sentiment of the country. It is left of the electorate on most public issues, more so and more consistently so than other leading papers like the Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, the Dallas Morning News, or certainly the Wall Street Journal.
I will grant that it is indeed the indisputed leading newspaper, and it sets the news agenda for most of the major newspapers, broadcast and cable television, and radio networks in the US (when things like the restrictions at Augusta mysteriously rise to the top of the front page, it often means the Times has decided to take up a new cause). Partly that's because it's the leading broadsheet in New York City, which is functionally the capital city of the US-- yes, the politicians and generals and intellectuals are in Washington, and the musicians and movie producers are in Los Angeles, but New York sets the agenda for US media, finance, high culture, fashion, etc.
So, writers for the Times (I know this from journalists I know) often write to an audience who might call themselves members of, or aligned with, the so-called liberal intelligentsia-- people who might be accustomed to apologizing for being an American, or think that they're a little (lor a lot) smarter and more cosmopolitan than Joey Lunchpail and Sarah Housecoat in the vast fly-over territory between Boston and San Francisco, or who might want to share an implied citizenship of the center of the universe-- New York City. People who might need occasional reminding of their actual position :), as I think this essay intends to do. It was not slated for mass market consumption, for a human interest snippet on CNN or a factoid box in USA Today.
For example, my wife comes from one of those countries where the language is only spoken there - it doesn't exist, outside their borders. The script is unique, as is the linguistic origin of the language, culture, and people.
As an American, I am glad that my language (US English) exists outside the borders of my country, as I only know two languages, it makes cross cultural communication easier (though on occasion confusing, when speaking with a person from the UK, as their English is different.)
Consider for a moment "American" the whole idea is problematic - I can trace my family history back more than a 1,000 years - how many folks living in the USA can do that with any accuracy? Know something about the struggles of the folks that lived five hundred years ago, or three hundred?
In contrast, my wife knows only 5 generations of her family history - the rest is lost, and that is a very sad thing.
As for the whole "sweeping generalization" of Americans, it's really tough, because an American like myself - who has lived outside the US, with a multinational family - hates to even be compared to other Americans, because I am different - and no amount of stereotyping will ever make me more like "other" Americans.
So the article, for people like myself, does cause a bit of a knee jerk reaction in that -> it speaks to a perpsective perhaps a bit less informed on global issues? Perhaps, perhaps not.
The fact that none of us here can change is that, with the internet, it's far, far easier than it ever was before to communicate across borders - without regard to geo political boundries. The breakdown of nationalistic borders, even the very ideas of 'patriotism' and 'nationalism' are being challenged, and I know that my children will never know what it's like, as I do, to feel part of one country.
In many ways, I only view that as a natural progression, and a good thing, because if there is no "us and them" then we only think about us and the ramifacitions of our actions for all of us.
Yes, the article perhaps was pitched in language geared towards causing a reaction - however, we as people who use the internet, can contribute to making the positive changes in life, in community, and the globe - that help each other coexist. ;)
hot topic this eh?
IItian said >Sorry, I have offended you.
None taken, no worries mate! (that's Aussie for forget it) <grin>
If the number of pages has increased, but searches are static, that may not so much be a sign of decline, but that SEs are primarily used to initially find sites/pages of use to the searcher.
After that, it's bookmarked or people remember the DN and type it in directly to return. What that means is what those who gather around the WebmasterWorld water cooler always knew ... make the site sticky ... content is king <grin>.
Another interpretation (and this is pure speculation on my part with no empirical evidence to point to whatsoever), is that "saturation" point has been reached in the developed world.
There are about as many people connected to the internet as there's going to be for a while. If that is to change, then it's time to start working on the socio-economic-political situation.
It also means that what we'll see over the next couple of years, is most new growth occuring in newly industrialized and developing NON en lang countries, so my advice is ... find a friendly translator now!
Cheers and Hooroo
JP
