Greg and I were discussing the "sudden" realization that blogs are biased the other day. Well, duh! It's a personal soapbox! Of course it's biased. That's like someone suddenly realizing that the news media is biased. Of course it is, it's a human endeavour. The absence of bias is impossible.

Some bloggers consider themselves immune from eothical analysis, because their blinders won't let them consider their own biases. Everyone is biased. It's simple fact: no matter what one does, I don't think it's possible to truly be free of biases. That would be like free of breathing.

Oi. I really have to get Firefox 2 running on my linux box. My fingers can't keep up with my thoughts and the typos abound.

BIAS!.. BIAS! or was that subtle advertizing? ;)

It is not just that bloggers have bias - the internet accentuates bias. It encourages immediate thoughtless response, it promotes simple link to authority rather than discourse as to and about the given authority and it creates the level playing field where all feel their voice is equally important.

What is <i>does</i> do, however, is dismantle authority (false and actual), creates eddies (but not community) and confound thought through cacophony. Bias gets pronounced in all that as it is given more room to fester. But if that is the case, should it be rejected or embraced?

As in many things in the real world on on the internet.. I believe there is not necessarily a cut and dried answer. There are so many extenuating circumstances that saying it should be all or nothing about "allowing" something like bias to fester is to me like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There are times when a bias is important, showing where one stands on an issue. There are times when it isn't acceptible such as in moderating a discussion if one is trying to act as an impartial judge or moderator.

within the internet, the use of language obviously is how we get our point across.. no actions or body language to give clues to the readers. Using a word in the wrong context can be misleading. No one can hear the inflection or stress the writer may put on a word withing their mind when writing.. thus it is hard to read it deadpan with no inflection. The simle fact of reading a work introduces a bias from personal experiences and life that cannot (or maybe should not) be controlled.

Blaming the internet for encouraging "immediate thoughtless response" is like blaming a knife for giving someone muderous thoughts. The internet's a tool and, as such, blameless.

The people using the internet are at fault for not taking the time to properly formulate thoughts. We're all guilty of it. Electronic networks are the first "written" medium that humans have had to use that didn't have an undo. What you write is immediately available the world over. Unless one exercises "sober second thought" before posting, this will continue to exist.

Gordo, I have murderous thoughts without need of a knife in my hand.. Without the Internet however, I doubt I would be climbing a soapbox in public to blather in about my thoughts and ideas. th einternet facilitates ones desire to ramble about spouting whatever fills my addled brain in a semi-anonymous way.

Down with Conservadroids!
Dion is a Puss!
Baird is the Cold Meiser from Rudolphs Shiny New Year!

Were I the least bit concerned about being non-biased, i would probably not blog because honestly, I am doing it to let me thoughts swim free, not net them in, like the good digital pirate arr.

That being said,

It's just an enabling tool, my friend. Blaming the internet for allowing you to publicly share your thoughts is a cop-out and abdication of your responsibility for free will.

I'm not blaming, I'm thanking..

All hail the net
All hail Bob

All hail free will.

<i>Blaming the internet for encouraging "immediate thoughtless response" is like blaming a knife for giving someone muderous thoughts. The internet's a tool and, as such, blameless.</i><p>That is just silly. Every technology brings unintended consequences. Denying that is just an example of its inherent bias, not proof of the opposite.

I denied nothing of the sort, Alan. My argument is that blaming the technology for a human's use or mis-use of said technology is incorrect.

I've also come to the conclusion that disagreeing with any part of your pronouncements is silly and thus, pointless.

That may well be the case as well. While I prefer my discussion partners to have some glancing acquaintance with substantiating their points that does not mean I think I am right myself. But consider the completeness of Jay in his response here this evening. If it were not for comments like that one would be left with the feeling I am speaking of evolution to Biblical literalists.<p>Which is the strange thing, that belief system that says tools convey no meaning and shape no content. That is a blindness that needs drumming out.

I was reminded of some pre-9/11 thinking, Bill Joy's "Why the Future Does Not Need Us" which has early on this passage from the April 2000 edition of <i>Wired</i>:<blockquote class="smalltext">Kaczynski's dystopian vision describes unintended consequences, a well-known problem with the design and use of technology, and one that is clearly related to Murphy's law - "Anything that can go wrong, will." (Actually, this is Finagle's law, which in itself shows that Finagle was right.) Our overuse of antibiotics has led to what may be the biggest such problem so far: the emergence of antibiotic-resistant and much more dangerous bacteria. Similar things happened when attempts to eliminate malarial mosquitoes using DDT caused them to acquire DDT resistance; malarial parasites likewise acquired multi-drug-resistant genes. The systems involved are complex, involving interaction among and feedback between many parts. Any changes to such a system will cascade in ways that are difficult to predict; this is especially true when human actions are involved.</blockquote>Not talking about what wrongs are caused by the Internet is the strangest thing to me - maybe <i>that</i> is the unintended consequence itself. We are so overwhelmed by the scale of the thing that suggesting there is any aspect that causes harm or reduces experience is incomprehensible.

The internet provides a medium through which otherwise silently nutty folk can semi-anonymously spread their rhetoric, blather and occasionally racism and hatred worldwide instead of just keeping it in their heads and speaking only of it in the prescence of like minded folk or embarassed relatives.

It has its good and bad, but honestly, I never had such an easy time finding stolen software, p0rn or music. It has saved me bazillions of pennies Apart from such gems as wikipedia and google for searching out dilitantous information that I otherwise would either dig out of the library in 100X the time or just ponder about and forget as a passsing fancy, it has really done little more than provide news..

Here is an interesting criticism from the end of December by Mark Cuban on the false promise and disutility of YouTube. Best comment in response?<blockquote class="smalltext">I think maybe you don't get it.</blockquote>I always think of Wiley Coyote being crushed by a five ton black weight when I hear someone say "maybe you don't get it."

The Star has a YouTube shark jump story today. So much for Time Person of The Year 2006.