the power of the internet

[cellio]

The internet and its predecessors have not always been lightning-fast. The first massive net-based outrage I remember was probably against Cantor & Siegel, the green-card lawyersspammers, and as I recall it took a few days for that to really build up. (My favorite response was from somebody who sent, to their fax machine, a copy of Emily Postnews -- and, just in case they didn't have a program with which to read it, a copy of X Windows. :-) )

That was ancient history, of course, and I know that things unfold much more quickly now -- even mainstream media, to say nothing of user-driven trends, moves in hours now. Still, the speed at which the C[r]ooks Source maelstrom took form yesterday was nothing short of astonishing to me; you could have watched minute-by-minute developments all day if you'd wanted to. Who knew that a wrong done to one "everyman" would get such attention? Yes, Judith Griggs' profound cluelessness helped things along, but still... what makes some things take off like that, when they aren't the Big Stories of the day to the rest of the world? (I mean yeah, sure, we can watch minute-by-minute coverage of breaking (inter)national news, but that's different.)

I think byronhaverford makes a good point; the ability for the masses to not just watch but participate is a big factor. Social media have enabled people in new ways. I wonder what's next.

Comments

[alienor.livejournal.com]

I read one analysis that suggested things spun up so fast because there was such a clear cut villain (she didn't just shrug it off, but told Monica to be grateful that she stole her work) and a clear cut victim (Monica didn't ask for financial consideration for herself, but for her school).

Still, very interesting.