- Share This Post
- submit
- 0
-
Sparkle (0)
Here's a recap of the 2nd BlogHer panel at SXSW Interactive: Public Square or Private Club? Does Exclusivity Strengthen or Dilute?
Moderator: Lisa Stone
Panelists:
Tiffany Brown
Melinda Casino
Barb Dybwad
Lisa Stone's first question: Why do you think identity-based groups form, and what can you accomplish with them that you couldn't otherwise?
Barb: It's not so different from any other club that bands together, like a cycling club ot a scuba divers club. People like to solve problems together and know they're not alone.
Melinda: first of several mentions of the Feminist Rage Page. While she agrees that this is how like-minded people congregate both off-line and in other online forums, blogging does provide some differentiation, because you have the freedom to create longer essays, and because one has more ownership over one's blog than by participating in a forum or yahoo group. When most productive, such identity-based online groups can channel talk into action.
Tiffany: Somehow it's different when people congregate about gender, race, ethnicity or sexual orientation, because those are qualities your are born with, not opting into. Movements start with these identity based groups.
Side note from me: This is the same argument I always use with people who thought BlogHer was separatist. There is a difference between separatism and solidarity. Great movements start with solidarity. Think Stonewall. Think civil rights. Think the suffragists. (And please don't get on me as though I were Lennon talking about Jesus, I'm just illustrating a point here, not making an association.)
Comment from audience member, Al Chang (who doesn't blog!!) Perhaps identity-based groups are common online because there are precious few places where we discuss race, gender etc. in the public sphere...in fact we tend to avoid such conversations in mixed company.
Lisa Stone: 2 examples of building following within identity group then pushing into the mainstream: the Indigo Girls and Spike Lee's company 40 Acres & a Mule.
Lisa: But what of the argument that we're isolating ourselves, which is actually disempowering?
Melinda: Well, if a group stays too insular you can get the head nodding syndrome...and you won't let any ideas in from the outside, but not only that - your ideas won't get communicated to the outside. Her example: Radical Feminists who advocated living without men altogether.
Comment from audience, Ruby Sinreich: When you ask about "disempowering", aren't you making the presumption that power is associated with straight white men? You don't get power by hanging out with white men.
Question from audience member, Marshall Poe from the Atlantic Monthly: If their readership is 95% upper middle class and 90% white, is there any way for them to create a "private" online community for their target demographic without seeming totally offensive. And should they?
Side note from me: Jory and I spent quite some time talking with Marshall post-session. He felt like he didn't articulate his question well at all, and that may be driven by his general discomfort with the idea of such a "gated" online community.
Liza: Lots of people trying to get into the Web 2.0 game...whether developers or, like Marshall, media, make the assumption that all users are upper class, English-speaking etc.
Barb: Congress already exists for Marshall's demographic.
Me: A representative dry quip from Barb :)
Another interesting audience member was Joe Yoswa (sp?) who works in communications and on the web for the U.S. Army. They're trying to figure out whetehr they should create a private online community for soldiers. They already know some of them are blogging, and their only policy thus far has been "don't compromise operational security."
To the question of whether to actually restrict participation:
Tiffany: She doesn't have actual barriers to participation on her site, but her focus is clear.
Lisa: If you do shut people down, they'll find another way to make it happen.
Audience comment from Grace Davis: As a member of BlogHer she appreciates that there are rules of engagement. it's easier to have civil discourse in a safe space. Mentioned WoolfCamp, where it wasn't just feminists who attended, and it had to be a safe space for everyone there.
Audience comment from JW Richards. He is behind DigitalDrums.net, which is for African-influenced podcasters. Notice he said African-influenced, not African-American. So he's trying to provide openness.
I actually said out loud: That when Digital Drums or BlogHer makes it clear what our focus are, anyone who shares that interest can participate, but there are those who decide it means they're not welcome and self-select themselves out.
And I continued in my head: and if
