I’ve reached a pivot point with Tangled Web.
I don’t quite know where I’m going to be taking it from here.
Rather than decide in isolation, I thought I’d let you know what I’m thinking.
If you have any thoughts, do let me know what you’re thinking, too!
Reason to exist
Here’s one issue.
The principal reason I started Tangled Web was to communicate my ideas for the Open Web Mind.
(And if you’re wondering what the Open Web Mind is, check out my very first article The web has only just begun for a brief introduction.)
The trouble is, the time I’m putting into explaining the Open Web Mind in the context of today’s less-than-open, less-than-mindful web is time I’m not putting into making the Open Web Mind a reality.
I’ve reduced the frequency at which I’ve been putting out Tangled Web articles over the summer, but still, the pace of my progress on the Open Web Mind has been slow.
One option is to narrow the focus of Tangled Web: make it less about the context of today’s web, more about the Open Web Mind itself.
Another option is to chill out and put out articles whenever I can, rather than on a strict weekly or biweekly cadence. All the advice I’ve ever heard on newsletters, podcasts and channels insists that consistency is paramount. But all the advice might be wrong. As far as I know, no one has ever run an A/B test on whether consistency makes any difference whatsoever.
What I do know is that making progress on the Open Web Mind is the priority. Without it, Tangled Web loses its principal reason to exist.
Eternal optimism
Here’s another issue.
For the second time in the history of the web, everyone, it seems, is souring on tech.
The first time this happened, back in 2001, became known as the dot com crash. Tech stocks plummetted, and everyone declared that the web was over. Spoiler alert: it wasn’t.
This time, in 2022, tech stocks have plummetted again, and everyone’s declaring that everything is over. Spoiler alert: it isn’t.
Here’s the thing.
I, too, am pretty sour on tech right now. Well, on big tech, at least.
What good is the web if I’m unable to publish Tangled Web because I’m locked out of my accounts by one of those tech giants? What good is the web if I’m unable to publish Tangled Web because another of those tech giants won’t fix my Internet connection?
Regardless, I’m optimistic.
The power of tech is its pace of change. Tech giants like Google and Meta might seem invincible now, but wait a few years and they’ll be irrelevant. An earlier generation of tech giants like IBM and Compaq once seemed invincible, too, but now they’re taught as cautionary tales in business schools.
Revolutionary tech, like web3 and the Open Web Mind, has the power to upend the web and send big tech into terminal decline.
The trouble is, it’s difficult to write about the context into which I’m launching the Open Web Mind without sounding sour.
I don’t want to spend my time telling you how big tech is making the web a worse place. I don’t want to spend my time tearing them down.
I want to spend my time telling you about how the Open Web Mind is going to make the web a better place. I want to spend my time building.
The sound of silence
And here’s one last issue.
Time and time again in Tangled Web, I run into politics.
My inability get my Internet fixed has nothing to do with technology, and everything to do with politics. There are two communications companies willing to run a wire to my house: Shaw and Telus. The one I use is bad. The other one is equally bad. Each of them knows this. Each of them knows that I have no choice but to go on paying one or other of them, regardless of whether the Internet drops out every half hour. When you’re in a cosy duopoly, you have no incentive to fix anyone’s Internet. That’s not a technology issue, it’s a political issue.
Similarly, my getting locked out of my accounts has nothing to do with technology, and everything to do with politics. The only long-form video platform with viral potential is YouTube. That gives Google extraordinary power over individuals like me who want to exercise their freedom of expression on the Internet. When you have that kind of power, you have no incentive to support anyone like me who doesn’t have an expensive data plan, much less anyone who doesn’t have a cell phone. Again, that’s not a technology issue, it’s a political issue.
I’m not interested in politics. I don’t want to write about it, if I can avoid it. It’s just that sometimes, I can’t avoid it. Sometimes, if I’m to write honestly about tech, I need to address the political issues that are deeply related to the technology issues.
And that’s where the trouble really begins.
More than once, when I’ve felt the need to touch on a political issue on Tangled Web, I’ve held back, or cut an entire section, or cancelled an entire article.
No one is censoring me. They don’t need to: I’m censoring myself.
I’m familiar with the world-views of the people who control the big tech platforms. I know the words that might trigger warnings on my posts. I avoid using those words or challenging those world-views.
Who knows what the consequences would be if I did.
Maybe there would be none beyond those warnings that have, at times, on some platforms, appeared on every single post that so much as mentions certain words.
But maybe the consequences would be more insidious.
Maybe the algorithm would penalize my posts. Maybe it would penalize my channel. Maybe it would penalize my other channels, too, knowing that they’re put out by the same person. Maybe it would penalize me.
I don’t know exactly what the consequences would be of touching on political issues that challenge the world-views of the people who control the big tech platforms, but I do know that these people don’t know either. No one knows. That’s the nature of these machine learning algorithms. Humans determine the training of these algorithms – humans can, for example, train the algorithms to penalize mention of certain political issues – but no human can fathom how the algorithms apply that training to penalize certain posts, certain channels, certain people.
These impersonal, impenetrable algorithms, trained by the opinionated people who control the big tech platforms, determine which posts, which channels, which people are promoted, and which are condemned to oblivion. In other words, they determine who gets to live a full life in the metaverse, and who doesn’t.
I’ve worked too hard on Tangled Web and my other newsletters, podcasts and channels to risk permanently undermining them.
And so I censor myself.
I might not be interested in politics, but politics is interested in me.
Another of the reasons I started Tangled Web was so that I could express my opinions on tech, so that others could hear them. And I can express my opinions on tech, and others can hear them... as long as I toe the line laid down by those people who control the big tech platforms.
Step over that line, and no one will ever hear what I have to say. I’ll never receive notice that my opinions have been deemed inappropriate. They won’t be angrily censored, they’ll be quietly buried.
I find this supremely frustrating.
What’s the point of Tangled Web if I don’t get to express myself freely?
I was born into a world in which freedom of speech was a given. I never dreamed that I would ever live in a world in which I have to be so careful what I say.
We need to talk about tech
I’ve learnt, over the years, not to make decisions in isolation.
Whenever I have a decision to make, like the decision on where to take Tangled Web, I try to talk about it with as many people as possible.
That’s why I wrote this article, to have that conversation with you.
And that’s why I’m going to be talking to other tech podcasters over the next few weeks.
I’m interested to find out how they think about tech podcasting, and where they’re taking their tech podcasts.
If you’d like to join me for those conversations and see where I decide to take Tangled Web, make sure you’re subscribed at tangledweb.media.
Thanks for following along!