It was family we got riled up for, not the web 2.0 name

Piaras suggests on his blog:

It isn’t hard to think why some people hold blogs in such disdain given the fact that there’s all this chatter about the phrase ‘Web 2.0′, but in terms of some of the biggest stories which have been in the news recently such as the Afghan hunger strikers in St. Patricks Cathedral, Irish bloggers have been relatively silent.

My view on why Irish bloggers got in to this is because Tom is family. He’s part of the community. If Suzy was threatened, or Piaras, or Richard or EWI we’d do the same. Don’t mess with family. I should think that most of the Irish bloggers couldn’t give a toss about web 2.0 but they would give a toss if one of us was sued for some stupid reason. There’s a reason we get together at blog awards and other events and have a laugh and a natter. It is the same way many of us gave out shit when El Paso acted the bollox.

If we are constricted to talking about what newspapers and the radio covers then we’d be a very very boring community and dictated by business interests and the interests of demographics. The “big” stories are what “they” tell us they are. This sounds all hippie and conspiratorial about “the man” but hopefully you get me. The conference Suzy was at today got some coverage but mostly about McDowell getting harassed. It was Suzy that covered the more important aspects of the event. It was Auds that spoke up for those against gay marriage who think the protestors today were just troublemakers. If she was threatened over what she said I’d create as much as a fuss as I did over Tom’s issue.

It was the Irish Blogging Community giving out that Mystery Train was canceled and sharing memories and fondness for it. The “mainstream” told us it was ‘gone, nothing more to see here, move on please’. I’m sure it could be them that start a campaign to find it a new home.

It was Digital Rights Ireland who covered the fact that Gardai might be leaking mobile phone data of the Afghanis in the Cathedral. Where’s that in the “mainstream” media?

The blogosphere is what we want to talk about and not what is dictated by editors under influence from their owners and the bottom line. We are all our editors and we choose what we want to read and what we want to discuss. If people have disdain for bloggers because we are free then I feel sorry for them. We won’t be homogenized. Screw the disdain.

Going back to Tom, it’s not about Web 2.0, it’s about a guy we know organising a conference and some over-zealous lawyers trying to suck the fun out of it and us saying. “Oi, lawyery types Noooooo.”

21 Responses to “It was family we got riled up for, not the web 2.0 name”

  1. simon says:

    If Suzy was threatened, or Piaras, or Richard or EWI we’d do the same.
    Funny putting Richard and EWI in the same sentence. 🙂

    But good very good points.

    Is it time for the blogosphere to start a

    I’m spartacus , I’m Spartacus

  2. I’m not really familiar with what this is all about. Could someone please explain it to me? Someone has trademarked the phrase ‘web 2.0’?

  3. IrishKC says:

    I’m a tech person I guess, who spends too much time in the world that defined Web 2.0, but that’s largely irrelevant – or, in short, despite the distance, I agree.

  4. Keith says:

    Hmmm… if it was Mr. Waghorne, I must admit that I’d pause before doing the ‘I’m Sparticus’ bit. He really does rub me up completely the wrong way.

    @UI: Yes, CMP applied to make ‘Web 2.0’ a service mark for their use in the US. It was originally coined by O’Reilly. Because we, like the US, are signatories of the Madrid Protocol, trade and service marks in one signatory country apply in the rest.

    However, I very much doubt that if this went to court that CMP would have a leg to stand on seeing as (a) they’re using the mark so that their conference won’t get mixed up with others (which is what trade and service marks are for), but the conference names are different enough (sharing only the ‘Web 2.0’ element) that they couldn’t be confused; (b) the O’Reilly /CMP conference is primarily targeted at North America, whereas the IT@Cork conference is targeted at Ireland: there’s no overlap of market; (c) O’Reilly have, through their promotion of the phrase ‘Web 2.0’ as a general concept, inadvertently managed to water down the brand.

    My gut feeling is that Tom and the rest of the IT@Cork crowd will be vindicated and that O’Reilly will come out with their credibility somewhat bruised. CMP: nobody really likes them much anyway.

  5. Keith says:

    Oh, poo-bits! The formatter screwed up my comment.

  6. Damien says:

    God yeah, it does read very like “I am Spartacus”. *cringe*

    Keith: Can exceptions be made?

  7. Keith says:

    To what, exactly?

  8. Damien says:

    That whole “I’m Spartacus” bit, with your lack of fondness for Richard and all.

  9. Keith says:

    Oh, I’d probably defend him, but I can see myself curled up in the foetal position in the shower shortly afterwards. 🙂

    That said, I’ve been itching to blogslap him a few times, and I’d probably snap and give him a polite online mauling. I really don’t do enough of that.

  10. winds says:

    Personally I didn’t touch the Saint Patrick’s Cathedral story because I was on holiday.

    Is that alright?

  11. that girl says:

    Well said Damien – I haven’t a clue what this tech business is about but I know a predatory bully when I see one and you’re right – this is family, and that’s why it’s a pleasure to be a part of it and also – that’s why it works…and that’s why the bullies need to watch out, cos the bloggers are on the case…and will continue to be so…(Can anyone get Rattlebag reinstated while we’re naming causes?).

  12. […] Auds, with whom I’ve barely agreed with on anything, is a better representative of her minority viewpoint than her mainstream counterpart Breda O’Brien. Suzy writes about generally ignored things in a funny, intelligent way that makes it enjoyable to share her experiences. Damien straddles lots of different strands and styles of blogging, while still reflecting his own personality. Fustar delves into important matters such as the explanation for the perplexing mystery of Count Curly Wee in the Irish Indo. […]

  13. Fact Checker says:

    I left a comment here earlier on but its been removed – could someone explain why? Surely not censorship? On a blog?

  14. EWI says:

    If Suzy was threatened, or Piaras, or Richard or EWI we’d do the same. Don’t mess with family.

    Shucks 😉

    The “big� stories are what “they� tell us they are. This sounds all hippie and conspiratorial about “the man� but hopefully you get me.

    That the corporate media are largely conservative and prone to group-think, and that modern-day hacks (the college-educated, ‘professional’ kind) tend to be woefully ill-equipped to report on anything more complicated than lost puppies?

  15. squid says:

    Would probably let Richard squirm for a bit first 😀

    I know jack about Web 2.0 but from what I have read, This O’Reilly company wants to be the only one allowed to use the term Web 2.0 in conferences. Sounds like the RTE orchestra wanting to patent the term Beethoven in In the evrelation to concerts. I could be wrong though.

    I have also read that the term Web 2.0 has been around since 1999 and not 2003 as O’Reilly claims.

    Meanwhile, I’m off to tradmark the term “Stab City” in relation to Limerick, Anyone who uses it from Monday will be hearing from my lawyers!

  16. auds says:

    The whole techie thing is just way beyond my limited mental capabilities.

    But I’m touched that I’m part of the family

  17. auds says:

    Even if there is a Mafiosa ring about it.

  18. […] The entire internet found out and every one was upset with O’Reilly (They make books, they don’t repair hotels badly.) Damien Mulley, a popular Irish blogger said that the reason everyone was so upset was because It was family we got riled up for, not the web 2.0 name […]