Well...my approach towards media is a bit different. But to answer directly, I run bigger accounts like band accounts with 10k+ friends, located in key markets where we plan on touring. We tried it locally with decent sucess with little time put in. Myspace has many shortcomings, especially the fact that it is powered by advertisement, but it does work really well for things like music.

That's good. Using MySpace to promote bands is one of the things its best for at this point. Granted, there are many short comings. The problem I was trying to outline earlier was a different issue..

I can see what you mean that it is detrimental to be able to overhype an issue--but that is the standard set for the public by the corporate press. I'm not into vanguard models for social change... i'm much more 'when in rome'.

One of the things I've spoken about recently is better approaches to grouping architecture. The thing people like you are using MySpace to do is clearly necessary, and there is a huge demand for it, but there is a better way to do it. So far, all the social networking sites have very weak group architecture models.

So I do feel that taking my DV camera, and becoming the news media, this is the way to go. But it has to be done the way I see it for it to work. It's very much like chess. The claim to legitimacy is that the corporate press cannot--and I mean cannot ever, be trusted. I have played the political game long enough to understand that position is everything. I have position, and there is really no way--outside of censorship to shuffle me out of position.

This is the indie approach. In my opinion, it's the right approach to take because its where all the innovation happens. Doing it DYI. "Get in the van"

This is all probably looking like babble, but essentially I am saying that that American politics is very simple. You have a bunch of corporations who use the government to rule. They presented everyone in the 20th century with a false image of reality because they controlled the systems used to spread information "the mass media". Now they are losing that control.

This isn't babble. This is a good discourse on these issues. I wish I had more time to put into this reply, because its hitting on topics I have much to say about.

I must disagree on a few points, American politics are anything but simple. The more you know, and in particular the more you get involved, the more it becomes clear how complex it truly is. The pros and cons of the corporate system are even more complex.

This works because it does the following things:

1. It absolves the apathetic public from blame. 2. It places all blame on the system, and following that, if any blame should be placed on discrete human beings, they are all a handful of powerful minorities that nobody will sympathize with.

I would argue that the apathetic approach is the key problem. The rise of nihilism in an individual or a group is like giant door closing shut. No one is locking anyone out of the political or business process unless their working knowledge of it is fixed in such a broken manor, that they can't work with it. "Fuck this entire system, I'm bringing it all down" approach doesn't get any friends the current establishment at any given point. Depending on how hard that attitude is drilled, you become a threat rather than competition. The goal should not be to destroy the powers that be, but to affect them and change them. Things are often considered threats that should be considered competition because the established players don't understand were the non-established ones are coming from. Competition is a fact of life, and people are used to that in all its forms. Threats are things that could bring harm to the whole system, and are dealt with in another mannor. Its necessary to meet in the middle, not take a "we are going to destroy each other" attitude.

Another important element to remember, is that power rotates out. People are not immortal. If members of a rising generation get too disenfranchised with "the system", they will never develop a working knowledge of it along with their own ideas, leading them to be ill equipped to take the reigns when its their turn. The people who will take the reins will wind up being the ones that you don't want to have them.

I guess my key point, is don't dismiss the system as broken a walk away. Dismiss the system as broken and start coming up with ways to fix it, and actually act upon those ideas.

3. It sets up the stage for people looking for change who have nothing to turn to. Once you can establish activist groups who are willing to commit little bits of time to small actions, they taste victory and feel empowered. They end up recruiting for the model on their own.

That's also a dynamic that we can't get too far removed from. People in groups have many properties, and being manipulated for the gains of a leadership is one of them. This happens in everything from cults, religions, political parties, band followings, charities, etc..

The world is never going to be one big happy family. If it did, that's the point were the evolutionary process (of ideas) would stop dead in its tracks, and as a species we would major problems. Structured conflict requires groups. Not all conflict is bad. Peaceful conflict, where the conflict is over ideas is good, and we need as much of it as possible.

4. The dynamic of being able to emotionally connect is the single most crucial element. It is also the element that people who tend to think of themselves as 'intellectuals' can miss.

Emotions are everything. That's all I can tell you.. it's pointless explaining it most likely. But just understand if you don't already, that somebody showing passion conveys far more information than the didactic approach.

I could not agree more. There are many forms of emption, ones like anger and hatred are not that helpful. They lead to a violent approach. Aside from that, passion is both good and necessary.

RE: Myspace stumbles