So, this is one of the things the tech press is always talking about, and also one of my pet peeves.
According to the tech media, one of the problems with the internet are "gatekeepers," people like publishers, newspapers, etc, who are good at marketing articles, books, TV shows, and so forth, and serve as "middle men" for content creators. According to the meme in the tech press, these people are very bad and just looking to exploit people.
But I have a different view on this. As someone who aspires to be a fiction writer, I would much rather submit my work to a publishing house than to a twitter stream. The publisher is an expert who knows good work when he sees it, and can handle the marketing for me. All I have to do is make the publisher happy, and once I do that, I can become published. I spend my time honing my writing skills. On the other hand, there is so much spam on the alternatives, like twitter, that it's almost impossible to be heard. I have no interest in social media, and that is effectively the only alternative to these supposedly evil gatekeepers.
So, I don't see why the tech press is all upset about gatekeepers. They serve a real purpose, and provide necessary quality control. Do you see my point? Do you agree?
According to the tech media, one of the problems with the internet are "gatekeepers," people like publishers, newspapers, etc, who are good at marketing articles, books, TV shows, and so forth, and serve as "middle men" for content creators. According to the meme in the tech press, these people are very bad and just looking to exploit people.
But I have a different view on this. As someone who aspires to be a fiction writer, I would much rather submit my work to a publishing house than to a twitter stream. The publisher is an expert who knows good work when he sees it, and can handle the marketing for me. All I have to do is make the publisher happy, and once I do that, I can become published. I spend my time honing my writing skills. On the other hand, there is so much spam on the alternatives, like twitter, that it's almost impossible to be heard. I have no interest in social media, and that is effectively the only alternative to these supposedly evil gatekeepers.
So, I don't see why the tech press is all upset about gatekeepers. They serve a real purpose, and provide necessary quality control. Do you see my point? Do you agree?
