What is in Kelvin's Head?

Google Reader RIP

15/03/2013
In the midst of the hubbub over a certain election in the Vatican earlier this week, I noticed one or people tweeting “This would be a good time to bury bad news”. As it turned out, there was quite a significant piece of geek news that came out at that time which has got quite a lot of people riled and got quite a lot of people bewildered as to what the fuss is about.

Seems that Google is going to turn off the Google Reader service. Now, I don’t need to explain what Google Reader is to readers of this blog, do I gentle reader? Oh no, you’ve all read, bookmarked and inwardly digested that post I put up about blog aggregation in 2010.Â (What do you mean you don’t have it at your fingertips? You can find it here: http://thurible.net/20101111/how-to-read-blogs/)

It is rather a significant moment in the life of the blogosphere when google announces that that particular service is coming to an end. It works, it beats everything else I’ve tried and I’m surprised that they are pulling the plug. It may well mean that overall blog reading will shrink and it will be an inconvenience to move to another kind of reader.

Four thoughts:
1. This is a Woolworths moment. I know I check Google Reader less than I used to do because somehow my brain has come to believe that those posting and linking on social media are more up to date, happening, switched on voices than people who don’t. That means the first sight of interesting content most often comes for me on twitter or Facebook. If we look at a service less, it is of less value to the people providing it and hence, the Google Boffins can probably read the runes. They practically dominate web analytics in any case. My guess is that they can see that the use of this service is falling fast. If you don’t shop in Woolworths, Woolworths will close, no matter how nostalgic you are for the pick and mix that you never actually bought.
2. This was a free service. They don’t have to provide it. Get used to it.
3. All those people who are worried about privacy and Google do have a point. Untangling the individual from the corporation one of the major themes of our day. This is a day of victory for the Open Source movement whose advocates can rightly look smug.Â (They will anyway).
4. I expect I will find another reader to follow RSS feeds. RSS is a lovely thing. However, like wikis, the great unwashed don’t get it. I’d like to say that they want their content served up on a plate for them without any effort. However, it would appear that they don’t, doesn’t it? That’s what RSS does.

5 responses to “Heresy hunting”

Nick Brindley

14/05/2014

It is probably helpful to be clear about the distinction between “dogma” (which is best understood as the definition of orthodoxy and of heresy, of the things it is mandatory to affirm and the things it is forbidden to affirm) and “church order” (the rules about how people are to conduct themselves). These are related but by no means the same thing.

“Doctrine” is a third thing again, to my mind. It is the body of teaching that the church affirms but is much more extensive and changeable than dogma.

Of particular relevance is who has the authority to pronounce on these things. Denominational authorities quite properly establish church law and discipline (this needs to be done and there’s nobody else to do it) but would go beyond their proper sphere (in my view) if they tried to establish new definitions in the field of dogma.

Reply
Andrew

14/05/2014

I feel the need to separate praxis and doctrine, but I suppose that is probably a minor heresy in itself, in a church that hides its doctrine in its liturgy. Although I suppose the deftness of the ‘McCarthy Liturgy’ has maybe sidestepped that pitfall as deftly as an 18th century non-juring bishop side-stepping western orthodoxy and the rest…

Reply
Rosemary Hannah

15/05/2014

To a degree I think it is a matter of tradition. Anglican churches have tended (and it is only a tendency) to insist of orthopraxis. Church of Scotland churches have tended (same health warning) to emphasise orthodoxy of belief, call it doctrine or dogma. St Andrews is not of course a C or S institution, but it used to be, certainly in my day, and to a degree in yours, heavily steeped in C of S ethos. St Mary’s trained C of S ministers and that was ALL the training they got, because then they knew Orthodoxy.

Reply
Jimmy

15/05/2014

The links on this post have led me to think of this –

The Inner Party – The Outer Party – The Proles.

The model demands tight control of the middle class, with ambitious Outer Party members neutralised via promotion to the Inner Party or “reintegration” by Miniluv, while proles can be allowed intellectual (and sexual) freedom because they lack intellect. Winston nonetheless believed that “the future belonged to the proles”. Wikipedia.

Reply
Allan Ronald

19/05/2014

There was most definitely a C of S ethos at St Andrews in my day [67-71]. Robin Buchanan-Smith was running a packed college chapel and one president of the SRC and one president of the Union were St Mary’s men who went on to ordination and, in one case, to be Moderator of the Kirk. Perhaps they got their orthodoxy from Matthew Black at St Mary’s and their skill in future clerical politics from their student posts…….

Reply