> blogging take off as a shared response to the US invasion of Iraq
Blogging took off because half the worlds population started having access to the internet in the early 2000s. That seems incredibly myopic and US centric.
Blogging took off because half the worlds population started having access to the internet in the early 2000s. That seems incredibly myopic and US centric.
According to Wikipedia LiveJournal had to implement an invite-only system for new users because they were growing faster than the server architecture could handle. This was all started pre-9/11.
That being said, I didn't hear the word "blog" until the year 2003.
Beyond that I don't recall the Iraq War being a major blogging topic. Sure, everyone has an opinion on the Iraq War, but how many blog posts can the average person actually write about their feelings on the Iraq War? Can't be more than a few, not a topic that's going to keep the masses activity blogging.
To say blogging was a "shared response" to the invasion of Iraq is just... bizarre.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salam_Pax
Iraqi blogger.
>Why did blogging take off as a shared response to the US invasion of Iraq? (When “the Internet became an ideal valve to release opinions,” she writes, “who didn’t have an opinion on the Iraq war?”)
Basically claiming that blogging became popular because everyone wanted to share their opinion on the Iraq War. That's just not factual and, quite frankly, ridiculous.
A books worth: http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/deepdish/ebooks/i-was-wrong/
The timing lines up fairly well with Gulf War II but I would personally never have drawn a connection.