I’m home again after BlogHer, but we’re moving on Monday and so the next days will be filled with boxes – I have a post I want to write about BlogHer but it will have to wait. Just so I don’t completely forget, though, there are a number of interesting comments on the conference out there. Ellen Gerstein wrote an interesting post criticising BlogHer Business. She has many of the same complaints as I had: not enough time, little opportunity for networking, too much speakertime to sponsors; but also has the advantage that she was at last year’s BlogHer Business, which she loved, and so she can compare.

At BlogHer itself, there was criticism of the way it (to some?) seemed to be primarily a mommyblogging conference, of how the free swag (possibly) dominated much of the conference, and the heavy sponsor visibility, even in panel sessions. Also some of the parties organised by sponsors rather than BlogHer itself had issues – like refusing to let babies attend when they’d invited mommybloggers to a party (that’s an interesting little case study in promo to bloggers gone wrong right there) or promising people freebies (like free $100 video cameras) that then ran out before the people who’d been promised them got theirs. The people who run the conference have written a blog post about a lot of the criticism asking for feedback and ideas for next time, and and there are already lots and lots of comments from participants.

While I didn’t much enjoy the first day, I had a lot of interesting conversations on the second day of the conference. One of the most interesting was with Jeremiah McNichols of ZRecommends, who had a lot of interesting thoughts about the complex relationship between sponsors and bloggers. While the first BlogHer conference, in 2005, seemed to be about empowering women bloggers, today, empowerment appears to be about “look how powerful we are, corporations take us seriously and want to give us free swag!” But of course, if blogging becomes mainly about accepting free swag and loving the corporations, well, that’s not empowerment, that’s more like oppression – a slightly more subtle form of oppression, perhaps, maybe willing oppression. It doesn’t bode well for the power of blogging to actually spread the voices of the people, though, if the people are happy to speak for the corporations.

I want to write (and think) more about those connections, and I’ll definitely try to post more about it – not until after we move, though!


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

2 thoughts on “so i don’t forget what i want to blog about blogher…

  1. Jeremiah

    It was lovely meeting and chatting with you, Jill. Looking forward to your post.

    We went ahead with the initiative I mentioned to you at BlogHer – we are now fully committed to keeping NO review products. We have written about it on our blog and I’d be happy to discuss our reasoning or the feedback we’ve received if it was of interest to you.

  2. Lisa

    But hasn’t BlogHer been criticized for being all about so called Mommybloggers before?
    I’ve always considered BlogHer to be a rather conservative force. A follower and definitely not a firestarter or even the companion you would wish for it to be.

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

Screenshot of a paragraph from a New York Times article published May 12, 2026. Text reads: "The price of tomatoes -tart bursts of flavor in salads and sandwiches — surged nearly 40 percent in April from a year ago on a combination of bad weather, high tariffs and climbing transportation costs."
AI STORIES

Genre glitches and unexpected promotional phrases as a sign of AI writing

A genre glitch is a characteristic of LLM-assisted writing where the text suddenly switches genre, typically inserting a short promotional phrase full of sensory details into an informational text. Genre glitches occur when a word in the generated text is heavily associated with a genre or context that is markedly […]

Top of a ransom note from Shinyhunters hacking group. Text reads: "SHINYHUNTERS rooting your systems since '19 ;) ShinyHunters has breached Instructure (again). Instead of contacting us to resolve it they ignored us and did some "security patches"."
Networked Politics University politics

UiB self-hosts the open source version of Canvas, so wasn’t affected by the breach

On May 1st Canvas announced a security breach, and then yesterday the system was hacked. The login page was replaced by a ransom note: if universities don’t pay up by 12 May, student data will be released. Here’s what the login page looked like yesterday: Way back in 2015, when […]

AI and algorithmic culture Networked Politics

AI-generated images, fascist aesthetics: Dieselbrølet and Heimatstrom

My German is pretty dodgy, so when I first saw Heimatstrom on Bluesky, shared by Roland Meyer, a professor of visual culture at Universität Zürich’s Digital Society Initiative, I misinterpreted it and thought it was a far-right campaign. But no, Heimatstrom is a group of left-wing environmentalists using fascist AI […]

Photo of a billboard ad at Oslo S train station showing a smiliing conductor and the text "Du må ikke sove. Joda, bare sov du."
AI STORIES

“Du må ikke sove”: a floating motif detached from its meaning (or: LLMs can write Norwegian but miss cultural references)

There’s a new ad for the train between Stavanger and Oslo in Norway that uses a line from Arnulf Øverland’s famous anti-fascist poem Du må ikke sove (“You must not sleep”). Du må ikke sove, you must not sleep, the ad says. And then it flips it, jovially, joda, bare […]

Academics in Norway: Sign this petition asking for research-based discussions of how to use AI in universities

I just signed a petition calling for Norwegian universities to use research expertise on AI when deciding how to implement it, rather than having decisions be made mostly administratively. ,  If you are a researcher in Norway, please read it and sign it if you agree – and share with anyone else who might be interested. The petition was written by three researchers at UiT: Maria Danielsen (a philosopher who completed her PhD in 2025 on AI and ethics, including discussions of art and working life), Knut Ørke (Norwegian as a second language), and Holger Pötzsch (a professor of media studies with many years of research on digital media, video games, disruption, and working life, among other topics).  This is not about preventing researchers from exploring AI methods in their research. It is about not uncritically accepting the hype that everyone must use AI everywhere without critical reflection. It is about not introducing Copilot as the default option in word processors, or training PhD candidates to believe they will fall behind if they do not use AI when writing articles, without proper academic discussion. Changes like these should be knowledge-based and discussed academically, not merely decided administratively, because they alter the epistemological foundations of research. Maria wrote to me a couple of months ago because she had read my opinion piece in Aftenposten in which I called for a strong brake on the use of language models in knowledge work. She was part of a committee tasked with developing UiT’s AI strategy and was concerned because there was so much hype and so few members of the committee with actual expertise in AI. I fully support the petition. There are probably some good uses for AI in research, but the uncritical, hype-driven insistence that we must simply adopt it everywhere is highly risky. There are many researchers in Norway with strong expertise in AI, language, ethics, working life, and culture. We must make use of this expertise. This is also partly about respect for research in the humanities, social sciences, psychology, and law. Introducing AI at universities and university colleges is not merely a technical issue, and perhaps not even primarily a technical one. It concerns much more: philosophy of science, methodological reflection, epistemology, writing, publishing, the working environment, and more. […]

screenshot of Grammarly - main text in the middle, names of experts on the left with reccomendations and on the right more info about the expert review feature
AI and algorithmic culture Teaching

Grammarly generated fake expert reviews “by” real scholars

Grammarly is a full on AI plagiarism machine now, generating text, citations (often irrelevant), “humanizing” the text to avoid AI checkers and so on. If you’re an author or scholar, they also have been impersonating and offering “feedback” in your name. Until yesterday, when they discontinued the Expert Review feature due to a class action lawsuit. Here are screenshots of how it worked.