Monday, December 24, 2007

the name of the game

EVEN MORE: yeah… again, thoughtful criticism would have been refreshing… D.



While you are at it (well… whenever you get around to posting it) it would be good to know what you think of Seth’s position on this. Thanks!

re: “They can be dislodged.”

… and what would *that* solve? you’d just have new *names* but the same flawed system — alliances are formed, interests are protected and fortunes are made (in the name of “serving the people”) — *largely,* that’s the name of the game… Seth is right on this. D.

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

the better way to do it

18th comment: tqft: "Net Neutrality," in general, would serve corporate interests, agreed... (craigslist among them -- no wonder Craig is loudly praising Obama) but things like whether or not ISPs should have yet another means to annoy a large part of their customers or whether people should be concerned that the ISPs want to do something about their unwarranted right to block any site they want... these are serious issues OUTSIDE of the "Net Neutrality" interests. Do they try to USE them to justify "Net Neutrality"? yes! Seth is right on this... but not on dismissing the issues themselves. Talking about ways of dealing with the issues *without* having them be used to justify "Net Neutrality" would be the better way to go about it... I think... D.

16th comment: They *might*? Come on, Seth... you really think they WOULDN'T do it if they could get away with it? who *knows* if it would really violate those laws until expensive litigation goes through?

"In the US, ISP's already have, BY LAW, broad ability to block any site they want, and have had that ability for a DECADE. Nobody cared..." --> are you suggesting people *shouldn't* care? what side are you on, Seth?


14th comment:It seems to me that you would have to trust the ISPs not to abuse it and I see no good reason to do that... do you, Seth?:) D.

12th comment:as long as it's LIMITED to messages pertaining to the *functionality* of the service, I suppose it's not exactly "evil"... but once it's done, what would stop the ISPs from just putting ads or other things in that space? wouldn't we be better off to leave it as it is and have these people call the ISP if they have trouble and don't know what to do? most of them would end-up doing that, anyways...D.

1oth comment: oops! you said it *had* to be opt-out? I don't understand why... D.

EVEN MORE (9th comment)ok...then make it opt-in! (that would make sure people *want* it and it's not just a way to put in ads or who knows what later on without peoples' actual consent...) D.

MORE (7th comment)Seth, you don't really believe people would opt into this kind of thing, do you? (they should make it an *opt-in* if they really think some would *want* this -- I highly doubt it -- opt-outs are just taking advantage of the fact that at least some people just would NOT spend any more time reading extra stuff so ... so *technically* they haven't said "no"...but they haven't really made a CHOICE either...) D.

Seth,(5th comment)

you'd think someone would figure out how to block such ISP "messages/"ads or whatever the way you can block regular ads.


P.S. I agree with tqft, the ISPs should have the decency to take no for an answer... and stop trying to get in through the chimney and the like -- people are just going to figure out how to block the chimney so you only get the poor souls that don't know how to find this stuff to hate you
even more and for good reason... D.

hangout time

Seth, (5th comment)

Putting a limit to the time you spend on this may be the best way to go about it -- whatever you are comfortable with... it's not bad "hangout time" if you look at it that way: you *do* have an audience (smaller than you'd like but it's there...).


P.S. I would think this is more fun for your (and your readers) than hanging out in a bar, but you are the only one who really knows that. D.

Monday, December 17, 2007

giving credit: just basic respect...

STILL MORE: Hi Ket! re:" The giving of credit is not relevant though in determining copyright infringement."yet this seems to be what created the problem (I doubt we would have heard anything of this if attribution would have been given) D.

EVEN MORE: Hmmm… I don’t see how the Creative Commons (or any other such organization) could possibly give EXTRA rights to copyright owners that they do not already have by law. The whole idea behind CC is to *give away* SOME rights copyright owners legally *have* (while preserving some of them, such as attribution, which appears to be just basic respect). D.

MORE: It seems to me that it IS legally required (unless the people running the CC License are completely ignorant of the law... and I seriously doubt that). I mean, they devised a way for copyright holders to give away some LEGAL rights so that the "creative commons" (aka. the society at large) would be better off. The right of attribution is NOT among those rights (just check out the link I gave).


I don't get it... what's the big deal with giving someone *credit* for having produced something original, such as a photograph? Why *shouldn't* credit be given? Who's harmed by giving credit? Even the Creative Commons retains this right... and it does give away quite a few rights that could be legally retained, just not THIS one... it apparently regards it as not harmful and fundamental.


Sunday, December 16, 2007

thoughtful criticism would have been refreshing

MORE: Dan, I thought I posted a comment to this entry (it's unclear to me if it just went missing or it didn't display for a different reason) D.
I think Seth is right re:Dan Gillmor being a "member of the club" (and thus not a good "case" to prove anything in these regards).


P.S. Dan, to your credit, you do not appear to yell much (form what I've seen...) but you do seem to "lend a hand" to the "right side" when others are yelling... (it's just that you at least have the decency to do it *without* yelling)

e.g. issue was a mindless yelling game as far as I could see -- -- some thoughtful criticism from you would have been refreshing...) D.

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

what happened?


It would be interesting to know what happened. I also found your link not working yesterday. I tried both Mozilla and Explorer (both of them returned an error message).


Monday, December 10, 2007

it's NOT a conversation...

MORE: re: It implies that they can manage our mouths when, indeed, that’s the one thing that we, the customers, are fully in charge of. If they truly realize that we, the customers, are in charge, then that changes the way you comport yourself in this conversation. Again, you listen more than you speak.


You *gotta* know this is NOT true — just take a look at your blog: *who*’s in charge here? YOU, of course… People don’t have to post here and they can disengage at any time but they don’t really have control over what ends up on your blog: You do… It would be the same if this was a “corporate blog.”


P.S. As to using blogs for corporate marketing purposes, I would hope people would be smarter than to volunteer their time and ideas so that the corporations can make even MORE money — if for-profits want peoples’ input or whatever… they should pay for it!

If they wanted to be NON-profits and be happy with normal salaries and benefits, great! I’m sure plenty of people would be glad to help out if they saw the profits go towards serving the community instead of building someone’s empire… D.
Jeff, it may well be a platitude (you said it…) but as far as I can see it’s NOT a conversation… Interesting idea, just not true… D.

Tuesday, December 4, 2007

we would need all sort of things if we could just get them for free...

re:”I’d love to see a way reporters can work with ordinary folks to improve their understanding of the communities they cover. I just haven’t seen a model that has worked. Steve Outing recently reported on his effort, and the results were disappointing. What gets in the way of developing such an effort, in part, is the constant carping about the sins of the “MSM.” We need trained, professional, journalists. And we need to input from people who live in the communities they cover. No argument there, from me at least. The question is how best to do it.”


Well, I suppose we would “need” all sort of things if we could just get them for free:)… Why would “ordinary people” spend their time and volunteer their knowledge etc. to help out the journalists so… the latter can continue to make money at it? This is what the vast majority of these projects are trying to do: either upfront — and those at least have a modicum of honesty - or, much more often, as an undisclosed ultimate goal.


P.S. I doubt anybody’s going to come up with a for-profit model that will work for the long run. And even if it did happen, such models would always be vulnerable to equivalent non-profit models that would use the profits to advance the mission and would thus treat the contributing “ordinary people” that make these kind of projects work with the respect they deserve. D.


re: “…But I cannot imagine he lives in the present-day world when he claimed in the speech: “Most of the blog world does not even attempt to report. It recycles. It riffs on the news. That’s not bad. It’s just not enough. Not nearly enough.”

This is simply not true going forward, and he should have done some reporting on the subject to find out. There is an ever-increasing number of online outlets who are doing most excellent online reporting.” (Kara Swisher)


I thought you had some valid criticism in this regard: “Oddly, because most of them are intelligent people, they don’t seem to notice the source of many of the stories they read online — the so-called MSM.”

As far as I see it, Kara just has an optimistic view of the future… which is fine, as long as she acknowledges it… — “an ever increasing number”? –> even if true and she doesn’t back up her claim although she charges Keller with the same “crime”, you need a strong dose of optimism to get from that to her conclusion:” this is *simply not true* going forward” [my emphasis].


P.S. re: “Not enough, of course, never enough, but it is a clear trend in almost every category.” –> this claim by Kara definitely needs shown research to be taken seriously. D.


"re: “At a certain point surely we just have to reconcile ourselves to the fact that a large proportion of these people aren’t interested in engaging with this debate.”


As I was saying, the opposing side isn’t backing up their claims either (Kara is a good example) so they appear to be guilty of the same sin… and are thus equally responsible for the lack of actual debate.


P.S. It seems to be a silly game of lets see who can yell louder and can get more of “their friends” to yell along with them… D.

friendship (being realistic...)

re: “First, I think it means that they will maintain friendships and other relationships longer in life.”


I would think again… We all have limited time. I doubt those who claim to have more than a handful of (actual) friends. Makes me think they are counting acquaintances as friends — they don’t know the difference.

This is the trap (well… on of them…) Facebook and other “social networks” seem to exploit: “come over here! you’ll keep more friendships than you ever imagined! — just send an itty-bitty note to everybody you know every now and then”… right:)… that’s just going to cause you to lose your actual friends while chasing some meaningless number…

Just imagine *all* those people from your past would have responded and would have been ready to spend the amount of time needed for an actual friendship for indefinite time –> COULD you have done it? (I’m not asking *would* you have done it — I’m assuming you would have *liked* to do it… you just couldn’t have possibly fit all of them in for the long run…)



Jeff, I see the same problem with your argument: it seems to ignore what it takes to keep actual friendships and what is a feasible number of such friendships and goes along with the social networks’ self-interested presentation of mere contacts as friends. D.

Hope Dan is ok

Dan, I hope you are still ok… (not under the weather or anything…) D.

Seth desirves encouragement

Don't stop, Seth! this was interesting... D. (4th comment)

Seth's blog dethrones Craig's blog...

Congratulations, Seth! You blog dethroned Craig's blog for the number three hit...:)


P.S. I know it's probably all that mentioning of the "craigslist criticism" phrase but still... D.
(11th comment)

Monday, November 19, 2007

just a place to park some comments... (until I figure out where I reallly want them to be)

is Google omniscient?

STILL MORE: (8th comment)

re: "I still think that from a business perspective the two types of posts are identical to Google."
well... they *shouldn't* be! (they are of very unequal value; so what if they are just as easy to track algorithmically? that's just a means to an end...)


P.S. ah, the time when I had no idea how it really worked:)... (not that I know a whole lot right now, but still...); they say if you like sausage, it's better if you don't know how it's made... (seems to apply to a whole lot of other things) D.

EVEN MORE (6th comment):

if the problem is being big, wouldn't a host of small groups solve the problem? (you could cumulatively have significant impact without being detected)

how many Google employees are A-listers? (probably not that many and they could be "kept out of the loop" if you could track down their Google affiliation)

it's the A-bloggers that are really the problem, aren't they? I mean, a link from them is worth something -- what good is a link from somebody nobody's heard of? it may look like "activity" but it's really just meaningless noise, isn't it? D.

MORE: (4th comment) Seth: really? that's odd... Google is not exactly omniscient or... is it? :) You'd think they could set-up a "link market" Google couldn't infiltrate... D.
Seth, (2nd comments)

I'm wondering how much completely unacknowledged money changes hands. I mean, as long as the blogger *says* this is a sponsor or whatever, Google could potentially account for that... (I would hope it would get to that level of sophistication at some point, I'm sort of disappointed after listening to your description of how it really works -- seems rudimentary...)


P.S. if the blogger just links and says something like: hey, check it out! this is good! I like this! wraps it in relevant commentary and just "forgets" that he/she got paid by those people -- there is no way of accounting for that, as far as I can see... D.

Friday, November 9, 2007

Alright! this blog has come to an end... Thanks to those who have followed it!

MORE: I'm it the process of getting it together the way I would go over an album to make sure it had the things I wanted in it... before putting it up in the attic :) (it's probably going to take me a couple of days: a lot of entries are in draft form at this point) D.

what would I have done different if I got to do it all over again: I would have taken Fabrice up on this (I would have at least given him the chance to clarify the long term financial plans for his project like I did with Jay-- I wouldn't have wanted to help with anything that was just going to turn for profit down the road and I didn't think it was clarified on the site)


P.S. still, I don't really have regrets -- this was my first blog and I learned a lot -- and it was still fun (most of the time...); interesting and important topic! (may well do a "second edition", latter on: different people, different projects)

P.P.S oh... and I would have listened to Seth more... D.

Bye bye to Jay (maybe last time?)

EVEN MORE: lesson: have your comment -- and the full path to it -- on your OWN blog also... always...)

my post: No Jay, I'm afraid I won't see you around -- you have excellent projects but you are just a nightmare to deal with as a person. Good luck with your projects! D.

I just didn't think Jay would do this but I guess it matters little at this point... (the comment *posted* in the morning so I though..."ok, I'm done with this..."; didn't check for a possible response until much later in the day -- I was just going to make sure he didn't post anything I needed to address...

seems cowardish to me... -- I mean, my parting post was both honest and well meaning (under the circumstances...)

I would have thought he would have had the decency to leave it posted... Oh, well... as I was saying... doesn't matter at this point... D.

MORE: yes, last time...

Thursday, November 1, 2007

no "community" for NewAssignment?

MORE: looks like Jay's got much more serious issues to deal with... oh, well -- as always, I hope he succeeds but I think it's a big mistake to not even attempt to provide some sort of continuity and keep the people after you got them interested...

Saturday, October 27, 2007

does craigslist target?


re:"Every single website targets"

interesting statement... does craigslist target?


Facebook tricks?



I'm just curious if you read the "fine print" when you joined Facebook and were aware what were the limits (if any...) of Facebook using the private info you presumably gave them for the purpose of using Facebook...

re:"When Facebook uses the private information I give them in a play to target me when I’m away from Facebook, that’s a direction I don’t wish to be a part of."

I think you are right, Terry... and I doubt people knowingly consented to Facebook basically using people's private information against *themselves* -- you'd think at some point they are going to feel they got tricked and just walk away...


P.S. I think a non-profit competitor to Facebook that would safeguard people's private information instead of abusing it would eventually put Facebook out of business... (just like a non-profit competitor to craigslist that would use the profits that have reached ridiculous levels on customer service and improvements instead of ending up in the shareholders' pockets would probably make craigslist irrelevant in time) D.

Tuesday, August 28, 2007

what's up with Jay?

he hasn't gone deaf... I hope:) -- maybe I shouldn't try to pin him to his statements... I just feel that he fully deserves it... (that statement seems to have been yeah, I guess I can see why he would be tempted to remain silent...) D.


...and maybe I am...

(it's just not a personal gripe) D.

Sunday, August 26, 2007

Friday, August 24, 2007

Facebook: the unpaid MLM?

an ongoing aggregation of "new information" originating with blogs?


Wouldn't it really help if there was an ongoing aggregation of "new information" originating with blogs?


P.S. Maybe in could fit in with NewAssignment in some way? D.

Jay seems to be ok...

Dan answered...

... still, sounds suspicious to me (esp. rooting for a for profit model that clearly does NOT intend to financially compensate contributors in any form at *any* time... -- how could that square off with Dan's saying that he not only intended to do that, for his onwn project, but that not doing so was unfair?) D.

Monday, August 20, 2007

should they be paid?

will they? were's the fairness? what does Dan really think about this? (looks like time to go -- parting quote: Jay on NewAssignment) D.

Thursday, August 16, 2007

who's editing Wikipedia (and why?)

who's editing Wikipedia? (and why...)

well, it’s good somebody is doing this — I suggested something similar a while back (except it would have allowed anybody to just look at a Wikipedia entry and instantly find out what portions were added by whom and when) D.



Wednesday, August 15, 2007

(long term) who's going to pay for "Net Neutrality"?

will it be profit-producing enterprises (such as Google and craigslist) or the little guy? D.


The idea that bandwidth is not infinite is hard to dismiss… so yeah, they may be crying wolf early but at some point *somebody’s* going to have to pay for “building out more network space”… and it’s either going to be profit making enterprises or… the little guy… (the ISPs are just going to have to charge people more to pay for the costs…).


Jay is getting sloppy with his arguments...

and doesn't even have the decency to acknowledge it... D.


I just don't think it's negative in the case *Jay* talks about: knowing "a senior aide to the Democratic convention of the bloggers" has a "dismissive attitude towards the bloggers" is POSITIVE something... (definitely less of an absolute value than knowing exactly WHO it is... but that doesn't make the information negative...)

The fact that *some* people might get confused and draw wrong conclusions (whether Ben intended that or not) doesn't mean the information in itself is "negative" (that it detracts from our knowledge of the issue) just that you have to read it carefully...


P.S. now if Jay's criticism would have been that the information *wasn't true*... I could see the point... (but that wasn't his charge) D.

Saturday, August 11, 2007

what conversation?

re:"Jeff Jarvis was saying that in 2004: let’s 'turn news from a one-way lecture into a two-way conversation.' "


It seems to me that you can only have a real "two-way conversation" if it happens on neutral grounds (if nobody has power over the others).

Jeff seems to be a nice guy but I wouldn't call his blog a "conversation": yes he usually has a decent tone and people can post comments and he does answer (sometimes...) but that's not really a conversation, is it?

I mean, his arguments, opinions etc. will always have more weight so in effect he *is* "lecturing" and the readers are primarily listening... even if they are allowed to say what they think, Jeff has power over the posters (he can silence them at any time and that would be the end of the "conversation"...if there ever really was one...)


P.S. I know, I know... I'm back early :)... (I was supposed to be gone for a good long while) -- I just haven't found anything as good as this and I doubt I will... D.

Wednesday, August 8, 2007

DON'T make people verify their identity...

Paul: Well, I don’t know if I got special treatment or not but Dan had the decency NOT to make me verify my identity… (it would have been a deal breaker…) D.

Google piece + comments from the subjects = critique?


I’m wondering if they are doing this for *legal* reasons and not journalistic ones — it looks like it might be a way to get around having to pay for merely aggregating other peoples’ content.

Would the piece that appears on Google + comments constitute a “critique” of some sort and thus be protected against copyright infringement claims? It seems like that’s what the subjects of a report would be doing as far as comments go…


P.S. Jay had a somewhat related article a while back and I was wondering back then ( if Google has considered coming up with a critique of some sort (instead of merely aggregating stuff) and thus be within their rights as far as copyright is concerned. This might be it… D.

I hope Jay's ok...

UPDATE: not to worry...
didn't answer any of these people's comments... D.

Tuesday, August 7, 2007

serious accountability...

it makes no sense to expect a fake blog writer to fess up who he really is…“this is the blog of Steve Jobs… but in the interest of serious accountability, I’m really Daniel Lyons…sssh… don’t tell anybody!”:) D.

Saturday, August 4, 2007

will Jon start a non-profit alternative to Facebook?

a real public trust with a philanthropic mindset... (doesn't look like it) D.

Just to clarify, I was just trying to solve Dan’s problem… I’m NOT on Facebook or any of these things… (for the sort of reasons you mentioned at the end — just way too much personally identifiable information for not good reason). But even if I have no plans to join, I find it interesting and full of potential: by far the most promising of this kind of projects.
But like Dan, I think it’s bad that Facebook has access to people’s personal information for data mining or any of those things… I don’t think this is something people would just give away if they had a *choice* in the matter.

That’s why I was asking Dan why aren’t there projects like that? Is there some good reason for it that I just can’t see? A non-profit (that would stay that way) would seem like the best way to win people for the long run: it could run ads or whatever it needed to do to raise the money to run the site and keep making improvements. And it could of course invite others do improvements, like Facebook does — this is what really got my attention about Facebook… And all would be determined by what users really want (through voting).


P.S. Something like what craigslist *claims* to be: a public trust with a philanthropic mindset. Why don’t *you* start something like this, Jon?:)

Friday, August 3, 2007

was Jay hung over?

when he wrote this... it all sounds so sedated... (so unlike him...) D.

Wednesday, August 1, 2007

is Dan pissed at me?

second question he didn't answer...


P.S. oh, well... he's a grown man -- he should be able to get over people not always agreeing with him...

P.P.S. maybe Jay's personality is preferable ... (yeah, he screams a lot... but he always answers...) D.

Tuesday, July 31, 2007

OfftheBuss: Jay's roundabout way of saying he *does* care about objectivity...

information and opinion...

and Jay appears to be concerned more with information than with opinion:"It’s not important to us that contributors keep opinion out. What’s important is that they put new information in." (end of first paragraph) [my emphasis]

seems like a roundabout way of saying yes we do want you to be objective (that's the threshold for having a chance to make it...)

... give the objective assessment first (the facts etc.), then give your opinion... (if you must:)... -- my take on it...

re: "Bring the scattered facts together in one place so that we have a view of them we didn’t have before. Conduct an original act of reporting and tell us what you found. Interview someone (or multiple someones) whose knowledge and perspective adds to our understanding. Witness a campaign event and report what happened, making sense of it for those who weren’t there. Provide an overview of an episode in the news and the range of reactions to it by linking to those reactions and to the best accounts you can find online. (Then express your own attitude.)" [my emphasis] (answer to first question)


(Facebook) more control...


Dan, I’m wondering if a non-profit that would let the users to (collectively) own the aggregated data could work. I mean, why *aren’t* there any projects like this? You’d think people would flock to something like that if the had the option. D.
Jon, I’m wondering if requests for friends status could be pre screened by various criteria to get them to a manageable number. For instance, it might help a lot if you could decide that for people you haven’t met in real life and who aren’t involved in the same things you are, you will only consider those who live close enough to meet in person. Or if you could set a certain number a day/week and had exclusion criteria to be applied until you got the number you had in mind. D.

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

to lie or to dissemble...

re:” Rare is the case in which someone truly calls a lie what it is. Words like “dissemble” or expressions like “apparently at odds with what others have said” — when a blatant lie has been told — are routinely used to paper over the reality.”

Dan, I’m wondering if they do that (well, NOT to that… not call a lie a lie) for fear of legal repercussions.


P.S. Jon Stewart has it easier… he can always say it was a joke, a parody etc. But if the same things would be printed in a “serious newspaper” for instance… wouldn’t lawsuits be flying? D.

Dan's reply:

Sunday, July 22, 2007

maybe somebody can help?

I'm looking for somebody with Dan Gillmor's easy going personality and Jay Rosen's kind of topics -- any suggestion? let me know... thanks! D.

Robert Scoble


Daily Kos

looks like a madhouse (way too much going on...)

Jason Calacanis

disappointing... (no real conversation going on)

taking a look at other blogs...

MyDD... (I initially wondered if that was the bra size...:): not bad but they make you register to post -- too much hassle.... D.

Alright! I'm going to break with tradition...

and just post my comments on this blog (I still like Jay's projects, I was just getting tired of his pissed off knee jerk reactions to my comments)

asking people to *strive* for objectivity (and the fact that it did get pretty close to it) is what made Wikipedia succesful (it would have been a useless collection of dubious material otherwise): this is what Jay doesn't seem to get about his project -- that he severily handicaps it if he doesn't establish such a goal -- (would it still fall short of that goal? absolutely... but that's not the point -- the point is that you get a much better, much more useful product if you do have this goal than if you don't...)



Friday, July 20, 2007


the more, the merrier... according to Jay...
(I can't seem to stay off his toes so I'm going to take a good long break...)


I think what he really meant to ask was do you expect your project in general (and the individual bits and pieces of it) to be "partisan"? Not in the crudest form (you are saying that "wouldn't make the cut") but...if you are telling people ... hey! don't even bother trying to be objective (that's not something we care about), it's hard to see how you could avoid that outcome...


P.S. Since you don't appear to want to address this issue at all in the context of your project, will readers be expected to just read between the lines and figure out who's pitching for what team and how much weight if any they should give to what they are saying? D.


I don't know what your problem is, again... Why are you so touchy? (I seems like I can't say anything without setting you off...)

I should be able to point out things I see problems with and get a relaxed answer -- whether I'm right or wrong... And I don't think I'm wrong on this one.

Yes, you did say those things but what does that really mean when it comes down to the quality of the product and what people will be reading and be able to get out of it?

The one thing that made sense out of your rant was :"As to whether contributors will be discouraged from presenting their account in an 'objective' manner" --> of course they will be! if you aren't even asking them to at least *attempt* to be objective... (you are telling them it's fine either way...)

And don't forget what your project is about: an election! If you are so naive not to realize that even under the best intentions most people would find it extremely difficult to be objective, keep dreaming... Or maybe you just don't give a hoot... I don't know...

Either way, good luck with your project and with a couple of others! (I've had enough for a good long while)


Wednesday, July 4, 2007

who's a publisher on the web?

Jon, that’s a *publisher* on the web in your view? I could have sworn that was the definition of a censor … (re: “The person with the ability to remove content”) D.

re: ” But when it comes down to a question of authority, they have the sole ability to remove content”

well… not necessarily, at least it doesn’t seem so to me: the ability to remove content seems to be *additional* to the basic function of a publisher on the web: say I used software that allowed me to post on my blog but not to remove any content (no deletions, no alterations) — would that make me NOT a publisher? D.

Jon, I just came up with that example to make it clear why I didn’t find your definition for a publisher on the web to be accurate. But it’s no big deal to me… (just a theoretical issue…) Good luck with PONAR! D.

Thursday, June 28, 2007

I guess there was no way to ask that gently...:)


Well... it's certainly *different*... whether or not it's an improvement (when everything is taken into consideration) appears to be a value judgment. There are also a whole lot of things that are just unknown -- I find the hero-guru system to be a terrible way of getting to the truth of what's really going on.



I'm going to try to be much gentler this time, but isn't there a different kind of corruption when it comes to the blogosphere? well.. the prominent people involved with this (and not just some bad apples, something systemic that distorts the information that reaches the public)?


Jay, again I think they *did* frame it wrong (that they could have done much better in that respect) but I'm wondering if everybody would have gotten more out of the "after matter" if it would have just been *suggested* that they do a follow up article that explores the subject more in depth... instead of telling them just how wrong it all was...(that's done and over with) D.

Jay, this is sounding more and more like beating on a dead horse... If they did a shabby treatment of a worthy subject, why not go into great detail about how it could have been much better? (it seems that that would be a lot more interesting and useful to read) D.


Alright,then! let's do this the easy way: you come across like a sore loser who was pissed that they didn't include you among the interviewees, went out and *asked* them to interview you and then raised hell because it didn't turn out the way you wanted...


P.S. As to my "editing your blog", I was trying to help you out of this vicious circle but... keep spinning around! -- what do *I* care?

P.P.S. As to the other question, that's very serious stuff! and it seems to go way beyond linking or not linking to things... definitely worth talking about!(if we are still in talking terms...) D.


ok, looks like I was wrong (but that's the impression I was getting after seeing you go at it for so long mentioning Mother Jones at every turn) and yes I'm afraid I've reached my tolerance level on the topic...


P.S. I hope you are going to talk about the other issue (corruption of the blogosphere) soon -- I think it would be great if you did a separate article on it... I hope you don't perceive it as "editing your blog," it's just a suggestion and something I'd really like to see... D.

re:"I hope you'll address.... is not editing my blog.

Telling me to halt my examination because it's beyond your tolerance level and go on to something more constructive... that is editing my blog.
I am sure the difference is clear to you."


Again, I didn't "tell you what to do" -- I simply agreed with you that... *I* have personally had enough of this topic the way it has been going (in other words, if this is ALL that's being offered, *I*'m out of here...for *now*...)

But this shouldn't be any problem whatsoever since you've got so many others that are still listening...

As to the other topic, I said I was *hoping* you would talk about it soon, maybe have a separate article on it (so your discussion, with the others, would not be interrupted by this)--I have no idea what could have made you think that I was "telling you to halt your examination" or anything of the kind...


P.S. This is getting a lot more complicated that it needs to be: IF you end-up doing that article on corruption in the blogosphere I'll definitely read it! and could probably participate in a discussion on the topic forever... (well, pretty much...) D.


I'm really tired of this, but I don't want you to be left with the wrong idea, so here's my last comment on this (if this doesn't clarify it, I doubt anything would... so I'm going to have to let it go...):

re:"Jay, this is sounding more and more like beating on a dead horse... If they did a shabby treatment of a worthy subject, why not go into great detail about how it could have been much better? (it seems that that would be a lot more interesting and useful to read) D."
as I already told you, at that point I thought you needed help out of a vicious circle... but even then *I didn't tell you what to do*: I simply told you what it looked like to me and *suggested* a change of focus... while staying on the topic you have chosen (something that would read, at least to me and I assumed I wasn't the only one that saw it that way -- I may have been, I don't know --, more like a dispassionate exploration of the topic and less like bashing Mother Jones to no end).


why *didn't* they link? (as far as you can tell) D.


I think that based on the quality of your blog and especially based on previous history of the issue it is quite normal to expect to be linked to... (not in the sense of feeling *entitled* to get links -- just a logical continuation of what's been going in the past)


P.S. And you may well have been right earlier on when you thought it was curious and it may have something to do with corruption...

re: "About one of your earlier questions, isn't there corruption in the blogosphere we ought to concern ourselves with even if MoJo didn't go a great job in illuminating it... I'm a trifle concerned that this post, criticizing a progressive magazine, has been linked to by Instapundit on the right, Joe Gandelman of The Moderate voice in the center, but not a single link from the left. Fortunately I have the Huffington Post to get it out there, but it is curious."

Saturday, June 23, 2007

was Seth right?

Jay, I'm not sure "balance" is the right word, it seems to me that what people may be concerned with the project being not only fair but welcoming to ...well... non-liberals...
If you think this is something you really *can* offer, it would be great! (but definitely not easy...)
If this is not something you can do (or would care to do), I think it would be much better (and clearer for all) to just limit it to those of liberal persuasion... and maybe suggest that the project is "mirrored" by some conservative initiative... and a separate independent one, why not?


P.S. re: "This is someone I respect and admire a great deal, and more so after his decision to execute this turn in his studies."

I didn't know what to make of this (it seems a bit odd, to me... I mean, *adding* a new interest would be one thing but out of the blue deciding he is just not going to do any more of his extreme fair use thing etc... begs the question "why?" -- I think Lessig may well have very serious reasons that he is just not disclosing...). D.

oh, Jay... you don't *really* believe Lessig's stuff, do you? -- I mean, it's so way out there I don't see how he, or anybody else, thought there was ever any real chance it was going to become the law -- and thank God it didn't! it would have made terrible law -- (interesting intellectual arguments if you are tolerant to the extreme... and I am not...; he may have much better luck with things like science fiction)


P.S. alright! looks like another thing we disagree on...

P.P.S. it's already past midnight, I gotta go to bed... good night, all! D.

re:"And I don't think you understand how academics work."

Well... I certainly don't understand academics a la Lessig (or any "academic based" advocacy group). I don't think anybody *should* understand it... that's not academics, that's lobbying!


P.S. If you think the law is terrible *now* -- you should have seen just how much MORE terrible it could have been if Lessig's ideas prevailed; I've already said, I think we are much better off that *didn't* happen... D.

P.P.S. Sorry if he's a personal friend or something...


re: I don't think anybody *should* understand it... that's not academics, that's lobbying!
You sound like a commissar. Scary."

huh? I think you missed the context: it was simply a way of saying the what Lessig and organizations such as the Berkman Center, for instance, do is just NOT academics... and, yeah, it's NOT *conventional* lobbying either... it's lobbying the academia! (something that shouldn't be allowed...)


P.S. and yes, that's *my view* on the topic, of course, and by the looks of your responses I can see a lot of merit in dropping it... (unless, of course, you can show that having "academic based" *advocacy groups* does NOT result in lobbying the academia or that lobbying the academia is in itself quite ok... I'd be listening... ) D.

Jay, (you may not have intended it that way but) it certainly appears that Tim has been less welcomed(I mean, if he's had different opinions, he's always been gentle about it -- unlike me..., I'm afraid:) --; yet I always seem to get answers from you and my comments appear to post instantaneously...) : this is what I meant when I said make sure you *can* make EVERYONE feel just as welcomed as the next person... otherwise, make it clear to people that's not a realistic expectation so they can make up their mind whether they still want to participate D.


I think you are missing the point, entirely... anybody should be allowed "to push" for whatever policy they want (however unwise, Lessig NOT excepted...).

They should just be honest as to what they are really doing... (don't call it academics and don't do it in an academic setting if the outcome of your "academic inquiry" is set from the outgo... I don't see how that could possibly qualify as academics...)

The big problem I see with "academic based" advocacy groups (Dan Gillmor's term), such as the Berkman Center -- Lessig had the original endowed professorship, if I remember right -- is that they result in a perversion of academia and a perversion of true scholarship (they are just impervious to opposite points of view, as far from academic principles as you can get...).


P.S. Just look at what has been the Center's effect on academic freedom at Harvard, for instance? Marginalizing people like Arthur Miller... who certainly deserves a prominent place at the discussion table when it comes to Internet and Society ...

A true academic group would have *equally* welcomed both Lessig AND Miller... and be glad to have them BOTH... and there would have been no advocacy going on (the two very different views would have been presented as valid alternatives)D.

Jay, I hope you *are* indeed missing the point (and it's not something much more sinister going on...) -- Seth sort of warned me that I walked into a Kool-Aid-drinking-cult and shouldn't expect normal reasoning... at the time I though he was just funny but I'm not so sure any more...


P.S. anyways, I gotta go... good luck with your project! D.

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

does he *really* want to have that debate? (hard to tell...)

Dan, I think you are wrong on this one… giving good counter arguments wouldn’t be “selling the book” (if done right, it could plummet sales). Your REFUSAL to formally counter what he is saying, may well give the impression that you just don’t have serious valid counter arguments… and thus *help* sales…


P.S. yes, you have “spoken” against it (here and elsewhere) but, as far as I’m aware, it hasn’t been a real critique (and that’s disappointing): these people (PBS and BBC, both of them decent entities) want to give you the chance to do it right: you should take it! D.


Here is what you said: “It is a shabby and dishonest treatment of an important topic.” Pretty strong negative statement — nothing wrong with that of course, as long as you back up your claim. I just don’t find that you (or Lessig, your reference) did a good job at this — I’m thinking you could probably do much better… And you do end your post by saying “Let’s definitely have that debate. But let’s base it on facts…” So… why NOT have it, then? (and by all means, base it on facts!) when PBS and BBC are offering?


P.S. As to Andrew’ publicist just being happy the book is talked about, if you are thinking if you showed Andrew’s book was terrible (and I mean *really* show), that would make the book into a “cult book” (just like you have cult movies following really bad movies), I guess I can see your point… but this seems to be a minor concern when compared with getting the real counter arguments out… if you have them…

P.P.S. will be away for the day (will check your blog in the evening)


The whole tone of your and Lessig’s arguments sounds wrong. It seems to me that you are both going after the wrong things … Why not focus on the real issues (you acknowledged) Andrew raises? Why not just have the debate that you say is worth having… (with or without Andrew… on PBS/BBC or not…)?


P.S. But if you are not going to have Andrew, I think you still need to have *somebody* to represent radically different views. D.


“focusing” on things (especially in your *own* book) is NOT a debate… well, good luck with your new project, then! but unless you bring in people with very different points of view (such as Andrew — of course, it doesn’t *have to* be Andrew, but he definitely fits the bill in that respect, maybe not in others), I don’t see how you are going to have much of a debate… the whole reason of commenting on this post (and the prior one one the same topic) was because you plainly said you wanted to have that debate… maybe you didn’t *really*… I don’t know… but in any case I’ve said as much as I’m going to say on the topic…


P.S. and no, I haven’t read your book nor is it one my reading list any time soon (I could easily wonder if you brought it up for the same reason you accuse Andrew — to help sales — but I’m going to give you the benefit of a doubt); I have previously read a couple of Lessig’s books (with whom you say you are in agreement) and I must confess I was far from impressed…

Friday, June 8, 2007

the great debate that never was :(...

So how about that debate? What are the serious issues Andrew raises, as far as you can see? (the “topics that need serious treatment”) D.


I don’t mind hearing what you think but I was really asking Dan.


P.S. oh… Seth, I don’t know how to say this but you come across like a frustrated kid that nobody/nothing can make feel better… I think it would be nice is you quieted down (you have a lot of good ideas but they always seem to come with whine) D.

Dan, you are *talking* about a lot of issues here but I don’t see much of a debate going on… so I think this could be a good opportunity to do something like this: I’d pick the “best issues” both you and Andrew agree on (although you probably ONLY agree on the fact that they *are* issues…), invite Andrew over and anybody else who would care to participate and… have that debate! D.

Don’t get hurt, Seth… get better ; you can do it! it’s all in the frame of mind… don’t take it too seriously — look at it as fun! D.

Tuesday, June 5, 2007

what's gonna happen?

who/what will end up subsidising journalism?

re: Technology isn’t destroying journalism. “It’s simply destroying the business that subsidized journalism.”

Jay, I'm wondering what you think will happen. It doesn't seem to look promising at the moment... but do you think alternative successful ways to "produce" journalism will be found? *in time*? If not, what will happen? Will the government end up having to subsidize the gathering and dissemination of basic info we *really* need to get?



My concern is that nobody seems to have come up with a "journalistic car" that works... yet, nonetheless, the "horse and buggy journalism" appears to be in the process of dismantling...
So you get the expected reactions: those who strongly believe *something* will come around and solve the problem vs. those who aren't that optimistic...

I like being optimistic but I think we NEED to have some sort of fall back scenario.


I'm wondering if advertising delivered what was believed to deliver in the print form: I mean, it seems that all advertisers had to go by was how many people read the paper...there were no clicks or anything of the kind to really *know* how many people were even cursorily interested in the ads.

Could it be that the advertisers were paying a lot of money for those ads because they just *believed* they were getting them customers but that wasn't in fact the case?

Could it be that this false belief was easily dispelled online were it was just a lot easier to see that eyeballs do NOT equal dollars? that you can have a lot of traffic and in the same time not many readers even glancing at your ads?


that doesn't convince me (in itself)-- people have been wrong about a lot of things for much longer than 100 years... but let's say it *did* work: did they figure out *how* it worked? (*what* made it work?)...that may give good clues as to how to make advertising work online D.


If it's "stolen" it's only because they *allow* it... (it would be easy to NOT allow links to their stuff if they didn't want it); so I don't know what's going here... doesn't see to add up... If you see your stuff gets stolen, you don't continue to leave the door open...


P.S. did anybody at least try to see if they could give *permission* to link (since they are not legally or otherwise required to allow it) in EXCHANGE for a percentage of the money Google etc. makes as a *direct result* of using those links? that would seem fair to me... D.

re: "news sites will make more money by having their content pop up on Google News than they otherwise would"

you'd hope there would be some money to be made from that (the traffic driven back to the paper from Google news and such), but it appears that the profits are no that easy to realize...

... so, since that doesn't take care of the problem (from the journalism content producers' side) and since they are no required to allow links... you'd think that as long as they would stand their ground, they should be able to work out something with Google etc.

after all, if the content production dries up, Google wouldn't have *what* to make money off...


Jay, I take it there haven't been attempts to really negotiate with Google etc. in this respect (or you are not aware of any)-- would you be against something like that? do you think it *might* work and if so in what circumstances? D.

Lame Man,

It *does* make sense: Google would make no money whatsoever if it ONLY did what newspapers can't stop it from doing (just give a short "sampling" of the news they find relevant -- headlines or short passages -- with NO link to where to go find the stuff... *nobody* would be interested in tracking those things down on their own, well, close to nobody...)

Now, if Google did this... just to be *nice* -- provided this to the community and made *no money* at it -- it would be one thing, but this is NOT what's going on... Google makes money! (Jay says not much but who's to judge? their profit margin may still be quite high...)

So then what's the problem with sharing those profits with those who produce the journalism Google uses to *make $*? The fact that the journalism producers don't *have to* allow links give them a bargaining position (well... it *secures* the bargaining position they should rightly have since they are the *content producers* without which none of this could be happening in the first place... )


P.S. sorry, Jay (looks like we disagree on this one) D.

Jay, would it make a difference to you if the Paul Bass kind of enterprise (a journalistic non-profit, and not commercial journalism) was getting a share of Google's direct profits from using their work? D.


I don't know who were you addressing in that post but it was good info! looks like it doesn't even come down to being or not being allowed to link, looks like just the *aggregation of quotes* is in violation of the law... imagine that!

Good thing I didn't start Delia's Random News... (not that I was really considering it). So much for Dan Gillmor's idea that you have the (fair use)right to quote for whatever reason whatsoever --looks like Google would have to integrate those quotes in some sort of a critique or something... (to be within their rights)-- it would be interesting to see! (I wonder if they've considered it...)


P.S. it's hard to believe that a lot of people are just reading those quotes and not following the links (*very* counterintuitive... and pretty much wrecks my theory:)-- that's the part that sucks!) *lol*

P.P.S. good night, all! D.

Jay, apparently Google was at fault (legally) and it looks like they agreed to "pay up"; they appear to want to keep it "localized" (by not disclosing what kind of financial agreement they made) but I doubt they will succeed -- after seeing that it *can* be done, pretty much anybody who can legally go after them, probably Tim's links D.

*lol* not quite :) looks like they are just not going to be able to keep ALL they money to themselves... D.

Saturday, June 2, 2007

was about to give up on the BuzzMachine

I still think it should be ad free... (I know the presence of the ads, which seems to be increasing makes me visit it much less than I would otherwise)

Jay, if Jeff is “moderating” against *your* posts… I’m out of here for good… D.

Jeff, I got your email (I tried to reply to it — so you’d know I got it — but it keeps freezing my computer for some reason) D.

J-schools should make sure students have realistic expectations

Dan, I’m wondering if J-schools should have some sort of “disclaimers” (just to make sure students know what the realistic expectations are — they generally spend good money on tuition etc.) D.

Thursday, May 24, 2007

giving or not giving oral interviews...

Yes, Jay...

But your mentioned in your prior two entries that you were reconsidering giving oral interviews (at least that's what stuck *me* as interesting).

So, consistent with what you've said so far (if I understand it right), you only made the categorical decision not to do soundbite for TV news but... you *have* reconsidered giving oral interviews in other circumstances, also... Right?

If so, what were your reasons for reconsidering it in those other circumstances? (I think you already gave some reasons, such as having your responses questionably framed, but I get the impression that there must be more to it.)
you would *never* stop giving oral interviews altogether? (no matter what...) -- ok ... (I didn't think what you wrote and told Kurtz went that far...especially in the light of your prior entries; it seemed to me that there were plenty of things that weren't working nearly as well as of late and if they continued to get worse that was a possibility -- that at some point you'd just quit doing it altogether) D.

P.S. What would it take for you to stop giving oral interviews altogether (if you see this as a possibility). D.
don't give them ideas, Jay:)...(they could just *say* that even if they've already made up their mind if they know you would always talk to them if they say that...) ; sorry about the trolls -- I'm going to stop here on that account... D.

Tuesday, May 22, 2007

what they say and what reasons they give for what they are saying...

I look at what they say and what reasons they give for what they are saying…*first* and *foremost* — always! ESPECIALLY online… it’s not like you can see the expression on their faces (like you might in the case of a witness) or that knowing that a particular random person wrote a particular post means much — the reverse doesn’t mean much to me either (that a *known* person wrote the post), I mean nowhere as much as what they say and the reasons they give for what they are saying — they may be more *likely* to say something of value but that becomes irrelevant when you have the info in front of you… I suspect you don’t agree but that’s ok :)…. I was just curious what your reasons were… but I don’t really need to know… D.


Dan appears to be *more* than a credentialist: looks like, for him, if you’d rather not share your name with the whole world, you might just as well shut up… (you are NOT standing behind your words…) And nope, it’s not an issue of privacy! After all, why *shouldn’t* the whole world know? (from here to eternity…) you MUST be hiding *something*! ;)…


P.S. (if you haven’t noticed) I’m mostly kidding, Dan…

Seth, it seems to me that IF you are evidence based, you wouldn’t be granting presumptions to anybody — you would just look at the stuff (on an *individual* basis) and decide if it’s good or not — if you already have the thing in front of you, what good are presumptions? (the time those would have been useful has already passed).

Jon, I think it all depends… I can think of a number of circumstances where “the new gatekeepers’ values” (according to you) would do just fine… : for instance, not all useful information requires a lot of pondering and getting something quick may be essential


P.S. The real issue seems to be whether the “non-credentialed reviews” (that *overall* appear to be a mixed bag — well, more so than the “credentialed reviews”) are just something EXTRA that is available… or whether their existence does in fact result in less available quality reviews (”credentialed” or not)… and if this is the case at the moment, is this something that’s temporary or not…

P.P.S. Jon, I agree that too much information to sort through can be a problem (I took a quick look at your article) : rating by those who have already read the stuff seems to be a promising solution (but it needs to be more than just a popularity rating a la Digg — I think Fabrice Florin’s idea is on the right track and can be applied to a lot more things) D.

Jon - if your idea was different enough (and for the better) it may still be worth writing your version of Digg (Digg’s system doesn’t appear to have much for IP protection — I mean there seem to be so many copycats and I’m not aware of legal challenges by Digg….) D.

Seth: Jon said: “My time would probably have been better invested in April 2005 had I written Digg then” — this only makes sense if the code was a significant ingredient in the success… (unless Jon could also get the audience) D.

Saturday, May 19, 2007

what's journalism for?

Paul, I’m curious what you think journalism is for (or *should* be)? As far as I see it, its basic function is to inform us of things we really *need* to know — this, and only this, is the loss of function that’s worth worrying about and (if needed) even worth being subsidized by the government… D.

Thursday, May 17, 2007

(if you are not a professional blogger) you can always gather your toys and go home...


Unless you are a “professional blogger” (or aspire to be) — the vast majority of bloggers (or whatever you want to call them) just don’t fit this category — this should be fun for you…

If it’s NOT, you can always gather your toys and go home… this is a luxury “professional bloggers” don’t have (if this is a way to make money, it seems to become like a job — you can quit if you want but not without significant loss… )

Plus their real life appears to be intertwined with this blogging thing so they can’t just anonymously decide they’ve had enough, have a clean break and move on…


P.S. So I wouldn’t envy them too much (it can and it *does* get quite unpleasent at times and they have to face the music come what may). D.


If you see it as a sin… why be part of it? As far as I see it, the only good reason to do this as a “volunteer” is… because you enjoy it! If you don’t… (or at the point you don’t anymore), there is an easy way out of your “misery”… (if that’s how you see it).

As to being heard, people have limited time so unless you have something they *really* want or need I think it’s naive to think they will drop what they were doing and start listening to you… You probably have a better chance of “being heard” (before they remove you…) if you go to the mall, get on a soap box and start talking…

Again, if it’s not fun for you (everything taken into consideration), don’t do it…


P.S. I’m not convinced that being an “A-lister,” in itself, makes people in general listen to them… I mean, I took a look at a couple of them (just because I’ve heard of them in favorable terms) and I must confess I was thoroughly bored…. If people listen to them just because they are A-listers, I don’t think they are really listening…

And if you think of it in terms of having “influence”, I don’t think it’s anywhere to the extent that you appear to believe — the vast majority of people don’t read blogs, definitely not on a regular basis.

Some of them may have significant influence because they are seen as“experts.” I’m doubtful of any real “experts” in something where so few things are demonstrably the way the “experts” claim to be. So I agree that it’s a “guru” system…

But in any case, why even worry about it if it’s not fun for you? Go take a nap instead:)…. D.

Friday, May 11, 2007

(giving interviews) why participate in the charade?

re: "People might well consider, you say, not cooperating in oral interviews because they might be used briefly' Nope. I simply said that I was re-considering."


I think you are right to reconsider it and others would be well advised to do so. If it's no longer about getting to the truth of the matter why participate in the charade (and waste your time in the process)?


Tuesday, May 8, 2007

forget about gigs if you can do your own thing

Dan, it seems odd that he would *need* anybody’s gig is he is that good… (should be able to start something of his own and do well at it) D.

(ultimately) *content* drives business (always has, always will)

Dan, I’m not sure Fry is right. It seems to me that ultimately it is the *content* that drives the business aspect of it (it always has been, it always will be — there would just be no selling or buying without it). So as long as content producers would be willing to walk away, they should still have bargaining power. D.

Sunday, May 6, 2007

better when you can see what's going on...


Does that really answer your concern? (it doesn’t seem that it would) I mean, trust is a great thing but being able to see what’s going on is even better! It seems to me that… they *still* need to become more transparent… (whether or not Andrew Glass detects any political pressure… yet…)


Sunday, April 29, 2007

(in memoriam) Jack Valenti

Dan, I’m not sure he *could* have been on your side: he may have worked for Hollywood but I’m afraid he *believed* what he was saying (I think that’s why he was so good at it). I think the Berkman Center, for instance, was just as biased on copyright issues as the Hollywood cartel — just in the other direction (I think that’s a shame — no academic group should a priori advocate one way or the other; that’s NOT academia, that’s lobbying…) D.


I misspelled my new address so it's not posted on Dan's blog yet -- here's the duplicate


The way I see it, the idea that in the long run “extreme fair use, “ala Lessig for instance, helps scholarship is shaky at best (it’s NOT a balanced academic position but something interested private parties, especially attorneys such as Lessig, are free to advocate *outside* of academic settings…).

But even if this wasn’t an issue, your argument seems to amount to claiming that whatever would help scholarship would be a “principled stand” for an “academic-based organization”… (the way I see it, there wouldn’t be anything “principled” about it — just self -serving…)

I think that, on the contrary, a valid principled academic stand on the issue would mean doing a *neutral* evaluation of the situation and… arriving at… wherever that would lead! That’s why I don’t think you CAN have an “academic based” advocacy organization (such as the Berkman Center) — I believe it is a perversion of academia and a perversion of true scholarship… (Harvard should have told the Berkmans to take their money to Washington if they wanted to fund advocacy…)


Saturday, April 28, 2007

suggestions for Digg


Kevin & Alex:

you need to set up some easy and obvious way for people to make suggestions for improving your Diggnation podcast

my suggestion: get a woman between you two! (, I did NOT mean *that* -- I felt compelled to clarify this given that Alex appears to have a well developed dirty mind...) really! I think it would help a lot... (especially if you'd like to build more of a female audience -- I suspect it's very small at the moment).

as to which woman, I'd invite the "top female digger of the week" (whoever submitted the highest ranking story that week, even if it didn't get very far...) to be the third person that week -- think of it as diversity and affirmative action (when the male/female following evens's probably going to take a good long while... then you can just invite the "top digger of the week," regardless of gender).

Good luck with everything and take care!


Hi, all! So do *I* ... re: stand by my opinion

Tink: true... still, I think the overall effect would be positive, possibly VERY much so... So what if some would be joining Digg in the hope that they would make it on the show? It's not like it would be easy to beat everyone else (even just for the female category). The way I look at it... IF they make it, they deserve it! (And if they can't make it to Cali on their own, maybe Digg should help...)But the main point of my suggestion and where the real value is (if you ask *me*, of course...) is EXPANDING the "digger base," especially the female one which appear to be very underrepresented (I think Diggnation, in it's current form, is just not helping much in this respect and it could really help a lot!).That's my opinion... Thanks for sharing yours! D.

knowing about Digg versus joining Digg

plenty of people (including women) KNOW about Digg... much fewer JOIN Digg... why is that? it seems to me that, at least part of it, is caused by "uneven marketing" and the Diggnation podcast is perhaps the most obvious example D.

why not help?

I think is worth doing what can be done to increase the female base... especially if you are correct (and I think you *are*) that even if the marketing would be even, there would be more males than females that would get involved in this... D.

Diggnation, for instance, is "marketing" to me...

but of course plenty of other things (whether or not are intended to be "marketing") seem to fulfill this function... e.g. the front page (it would be a big decision but I think it would be worth finding out whether the current design is appealing to women and if NOT... at least *consider* altering it...) D.

that's why I said *consider* it..

(and that actually changing it would be a big decision) -- I gave the example because it was a very clear one (when people find out about Digg they go to the front page -- I think their reaction to it, which is pretty much like a first impression, is very important) Same thing with watching Diggnation... D.

I think the format would have to change if it was to be a movie (not to be mean to Kevin & Alex but I doubt I would have set through a movie length Diggnation in it's current form... ) D.

Hi there, Tokenuser/Moderator...

That's correct! I registered for the purpose of posting this suggestion; I thought I got it down pretty well and... moved on to other things... *Do* let me know what conclusion are you drawing -- I'm curious!


P.S. there's a link from one of my blogs to this discussion thread (so I kept an eye on it given that anybody who reads my blogs would get direct access to this). D.

Friday, April 27, 2007

is this really reporting? (or has it become PR?)

UPDATE: hmmm... it works if you use Firefox (but it does NOT if you use Explorer...) D.

Jeff doesn't seem to allow links directly to my comment, so here's the duplicate:

“Who says that reporters are in charge of interviews anymore?”

true and sad! those who are actually doing their job (collecting all relevant info, checking for accuracy, inconsistencies etc. seem to be a disappearing breed — just look at all the misinformation about craigslist, for instance).

Isn’t accuracy and completeness the goal?”

absolutely! but how can it be accomplished if the interviewer has become the interviewee’s stenographer and is supposed to bow and thank him for the privilege?

Yes, it is a privilege to be granted a *real* interview (where the interviewee’s words are NOT the gospel and real questions are asked and answered so the truth can come out) but it is an insult to be offered anything *less*…

Might just as well skip it or seek employment with the interviewee as a PR person (at least then just repeating what your employer said and marveling at it whether it makes any sense or not wouldn’t be deceiving people…)


P.S. otherwise, great points! (especially on transparency, built-in context links and the “never ending” interview/article) D.

(by default) aren't emails private letters?

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

more on anonymity

a bunch of posts in that thread

Dan, as I already said I find your take on anonymous posts and the inferences you draw from peoples *choice* to remain anonymous extreme — *What* people are saying (whether they chose to remain anonymous or not) and what *evidence* they give for what they are saying is what matters to me… Much more than *who* said so. Unless they are “experts in the field” (and even then they would have to have adequate evidence for what they are saying), who cares if their name is Joe Dow or Mary Smith?


Well… you seem to have an odd hang-up on the need to give one’s actual name in *such circumstances* (now if you met someone in person and they gave you some made up name, yeah… you’d have no good reason to trust them) but on some board online? there is really no need or use for their actual names; besides, how would you know it was their real name anyways? Especially if it’s a common name… D.

I don’t see any issue with people choosing to remain anonymous in such circumstances — it seems to me that they just value their privacy (hard to hold it against them). IF it is done *to deceive*… of course that’s wrong but the intent to deceive is what makes it wrong, not their desire to preserve their privacy. Well… as far as *I* see it… D.

Saturday, March 24, 2007

nothing wrong with anonymity per se!

re: “People who don’t stand behind their words deserve, in almost every case, no respect for what they say. The exceptions come when someone risks life or freedom or livelihood by being a whistle-blower or truth-teller.”

Dan, this sounds a bit extreme to me… yes, there are situations when anonymity should be waved but it seems to me that *those* are the exceptions (and not the other way around).
…”almost any case”? why? in the vast majority of cases (the one you gave excluded, among a few others), there should really make no difference *who* the messenger is — the message should stand on its own…


Tuesday, March 20, 2007

chapter and verse or not... (we *need* the actual facts...)

Dan, if you can’t do it now, I hope you can give us the details later on… (it’s just impossible to comment without knowing what did he do, exactly…) D.

Monday, March 19, 2007

(Dan sez) it's all about the goods!

and why not? isn't that what matters?

Dan, I was wondering about quoting Valleywag. I used it as a reference once but struggled with whether I should have done it — I decided it was ok in the particular context but thought there were a bunch of topics where it’s probably just not a reliable source… but is this making their whole reputation questionable? I mean… it’s not like quoting the Enquirer, now, or… is it? (I suspect they *too* can be reliable… at times…) D.

Saturday, March 17, 2007

looking forward to be proven wrong! (Jay's NewAssignment)


as I already told you, I wish you best of luck with your project

doesn't mean I don't have doubts about it

the way I see it, you are starting with some serious handicaps:

#1 your project is NOT bottom-up (if it was bottom up you wouldn't need anybody to make it sound cool -- it would already be as cool as it gets!)
#2 your project is NOT on the ground (you are NOT building a geographic network of people that can meet in person and do things together that way); given this, I actually think you made the right choice for your first project (it's more of a theoretical pursuit, not exactly "hands-on")
#3 distributive reporting... well, anything that has "distributive" as the operating term sounds like an advanced project to me (not a bad goal to have for when you've already got your network together... but to *start* with it? I just don't see how it can be done -- your network is not going to...just spring into being ... it will take time and work and figuring out...)
but, of course, I'm looking forward to being proven wrong! (I hope you succeed in spite of my doubts)