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 half-baked...so... 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 (http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2007/06/04/currmudgeon_nh.html#comment48119) 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.