is Dan going to answer?

STILL MORE:

John, I think he *is* suggesting a “solution”: stop self-serving baseless pontification.

This is what I’m getting from the following and this is what Seth has been saying for a very long time.

” I’ve noticed that the business-model of A-listers is to tell other people to change their business-model (”Everything You Know Is Wrong! It’s A New Era!”). Except the A-listers can profit whether or not their advice is good or bad, right or wrong - and hence, sometimes can be downright hostile to rigorous analysis (present company excepted, of course). But the actual numbers (when one can find them ) are nowhere near as supportive as the breezy pontification.” (July 31st, 2008 at 5:47 am)

EVEN MORE:

Seth is pointing out obvious fundamental flaws in the arguments. That doesn’t make him perfect, of course — just the voice of reason.

e.g.

Dan: The chance to get *something* is not much of a risk.

Seth: To the contrary, you have to hire a web person, deal with server hosting and bandwidth issues, that all costs money. It’s not zero-vs-positive. There’s quite a risk of negative.

and on and on…

Delia

STILL MORE: good luck, Seth! It looks like you've got Jon backing you up, also... so I shouldn't be too badly missed:)

Delia

P.S. If you ever get Dan to really answer, it would be interesting to hear it -- otherwise, it just feels like running in circles... D.

EVEN MORE:

a milder way to ask the core questions Seth is asking — not that he would *need* to ask them milder — might be:

Dan,

#1. what are the “obvious ways” (that escape Seth and me, at a minimum) of breaking even? (you were implying at least breaking even is a given)

#2. what would it take for you — what facts — to conclude that there would be a significant risk of not getting the advertising revenue needed even in the long run ? (and just how long a view are you taking? it *cannot* be …. forever…)

Delia

P.S. I can see an argument that even if you loose some money by opening the archives there would be positive externalities that would at least compensate for that but Seth is correct that you (or anybody else talking authoritatively on these issues) need to” show your work” (the concrete rational steps that bring you to your conclusion) or acknowledge that it’s just not a well founded guess… it may be a hope… or something else… D.

MORE:

re: ““If we take 3 gills of pixie-powder and add it to 5 drams of fairy-dust, it’ll be enough for a unicorn in a magic kingdom”. LOL

you are getting to be funny, Seth:) — haven’t noticed that side of you.

Delia

P.S. BTW, I can use some back-up on Craig Newmark’s blog (a post referring to what seems like Dan’s rosy presentation of the situation); thanks! D.

re: http://onlinejournalismblog.blogspot.com/2008/07/is-dan-going-to-answer.html

Dan,

It sounds all nice and fluffy... but I wonder if you see any real issues with it.

The sort of problems Seth keeps throwing at you on your blog come to mind: is it mostly hype? it is largely smoking mirrors allowing the few to profit and the many to be exploited?

If Seth is correct, doesn't sound like much progress, does it?

Delia

P.S. In the few years I've been reading your blog I haven't seen you directly address the problems he constantly brings up... I've often wondered why...D

strive to be a researcher (not a journalist...)

I'm not sure if this is what Jon meant, but a true researcher (not the kind that gets paid to look up things so that *others* can use them... the term seems a misnomer in such circumstances) is much more than just a journalist. There are lousy researchers and there are great journalists, of course, but that doesn't change the fact that doing serious research and doing serious journalism are just not at the same level, although these are both useful endeavors. Striving to be a true researcher, as opposed to a journalist, is a higher goal.

Delia

P.S.And I agree with Seth... dumping the whole analysis process in the lap of the readers because the journalist just can't be perfectly objective sounds like a copout to me... and the readers truly don't have the time to do your job for you :) -- (I don't mean *you*, in particular...) D.

Public journalism and citizen journalism

Jon,

Some people (French) thought the two concepts were pretty much the same, that “citizen journalism” is just “public journalism” in the internet age… I suppose not particularly flatering to Jay:)

Delia

P.S. Here is a translation I did for Jay (and his readers) back in 2006:

http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2006/08/11/na_mrpbl.html#comment28646

P.P.S. his blog was pretty decent in terms of topics, just a bit much to take on the personal level (way too much pointless bickering…) D.

(Wikipedia) Jimmy Wales desirves some respect

STILL MORE: (9th comment)

I'd have to see that, Seth...

Delia

P.S. can you please email me the "early history of Wikipedia" you talk about (hopefully you have it in a relatively compact form, but anything under 100 pages I'd take a look at) D.

EVEN MORE: (7th comment)

How much time do you think he has spent on this project by now? what if he would have spent in on Bomis-the-next-generation instead and forgot about Wikipedia altogether? that would have been the expected thing to do when he figured it wasn't going to be a financial success, no?

Delia

P.S. and I still think he could have gotten *something* for it if he would have sold it; also why not switch back to for-profit once it became clear that Wikipedia was valuable? (all he would have had to do is tell people he needed to collect some fees to pay the bills and then refused to disclose the profits -- nothing stopped Craig from doing that...); as far as I can see Jimmy has handled it with much more honesty and deserves respect for it... D.

MORE: (5th comment)

He *could* have monetized it, Seth -- nothing would have stopped him from putting ads on it, for instance. Dumping it would have meant selling it, as far as I see it (selling it to the highest bidder while it was still a for profit). He didn't do that -- he made it a non-profit instead (the opposite of what Craig did with craigslist)

Delia

P.S. And you *did* say it, Seth...

re: "And remember what fuels the value of those speaking engagements. That's you-Yes-YOU! Now, don't you want to buy him a jet too?"

...
Seth, (3rd comment)

Jimmy is obviously no saint but I doubt he is nearly as bad as you make him out to be...

I mean, if you would have shown that the I-made-my-fortune-on-the-stock-market claim was bull, I would have definitely listened; if you would have shown that he made a fortune from Bomis and has been hiding this, I would have listened but... earning honoraria as side benefit to having spent a huge amount of his own time on helping build Wikipedia is a real problem?

He could have tried to monetize Wikipedia and milk it for all it was worth or dump it if it wouldn't have worked out -- He *didn't* do this and I think he deserves respect for it (whatever his other failings may be...)

Delia

(benign and malign) pseudonyms

EVEN MORE: Hi Orin! Seth Finkelstein sent me your way. re: " You can imagine the basic idea, though: Since everyone who uses computers violates dozens of different TOS every day, the theory would make everyone who uses computers a felon." This doesn't make sense to me because 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(2)(C) is not a stand-alone punishable offense. Delia P.S. there is more detail on this in my discussion with Dan Gillmor and Seth Finkelstein on Dan Gillmor's blog D.

MORE: I’m not out to convince anybody, Seth, but I may post a comment if they are not making it a hassle to do it (make you register and the like) Thanks! D.

MORE: P.S. for Seth: I get the impression an alarmist first caught wind of this and then a whole lot of others just adopted that view without really looking into it. D.

STILL MORE: re: Dan Solove: “if one “intentionally accesses a computer without authorization . . . , and thereby obtains . . . information from any protected computer if the conduct involved an interstate . . . communication” and “the offense was committed in furtherance of any . . . tortious act [*in this case intentional infliction of emotional distress*] in violation of the . . . laws . . . of any State.” [my emphasis]

–>that’s why this whole idea that *everybody* would be felon makes no sense… UNLESS *everybody* is doing things like intentionally inflicting emotional distress on others (possibly driving them to suicide) … pretty far fetched assumption as far as I’m concerned… D.

EVEN MORE: re: Orin: “You can imagine the basic idea, though: Since everyone who uses computers violates dozens of different TOS every day, the theory would make everyone who uses computers a felon.” –> nonsense… for the reasons I gave above — it’s NOT a stand-alone *punishable* offense…

MORE: sorry about the delay (was away for the day)

Dan, I’ve told you before I have no interest in having the last word — I *do* have an interest in clearing things up if possible… (otherwise it seems pointless to talk about them, no?)

The offense in case is the one *you* gave (I just tracked it down and gave all the relevant parts of the law):

re:

” From the actual law:

Whoever ‘intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains … information from any protected computer if the conduct involved an interstate or foreign communication…”

The law doesn’t require a reason. Just doing it, under this incredibly sweeping interpretation, is enough to trigger an indictment.” –> these were your words(May 22nd, 2008 at 8:54 am)

if this is not a punishable offense on its own (it requires a separate conviction for a second offense) — and unless you show me that my reasoning was wrong, I see no reason to believe otherwise — who would prosecute?

realistically, the indictment you talk about would never materialize…

Delia

STILL MORE: well, it would help if you said what exactly *you* believe…

re: “You are simply incorrect. That is not what it says.”

if you believe it says you *would* be punished even if ALL you did was what (a) (2) (C) says, where are you reading that? (I thought I gave all the relevant parts)

the following is incomplete — re: I said it was not a “stand-alone *punishable* offense” [my emphasis] — there is NO punishment for it UNLESS it occurs *after* “a conviction for another offense” (May 23rd, 2008 at 7:51 am)

having been convicted of an *attempt*, as I said in the preceding post (May 22nd, 2008 at 7:04 pm),” it must occur ‘after a conviction for another offense under this section *or an attempt* to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph”; [my emphasis] would also suffice but aside from that I don’t see anything wrong with what I said…

Delia

MORE: that is the only way it makes sense to me — poorly phrased (meant just as an aggravating factor); what would be the point of it otherwise? “yep! you committed an offense… but it was so trivial that we have no penalty for you…”

EVEN MORE: I said it was not a “stand-alone *punishable* offense” [my emphasis] — there is NO punishment for it UNLESS it occurs *after* “a conviction for another offense”

Delia

P.S. I agree that is should NOT be listed as a stand-alone *offense* (even if not punishable) and I doubt it was intended as such (looks like an aggravating factor for the other offenses listed) D.

MORE: well…if AP can’t even get *the charges* right, what are they doing reporting the news?

Here are all the relevant parts from § 1030. Fraud and related activity in connection with computers, as far as I can tell:

“(a) Whoever—(2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains—(C) information from any protected computer if the conduct involvedan interstate or foreign communication;
shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section.
(b) Whoever attempts to commit an offense under subsection (a) of this section shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section.
(c) The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) or (b) of this section is—
(C) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection *(a)(2)*, (a)(3) or (a)(6) of this section *which occurs after a conviction for another offense under this section*, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph” [my emphasis]

that is not a stand-alone punishable offence, is it? (it must occur “after a conviction for another offence under this section or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph”)

Delia

STILL MORE: "mostly about violating terms of service on a website — specifically those regarding the use of real names” –> nonsense… they would have been laughed out of court if the charge would have been “using a pseudonym while the terms of use were clearly asking for the actual name”

Again, here are the charges:

“” Drew … was indicted by a federal grand jury in Los Angeles on one count of conspiracy and three counts of accessing protected computers without authorization *to get information used to inflict emotional distress on the girl*. [my emphasis]

Delia

P.S. revenge is not the point here (although if you drive someone to suicide you certainly deserve punishment, as far as I’m concerned); the point is using as broad an interpretation of the law as needed to discourage this kind of situation from repeating D.

EVEN MIORE: driving someone to suicide is no trivial matter… if you have no clear way to punish this, you are just inviting more of these crimes to be perpetrated — what’s the message you are sending? :” First off, there is no clear law against it! so no worries of state or federal prosecution — *no way of going to prison* –, the parents might sue for damages in civil court but it would be a very tough case… (so chances are they would not) –> isn’t this telling the victims “tough luck”?

Delia

P.S. as to “leaves almost everyone a potential criminal,” I already explained that the idea that by simply using a pseudonym for benign reasons one would be federally prosecuted has no factual support D.

MORE: Dan, just so we understand where you are coming from: let’s assume this is in fact what's happened — the girl was purposefully emotionally distressed to the point of being driven to suicide. Would the appropriate response of MySpace and everybody else that could possibly bring justice to this situation be: “tough luck!”? This is the impression I’m getting from your statements… D.
...
I just don’t see where AP gets the idea that by *simply* “signing up for online service using a fake name or email address [you] could be committing a federal crime”.

Here are the charges:

” Drew … was indicted by a federal grand jury in Los Angeles on one count of conspiracy and three counts of accessing protected computers without authorization *to get information used to inflict emotional distress on the girl*. [my emphasis]

that’s a totally different story from the routine using of a pseudonym, isn’t it? I would hope that inflicting emotional distress on others (and possibly driving them to suicide) is NOT routine behavior — if it *is*, it certainly needs to be stopped!

Delia

P.S. I’ve been disappointed with AP as of late… D.

News*Tools*?

STILL MORE: but … hey! at least they are not *paying* for “the priviledge”… (like some conference goers do… ) D.

EVEN MORE: re: “if it means that the paper will do more than just highlight what the bloggers do (i.e. pay them for what they do)”

the big problem I see with this is that they have a strong financial incentive NOT to pay them as long as they can get away with it — the vast majority of enterprises trying to “save the news” (for their own financial gain) would collapse if “the suckers” that make these projects possible would just wake up and stop volunteering.

Delia

P.S. Are these people really fools, cretins, with low-intelligence or low-self esteem? Of course not… (they are just naives that don’t realize they are being exploited) D.

MORE: I do think Seth is right — a whole lot of naives are toiling away (intellectually and otherwise) for the financial benefit of few, without even realizing that they are being exploited. (I shouldn’t have given that quote, as I said, it’s pretty harsh… but it *does* go to the core of the issue… in a funny sort of way… if you can take humor when it comes to serious issues).

Delia

P.S. I didn’t mean to offend anybody, sorry if I did. D
...
You can beat them, Jon…:)

Delia

P.S. I’ll take a look at your stuff when you are done with it if you’d like (there wasn’t much detail on the link you gave).

P.P.S. News*Tools*? hmmm… does that refer to the participants?:) Seth would probably agree that the urban dictionary definition of the word “tool” may be giving pretty good insights into just who is financially benefiting from getting people to volunteer their ideas and insights in these sort of conferences:

” tool : One who lacks the mental capacity to know he is being used. A fool. A cretin. Characterized by low intelligence and/or self-steem.

That tool dosen’t even know she’s just using him.”

(http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tool)

it’s a bit harsh… but the truth often is… D.

does Dan Gillmor just not like the comments he's getting?

MORE:

I don’t know if you are proving my point, Seth — I’d have to see Dan’s side of it also and I can’t *make* him talk… (I can only ask…)

Delia

P.S. you are welcome! D.
...
Dan,

I’m just wondering… what would you like to get as comments? I mean, I find that Jon’s comments (and Seth’s) add a lot of value to your blog — by challenging some of the things you say, it becomes more than one person’s view on things.

Delia

P.S. Their comments may not be perfect or perfectly pleasant but they always seem to attempt to get the ball of discussion rolling (a big plus as far as I can tell). Yet most of the time… it just doesn’t seem to work. Do you just not like most of the comments you are getting? D.