Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
Seth Finkelstein
Is this you? Claim Profile »
4 weeks ago
in Cuban’s Take on Media Fragmentation [PR 2.0] on SiliconANGLE
"even the smallest of publishers has a very loud and effective voice."
It's really much more complicated than that. :-(
After all, and this is a key rebuttal, if that were true - where is my voice in refuting the charges?
At heart, saying a person can be subjected to successful smear campaign and may never be able to get their reputation back afterwards, tells us the exact opposite - some voices through various means can drown out others, with no protection against false accusations. I hope that wasn't what was being praised. :-(
It's really much more complicated than that. :-(
After all, and this is a key rebuttal, if that were true - where is my voice in refuting the charges?
At heart, saying a person can be subjected to successful smear campaign and may never be able to get their reputation back afterwards, tells us the exact opposite - some voices through various means can drown out others, with no protection against false accusations. I hope that wasn't what was being praised. :-(
1 reply
1 month ago
in Cato Unbound Debate: Lessig’s Code at Ten (Part 4: Lessig’s response) on The Technology Liberation Front
Yes, Lessig was calling himself a non-ideologue, in the sense that this sums up the opposite:
"For the libertarian, there is only one fool-proof solution to the problem of government corruption: You shrink the Leviathan. "
He wasn't using ideology in the manner of system of thinking generally. Rather, I believe he meant that if you're the intellectual equivalent of a cuckoo-clock, that's a pretty trivial way of thinking.
"For the libertarian, there is only one fool-proof solution to the problem of government corruption: You shrink the Leviathan. "
He wasn't using ideology in the manner of system of thinking generally. Rather, I believe he meant that if you're the intellectual equivalent of a cuckoo-clock, that's a pretty trivial way of thinking.
1 reply
Jim Harper
"For Copernicus, there is only one fool-proof explanation for the movement of the planets and stars: You put the earth in orbit around the sun."
5 months ago
in Word of mouth can’t be manufactured on Mathew's comments
" everyone knows that’s going to happen eventually"
Oh? How do you know that? At the very least, admit the logical paradox.
Oh? How do you know that? At the very least, admit the logical paradox.
2 replies
mathewi
Alright, Seth -- I admit the logical paradox. Happy now?
Scott Kinoshita
I'm going to go out on a limb and say "experience". I'm in the marketing industry and it annoys me when people want to try to "cheat".
For one thing, it ruins a system of reviews by polluting it with bad data.
For another, like Mathew says, it's not worth the risk. When I look at the risk-to-gain ratios, you have the potential of MAYBE getting people's attention vs. definitely RUINING your reputation. To me, "cheating" to win just admits that the person or org. didn't think they were good enough in the first place.
Social media isn't for forcing an opinion on others, I think the best use of it is to LISTEN to people.
For one thing, it ruins a system of reviews by polluting it with bad data.
For another, like Mathew says, it's not worth the risk. When I look at the risk-to-gain ratios, you have the potential of MAYBE getting people's attention vs. definitely RUINING your reputation. To me, "cheating" to win just admits that the person or org. didn't think they were good enough in the first place.
Social media isn't for forcing an opinion on others, I think the best use of it is to LISTEN to people.
8 months ago
in Wikia lets companies add their widgets as search results on VentureBeat
To be clear, I was complimenting your description of Wikia. As I've written, I regard the business press as important, because they are (socially) allowed to make observations which are considered rude and improper in other punditry contexts. So I've been trying to bring some of the financial analysis which is permitted in the business press to other areas. When I make the observation that venture capitalists want money back, preferably large returns on their investment, you may consider that the most elementary baby-simple statement, but elsewhere it's regarded as a radical and almost insulting statement.
Many people believe Wales has treated them extremely poorly, either in his role as entrepreneur or as a person. I suggest to you that while of course these situations are not uncommon, there is an extra dose of salt-in-the-wound from, let's say, his presentation of himself.
Many people believe Wales has treated them extremely poorly, either in his role as entrepreneur or as a person. I suggest to you that while of course these situations are not uncommon, there is an extra dose of salt-in-the-wound from, let's say, his presentation of himself.
1 reply
Chris Morrison
Gotcha, and I misread your comment. Good point on press roles, not to mention perspective.
8 months ago
in Wikia lets companies add their widgets as search results on VentureBeat
I like the way you described it here: "Wikia was started by Wikipedia [CO-]founder Jimmy Wales in 2006 to try to take monetary advantage of the user contributions ..."
You may enjoy a recent _Guardian_ column I wrote on Wikipedia's history, and advertising:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/sep/25/wikipedia.internet
Relevant quote: "It's informative to observe how long [Jimmy] Wales has been pursuing a strategy of selling advertising around other people's work."
You may enjoy a recent _Guardian_ column I wrote on Wikipedia's history, and advertising:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/sep/25/wikipedia.internet
Relevant quote: "It's informative to observe how long [Jimmy] Wales has been pursuing a strategy of selling advertising around other people's work."
1 reply
Chris Morrison
The controversy over Wales' involvement in Wikipedia is pretty well known (at least in our audience) and I prefer not to rehash it in every single article about Wikia, which one might note is a for-profit company that's pretty straightforward about its "strategy of selling advertising around other people's work."
I do find the raw hatred Wales has inspired in a number of people pretty impressive. If only that could be monetized..
Point on the CO-founder note, I will correct that.
I do find the raw hatred Wales has inspired in a number of people pretty impressive. If only that could be monetized..
Point on the CO-founder note, I will correct that.
10 months ago
in Market Forces At Work: The PR Backlash Against Google Chrome’s EULA on The Technology Liberation Front
I'm "fixated" on arbitration and class action suits because they are obvious counter-examples and extremely important. Yes indeed, you didn't mention them. No personal offense meant, but that is why your argument is babbling nonsense, because those are a few elephants in the room which make a mockery of your post.
To wit: "my point is that such criticism and the threat thereof together provide a powerful check". But they don't. There's no powerful check.
Let me try to outline how nonsensical, how absurd, is what you've written - note, I mean this literally, I'm not being gratuitously rude.
GOOGLE DID NOT WANT TO HAVE THOSE TERMS. IT WAS A *MISTAKE*. AN *OVERSIGHT*. NOT SOMETHING THEY WANTED TO DO!!!
WHEN COMPANIES *DO *WANT OPPRESSIVE TERMS, THEY *IGNORE* THE FLAMERS (see arbitration, class-action, for proof).
THE ONLY THING WHICH HAS WORKED IN *MANY* CASES IS *G-O-V-E-R-N-M-E-N-T R-E-G-U-L-A-T-I-O-N* (see European Union reverse-engineering rights for proof).
Your whole so-called "argument" is based on finding power where there is none.
It's meaningless to project anything from trivial case that when a company has a drafting error, they'll change it, to when they deliberately and intentionally do want to take away customer's legal rights. In fact, your "happy medium" is joke, literally - if a company makes a copying error, they'll fix it if people complain, and if a company wants to take away legal rights, they'll ignore people who complain, so each side sometimes wins and sometimes loses ....
To wit: "my point is that such criticism and the threat thereof together provide a powerful check". But they don't. There's no powerful check.
Let me try to outline how nonsensical, how absurd, is what you've written - note, I mean this literally, I'm not being gratuitously rude.
GOOGLE DID NOT WANT TO HAVE THOSE TERMS. IT WAS A *MISTAKE*. AN *OVERSIGHT*. NOT SOMETHING THEY WANTED TO DO!!!
WHEN COMPANIES *DO *WANT OPPRESSIVE TERMS, THEY *IGNORE* THE FLAMERS (see arbitration, class-action, for proof).
THE ONLY THING WHICH HAS WORKED IN *MANY* CASES IS *G-O-V-E-R-N-M-E-N-T R-E-G-U-L-A-T-I-O-N* (see European Union reverse-engineering rights for proof).
Your whole so-called "argument" is based on finding power where there is none.
It's meaningless to project anything from trivial case that when a company has a drafting error, they'll change it, to when they deliberately and intentionally do want to take away customer's legal rights. In fact, your "happy medium" is joke, literally - if a company makes a copying error, they'll fix it if people complain, and if a company wants to take away legal rights, they'll ignore people who complain, so each side sometimes wins and sometimes loses ....
- 2 points
- Jump to »
LarsG
I'd have to agree with Seth here.
"If this incident demonstrates anything, it’s that there are significant “market forces” at work to restrain companies from writing agreements & policies that allow them to screw consumers."
It demonstrates no such thing. This only demonstrates that Google will fix a clerical error if the blogosphere makes a stink about it, it is the "market force" equivalent of kicking in a door that Google never intended to close in the first place.
If you want to demonstrate the market force of the blogosphere, you need to find a case where a company really wanted to put something nasty in an eula but was stopped by "the market".
Choice-of-court, no class-action, no reverse engineering, signing over copyright, warranty disclaimers and limited liability.. There are lots of examples of eulas containing what most people would consider unconscionable, while examples of "the market" / blogosphere forcing companies to remove these terms from eulas are rather scarse.
"If this incident demonstrates anything, it’s that there are significant “market forces” at work to restrain companies from writing agreements & policies that allow them to screw consumers."
It demonstrates no such thing. This only demonstrates that Google will fix a clerical error if the blogosphere makes a stink about it, it is the "market force" equivalent of kicking in a door that Google never intended to close in the first place.
If you want to demonstrate the market force of the blogosphere, you need to find a case where a company really wanted to put something nasty in an eula but was stopped by "the market".
Choice-of-court, no class-action, no reverse engineering, signing over copyright, warranty disclaimers and limited liability.. There are lots of examples of eulas containing what most people would consider unconscionable, while examples of "the market" / blogosphere forcing companies to remove these terms from eulas are rather scarse.
10 months ago
in Market Forces At Work: The PR Backlash Against Google Chrome’s EULA on The Technology Liberation Front
@Jim - Do you even know what I'm talking about? I'm serious. That sounds rhetorical, but I mean it. Do you know the issues I'm describing? Your reply is pure knee-jerk sneer.
Bleh. I really shouldn't do this. Libertarians are like cuckoo-clocks, their "Cuckoo" is "Markets".
[Tedious explanation - denial of class-action affects HUGE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE! It is one of the major legal tools against corporate abuse.
"Arbitration" is almost a Libertarian fantasy, where you contract away all your legal recourse]
Bleh. I really shouldn't do this. Libertarians are like cuckoo-clocks, their "Cuckoo" is "Markets".
[Tedious explanation - denial of class-action affects HUGE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE! It is one of the major legal tools against corporate abuse.
"Arbitration" is almost a Libertarian fantasy, where you contract away all your legal recourse]
- 2 points
- Jump to »
Berin Szoka
Thanks for your comments, Seth. I'm a little confused by why you're fixated on arbitration and class action suites--neither of which I mentioned. I take your point that there are cases in which companies won't back down when criticized for "over-reaching" in their EULA. Indeed, I acknowledge as much in my post. My point is not that the threat of public criticism will prevent any company from ever including any provision that offends someone, or that they would inevitably back down when criticized for doing so. Rather, my point is that such crticicism and the threat thereof together provide a powerful check on the tendency of companies to "over-reach"--either consciously or (as appears to have been the case here) simply by thoughtless drafting--and that, overall, the result will be a constant, rough "happy medium" between the two extreme ends of the spectrum here: (i) those who want companies to give them everything for wonderful services and content for free with no strings attached and (ii) companies that want to harvest the internal organs of their customers' children. This happy medium should roughly approximate common expectations of privacy, fairness, etc.--or, one might argue, would actually tend to fall more on the side of consumers, precisely because web companies are so dependent on customer goodwill that they will generally be willing to err--when pressed--on the side of not being perceived to screw over their customers.
more along the lines of making a statement of fact, and why Cuban's advice,
at least for brands and individuals that don't find themselves amongst the
100 most recognizable names in the world, it is necessary to sweat the small
stuff.