Disqus - Latest Comments for Karl

Re: Who do you trust to edit your news?

Karl — Tue, 22 May 2007 08:16:48 -0000

I wish I was at this event.

We had a similar event in Philadelphia last year that was focussed on news journalism and the web. It sounds like it covered related territory.

(http://norgs.pbwiki.com/The%20Norgs%20Unconference%20Statement%20Of%20Principles)

Fact of the matter is, there is room enough for numerous approaches to filtering/finding news.

Algorithmic - Memeorandum, Google News

By the crowd - Digg, Newsvine.

By a single unpaid editor - A blogger.

By communities of unpaid editors - A genre specific slice of the blogosphere.

By a news organization - A newspaper with staffed editors - Yahoo News, Salon, Slate.

By hybrid community/editor efforts - Slashdot, Indymedia.

There seems to be an effort on the parts of some to create some false conflicts between these approaches. To promote one approach over the other as the *ultimate solution*.

That's a shame really, because in the dust of that are people becoming less and less informed (check out the latest Pew research) while wealth and fortune flow from one kind of media organization to another.

We can do far better. All of us can. My bet is that will happen when groups of us decide to put down our guns and work together.

Re: Who do you trust to edit your news?

Karl — Tue, 22 May 2007 08:16:48 -0000

I wish I was at this event.

We had a similar event in Philadelphia last year that was focussed on news journalism and the web. It sounds like it covered related territory.

(http://norgs.pbwiki.com/The%20Norgs%20Unconference%20Statement%20Of%20Principles)

Fact of the matter is, there is room enough for numerous approaches to filtering/finding news.

Algorithmic - Memeorandum, Google News

By the crowd - Digg, Newsvine.

By a single unpaid editor - A blogger.

By communities of unpaid editors - A genre specific slice of the blogosphere.

By a news organization - A newspaper with staffed editors - Yahoo News, Salon, Slate.

By hybrid community/editor efforts - Slashdot, Indymedia.

There seems to be an effort on the parts of some to create some false conflicts between these approaches. To promote one approach over the other as the *ultimate solution*.

We can do far better. All of us can. My bet is that will happen when groups of us decide to put down our guns and work together.

Re: The next step in Digg clones (Scripting News)

Karl — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:20:17 -0000

Hi, While I think this is a great idea, supposedly coRank http://www.corank.com/ does this. More at Read/WriteWeb: http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/burying_th...

Re: When is a conference not a conference?

Karl — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 15:57:18 -0000

Hi, Mathew, I'm Karl Martino and I helped organize the structure of the norgs: unconference we just had in Philadelphia.

"I’m just not sure our audience (or at least not all of them) are going to be as knowledgeable as the ones at the unconference you went to, and so we want to strike a balance between blowing up the panel and still maintaining some structure."

The act of trusting your participants (note they are no longer the audience), doesn't preclude structure. In fact, you still very much need it. We used Dave Winer's BloggerCon cheat sheet as a starting point [1]. Jeff summs it up very well when he says "Start with the end of the session, with the questions. And turn the questions around and ask the people in the room to share their knowledge, which is greater than that on the panel."

We're there some who knew the subject matter more than others? Yes. But that *helped* the exchange that occured here. It was eye opening.

You'll need a good moderator to kick things off and hold things together - a tough job to be sure. Food and as Andrew suggets and breaks - because discussions are intense (I can't imagine falling asleep at one of these).

1. http://www.bloggercon.org/iii/newbies

Re: When is a conference not a conference?

Karl — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 14:48:08 -0000

A pleasure and good luck with Mesh 2.0.

Re: Scoble says he’s biased — does it matter?

Karl — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 22:45:01 -0000

Does bias matter? No not really.

And arguments about bias distract from what's really important.

Trust.

How it's established. What it means.

Some *real* form of disclosure matters.

For the very same reasons that Robert thinks that disclosures should accompany each PayForPost piece.

Re: Scoble says he’s biased — does it matter?

Karl — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 16:16:49 -0000

The bias discussion is a 'change the subject' effort away from the one that matters. The bias discussion doesn't matter.

The trust discussion does.

IBM was very smart here agreed. So was Robert.

But if a viewer saw the PodTech video, would they know it was paid for?

Saying "Readers and viewers are pretty darn savvy at smelling spin." is an argument that deflects responsibility away from the author of the work from needing to be transparent and puts *all* of the onus on the reader/viewer.

Robert himself says "PodTech WAS paid for doing a video, and other work, for Intel. We should have clearly marked that as sponsored content. It was not."

He's right. And arguments to the contrary are just... mind blowing.

Re: Scoble says he’s biased — does it matter?

Karl — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 22:21:10 -0000

You got a point. Sometimes, even amidst the entire online media revolution, it seems like what we're really doing is learning lessons that have been learned before.

Re: Will lightning strike in the IdeaStorm?

Karl — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 15:52:48 -0000

IdeaStorm is brilliant :)

Re: Digg, the echo chamber and Matthew

Karl — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 09:13:25 -0000

And hence, I take ClayShirkyRule credits by quoting him first in a thread on social software:

Power Laws, Weblogs, and Inequality: "In systems where many people are free to choose between many options, a small subset of the whole will get a disproportionate amount of traffic (or attention, or income), even if no members of the system actively work towards such an outcome. This has nothing to do with moral weakness, selling out, or any other psychological explanation. The very act of choosing, spread widely enough and freely enough, creates a power law distribution."

Re: Digg, the echo chamber and Matthew

Karl — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 09:16:43 -0000

Whups... missed that last link of yours :)

Re: Does Digg have 22 million visitors?

Karl — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 07:07:30 -0000

A question to ponder, as a blogger, have you ever linked to a single, interior, Facebook page in a post?

How about Digg?

While I agree online metrics are broken - Facebook is an inward facing community. You need to be part of it, to get value out of it.

Digg, on the other hand, gives value to visitors who just browse, like myself. I'm on Digg quite a bit each day - but I'm not a digger.

Re: Does hyper-local make sense online?

Karl — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 14:41:21 -0000

Howe's piece points to an important part of the puzzle - that building around communities of interest - while focusing locally - like CincyMOMS - brings real results.

What I've found with Philly Future is that it is easier to target smaller communities of interest within a geography, than entire geographical communities.

For example Philly Foods - Philly Sports - Philly Liberal Politics - all are potentially greater centers of community then a generalized Philadelphia community like Philly Future.

The more general your community effort is (to me news and community are synonymous) - the harder it is to gain traction.

Jeff Jarvis once said the web is about niches - he's right. Hyper local isn't a successful niche - it's just a strata to identify communities of interest - niches - within local geographies.

Re: Goodbye magazines, hello blog-azines

Karl — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 15:31:26 -0000

TMZ.com and perezhilton.com are perfect examples. for some reason others seem to avoid mentioning them as successful commercial blogs. I don't know why.

Re: Digg: A social media Petri dish

Karl — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 07:44:03 -0000

Question - Why doesn't Slashdot count anymore? Please don't say it is the quality of the commenting or posters. Or that having a group of editors intercede in what gets promoted is somehow antiquated and wrong (because umm... Digg is now doing just that - except non-transparently).

Re: Homeless voicemail: Only in the Valley

Karl — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 10:18:02 -0000

Being once homeless I can assure you that voice mail is something that is more than welcome.

In order to get a job, to get an apartment, to establish anything - you need a consistent way of being contacted.

Living in squat after squat, sleeping on train after train, I can't tell you how much I am thankful for a few folks who took my phone calls for me.

That's not a joke. It was crucial to me getting off the streets. So was a mailing address.

Re: Homeless voicemail: Only in the Valley

Karl — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 16:46:50 -0000

There are other services providing food/shelter/job training.

Just because Google is providing this service doesn't preclude others from providing other services.

Sometimes people need a hand up and not a hand out. That was my case. And I'm thankful to have gotten the help I did when it came to a phone number and address to respond to job inquiries, etc.

Re: Now using Disqus for comments

Karl — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 05:50:30 -0000

just helping you test :)

Re: Cubicle Muses - Emacs 23 for OS X

Karl — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 13:44:45 -0000

Hi, another note, unless you edit the make scripts you need an older copy of Emacs.app installed to /Applications/ before building. Otherwise - great instructions and help!

Re: My new X-Plat strategy

Karl — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 16:00:22 -0000

hehe

Re: philly pride: i’m ready to swallow mine, how about you?

Karl — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 14:16:00 -0000

Well said Alex. Would love to make it to the co-working space to work sometime.

Re: A bug with TechMeme…

Karl — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 13:17:09 -0000

Gabe has indicated that sites that *link to Memeorandom, and send traffic to it* are considered more relevant to Memeorandum. The level of traffic is considered as well in its algorithms. see Gabe here.

Re: Thanks so much for all the kind words…

Karl — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 06:27:23 -0000

Congratulations to you and your family. I hope Maryam has a speedy recovery, that epidural sounded scary. Milan is a *great* name. Bless you all.

Re: Web 2.0 Is Not Media 2.0

Karl — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 12:26:05 -0000

I've started to think along these same lines (great blog here btw - very relevant to a discussion I'm having with some folks) and posted a piece on how del.icio.us, digg, and services like them, need to recognize certain factors are at play.

Re: Who Are the New Media Gatekeepers?

Karl — Sat, 21 Jan 2006 09:49:28 -0000

Scott, may I suggest reading Clay Shirky's piece: Power Laws, Weblogs, and Inequality.

It has the distinction of being cited by, and then denounced, from folks on both sides of the fence on this.

Re: The Technology Intelligence Gap

Karl — Mon, 23 Jan 2006 11:15:45 -0000

"Why canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t we have the best of both worlds?"

Scott, I don't think that's the question. Of course we can - someday. Sites like Digg and Reedit show some promise, but are far from ideal. People are still learning and tools are still evolving. So I think the question would be better asked - when?

Re: The Technology Intelligence Gap

Karl — Mon, 23 Jan 2006 11:35:29 -0000

That's my point :) I didn't mean to imply that Digg and Reedit are the best of both worlds - but they do show a major part of it.

I'm a terrible writer.

To be accurate about a service I would personally like to see - and one that would meet you are looking for (I think): A Memeorandum (algorithmically filtered) + Digg/Newsvine (user filtered) + Slashdot (editor filtered) mashup.

The thing about this is I am positively sure people are already pursuing this now - the fact that we can see the pieces - is what leads me to believe its just a matter of time.

Re: The Technology Intelligence Gap

Karl — Mon, 23 Jan 2006 12:36:30 -0000

David, the simplest form of this, true mashup style, is a page of three lists - "these are the stories the web says are important" (algorithm), "these are the stories your community says are important" (user filtered), and "these are the stories the hosts think are important" (editor filtered).

However, I think the flow you've mentioned - algorithm to community to editor has promise - and is in fact - something I want to personally pursue. The simplest form of algorithm can be a hand picked list of trusted feeds that fit a particular subject matter. In fact, that's what we have already at Philly Future.

Re: The Technology Intelligence Gap

Karl — Mon, 23 Jan 2006 13:03:43 -0000

Another place to look for where ideas like this are germinating is where Dave Winer is going with his reading list/OPML work. He's talking about obscure plumbing - sure - but I expect ideas to be bootstrapped on that plumbing that will provide some glimmers soon: http://www.reallysimplesyndication.com/2005/10/13

Re: News 2.0 My Mother Can Use

Karl — Wed, 25 Jan 2006 16:54:41 -0000

I know my little 'ol effort doesn't have mindshare (http://www.phillyfuture.org) - but I would love to know what she would think of it.

Great test idea. More should do it.

My friends - outside of the industry - scratch their heads at all this.

Re: News 2.0 My Mother Can Use

Karl — Wed, 25 Jan 2006 22:41:42 -0000

Hi Scott, tell your mom I said thanks :) We're doing what we're doing with just $20 a month (soon to be $75 - the cost of hosting) and a group of passionate volunteers. Any feedback is always appreciated.

Re: News 2.0 My Mother Can Use

Karl — Fri, 27 Jan 2006 07:58:24 -0000

I think simplicity is virtue that all generations are attracted to.

One word: iPod.

The balance between how you present information in a manner that is usable - really usable - and quantity of information - is difficult and the subject of a few IA books.

The work of Jesse James Garret comes to mind:
http://www.adaptivepath.com/team/jjg.php

http://www.jjg.net/ia/

In particular, his elements of user experience:
http://www.jjg.net/elements/

IA rules of thumb apply in many, many different contexts, and I find them especially applicable to Media 2.0 or whatever we are calling it.

Re: A Challenge to Citizen Journalism

Karl — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 17:26:01 -0000

Here goes a challenge....

Here goes a strike against grassroots (efforts without $6million dollar backer) civil journalism sites....

Without naming any names....

A user on our site published two stories related to an event that occured late last year.

There was a firm related to this event - one with ALOT of financial resources
and influence in our region.

The event was a disasterous flop - so much so it was covered by our local mainstream media.

Our user posted his opinion about the event and linked and quoted mainstream news stories about it.

The firm has filed suit against a number of folks involved and against smaller members of our mainstream media.

The firm has threatened us to remove those posts - due to the damages
they are causing - or face consequences.

We have a pro bono law team. It will cannot help us in case of lawsuit. It doesn't think we've done anything - anything - wrong - but since we have no resources to fight - money that is - we should remove those posts and comply with that businesses wishes.

Only when backed by money and institution can an independent ward off
threats like this.

If we blow this up on the web - some may come to help - but chances
are not - we are too small for that kind of rallying cry.

Re: Support Philly Future

Karl — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 09:31:50 -0000

Scott, I appreciate this, but we've removed the related posts on our lawyer's suggestion.

That firm *still* might sue however. There were no guarantees in it's threat to us - and it appears to others - it looks like a *number* of small, independent forums and blogs in the region did the same. I spoke to one personally last night.

All of us backed down under the threat - a very real one from what I understand. The person behind the firm has a history of taking folks to court.

I feel like we've swallowed our integrity just to live to fight another day.

Re: Support Philly Future

Karl — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 11:02:34 -0000

No I admit I haven't. I admit to being... scared. That's why I haven't posted about this on my personal blog - or at Philly Future itself. We're not a formalized LLC or non-profit yet (will be soon I hope) - so a lawsuit would directly hit my family. I'm kinda nervous about this being here actually. But since no names are mentioned - it's probably safe - and this can serve as something educational for us and others. I will call the EFF directly. The fact that two blogs (at least) and one message forum (that I know of) has been intimidated into silence makes me want to fight - at the same time however - I got my family to worry about.

Re: Support Philly Future

Karl — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 17:02:28 -0000

I've left the EFF a phone message. I'll followup with an email later. It would be good to hear what they think of the matter.

Re: Google Orwellian

Karl — Tue, 07 Feb 2006 07:28:29 -0000

Philly Future was previously banned from Google. I had let the domain drop for a year, after the death of my nephew. A porn spammer took it - and abused it - leading Google to ban it.

After restarting the service and getting the domain back - it led to a long discovery process to figure out what was wrong and how to get listed again. I kept submitting the site to be indexed to no avail. During this time we lost considerable mindshare among folks watching our space - it was almost as if we didn't exist.

One of the hardest problems was determining if we had done something wrong in the first place. The general consensus was we must have. We were assumed guilty by many folks who I discussed this with.

I sent a few emails that got no reply. Posted to Ask Metafilter - got the advice to give up and get a new domain name. Posted to a Google newsgroup. And then went looking for Google employee bloggers and found one who gave me the info I needed to get unblacklisted. I followed his instructions - which at the time was sending an email with a particular subject line and details in its message. I got an automated response that was maddening and led me to believe it wouldn't work.

A week or so later Dan Gillmor raised the issue on his older blog: http://dangillmor.typepad.com/dan_gillmor_on_gr...

Matt Cutts of Google commented that I had followed the correct procedure and staff looking to approve Philly Future for reindexing.

Getting unbanned is doable and can be done quickly (as that thread attests a couple weeks). It took me many months due to lack of knowledge. It would have been great if Google provided a service to determine if a domain was blacklisted and to look at websites and review them for appropriate search engine optimization techniques and flag those deemed abuse. I could at least have known then that the trouble wasn't me. But I didn't even know I was blacklisted except for the symptoms - not showing up in Google with numerous bloggers pointing to us - and a zero PageRank.

Matt Cutts has posted about the reinclusion proceedure here: http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/reinclusion-reque....

It sounds like BMW may have brought this on themselves, at a site that large, with their resources, it's almost inexcusable. Google's guidelines are pretty clear and simple. However, I would like to see Google have better support for webmasters like those I just suggested. It looks like they are experimenting with some ideas already, see: http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/webmaster-communi... .

My experience tells me that if you aren't in Google - you don't exist. As soon as we got in Google things immediately changed for Philly Future in terms of influence and attention from others who run similar sites.

Re: The Web 2.0 Blinders Phenomenon

Karl — Sun, 19 Mar 2006 11:02:45 -0000

You're missing the *real* creepiness about something like MySpace.

It isn't what it empowers kids to do and sure there will be stories of abuse and exploitation by the fringes of society. These are concerns that shouldn't be shrugged off, however, you find these in any public space where there is a mass of people participating.

No... it's what it empowers corporations and governments to do. To see, measure, track and record behaviours, beliefs, material wants/needs, and networks, as never before.

Danah Boyd says what makes MySpace so powerful to kids is it empowers them to create youth space:

http://www.danah.org/papers/AAAS2006.html

I think she's right. And I think this is an opportunity for social marketers and those who want or need knowledge of the habits, beliefs, and desires of individuals (lets say before a hiring takes place). There should be no doubt these forms of more subtle exploitation are too huge not to be taken advantage of.

It's not bike riding. Bike riding takes place with a small number of friends, in relative privacy among them. No, this is skinny dipping in the Delaware River with a million cameras on you 200% of the time - broadcasting it to millions - and never forgetting a minute of it - nor being allowed to.

Banner advertising? You gotta be kidding me. Clay Shirky's piece on powerlaws and cyberspace is just as applicable on MySpace as it is in blogging. I predict stories of kids who have many, many friends getting invites to parties and getting products to spread buzz in the short order. Product advertizing thru word of mouth. Its most powerful form. And in MySpace, empowered as never before.

I seriously doubt what I'm bringing up will get discussed to any real degree. We will end up with too many folks going "my kid has nothing to hide" so it's okay.

Allowing our kids to be exploited is *never* okay. Especially when such exploitation can have deep repercussions that effect their entire lives.

Good job in these posts Scott. As you can see I disagree with some of your concerns - but the discussion should happen. We need to be honest about the trade offs we are empowering here. MySpace is wonderful. It is empowering. And a real discussion based on real consequences - and not fringe/hyped threats - should happen. I doubt it will.

Re: Web 2.0 vs. Privacy

Karl — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 06:25:04 -0000

Scott, ask yourself why you have this blog. There goes the answer for many.

Seth has a point however. By exploiting the human drive that we all have - to share ourselves with others - no one lives if they live in isolation - we are helping enable a data mining resource of untold riches for those that want to and can exploit it.

Seth, you might have missed my MySpace comment here. A long winded version of what you just said.

Re: Web 2.0 vs. Privacy

Karl — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 07:24:35 -0000

I want to add this:

I know it sounds naive, but I believe the intent of those that have created these services is *not* to exploit - I believe services that empower people to communicate and connect creates potential that can impact our lives, our families, our communities in positive, powerful ways. As a software engineer - I canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t express the joy I have whenever a service I provide has helped someone in someway.

However, it must be recognized the platform we have been building has the potential to be, and already is, being exploited by marketers, corporations, and governments, in ways we have yet to imagine. Contextual ads are the tip of the spear. By revealing ourselves so completely on the web, we are transforming the very nature of what it means to be an individual in a democratic society, while our human nature remains unchanging.

Whether the end result is ultimately positive or negative is yet to be seen. I'm naturally an optimist. Where things have been headed these past few years have knocked that optimism down a few notches.

What I do know is the laissez-fair attitude of some (take this response to your post: Ã¢â‚¬Å“The notion of privacy, as it existed pre-1994, is doneÃ¢â‚¬Â: http://www.reemer.com/archives/2006/03/19/priva...) is unacceptable to me. A conversation should happen about the long term consequences of what we are empowering our children, and our childrenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s children, to do: and empowering those that would readily exploit their openness to observe, track, dissect, judge and manipulate. Again, I talk of corporations and governments, not fringe nut-cases, enough press is given to them already.

Re: Web 2.0 vs. Privacy

Karl — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 13:07:13 -0000

Ah what a nice way of putting it. To paraphrase - "It's not the privacy we've given up - it's what others are doing with our data."

A complete and utter dodge of our personal responsibility there charteuse.

It's our responsiblility to change the world for our children - wouldn't you agree?

We could do it now if we so wished. Instead we trade for convienience. And now we're trading the future as well.

Believe it or not, if we don't want others exploiting our lives - then we have the power to stop it. It's all a matter of priorities.

We're *choosing* not to. Which is what is so amazing about all of this.

Seth, you're right - there won't be a good conversation about this - because the fingers point right back at ourselves.

Re: Web 2.0 vs. Privacy

Karl — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 14:09:18 -0000

Oh, and it doesn't stop at teenagers...

industriouskid.com's imbee.com a MySpace-like service for kids as young as 8 and 9 years old (!!!!) just got 6 million dollars in funding.

http://www.paidcontent.org/pc/arch/2006_03_20.s...

THINK chartreuse. Investors are only interested in one thing - profit. So.... Why would investors find that much value in providing an online space for kids THAT young?

I love this line from paidcontent.com: "Imbee will not open itself up to advertising initially."

Key: initially

Re: Web 2.0 vs. Privacy

Karl — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 15:28:30 -0000

Scott, I recognize we are outliers :)

However, MySpace (and Xanga) == blogging without the technical bullshit + easier networking. It's blogging in its essence.

The folks on MySpace (and Xanga for that matter) are not outliers. For them, they are doing what everyone else is doing. It's just something to do. Another way to make friends. Another way to connect and communicate.

"The real questions is, given the choice between privacy and Ã¢â‚¬Å“feedbackÃ¢â‚¬Â (or however else you couch the value of participation), what percentage of the mainstream will choose privacy in most cases?"

Yep. Absolutely. That's why I'm happy you've pushed this conversation along.

I think people are making that choice - right now - without there being an honest discussion of what the repercussions are. And I feel many don't want to face up to that discussion because it forces people to face responsibility.

It's literally - "everyone else is doing it... there are huge benefits to you doing it... the only problems with it have to do with others... not you doing it... so you might as well too - shit - it's in your best interest - so get hopping!".

I understand your concern has largely to do with advertising. That advertisers will learn to shy away from MySpace because it is unseemly and dangerous - me growing up on the streets of Philadelphia realizes that advertisers will put billboards on the sides of houses that should be demolished with crack heads sitting beneath them living cardboard boxes.

Advertising goes wherever it can push. Absolutely wherever.

Re: Web 2.0 vs. Privacy

Karl — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 07:34:11 -0000

"which creates the risk that not enough people will give."

I don't think there is a negative in that at all - it's just human nature at work again. A terrific piece on this is Yahoo's Bradley Horowitz's "Creators, Synthesizers, and Consumers". Like Jeff implied, both creators and consumers can benefit. So where do you see the risk there?

Re: Web 2.0 vs. Privacy

Karl — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 07:38:48 -0000

Ah, I missed your earlier post on Bradley's piece. You're worried about the work that creators are putting into all this, like yourself.

What are you gaining here Scott? And what does an average user at MySpace/Xanga/Livejournal gain?

Re: More Web 2.0 Exhibitionism

Karl — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 08:01:30 -0000

She says it's a joke. But it's not. It's the truth. Human nature again - as the web comes around to providing us tools to share it, easier and faster, the web will reflect it more and more.

Re: Web 2.0 vs. Privacy

Karl — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 22:34:45 -0000

Kareem, "itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s significantly more productive to figure out how you can adapt to shape the system (whether through legislation, building your own, etc) and make it work for you. Conversations are the key to getting those answers."

That's my point. What "pining" for the good ol' days am I doing? I'm saying there needs to be a rational conversation about the tradeoffs people are deciding to make with their lives and the lives of their children.

That's "pining"?

Your post had this line: "Forget about resisting the inevitable."

Well I can't help but reject the idea that since things are, as they are, they will always remain that way, so you might as well deal with it and move on.

That's the definition of laissez-faire dude.

Things change if we want them to change.

Call me a dreamer and call yourself a realist. Fine. I'll take it. I'd probably *still* be homeless or be struggling as a telemarketer if I submitted myself to that kind of belief system.

Seth, I think I agree with you. Although I think there is a tremendous value in using blogging/MySpace/Xanga for diary writing and connecting with others - without all the bullshit we attach to it.

Somedays I feel like re-reading "Small Pieces Loosely Joined". Small Pieces elegantly puts together all of this, in a way that can't help but make you inspired *and* grounded. Think I will.

Re: Web 2.0 vs. Privacy

Karl — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 06:34:20 -0000

I'm not suggesting 'putting the genie back in the lamp' or even trying.

But what is starting to happen - I'd say since blogging started to take hold - and now since social participatory media is grown exponentially (of which a service I run can be defined) - is an acceleration of that loss of privacy - by *choice*.

We'rr moving - now - right now - because finally the barriers have fallen and it's so easy - to having our identities exist in the super public (new Danah Boyd essay). It's not fear mongering or pining to urge for conversation and thinking over the long term consequences of what is being decided - by us - today.

Far too many are concerned about the 'threat' to morals this can bring. The far more worrisome threat - as far as I can see - is from those entities who can, and will, use the data we are now willingly giving up - in ways we can't imagine - and because we don't want to.

There should be warnings - and in fact I will add one to my service now that I think of it - that state - "while we respect your privacy, since your participation is public - there is nothing we can do to control foreign spiders - such as search engines and aggregators - from collecting - collating - and re-using your participation in ways that our out of our control".

We are choosing to live like celebrities - with public lives - and that means we will have the same loss of privacy they deal with - without being celebrities ourselves.

And that's *by choice*. No one is forcing me to blog or post links to del.icio.us. It is *by choice*. I'm personally giving up my privacy fully aware of what the long term repurcussions are.

Are you so very sure your average 15 year old on MySpace is aware of that decision? Really?

Are parents sitting down with their children and going "now remember joey - everything you post on the public web will be cached *forever* so you better think twice about sharing initimate details of your friendships - or even the books you've read - because there *will* be consequences".

You think so? Really?

The evidence says entirely otherwise. It shows a complete lack of awareness. Instead we will learn the hard way I think.

Re: Web 2.0 vs. Privacy

Karl — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 07:03:35 -0000

Oh, and and just to illustrate how far we've come in just four years:

As recently as 2002, there were concerns over Amazon.com's use of our data. Data voluntarily given out of public view, data that would have needed a warrant to acquire by the government, data that a hiring company or a future girlfriend would not have access to.

Amazon.com must be kicking themselves. The forerunners of participatory media didn't foresee that we'd throw such concerns out the window with the right technology/ui/hype-machine. This article on Amazon especially seems silly now doesn't it?

So here we are, shrugging and saying "deal with it" at kids revealing who their friends are, what music they love/hate, what politicians they love/hate, pictures, what books they've read, what they did last week in the lunchroom, in *full* public view. An activity that has just started - just started - these past two to three years.

Re: Morality 2.0

Karl — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 11:43:35 -0000

"Will Big Brands ever be willing to cede full control of brand management in a world of user-controlled media? (Not whether they SHOULD, but whether they WILL.)"

They already are!

CNet: Blue-chip ads, red-light content

I will stand behind what I said earlier... if there are sales to be made - advertisers will push product ANYPLACE. And I'm sure - very sure - viral marketing/word-of-mouth and MySpace must go together like an advertiser's wildest dreams.

Re: Morality 2.0

Karl — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 12:04:05 -0000

I realize that :) I guess you can read the article two ways.

I don't think it refutes my point any more then Howard Stern's track record does.

Will there be *some* advertisers who won't want to be associated with user-generated content and the risk involved there - sure. Definitely. But there will most assuredly be others who seeing a buying audience - will engage it.

Re: Morality 2.0

Karl — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 12:35:18 -0000

Brian, that's entirely unfair to Scott. He's responding here which is entirely his right, and you are commenting here, as he permits. Nothing wrong with either thing.

Lets keep personal attacks out of the conversation.

MySpace, in many, many ways, is a new thing. Read Danah Boyd. She's certainly not anti-MySpace, but she is aware of and speaks of its dynamics and what they represent.

Yes you could consider MySpace the latest version of AOL's old profile-surfing chatrooms. You could consider it the latest version of much of what has come before.

But as a whole - how it is being used - in such a public way - in such a public space - represents something very new.

Re: Blogging For Blogging’s Sake or The Tyranny of the Term

Karl — Tue, 11 Apr 2006 23:48:28 -0000

I use the words 'participatory media' to describe all of this.

Re: Technorati Top 100 Is Changing Radically

Karl — Sat, 22 Apr 2006 18:05:15 -0000

Is it a bad thing that the Technorati 100 is evolving?

It Technorati used the number of 'friends' some folks have on MySpace as an indicator of influence - well most independent bloggers would be left in the dust. Probably ALL of the well known ones.

There are huge networks out there and just because they exist within the realms of MySpace, Xanga, and Livejournal shouldn't discount them.

Re: What If No One Will Pay For Content?

Karl — Sun, 07 May 2006 22:49:28 -0000

Great post and it points to the need for the norgs conversation I'm part of.

Forget TV content - how about funding quality journalism in the future?

I tend to think along the lines of Seth, but that's because I'm a natural born optimist. A prediction, further in this thread someone will mention 'micropayments'....

Re: What If No One Will Pay For Content?

Karl — Mon, 08 May 2006 11:50:40 -0000

I've tried to make this point before but Nick Carr says it better than I can:

"I fear that to view the attention economy as "more than just a subset of the financial economy" is to misread it, to project on it a yearning for an escape (if only a temporary one) from the consumer culture. There's no such escape online. When we communicate to promote ourselves, to gain attention, all we are doing is turning ourselves into goods and our communications into advertising. We become salesmen of ourselves, hucksters of the "I." In peddling our interests, moreover, we also peddle the commodities that give those interests form: songs, videos, and other saleable products. And in tying our interests to our identities, we give marketers the information they need to control those interests and, in the end, those identities. Karp's wrong to say that MySpace is resistant to advertising. MySpace is nothing but advertising."

"Far from existing outside the financial economy, the online attention economy is its fulfillment, its perfection. It's the place where marketing ceases to be marketing and becomes life."

Re: Show Me the BUSINESS MODEL!

Karl — Tue, 30 May 2006 15:01:52 -0000

Keep asking. It needs to be answered to insure some important services aren't disintermediated, when they are so very, very neccessary.

Re: MySpace Is The Most Expensive Data Mining Project Ever

Karl — Fri, 09 Jun 2006 10:14:27 -0000

btw: Pentagon sets its sights on social networking websites

That data *is* the gold of MySpace. I believe I've mentioned it before here. And users are giving it up freely without understanding its value or the consequences of doing so.

Re: The Coming Privacy Backlash

Karl — Fri, 09 Jun 2006 11:19:19 -0000

You have readers of this blog, and elsewhere among the digerati, who have poo-pooed these concerns - they believe that it is inevitable that we will live 'open' lives and share *everything* online in the open. That the only thing that matters isn't how much we share, but in what people and organizations do with it. It's a growing herd mentality. That we have a right to share everything about ourselves with the public - and it's someone else's fault if it is misused.

Here is another story: Why Web 2.0 will end your privacy

Happy to see this starting to bubble up. Lots of education needs to take place here.

Re: The Coming Privacy Backlash

Karl — Fri, 09 Jun 2006 11:33:41 -0000

BTW - I don't think you'll see a real 'backlash' happen.

It's the parable of the frog. Drop a frog into boiling watter, he'll jump out. Drop a frog into a pot of pleasantly warm water, stoke the heat slowly, and the frog will be dead before he knows there's a problem.

We are giving up our *identities* for convienience - and long term - there will be severe consequences when they are exploited on a scale we can yet imagine.

BTW - you had an excellent post on this a while back. The discussion threat there is indicative of where this will go:

http://publishing2.com/2006/03/19/web-20-vs-pri...

Re: The Coming Privacy Backlash

Karl — Fri, 09 Jun 2006 14:20:31 -0000

One last link because I have work to do.

The Pentagon doesn't need to datamine MySpace...

Google has done it for them.

So has any search engine that does a proper job of indexing the web.

From here I could write a Perl script to download users with a high frequency of certain keywords and spider from there and get their friends, associates, and so forth.

Re: LostCherry Takes Aim at MySpace

Karl — Tue, 13 Jun 2006 14:03:31 -0000

"the kids will ultimately decide"

Indeed... with a little buzz for a kickstart.

There is nothing I see here, however, that will keep this service from facing the same negatives that MySpace is dealing with eventually, especially since they are all related to scale.

Re: How Long Will It Take to Monetize MySpace?

Karl — Tue, 13 Jun 2006 15:36:36 -0000

just a reminder:

Amazon posts its first net profit January 2002
http://news.com.com/2100-1017-819688.html

Lots of folks thought they never would. There were death pools.

A key question to ask isn't when MySpace will earn a profit - it's how big is the overhead. They may have a team as small as Craigslist's. It's something to think about.

Re: Buried Story Shenanigans At Digg

Karl — Wed, 14 Jun 2006 12:06:29 -0000

The conversation isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t shut down however. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s taking place here and elsewhere on the web.

When you say Ã¢â‚¬Å“it was NOT Ã¢â‚¬ËœcollectiveÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ intelligence in the ideal senseÃ¢â‚¬Â - well whose ideal would that be?

HowÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s this for the Ã¢â‚¬Ëœpowerful fewÃ¢â‚¬â„¢Ã¢â‚¬Â¦

I had no idea that Ã¢â‚¬Å“Lost CherryÃ¢â‚¬Â existed until you posted about it.

And if you observe the conversation flow, across Memeorandum, well it looks like you have just given this service a tremendous hype boost when there are plenty of other MySpace competitors out there.

YouÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re now a blogging Ã¢â‚¬Ëœpower userÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ Scott. Power laws are inevitable in participatory media - one way or another.

IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢d wager that the commentors on Digg were brand spanking new users, who thru someone - somewhere - found out about your story being posted there - and then decided to support their community - ON SOMEONE ELSEÃ¢â‚¬â„¢S.

ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s like pissing in someoneÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s living room. IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m not a fan of Digg really, the hype turned me off a while back, but if a group of Ã¢â‚¬Ëœpower usersÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ there took these LC support comments as some kind of spam like activity, well I have a hard time blaming them.

Of course, IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m just conjecturing since I have no idea how the Digg system works.

Here goes a LC story that would fit Digg's community however...

An article over it's novel use of Ajax and Javascript.

I'd bet *that* wouldn't have gotten so modded down. But then again, such a technical article probably wouldn't have attracted so many LC RULZ commentors.

Re: AOL/Netscape’s Big Web 2.0 Test

Karl — Thu, 15 Jun 2006 14:18:07 -0000

I say much more here but in short - I like it.

The Netscape effort will, if successful, legitimize many of concepts behind participatory media, to those who have been taking a wait and see approach. I think they have the right idea mixing editorial and participant filtering as well.

My only question is whether their implementation is right. Time will tell, but so far today, it looks like it will be one I will be visiting regularly.

Re: AOL/Netscape’s Big Web 2.0 Test

Karl — Thu, 15 Jun 2006 16:53:13 -0000

I like it Jason. I think the mix is great.

One thing though that didn't hit me at first. Framing content is a bad practice. I know there is functionality you are going to offer in that left hand rail, but it there were huge arguments (justly) that this was copyright infringement a few years back.

Other then this (big) concern, like the comment I left on your blog - your team deserves a round of applause I think on the launch. I've been a long proponent of the editor + collective approach and I think some combination of is the way to go.

Re: AOL/Netscape’s Big Web 2.0 Test

Karl — Thu, 15 Jun 2006 17:17:22 -0000

Looks like framing, and whether it is copyright infringement, is widely disputed.

This lawsuit against Google may indicate it isn't a legal concern whatsoever:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_10_v._Goog....

Re: Digg vs. The New York Times

Karl — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 13:09:55 -0000

No only that, but the kind of work that's required to report on local government and business, which requires libel protection, and institutional sources, will no longer be economically viable.

ok, let's be honest here for a second - that kind of reporting was NEVER economically viable.

it was the bundle and distribution channel hat such news was wrapped in and provided by.

the net disintermediates bundlers and it has an entirely different model of distribution that enables doing without the traditional middleman.

hence *all* traditional media businesses are feeling these pressures. from music, to newspapers, and as bandwidth and tools of creation and distribution get cheaper - video.

Re: Digg vs. The New York Times

Karl — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 15:37:25 -0000

Seth you're right of course, it does empower *new* bundlers and intermediaries, as it destroys the old.

Your last comment isn't exactly fair though (well not entirely).

Re: Digg vs. The New York Times

Karl — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 15:39:09 -0000

Spot on Arul.

Re: Google Is A Very 1.0 Shopping Engine

Karl — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 11:00:08 -0000

Your focus on AdWords entirely misses the left hand rail and the social, participatory aspect in determining search results.

I'm not some Google fanboy, but to claim that Google doesn't 'get' Web 2.0 is like claming someone doesn't 'get' blogging.

It's the kind of statement that someone selling something makes. I expect more from you Scott.

Having a web site that folks reference, and participate on, and then link to as a resource from their own web presences, will outweigh any amount of advertising in the right hand rail, on some site like Jellyfish, or otherwise.

Re: Google Is A Very 1.0 Shopping Engine

Karl — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 11:38:57 -0000

Apologies on putting words in your mouth. It does seem to speak to your point however.

"I want my peers Ã¢â‚¬â€ people like me Ã¢â‚¬â€ to determine whatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s relevant."

You do that everyday by writing here on this blog. And having services like Google, like Digg, like the new Netscape, like one of your blogging peers, provide doorsways to discovering that. These services and tools grow in sophistication as the tools you use to write here do.

Try it. Do a *specific* search for something like 'ipod' on Google and and JellyFish. What I get at Google are some ads, sure. But far more interesting are the results I get from the feeds I've subscribed to, and what the web community has linked to. Far, far more relevent search results.

Where is the guy who talked about tools his mom would want to use? Where has he went?

There's no way I'm sending my mom to something as confusing as Jellyfish. If it takes ten minutes to describe a shopping model to my technically aware friends - it has ZERO hope of being used by mom.

Amazon.com however? Hell yeah.

You're posts are trending towards the buzzword-heavy man. I'm sure your mom would disagree with me though :)

Re: Google Is A Very 1.0 Shopping Engine

Karl — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 12:18:18 -0000

Jim nails it. I though I don't think they are assume people are 'lazy' - by observing behavior and infering meaning from that, instead of asking people to offer opinion directly, they are giving more weight to people's deeds over their words at time of asking.

Re: Google Is A Very 1.0 Shopping Engine

Karl — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 15:43:40 -0000

Jim/Karl Ã¢â‚¬â€ This is GoogleÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Achilles heel. MySpace and YouTube have shown that people are in fact NOT lazy Ã¢â‚¬â€ peer production is a force of nature that has yet to be harnessed for commerce.

Now you are putting words in my mouth.

Jim assumes how Google uses obervation to determine these things as a belief in Google's part that people are lazy.

I said I think that's a bad assumption. But how Google uses observation is damn smart.

"Peer production", what I call *participation* is not only a force of nature - it is human nature. And Google can observe clicks into YouTube and links into YouTube. Or *any* independent service.

Google relies on 'peer production'. Their entire model would collapse otherwise. As each page goes up on the web, with more metadata, and inbound links to that page, their observational resources grow.

Why re-post the comments you are providing here in some third-party service when a search engine, when another blogger, when a community like Digg or Netscape, or a tool like Technorati, provide avenues to it?

Is Google the end, all be all? No. Will there one day be something better? Sure. And it is important to keep on the lookout for new ideas and ways of doing things. In doing so, we should not mis-characterize what is already here, and what has come before, in order to promote some new way of thinking.

And you are certainly doing that by the way you are characterizing Google - whose entire business is built opon the participatory nature of the web and what Tim O'Reilly had once called, 'the archetecture of participation'.

Read about PageRank and then come back and try and say that Google thinks peer production isn't a force a nature.

Their entire business is bet that indeed it is.

Re: Google Is A Very 1.0 Shopping Engine

Karl — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 16:37:12 -0000

Google doesn't simply looks at links. They have a whole lot more observational information at their disposal and it looks like this is an attempt to gather more as Jim noted.

As for YouTube and MySpace...

Google indexes them.

It knows as much about the public personal connections being made on those sites as do their hosts.

Every public personal connection made within MySpace is one that Google has access to. Every single one.

Get this - MySpace and YouTube are built upon direct personal connections. You are right. And so is the entire web. And limiting your knowledge to particular communities on the web is wellÃ¢â‚¬Â¦.

Limiting.

It indexes Publishing2.com.
Until the day comes that sites start blocking Google from indexing them - and yes - *there* would be the weakness to their model - they have access to the collective participation of everyone, on every spiderable page on the web.

A good question to ask is whether any single company should have that much information on anyone. Even if freely given.

As for that quote you pulled - and the inference you attempted to make about me..

Wow man. I'm not gonna bite. Good try though.

Re: Google Is A Very 1.0 Shopping Engine

Karl — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 17:06:05 -0000

Shoot man - in the time we've discussed this post, the googlebot has probably visited a couple times already.

This page's contents, inbound and outbound links, any scrap of metadata and text that can be analyzed for context, is now within Google's data centers. These comments, and the urls commenter are leaving, may not be be indexed by Google to up other's PageRanks, but are still rich in deriving relationship information and far more.

Re: Google Is A Very 1.0 Shopping Engine

Karl — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 17:22:51 -0000

I'm aok with making amends, and recognizing that human interactions are infinitely complex. And yep Google isn't God :)

But you are conflating YouTube and MySpace with the web itself. And we, the people that are on it.

You are absolutely right that YouTube is powerful, pricelessly for the reason you state.

Google doesn't have a community of participants per se.

It is an avenue to *multiple* communities of participants.

To put it another way, Google is a series of roads. And not places. And nor do I think they want to be thought of as a series of places.

Their whole focus is to send you away from their service to someone else's. And that's their strength.

A Perl motto comes to mind here: There is more than one way to do it.

Re: Distributed Revenue-Sharing Ad Platforms Are the Paradigm For Monetizing Social Media

Karl — Wed, 12 Jul 2006 16:51:16 -0000

Yes, yes, and yes :)

By empowering your participants, your users, to do what they want to do, and deriving some revenue from such transactions, the more opportunity you have.

Btw - not only is social media 'made up of people' - but so is the web :)

See good 'ol BlogAds.com.

Re: Will MySpace and Facebook Be Victims of Their Own Success?

Karl — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 16:57:57 -0000

You were definitely ahead of the curve here Scott :)

I think there is an size limit that any participatory media/online community effort faces and maybe, just maybe some of these services are reaching their's respectively.

A great related read: http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html

Re: The Delicate Balance of Participatory Media

Karl — Sun, 05 Nov 2006 22:34:57 -0000

Don't typically comment to say yeah, I agree with ya, but, yeah, I agree with ya.

These are hurdles that all social, participatory media have to face and I think you've nailed the crux of it here "The challenge for media companies is to find the right balance between participation and control, outsourcing and editorial guidance, openness and order.".

That's precisely why I've defended the Slashdot model, in the face of the Digg model, because there is room enough for both approaches - any one service will need to find its own way to deal with that friction.

As a Perl hacker would say - there is more than one way to do it.

Re: Content Businesses Don’t Scale Anymore

Karl — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 11:41:28 -0000

Terrific post. I wrote a little about this last week on my personal blog, and while Philly Future's business model still isn't laid out, it was part of the bet I made when I re-launched it.

Re: Transparent Ads Are Better Than Fake “Conversations”

Karl — Fri, 29 Dec 2006 18:25:45 -0000

Damn straight. To the entire post.

"community, conversation, and social are my top three ICKY words for 2006."

That's a shame because they are the *good* things at the heart of what the Web is built for, but they've been appropriated by marketers, politicians, entrepreneurs - anyone who wants to wield influence or sell something.

Cluetrain was a book written for business folks to help them understand the Web. It worked all too well.

No one has any idea who is selling what to whom any more.

Re: Transparent Ads Are Better Than Fake “Conversations”

Karl — Sat, 30 Dec 2006 09:49:09 -0000

Along with Nick Carr, shout-outs need to go to Shelley Powers, Dave Rogers and Seth Finkelstein who've been making related points to this for a while now, and in a few corners getting knocked for it.

I look for disclaimers such as David Weinberger's more and more, to discern who to trust.

The problem is, that there is no standard for such statements for readers and aggregators to locate and consume them. As it stands right now, there is no way to distinguish advertisements, from marketing campaigns, from real honest to goodness community of interest discussion.

Re: The Great Media Industry Schism

Karl — Sun, 25 Feb 2007 19:23:20 -0000

A fantastically succinct post on what's going on and what it means.

Re: NBC Universal/News Corp Online Video Deal Demonstrates That The Content Creation Business Is Dying

Karl — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 11:19:55 -0000

"The points from the conference call you listed are unique to NBC/News Corp. Without owning the content, the distribution wouldnâ€™t be of such a high value."

Every search engine's business model is predicated on the idea that *not* creating or owning the content, but driving people to other people's content - has terrifically high value.

Re: The Value Of Aggregating Content

Karl — Mon, 21 May 2007 06:07:51 -0000

Brilliant :)

Re: Journalists, Made For AdSense Publishers, And Regression To The Mean Of Content Quality

Karl — Tue, 22 May 2007 07:26:35 -0000

I read both as well.

Re: User-Generated Content Is Not A Panacea

Karl — Sun, 27 May 2007 11:48:20 -0000

Expanding on Doug's comment...

The goal should *never* be to seek out 'user generated content' - it should be to help coalesce the community of interest around what you do.

That is of course, if what you do is something that attracts a community.

Re: User-Generated Content Is Not A Panacea

Karl — Sun, 27 May 2007 22:30:22 -0000

"have you seen the Ketchup groups on MySpace and Facebook?"

brahahahahahahhhahahaah

Seth, I'm sure you're right, that Heinz has probably already received a few overtures from people professing to be able to show them how to 'do it right'.

Here's the thing, sometimes a contest is just a contest.

And it looks like a success in terms of the buzz it's generated (it's gotten us talking about Heinz ketchup right here on this blog) and the fun people have had in participating in it.

Re: Battle Of The Commodity Web Applications: It’s All About People

Karl — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 08:08:48 -0000

Your best post in a long time Scott. Folks keep getting wrapped up in features that - based upon how easy it is to enable them on your site - are commodities.

The one thing that's not - the people - is what counts.

Re: What Magazines Still Don’t Understand About The Web

Karl — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 23:15:03 -0000

As of today, the latest issue isn't even available in stores. That might be delivered to subscribers only by now.

Re: Who do you trust to edit your news?

Karl — Tue, 22 May 2007 08:16:48 -0000

I wish I was at this event.

We had a similar event in Philadelphia last year that was focussed on news journalism and the web. It sounds like it covered related territory.

(http://norgs.pbwiki.com/The%20Norgs%20Unconference%20Statement%20Of%20Principles)

Fact of the matter is, there is room enough for numerous approaches to filtering/finding news.

Algorithmic - Memeorandum, Google News

By the crowd - Digg, Newsvine.

By a single unpaid editor - A blogger.

By communities of unpaid editors - A genre specific slice of the blogosphere.

By a news organization - A newspaper with staffed editors - Yahoo News, Salon, Slate.

By hybrid community/editor efforts - Slashdot, Indymedia.

There seems to be an effort on the parts of some to create some false conflicts between these approaches. To promote one approach over the other as the *ultimate solution*.

We can do far better. All of us can. My bet is that will happen when groups of us decide to put down our guns and work together.