DISQUS

Oh, thank God I'm gay!

Thanks for pointing that out, Saad.

I do side work in Web development and one of my customers was recently approached by a "professional" Web development outfit that sent him a laundry list of services they provide, most of which involve using free services from Google, search engine submission, and "dedicated professional META tag programmers" or some such nonsense.

I think META tags still have their place in Web development and online marketing, but it's a very small place; certainly not worth the price tag that so many of these fly-by-night outfits are putting on them.

The plaintiff should have had to have paid court fees all-around for something like this, plus the penalty being sought in my opinion.

There are poor cases to take to court, and there are utterly frivolous cases. This falls into the latter category.

If you think this is outrageous, a group of Chinese lawyers are trying to sue CNN over Jack Cafferty's description of the Chinese government being a "bunch of goons and thugs."

Why do we even allow this sort of crap into our legal system? How can we even grant "lawyers" from a country where there are few standards of law access to our system to attempt to punish a member of the Fourth Estate from exercising his Constitutionally-guaranteed First Amendment Rights?

Anyone feel like joining me in a counter-suit to reclaim American tax dollars being pissed-away over this sort of nonsense?

I'm sure you didn't mean it to sound even semi-sympathetic Andy, but this post almost makes it sound like these young women (and a man, apparently - or is Zachary in vogue for women now, too) *aren't* criminals.

They *did* kidnap someone.

They *did* beat someone.

They *should* be convicted.

And the fact that they *wanted* their crimes videotaped and posted online for posterity makes that fact that they will be that much more appropriate.

This isn't a teen-aged prank gone wrong; this isn't even a crime of passion that's made it onto the public record - this is a premeditated criminal act that needs to be punished - harshly and publicly.

Here's a tip for Facebook and LinkedIn - when a user begins to receive racist, sexually explicit SPAM, don't punish the victim for demanding the offender's account be cancelled!

Here's my story - do with it what you will:

This morning I began to receive racist spam from Marian Shaffer (Boston, MA).

http://www.facebook.com/s.php?k=100000080&i...

As I am well-versed with Web2.0 and social media, I began to post my experience with her to various Web media and political action groups that I am affiliated with. I began to receive automated notices from Facebook that *my* account would be shut-down for spamming.

This is the message I posted:

This morning I received the following email from Marian Shaffer in my Facebook inbox. I have never met this person, don't know her, and am not in any Facebook-sponsored groups with her. Therefore, I can't be totally certain, but believe that this was prompted by my being an Obama supporter:

Between You and Marian Shaffer

Marian Shaffer
Today at 11:06am
Report Message
GO FUCK YOURSELF. NIGGER LOVER!!!

Marian Shaffer is from Boston, MA.

This is the link to her profile:

http://www.facebook.com/s.php?k=100000080&i...

Like a true racist coward, she has blocked my access to her profile, so I cannot see it. However, I have notified Facebook and am asking anyone who thinks that this sort of conduct is inappropriate to do the same and request she be banned from this social network.

Thank you for your time.

I am guessing that the back-end of Flickr video is going to be Yahoo! Video, sort of how del.icio.us 2.0 is going to be "powered" by the new Yahoo! Bookmarks.

I have a "thing" for Yahoo!, and it's this: Yahoo! is a one-stop-shop for most of what I do online. Email, chat, my start page, news, recipes, tracking my weight, and social networking (for a while, anyway - they shouldn't have abandoned Y!360; I have made some pretty good Internet friends through it and Multiply.com proves that Y!360 had a viable audience/user-base) are all things that Yahoo! has delivered and delivered well over the years.

I can also honestly say that Yahoo! search suits my needs about 2/3 of the time. I'm big enough to admit that I use Google most of the rest of time, but 2/3 is 2/3; unless I am looking for something very specific, I rarely use Google because I don't need to; that I don't particularly care for Google is just gravy.

Now, is Yahoo! perfect? No.

HELL NO.

And no one is more critical of Yahoo! than the loyal opposition, of which I like to think of myself a member. But don't just take my word for it - check out my Yahoo!360 page.

I read that Jerry Yang has "a secret plan" to save Yahoo! It's not that big a secret, really, since the article detailed it fairly well, and stated that it included revisiting the main page, unifying the various user profiles area scattered across Yahoo! properties into a cohesive whole, opening the platform to third-party development, and "Facebook-izing" Yahoo!Mail.

Sometimes when the CEO decides to step in and take over direct control of a company's heart-and-soul division, it's a sign that they finally "get it" and are staking the future of the company on new products and services.

And sometimes it just means that they've played their last hand and the captain is posturing as he or she goes down with the ship.

I'd like to think in this case it's the former.

Shame on you, Andy. How dare you point out that Google's stock is sucking wind right now?

You'll be lucky if you're not hacked to death (digitally speaking, not literally).

Excuse me, but if Windows Live Spaces isn't a social networking site (albeit a piss-poorly named one) with tens of millions of users, then what is?

I'll tell you what it isn't - it isn't a niche social hub for people whose native tongue is Portuguese.

Here's a radical concept: quit letting Yahoo!360 (and its millions of registered and thoroughly disappointed and neglected users) rot on the vine.

When Yahoo! overhauled their main page, they didn't shit-can their brand and relaunch as a new company. When they upgraded Yahoo!Mail and Yahoo!Messenger, they kept their users and their brand and improved their product. They've made faltering (and entirely inadequate IMO) steps in this direction with Yahoo!Groups; why can't Yahoo!360 be overhauled using the Y!UI library and a little TLC?

Corporate America is living in a fantasy land. When did 16% growth become a problem? The unrealistic short-term expectations of shareholders have long been a problem for American manufacturing, and now that that sector has been bled white by a combination of shareholder greed, managerial incompetence, and a race to the bottom for labor wages, we're seeing it come home to roost in the tech and media sectors.

These people need a swift kick in the ass.

I've had a membership there for years that I almost never use after receiving and invite from a friend I met through Yahoo!360.

Whatever hi5's shortcomings, they can't be as bad as Tagged.com.

I got sucked into Tagged.com when I received an email from them that had a yahoo-inc.com return address (no lie). Since I have been invited down to the Yahoo! campus based on my interaction with Yahoo! staffers about their "social Web" business model, I mistakenly thought the email was on the up-and-up and assumed that Tagged.com was an acquisition or some sort of incubator project.

When I clicked-through the link to the Tagged.com main page, it invited me to "Log In with Your Yahoo! User ID," and if being co-branded with Yahoo! wasn't the site's intent, then the Web master sure did a poor job not making it look like a co-branded Yahoo! property. Once I "logged-on" with my Yahoo! ID and password, the site emailed everyone in my Yahoo! address book not just one invitation, but persistent follow-ups that read included the lines like:

"Don't you want to be Jeff's friend?" and "You don't want Jeff to think you're ignoring him, do you?"

These were sent to my professional contacts and coworkers as well as my friends and family, all of whom were treated to a wide array of end-user profiles when they clicked-through to the Tagged.com main page. Now, the Web is what it is, but if I were running a social networking site, I think I would try to keep the profiles of transvestites and swingers off my main page, but that's just me.

Sorry, but I have to call bullshit on this one - Kato (a man, despite his hair) is the one being objectified. Unless that was your point (and I don't think that it was since you described Ask.com as "still objectifying the opposite sex" - which means a continuation of what they've been up to, i.e.: "Chicks with swords"). And yes, while it weird, it also makes a great point, namely that Ask.com can help you find the weird, the bizarre, and yes, even the unpopular/long-since-over-it/my-god-who-would-want-this-stuff in mass quantities, no less.

Quizno's took a similar approach with their (gross) dead, singing hamsters and it worked like a charm; I think Ask.com is getting what they're looking for with their off-color, offbeat ad campaign: word-of-mouth.

Terry - it's important to keep in mind that the "average" Yahoo! employee isn't an "average" employee and that "the vast majority of employers around the country" aren't where these folks are running to. I'd bet good money that a lot of these people have the talent and connections to go it alone and aren't really interested in working for anyone, be it Google, Microsoft, or whomever.

Erik - a nice Christmas party at the end of the year would be an improvement over what a lot of companies that desperately need their employees to innovate and be creative are doing.

I like in metro Detroit, and I doubt I have to tell anyone how badly screwed employees at the "Big Three" auto manufacturers and Tier I suppliers are these days, but even relatively healthy Michigan companies in non-manufacturing sectors of the economy are stifling their employees because they're too chicken-shit to risk success when the status quo is so "safe."

I've got a good job at a good I genuinely like working for, and I just got a raise so I'm not disgruntled by any stretch of the imagination. However, I can honestly say that since the economic going got really tough here, my management has responded by rewarding mediocrity, discouraging (and in some cases - punishing) innovation and creativity, and treating well-paid IT and project management staff like hourly temp workers.

Meetings have been called where management acknowledges the resentment and frustration of their charges and asks for feedback, only to respond with profanity-laden denials (at worst) or promises to address the situation through management-only committees (at best).

It's sad, but I know about a half-dozen people who, despite having secure, well-paying jobs in a lousy economy - are aggressively looking to move because of the ham-handed management practices that have been put in place supposedly to KEEP workers.

I'm a little confused by the reaction to this here.

Google isn't forcing anyone to use these themes, and as for their "cheesiness," well, I think there's a tendency for technophiles to forget that the vast majority of Internet users like warmer, friendlier, "childish" things like Japanese-garden themes for their personal start page.

If you look at the consumer oriented Web 2.0 sites that are out there, the ones with the brighter, more colorful, and (perceived) user-friendly interfaces get the most buzz and probably the most eyeballs and mind share. The new Google interfaces remind me a lot of Vox, for example, which has gotten a ton of good press and has ramped up a large user base over a very short period of time in a fairly crowded market.

Just some thoughts.

I'd be very interested in finding out just what the library's definition of "pornography" is, why the library staff is so overworked it can't do a periodic walk-through of the PC area, and just where the parents of these vulnerable, sheltered tykes are while their children are out looking for cyber-smut.

Why I acknowledge that there is a lot of porn on MySpace, that's true of the Web generally. Speaking from experience, Google image search will serve up porn on innocuous searches at least as efficiently as someone can surf MySpace with more prurient intentions.

As a tax payer, I find it maddening that the money I pay (gladly, by the way) to ensure my community has a decent library with Internet access isn't spent as intended. On its face it is an unjustifiable intrusion of the government on First Amendment Rights. I resent it even more that the justification for this intrusion is that "the children (TM)" might or actually have (God forbid!) seen a bare breast or genitalia online.

Grow up, people. No one is advocating that public libraries replace the back room rack of the local 7-11, but there are less intrusive and frankly more effective ways of enabling parental fantasies about their children having no idea what sex is until they're over thirty and married than by blocking public access to major online sites.

Damn, Warren. Don't be hatin'.

For what it's worth, I'm of the belief that blogging compliments some industries better than others. Businesses that require a "human face" day-in and day-out *need* blogs for the same reason they need mascots and spokespersons: to enhance their brand identitity, keep their message clear and consistent, and (most importantly) maintain a level of intimacy with people who use their product or service.

I haven't read your book, so I can't comment on it directly. From what I've read online and my own observations about Amazon.com, I think one reason you got the reaction you did is because Amazon.com has never tried to put a "human face" on its brand.

Granted, there's a tech/media cult that surrounds Jeff Bezos, just like there's one that surrounds Bill Gates and Larry Ellison. However I don't think that Mr. Bezos or his company want him to be seen *as* Amazon.com, nor do they want employees who blog taking on that role.

A big part of Amazon.com's brand identity is that it is *the original .com retailer.* As such it doesn't need or want any of the trappings associated with more traditional retail business models, including a "human face." Instead, Amazon.com is a highly-automated, metrics-driven company and they've chosen to make those qualities defining aspects of their brand identity. Any sort of "personal" interaction with their customers on the part of their employees would dilute the value of these impersonal (but extremely efficient and effective) qualities.

That's my take on it anyway.