Sunday, December 27, 2009

(aside) Dan Gillmor's upcoming book: mediactive


I only took a quick look at it and at this point I only have one general piece of advice: I'd skip the politics! mainly because it's going to guarantee losing plenty of readers that would, otherwise, find your book useful.

Maybe write a different book on that?

Also, I see no good reason for excluding readers basically based on religion (re: Who is This Project Not For?) -- yeah, you'd expect logical people to find that evolution is a much more likely explanation for how we got here but that doesn't stop one of the major players in deciphering the human genome, for instance, from being a devout Christian. No need to be bringing that up, really (people have very strong private feelings about it whether it makes sense or not and would probably take offense).

The only traditionally verboten subject for public conversation you missed is sex. Although, you could have worked it in as a joke: "this book is not for prudes! and don't you dare read it..." :)


Wednesday, December 9, 2009

ebay v. craigslist: Newmark and Buckmaster asked ebay to keep the "essentially extorsion" secret

EVEN MORE: twitter


@agaricus Gary, I hope you are at least casually following the ebay v. craigslist lawsuit -- it's just priceless!:) ~Delia about 1 hour ago from web in reply to agaricus
MORE: Twitter

(ebay v. craigslist) links to Craig Newmark assuring craigslisters ebay only got 25% and none of his equity was sold ( 12 minutes ago from web


@craigoodle *lots* of people should be finding the info about craigslist finally disclosed to the public VERY interesting to say the least:) less than 20 seconds ago from web in reply to craigoodle
"Price said Newmark and Buckmaster asked that their payment be kept quiet to prevent the altruistic public image of the company from being tarnished. He said he viewed the payment as "essentially extortion." (3rd paragraph)

looks like my hunch at the time was correct

these 2 link are priceless!

#1 Craig assuring craigslisters ebay only had 25%
#2 Craig denying that *any* of his equity was sold

Tuesday, December 8, 2009

more truth comes out: craigslist representative had told ebay that Newmark and Buckmaster "may have been looking for a way to cash out" -- say *what?*

MORE: twitter: ebay v. craigslist: truth comes out: Newmark and Buckmaster "may have been looking for a way to cash out"-- say *what?* 3 minutes ago from web
"EBay Deputy General Counsel Brian Levey, who helped handle eBay's purchase of a 28% stake in Craigslist in 2004, said in Delaware Chancery Court Tuesday that a representative for Craigslist shareholders mentioned that the company may be interested in finding equity financing, and that the two remaining shareholders, Craig Newmark and Jim Buckmaster may have been looking for a way to "cash out." (2nd paragraph)


Monday, December 7, 2009

craigslist: the ebay deal -- finally the truth gets out! (it only took a monster lawsuit)


MORE: twitter: # craigslist: the ebay 16 million deal! valleywag had the right figure Jim Buckmaster finally talks -- 'cause he *has to* 4 minutes ago from web

and to think that Valleywag got the number right! 16 million...

"Buckmaster said eBay paid $16 million, which included the rights-of-first-refusal over any sale of Buckmaster's and Newmark's shares and veto rights over mergers and acquisitions."
(2nd part of 2nd paragraph from bottom)

Craig got a house probably worth in the millions that summer... aka "the shack"! *lol*


P.S. more recent post by Valleywag D.

Monday, November 16, 2009

is Michael Arrington right? Did Craig Newmark advise Wikipedia to have fund raising ads?


thanks, Seth!

we've talked about this in the past and I still believe he could have *sold it* before turning non-profit and there would have probably been no Wikipedia today.

I continue to believe he deserves respect for this, for NOT doing what Craig did, making it a *for profit* and keeping people laboring and in the dark as to what's really going on.

Sure, he's not a "purist" (e.g. I suppose he could have donated all his honoraria to Wikipedia, although it did take a lot of his private time to get to the point where he would be offered anything of the kind) but, as far as I'm concerned, there is really no comparison between what he did and what Craig did.


P.S. and no! I don't believe Wikipedia should have any ads on it and that banner ad *is* an ad blocked by ad-blocking software

thanks for this link --> very on point! D>


*You* can do better than that, Jimmy... You still have my respect for having made and kept Wikipedia a non-profit, (a huge contrast with craigslist) but you are wrong on this one... and if this was indeed Craig's advice that you/Wikipedia took, I'd do without such adviser... ~Delia

P.S. keep it open and honest (it's not worth messing it up after you did the right thing for such a long time) D.


I think you are right on this one: it *is* an ad! (a fund raising ad for Wikipedia). Even more obvious than what were, in my opinion, ads for Skype on craigslist -- ostensibly because Craig Newmark *just liked* Skype...-- but I definitely wondered if craigslist was getting paid by Skype for having those links on the site (at the time, when the Skype links were introduced, craigslist was claiming to derive benefits *mostly* from paid ads but has never clarified what other sources of revenue have been). Even if craigslist wasn't getting paid for it, those links were still, in effect, a heck of a lot of ads for Skype!


Saturday, November 14, 2009

craigslist & CDA immunity: isn't craigslist co-creator of those ads given that it now screens them?

EVEN MORE: TWITTER: craigslist & DMA immunity: isn't craigslist co-author of those ads given that it now screens them? ( ) any idea? ~Delia half a minute ago from web


sorry about the delay... just posted it! D.

----- Original message -----
Sent: 2009/11/15 19:24:00
Subject: Re: Re: RE: digital media blog

You are welcome to post our exchange. I will comment on the issues you raise in my blog shortly

From: dperiod
To: Johnson, David D.
Sent: Sun Nov 15 16:11:05 2009
Subject: Re: RE: digital media blog

the fact that as a result of mounting pressure from AGs, craigslist decided not only to change the name of the category from "erotic" to "adult" but also to *screen the ads prior to publication* (manual review): here is the info in the Boston Globe, for instance:

and here is the post on my blog talking about it:



P.S. is it ok to post our email exchanges on my blog? (it would all go in the body of the entry so anybody reading my blog will see your comments -- has worked well in the past, especially if the views differ) D.

----- Original message -----
Sent: 2009/11/15 12:35:04
Subject: Re: RE: digital media blog

Delia: What major change are you referring to? Regards, David Johnson

From: dperiod []
Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2009 12:50 AM
To: Johnson, David D.
Subject: digital media blog


I found your post re: Dart v. Craigslist helpful but believe it fails to take into consideration a major change in craigslist's involvement in the process of creating those ads. I thought you might want to comment.



It certainly appears to be the case! by screening the ads, craigslist now provides *direct assistance* to the users with finalizing the content of those ads prior to publication... (1st tip on how to "stay on the good side of the CDA and criminal law")


PS. I'll see if David Johnson would like to comment on this. D.

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

(craigslist prostitution) why did Dart's suit fail are similar suits doomed?


Twitter (craigslist prostitution) why did Dart's suit fail and are similar suits doomed? let me know what you think! ~Delialess than 20 seconds ago from web

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

charging for adult/erotic ads -- the details

UPDATE: after a very long confusion as to what was Jim really up to, he has removed my post (the comment number is still on the bottom and it does link to the entry); what a wimp... (but what's new?) D.


STILL MORE well... Jim is either asleep or purposely leaving my comment in "moderation" -- will have to move on; I think what's important to understand here is that we just don't know the actual facts; craigslist could easily clarify them but apparently just doesn't want to...

EVEN MORE: my comment on the craigslist blog is still "awaiting moderation"(that's the message I get when I access it): a bit confused since 3 more comments have been posted after mine, so did Jim read my comment or not yet? will give him the benefit of the doubt, hopefully it's going to get clarified soon... D.

MORE: Twitter: craigslist charging for adult/erotic ads -- the details! if anybody *knows* what's going on, please help! ~Delia ( minutes ago from web
ok, lets ask this as nicely as possible and see if Jim clarifies it...

Jim, (

Could you please clarify something for me?

When did craigslist *start* charging for "erotic/adult ads" (talks of it hit the news in November 2008 but when was the actual starting date? -- although I have not been able to find the exact date anywhere, there seemed to be a strong inference that it was at some point *after* the beginning of 2009; yet the info in the judgment appears to contradict this); also, in what locations does craigslist currently charge for "adult ads" and/or "erotic ads" and why is there a difference between the fees charged -- $5 versus $10? (surprising info given in the judgment) and did the list of such locations increase since the initial charging? (it would appear so)



Thursday, September 24, 2009

craigslist fundamentals: why the AIM group's estimate of revenue is a poor indicator

The overall revenue masks the fact that craigslist has been adding to the jobs-pay-list and started charging in the very lucrative adult/erotic category. A more meaningful presentation of Zollman's numbers would compare revenue from *the same markets*.

By the time you throw out all revenue from adult/erotic as well as the revenue from jobs in places where craigslist didn't charge last year, craigslist's fundamentals wouldn't look anywhere as good.

They are very likely loosing ground (currently have less paid jobs listings and real estate in the markets where they charged last year when compared with the number of such listings in those same markets this year)


Monday, September 21, 2009

craigslist revenue: the AIM group's report credibility and limitations

DELIA: oh... I believe you! It was just very confusing given that I *knew* I saw the word "will", otherwise I would not have given it much importance ("could" is very weak as far as I'm concerned) D.


I can assure you that the version submitted to the court was the "could" version and you can seek a copy from the court if you wish.

Posted by Anonymous to craigslist criticism at September 24, 2009 10:50 AM

Twitter: @agaricus got it figured out, Gary! ~D.14 minutes ago from web

DELIA: found the other version! it was at a slightly different url address:

as opposed to:

sorry about the confusion! (the argument section -- see table of contents -- has A through K subsections as opposed to 1 through 3 in the other version)

MORE: Twitter

(Dart v. Craigslist) CATW's amicus brief Did anybody followed the link to amicus brief on CATW's site last evening or before? please help!2 minutes ago from web

@agaricus Gary, I could really use your help! did you follow the link to the amicus brief on CATW's website before contacting Peter Zollman?2 minutes ago from web

DELIA: that's wild! they are the same NOW (just looked), although as recently as last evening the two links had different versions. The initial one I first saw may have been a prior draft but that's the one CATW linked to when the item got on Google news so I suspect plenty of people saw that and went with it), not only for the spot I referred to -- they had a different organization for the arguments (the sentence I pointed out was not at all *the only* difference)

ANONYMOUS: "I am sorry but that just is not true. The brief that was submitted to the court says "could" as does the brief on CATW's web site at:

Posted by Anonymous to craigslist criticism at September 24, 2009 8:56 AM

DELIA: yeah, those are the links and... it's NOT the same stuff...

the passages talked about, although worded identically otherwise are qualitatively different where it counts, as I explained bellow.


K. Craigslist's Profitability, Power and Corporate Responsibility
(end of 1st paragraph of subsection)

"Projected over a year it is fair to estimate that craigslist's global profits from its adult/erotic services ads *will" constitute over half of its profits" [my emphasis]



(middle of last paragraph on 2nd to last page of that subsection)

"Projected over a year it is fair to estimate that craigslist's global profits from its adult/erotic services ads *could" constitute over half of its profits" [my emphasis]

STILL MORE: thanks! got two anonymous comments, the second shortly after the first; it's unclear if it's the same person or two different ones (I wish anonymous posters would be given numbers such as Anonymous 1, Anonymous 2 etc.)

(1st comment)

This is the brief that was submitted to the court:

This is the Sheriff's complaint from March:

Posted by Anonymous to craigslist criticism at September 23, 2009 7:14 AM

(2nd comment)

The brief posted on CATW's web site is the correct version submitted to the court Aug. 6, 2009

Posted by Anonymous to craigslist criticism at September 23, 2009 7:17 AM

EVEN MORE:(Dart v. Craigslist) CATW's amicus brief - which form was actually submitted? what was the exact wording?help! ( ~Delia3 minutes ago from web

MORE: if anybody else is confused about it, it's unclear to me which version of the amicus brief did CAWA submit: there is a significant wording difference ("will" vs. "could") between the one posted on their website (which I linked to and was familiar with) and the one anonymous linked to. "Will" is a very definite statement, while "could" is as weak as it can get (I mean, pretty much *anything* could be the case...)

As I told Gary Wolf, I don't think we'll really know what's going on with craigslist until their books are open to the public. The host of issues brought up by the AIM's group estimate of craigslist's revenue reinforces this belief.

Again, I have not been able to take a look at the report myself so I don't really know all that is in it. I would hope an explanation of its great limitations is given upfront -- in fact, I believe these limitations should be pointed out to anybody interested in purchasing and/or using the report. I somehow assumed that such a report would go through the equivalent of a pier review but that does not seem to be the case.

And anonymous is right to point out that Peter Zollman has expressed personal opinions that appear to make him a less than ideal person to do the counting -- maybe he should have recused himself?

If anonymous is correct and Chicago alone brings 1 mill a year, the whole thing would, at first, seem to be bogus (if the numbers given by Peter Zollman cannot be trusted). But when were the two different countings done? If one (for the Dart v. Craigslist law suit) was *before* the changes and beginning to charge and the second - Zollman's -- *after* the changes they could both be accurate.

Another problem is the fact that I would not expect the number of ads in those category to be constant from month to month: there would have very likely been a drastic drop right after changes were implemented, and a steady growth thereafter.

Aside from this, if the AIM group is estimating *the 2009 calendar year revenue* for craigslist (which appears to be the case), it seems to mistakenly treat the adult/erotic as bringing in revenue for *12 month* (Peter Zollman quote towards bottom of previous entry on this blog)-- craigslist has not been charging in that category from the beginning of the year so craigslist's revenue for 2009 would be overstated by a significant amount.

Now, if we are concerned with the adult/erotic *share* of craigslist's revenue, you would have to look a year out at least from *when craigslist started charging*, otherwise the comparison with the total revenue for a year would be deceiving. A much more accurate estimated would probably be obtained if the "transition period" would be thrown out of the calculation altogether.

Also, I have no clue why did Peter Zollman count automotive ads (quote towards the end of my prior entry on this blog, when he talks about why the estimate was conservative) -- although craigslist has been steadily adding to the jobs-pay-list in recent times, it has not charged in the automotive categories *anywhere*, nor is it reasonable to believe it will by the end of the year. So how could those numbers be at all relevant?

re: craigslist profiting from erotic ads even before they were charging... yeah, I thought so too, especially when I saw the first evidence of just how important a share of craigslist's overall traffic was brought by those ads and more recently when I saw Jim Buckmaster seemingly unhappy about loosing those ads to other sites...


P.S. As always, further comments are encouraged from all parties and all points of view! D.

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Peter Zollman on the reasons the AIM group's estimate of craigslist's revenue from erotic/adult services is conservative


ANONYMOUS COMMENT: Thanks, Anonymous! ~D.


One aspect to think about that I do not think was explained/captured in the report was how web traffic allows craigslist to charge up to $75 for housing/job ads. If you read the original complaint in Dart v. Craigslist, that complaint was made before craigslist started charging for erotic and adult ads. In other words, even if Craigslist did not charge for adult/erotic, the fact that those sections drive traffic to its web site allows it to charge $75 for jobs. So it was profiting before it was charging for ads. How much is very hard to say, but critics will say that this is why craiglist does not want to do anything about erotic/adult ads."

Posted by Anonymous to craigslist criticism at September 21, 2009 2:00 PM

STILL MORE: Thanks to those who sent reassuring words but... I'm not done with it yet:) Twitter: (AIM group report) Did craigslist' revenue *really* grow last year? last call for comments, will post my take on it tomorrow evening ~Delia half a minute ago from web

MORE: Twitter: (craigslist revenue, AIM Group's report) @agaricus Gary, was it bogus? did you check for obvious signs? please help! ~D minutes ago from web

CORRECTION BY ANONYMOUS: "Just to clarify, Chicago alone brings about 1 million per year (not per month) based on adult ads alone." Posted by Anonymous to craigslist criticism at September 16, 2009 9:24 AM ... Thanks, Anonymous! D.

MORE: Twitter: (craigslist's revenue from adult/erotic services, AIM Group's report) was Peter Zollman biased? please help! ~Delia ( minutes ago from web

"Dear Delia,

CATW did not base its projection on the AIM report alone. On one day in Chicago alone I have counted 300 ads for adult services. So Chicago alone gives craigslist more than one million a month, easily. In a smaller city like Houston, it is more like 100 ads per day. Even taking only 10 major cities, that is much much more than 2.5 million per month. CATW stated very clearly in its brief submitted to the District Court of Illinois:

"Projected over a year, it is fair to estimate that craigslist's global revenues from adult/erotic services could provide over half its profits."

Here is the link:

Now if you are going to talk about bias and "concern" about estimates how about Zollman, who on the one hand blogs about how absurd it is that the Attorney Generals should wish to hold craigslist accountable, but on the other hand purports to write an objective, "conservative" report detailing craigslist's profits from adult/erotic services."

Posted by Anonymous to craigslist criticism at September 16, 2009 8:29 AM

Thanks, again, Anonymous! I'll give Zollman a chance to answer this first. (might take a while; will post if I get something or respond myself if Zollman declines) D.

DELIA, AGAIN: sentence in the amicus brief that suggests that CATW *did* in fact calculate as Anonymous suggested (times two) and Peter Zollman hinted at the bottom of this entry that it was incorrect: "According to the report prepared by the AIM Group and released on Jun 10, 2009, craigslist's projected revenue from *"erotic" and "adult services" combined* for one month only amount to only over five million".[my emphasis] (end of page 29 of amicus brief) D.

MORE: Twitter: craigslist's revenue from erotic/adult compared with total: was CATW's projected yearly estimate fair? please help! ( a minute ago from web

DELIA: Although, we are ultimately concerned with *the ratio* of craigslist's yearly revenue from adult/erotic ads to craigslist's toatal revenue from all ads: CATW says, in their amicus brief, that it is fair to project the estimates so that more than half of the money is brought by erotic/adult ads.(end of page 29 of the amicus brief)

I suppose that is still possible, but it would have to have a different justification than the one Anonymous gave, given that Peter Zollman says he did not count the erotic/adult ads in other markets.

Further comments encouraged from all parties and points of view! I was hoping we could get somebody from CATW so they can clarify their position but no luck so far -- if anybody could help with that, I'd appreciate it! D.

ANONYMOUS RESPONSE: "Both erotic and adult, according to that report, made over 2.5 million a
month, each. That means times two. Adult is only for the USA, erotic is for sex trafficking in Vietnam, etc. You should look at the web site you are writing about. The report does not explain this well, because craiglist does not explain it well, and it does not wish to."

Posted by Anonymous to craigslist criticism at September 15, 2009 6:14 PM

Thanks again, Anonymous! As far as I can tell, craigslist does not currently charge for "erotic services" in places like Vietnam (did as much as I could to check that, short of posting a fake ad, which I would not do); will they charge in those markets within a year of starting to charge in the U.S.? (as to count for the yearly projection?) possibly... although I believe it it reasonable to assume they would not be quite that dumb! but *could be*... However, I believe it is important to keep the estimates/projections/etc. within reason, otherwise it appears to backfire and become meaningless at some point as I said bellow.

It is my current understanding that Peter Zollman (please see his explanation of why their estimate is conservative bellow) did not count those ads in markets outside of U.S. If this is correct (and I'm sorry but I cannot get a copy of the report for my editorial use without paying for it or giving up my privacy, both things I decided a long time ago not to do), it is unfortunate that CATW misread the report. And I do hope that was the case, that they did not misinterpret it *on purpose*.

If the report was unclear, you'd think they could/should have clarified things with Zollman before putting the info in the amicus brief to make sure they were using his report fairly. This would have also made sure it did not backfire which could ruin everything they are trying to do. I regard CATW's not giving Zollman's conservative estimate ($30 mill, not $60 mill, as in his hint to you bellow) as a mistake given that I believe Zollman's conservative estimate would be more than enough to show there is good reason for serious concern.


MORE: I don't know if it's just me (Delia) but it seems to become meaningless at some point if it's all a matter of what people *want* to infer... D

"We’ve stated unequivocally that we think our estimate on Craigslist’s adult services (previously “erotic services”) is fairly conservative, because we did not count ads in all markets (as we did with recruitment and automotive). Thus, you’re welcome to infer if you wish that revenue in that category is $60 million or $90 million or whatever. But we don’t."

from email exchange with Peter Zollman on September 15th, 2009 (published with his permission)

also a hint for anonymous from prior entry: "$2.55 million a month times 12 months, by my calculator, is $30.6 million annually. So I think your $60 million is off by a factor of two."

from email exchange with Peter Zollman on September 15th, 2009 (published with his permission)

(I, Delia, agree but feel free to submit a rebuttal comment, Anonymous -- from prior entry -- or anybody else)

Friday, September 11, 2009

Did CATW misrepresent the AIM group's findings about craigslist revenue from adult/erotic services?

MORE (Peter Zollman's hint to Anonymous and reasons why the AIM group's estimate is conservative)

EVEN MORE: Twitter: @ptrueman Patrick, I'm wondering if you can help -- Gary Wolf of Wired says
CATW was wrong in the amicus brief ( D.1 minute ago from web in reply to ptrueman

STILL MORE: got an anonymous post -- take it with a grain of salt; thanks, anonymous!

The AIM Report estimates that erotic earns $2,550,000, a month, and adult similarly earns $2,550,000 per month. That this will amount to over 60 million a year, not taking into account the explosion in the number of ads in cities all over the map, means that it is a fair estimate.

Posted by Anonymous to craigslist criticism at September 15, 2009 8:29 AM

EVEN MORE: now *that* didn't work... I mean I got an answer last Friday --sorry about the delay --(thanks if anybody helped out with that) but no useful info; just to clarify for everybody I derive no profit from my online presence, so I do not intend to spend money on gathering info nor do I advise anybody who is just curious about craigslist to do it...D.

MORE: Twitter: Did CATW misrepresent AIM group's findings about craigslist revenue from
adult/erotic services? --please help! ( ~Delia 2 minutes ago from web

If so, I will not use them as sources in the future; it was brought to my attention by Gary Wolf (part of his first comment, well, actually second comment but 1st published within my prior entry on this blog) although I took his giving 120 million as craigslist revenue (60 mill times two) when Peter Zollman's article was talking about craigslist hitting 100 mill in revenue as a red flag that Gary may have been mistaken himself in some way.

To clarify things, I tried to contact Peter Zollman directly but so far no luck.

Here's what my request was:


I'm hoping you could clarify something for me. Did CATW misrepresent your findings about craigslist revenue from erotic/adult services in their amicus brief? Or were they correct?

re: "Projected over a year, it is fair to estimate that craigslist's global profits from its adult/erotic services ads will constitute over half of its overall profits"

(end of 29th page of the brief)

Thank you!


if anybody can help out and bring this to his attention I'd appreciate it D.

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

Gary Wolf's follow-up comments -- in full glory!

MORE: agaricus@ Gary, I'm giving you the benefit of a doubt -- don't make me regret it! ~Delia ( will check tomorrow eveninghalf a minute ago from web


I'll give you the benefit of a doubt although good chunks of your follow-up comments look like personal attacks to me and I really don't have to put up with them or publish them on my blog for that matter. Nor do I think they are flattering to you but since you insist I publish them, I will. So please abstain from those if you would like me to publish any more of your comments on my blog.

As I previously told you, I believe you would benefit a lot from taking a break from this topic for now and returning to it at a later time when you could truly take a fresh look at it. I would be willing to continue this per your request at the point when you realize that those eight things I listed are fundamental assumptions. We don't have to agree that they are probably false – as I believe they are -- just that they are assumptions. If you do not agree that those are assumptions -- that, at this point, they are not positively knowns or unknowns -- there is little point to continuing this from my side as I don't believe much could be accomplished.

If you just want to go ahead and check the things I put down – be my guest! It's a public blog... And you may well find that some of the sources I quoted were fallible. I'd be surprised if over the years I've written this blog, all of my sources would be absolutely infallible. Heck! I have certainly not redone the data analysis done by AIM Group, for instance, so I cannot vouch that they are absolutely correct.

I referenced CWTA's amicus brief and if they were wrong, then my source was wrong. But the link is there for anybody to check and I gave the exact location on the page to make it as easy as possible. Still, unless those sources were absolute frauds it's hard to see how it would make that much difference -- the fact of the matter is that a big chunk of craigslist's revenue comes from erotic/adult ads and even Craig has acknowledged that many of those are probably prostitution.

As far as I can tell, unless craigslist's books are open to the public (as a result or law suits or much less likely, voluntarily), the big issues will remain unknown – they are NOT the checkable ones. The major flaw in your article was presenting very important things about craigslist that are unknown as being undoubtedly known. And until you get beyond that, I don't see that much progress can be made.


P.S. Just to clarify, my posts are not intended as “tips” -- they are just my opinion of things with links to my sources when the topic is amenable to it. D.

Here are your 2 follow-up comments unedited (your first comment published in the body of the initial blog entry was also unedited)

Reading your response, I have to note the absence of any new information, testimony, observations, etc. to support your implications of bad conscience on Newmark's part. Just for the record, saying "I've committed myself in writing to the story as I understand it" means that I've told everything I know that I think is important, exactly as I believe it to be the case. The key words here are "committed myself in writing." This means that if I am wrong, and any evidence emerges that I am wrong, my error will be visible for all to see. You repeatedly ask leading questions, as if there is some hidden wrong that it is my responsibility to expose, without offering any evidence to support it. That's effective over the short term - certainly I read your posts with interest when reporting the story. But after many requests to provide something concrete to back up your negative remarks, you still produce nothing that a responsible person would publish in any forum where he had to take moral responsibility for his statements. This makes me conclude that there's nothing here of interest. But it's only a provisional conclusion, and as I said in my first comment, I'm certainly willing to listen if you ever come up with anything.

I should say that the one fact you stated in your first post is incorrectly cited and almost certainly wrong. The footnote to the amicus brief you cite in support of your assertion that craigslist makes more than half it revenue on adult/erotic ads references the AIM report. I remembered looking at this report but didn't remember this figure, and I've now had a chance to look at it again. The AIM estimate for adult/erotic is about 29 million, not 60 million. That's just for what its worth: I do not morally condemn craigslist for taking these ads.

Posted by Gary Isaac Wolf to craigslist criticism on September 1, 2009 8:48 PM

Dear craigslist criticism,

I have checked the figures you cite directly with the source listed in the footnote of the CATW brief. That source, Peter Zollman of the AIM group, also projected his numbers out over a year. This is a somewhat minor point, but given that it is the only checkable fact that you cite, it is significant that you got it wrong.

You might sensibly ask why I even bother with this conversation. The answer: a long history of getting useful information from biased sources like yourself leads me to treat your assertions as a kind of "tip." That's the beginning of the process, not the end of it. In writing about cl, I will try to track down any claim that you make that can plausibly be tracked down. But it is hardly my fault if the evidence doesn't back up your allegations. If you ever have any support for any of your claims I would be happy to try and corroborate it. I'm pretty dogged, and if you care about the truth you ought to treat this offer as something valuable.

It doesn't bother me that you publish these vague accusations anonymously; plenty of people do this, sometimes for good reason. But this doesn't give you a free pass from having your claims evaluated. So far, nothing you say pans out, by normal (or even minimal) standards. That's my conclusion, reached in good faith, and with a continued openness to being corrected if, someday, you ever do have evidence for what you say.

Finally, I would like to challenge you, since good faith is one of your values, to publish this comment unedited.
Gary Wolf
Contributing editor, Wired

Posted by Gary Isaac Wolf to craigslist criticism on September 9, 2009 10:41 AM

(craigslist profits/revenue) meaningful comparison of overall figures and figures from adult/erotic services

I did not think most people would need this clarification (certainly not journalists) but the few exchanges I had with Gary Wolf of Wired made me think I better put it down.

#1 -- given the huge difference of magnitude between craigslist's profits and their expenses, the figures for revenue and profits can be used interchangeably (of course, they are not *technically* the same but it's a fair approximation since the expenses are negligible)

#2 -- since craigslist started charging for adult/erotic services less than a year ago, CATW fairly estimated the revenue/profits for adult/erotic services in their amicus brief by projecting it over a year (so it can thus be meaningfully compared with the yearly overall revenue/ profits)


Saturday, August 29, 2009

Gary Wolf tells the truth but holds on to many assumptions


EVEN MORE: As promised, I read your follow-up post. I continue to be very disappointed. As I do not find that your follow-up comment adds to the discussion in any way, I'm sorry but I don't see the point in publishing it or continuing any of this -- Good luck & good bye! D.

MORE: my answer


re: "I've committed myself in writing to the story as I understand it."

That would have been perfectly fine, would you have written it as such. That's not at all how your article reads -- at no point is there any hint that this may not be what is actually going on. That's why I thought that pointing out those assumptions would be really helpful.

I'm really disappointed if you don't even realize those are important assumptions at the core of your article -- you are kidding yourself if you truly believe that you were able to "confirm" those things or that those things are "known" or knowable at this point. (e.g. "Newmark was wedded to the idea that craigslist was a community service." 2nd page, middle of 4th paragraph) There are strong reasons to believe they are false and I explained as much as I could in a short post but the truth of the matter is that we don't really know at this point -- we can't! unless you have some way to read Craig's mind and I'm sorry but I don't believe that you do. As I said before, you appear to just believe him! That's fine, I suppose, as long as you acknowledge it.

"The remainder of your post has a lot to say about what the real intentions of craigslist are. But how, in good conscience, can I take this speculation as anything but one person's unsupported opinion?"

I'm not sure what you mean by "the remainder of my post" : I listed eight core assumptions -- that was it! Gary, you presented the intentions of craigslist in your article -- without indicating any doubt! You apparently got those things straight from the horse's mouth...sorry, Craig's mouth. Whether it was directly from him or by believing many others that just believed him is irrelevant. So how can you in good conscience present Craig's story as "the truth"?

Regardless, I do believe you deserve a lot of praise for the things you got right (three major ones!)


P.S. If you ever change your mind about the things we disagree about, I'd love to hear about it! D.

EVEN MORE: Gary's comment

Delia - A lot of reporting goes into a story that is not described in the piece. It would be very boring to into detail about who I talked to and what they said, when the upshot was to confirm a lot of what is already known (or, as you say, "assumed"). I've committed myself in writing to the story as I understand it. I think if you are going to tell me I'm wrong, you ought to say what, exactly, I'm wrong about, and how you know I'm wrong. I'm willing to be corrected, if you have anything to offer. But all I see here is a set of leading questions that imply nefarious goings-on, unsupported by facts or evidence. The exception is your assertion that more that half its profits (I think you meant revenue) come from the adult/erotic ads. I did not talk about this in the story, but I'm going to publish the correct estimate when I have it.

The remainder of your post has a lot to say about what the real intentions of craigslist are. But how, in good conscience, can I take this speculation as anything but one person's unsupported opinion?

Posted by Gary Isaac Wolf to craigslist criticism at August 31, 2009 3:41 PM

STILL MORE: @agaricus Gary, just read your comment for my blog --I'll have an answer for you tomorrow evening; wil publish bot comments at the same time

MORE: Twitter: @agaricus Gary, here's the list I promised ( ~Delia


As I already told you (on Twitter) , I believe you did a marvelous job figuring out the truth about craigslist's "customer service." You also did a very good job on describing the retarded development of the site and the modus operandi -- "low-key dictatorship." Not surprisingly, you got plenty of criticism from "Craig's friends."

Anyways, here is the list of assumptions I promised:

#1. Craig's story of craigslist is true (you appear to just believe it, I see no evidence of any doubt on your side at any point; much of the article, aside from your accurate description of the customer service, underdevelopment of the site and the mode of operation, should really be prefaced by "Craig sez")

#2. Craig's persona is authentic (it is funny and entertaining at times but it's very hard to believe it's real -- again I see no evidence of doubt on your side)

#3 craigslist is on solid legal footing (even though more than half of its current profits come from adult/erotic ads ( -- many of them illegal --, the law requires craigslist to remove ads once they are made aware they are illegal and craigslist has nowhere enough employees to be able to do this)

#4 the craigslist profits are really sitting in the compay's accounts waiting to be used for expansion -- adding more cities -- (although craigslist is quietly and steadily adding more cities to the pay list even though current profits would more then suffice for offering a craigslist site for each and every city in the world)

#6 "the ambiance of neglect is not a way to extract more profit" (although this is the undeniable direct effect)

#7 the intention is not to maximize profits in the long run by keeping expenses as low as possible while expanding as much as possible and quietly and steadily adding cities to the pay list

#8. it would be no problem if craigslist got sold at some point (although craigslist was really built by the community under the constant assurance that it would not be sold)


Sunday, August 23, 2009

(aside) Mediactive; Dan Gillmor's future book


Seth, I see no good reason to give up my anonymity when deriving no benefits from my online presence -- I believe I should be entitled to privacy.

Dan, do you ever just read what people say? I mean the vast majority of them choose anonymity online unless they have a good reason not to (as in, they hope to make money off this and building "a name" is important to them). I'm afraid you end up missing some of the best stuff if you just assume the worst because it's anonymous... (I was hoping you would have moved away from this by now but looks like nothing has changed:)...



Seth, what I meant to say was that you have received baseless personal attacks from some in power. I believe your experience with this is a strong argument *against* volunteering one's identity online. As long as you are not doing anything wrong, it's really nobody's business WHO you are, *personally*... D.



Seth's experience with it is a very good example as to why those who are not making money off this should NOT disclose their full name online, regardless of how much they are pressured to do it.

Anonymous baseless personal attacks are one thing (most people don't give much credence to those) but the same sort of attacks from those currently in power are a very different story.



Seth: you are welcome!


re: 'Seth, [...] Your critiques (to which you *honorably sign your name*)' [my emphasis]

I was hoping you had, by now, given up on the absurd notion that giving someone's full name online is the 'honorable' thing to do -- it contradicts your whole idea of a democratized media: it shouldn't matter *who* is saying it!

And pushing people to give up their privacy is NOT the honorable thing to do as far as I'm concerned. D.



re: "help persuade passive consumers of media to become active users"

The main problem I see with your approach is that most people don't have much time to spend on this nor would it be wise for them to spend the amount of time it would take to become sophisticated users on a volunteer basis (Seth can expand on this in great detail and I believe he is right).

I would not call the demand "crappy". That's like a business calling the customers lousy because they are not interested in spending a great deal of their own time making the product work. I fault the business, not the customers -- they are just acting rationally.

I wish we could fast forward to the end of this period in journalism and see clearly just how odd it all is -- how many of the fundamental assumptions are just outlandish! To some extent, I'd like to be awakened what it's all over: when the importance of striving for objectivity is rediscovered and those who profit from news actually deliver balanced news that you can use.


Dan, (awaiting moderation -- my 1st post on this blog)

Seth brought it to my attention a while back that you moved your blogging here. I don't know that I have anything new to say on a regular basis -- I feel that I've pretty much said it all on your old blog.

For instance, it should be no secret that I believe you are wrong to encourage *for profits* (as opposed to non-profits) to step in and set up a marketplace in situations where the real value would be built by the community (re:your blog entry,'Needed: real-time media auction system').

Anyways, good luck with your book! I don't know what you have in mind exactly, seems like a moving target (if you are very specific it would probably be obsolete by the time you publish it) but certain strategies should be useful even if the media landscape changes drastically in relatively short time.

It seems to me that most people could use good advice on how to do an adequate job at keeping up with relevant media without spending an inordinate amount of time on it.


Saturday, August 22, 2009

New York Times reference to SC AG v. craigslist

MORE: Twitter:

New York Times reference to SC AG v. craigslist: just sloppy or intentionally misleading? link; craigslist expands 25% but 'it is conceivable' that Craig has no idea! --right, Susan!he's busy twittering to Squirrel and such
just sloppy or intentionally misleading?


Your story about the SC AG is not up to date -- I find that linking to it (in the first line of this article) without mentioning the current developments misleads the readers.



Sunday, June 14, 2009

the interviews continue to resemble PR jobs

MORE: (7th comment)

it seems to me that Christine is just trying to adapt to the situation -- make the best of what transpired -- but actually being "cool with the outcome" would contradict what Peter said; more details: "Very powerful actors have entered the nonprofit ecosystem and created something that already existed, that is blooming, is growing, and has to accommodate a new reality," (Peter Deitz, 5th paragraph, same article you linked)



JD, (5th comment)

sorry about the delay and sorry I didn't make it clear; the comment-by-Delia hyperlink links to the relevant entry on my blog

the "Jim" I referred to is Jim Fruchterman, who interviewed Craig Newmark regarding AllforGood

the criticism -- which I feel both of you should have addressed -- is in the article you linked at the end of your entry : An Obama-Inspired Volunteer-Recruitment Web Site Will Soon Debut

AllforGood has been criticized for "duplicating efforts charities already had under way, and putting significant pressure on groups to participate to help carry out Obama's agenda". (4th paragraph)

Social Actions, for instance, already had an open source initiative similar to that of AllforGood, according to Peter Deitz, Social Actions' founder . (5th paragraph)



Twitter: interviews with Craig Newmark continue to resemble PR jobs (


Same comment as for Jim, even more surprised given that you referenced the article (and you presumably read the criticism). D.


I'm disappointed that you have not managed to ask any real question. For instance, AllforGood has been criticized for "duplicating efforts charities already had under way, and putting significant pressure on groups to participate to help carry out Obama's agenda". (4th paragraph)



P.S. take care, anyways! D.

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

(aside) time for a non-profit Twitter?

Seth, (4th comment)

As usual, I think an honest non-profit could and should bury them! People wouldn't put up with all the non-sense (ego stroking and more or less obvious commercial efforts), waste of time and resources if a true neutral grounds platform for conversation existed.


Tuesday, May 19, 2009

why did craigslist make an about-face? what EFF (Zimmerman) isn't telling...

Twitter: what @EFF (Zimmerman) isn't telling: craigslist HAS TO remove the ads and "self-policing has little or no impact"


of course you can never know these things for sure but craigslist has the legal responsibility to remove illegal ads if they are made aware of them: the SC AG did just that and gave them reasonable time to remove them (10 days); regardless of whether or not craigslist would have been found criminally guilty of facilitating prostitution (which is nowhere as unlikely as craigslist sycophants, such as EFF, claim) craigslist would have still been legally responsible for not having removed those ads within reasonable time... so they thought better of it... and THEN demanded an apology! *lol* ridiculous craigslist PR as usual....


P.S. in case you are wondering what about craigslist's (bogus) claim of "self-policing," the Illinois AG has proven just how empty it really is... (end of 7th paragraph) D.

Friday, May 8, 2009

(aside) is Twitter more democratic than regular blogging?

Seth, (9th comment)

Twitter appears to be more democratic than regular blogging -- the chance of a random person to be heard seems better.

I found it hard to believe that not long after I joined I got an invitation to go on a radio talk show to talk about craigslist. And, no... I didn't do it but my ideas made it on the show -- a lot more than I could say for having previously blogged about craigslist for years.

But I agree that these sort of things should not be commercial enterprises (the real assets are the people who actually built the following and they are the ones getting sold).


(Donna Jou) parents calling for craigslist preventing measures

Twitter: (Donna Jou) parents calling for craigslist preventing measures such as identifying known sex offenders ( they?

is craigslist guilty of negligence in connection with wrongful death cases?

Twitter: is craigslist guilty of negligence for failing to take needed measures?e.g. in wrongful death cases; what do you think?
is craigslist guilty of negligence for failing to take obviously needed measures in connection with wrongful death cases?


EFF continues to defend obsolete legal rationale

UPDATE: in a cowardish move (so it seems to me), Jim Buckmaster "moderated" against my comment (didn't fit the party line, I guess..) D.

Twitter: EFF continues to defend obsolete legal rationale: the internet is way past its infancy -way overdue for an update!
re: "If site operators were forced to screen all third party contributions under risk of civil or criminal penalty, the Internet would lose many of the vibrant services that have made it so dynamic."

EFF continues to defend obsolete legal rationale: that protection was given when the internet was in its infancy -- way overdue for an update! (sites should be required to spend a reasonable amount on preventive measures *given their profits* -- craigslist appears to insist on maintaining huge profits and extremely low expenses no matter what ...)



(comic relief) Jim calls the shape-up-or-else meeting with the AGs "cordial"!

Twitter: (comic relief) what does Jim call the shape-up-or-else meeting with the AGs? "cordial"! *lol* (
Chris, In case you haven't noticed, Jim is using the craigslist blog as a PR tool -- ridiculous PR at times... (e.g. calling the shape-up-or-else meeting with the AGs "cordial" *lol* ) ~Delia

Wednesday, April 29, 2009

sources of profit and such

sorry, Frank -- I don't think I'll ever change my mind. Let me know if you need more info. (I could track down the sources for recent estimates etc.) ~Delia

----- Original message -----
Sent: 2009/04/29 00:51:32
Subject: Re: RE: RE: RE: Re: Radio Appearance tonight

Yeah. We’ve been talking about it on the radio a lot. We’d love to have you on sometime, if you ever reconsider.

From: dperiod []
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 12:38 AM
To: Frank Morano
Subject: Re: RE: RE: Re: Radio Appearance t

Hi again, Frank! quietly expanding the pay list for jobs and charging for apartment listings in New York City (for now...) . Lowest recent estimate for the year was 80 mill or so; are you just curious or you need sources and such? D.

----- Original message -----
Sent: 2009/04/28 23:58:15
Subject: Re: RE: RE: Re: Radio Appearance tonight

Where do they make money from? Are there any estimates of what they actually make?

Friday, April 24, 2009

"does [craigslist] promote prostitution and endanger the safety of its users?"

Twitter: answered Frank Morano's questions ( ~Delia


thanks! it's up to you if you want to mention it or not -- I'm just glad I could help. you are welcome! D.

----- Original message -----

Sent: 2009/04/24 22:02:07
Subject: Re: RE: RE: Re: Radio Appearance tonight

This is great. Do you want us to mention your website on the air or the fact that you provided this info. Let me know if you chang your mind about coming on the air.

Thanks again.



You are welcome! Here is how I see it:

1). What's wrong with Craigslist?

while claiming to be "non-commercial," appears to be a cash cow (estimated huge annual profits and apparently extremely limited expenses most evident in nowhere adequate customer service -- ridiculously low number of employees given user base -- and site development -- hopelessly antiquated)

2) Does Craigslist turn a blind eye to illegal activities like prostitution?

it certainly looks like it... by all indication it self handicaps itself by refusing to allocate reasonable resources (given their profits) to combating the problem and refusing to at least modify its "erotic services" (the name itself makes posters believe the category is intended for prostitution! no such thing as legal "erotic service" -- massages and legal escorts are non-sexual)

3) What could they and what should they be doing differently to police this type of activity?

I don't think "policing" is the right word here -- they need to spend adequate resources (*given their profits*) to address the problem -- this may well be a legal question clarified by one of the ongoing law suits (how much should they be spending on this, given their profits?) nobody could reasonably ask them to go bankrupt doing this... -- these problems can never be *completely* eradicated -- but in the same time craigslist should not be allowed to spend close to nothing and walk away with huge profits every year...

4) How dangerous is it to meet someone on craigslist, be it a prostitute or just a regular date?

the risk appears to go up sharply as time passes -- you hear more and more complaints even for regular dates -- , due at least in part to craigslist's refusing to really address the problems (basically just saying they are sorry about what happened but vowing not to change)

5) If you do meet someone on craigslist, what steps should you take to guarantee your safety?

You can never guarantee your safety. However, craigslist could do a lot to help people screen out obviously dubious people; e.g. provide links to sex offenders' list, known criminals etc. I am pretty sure that much more sophisticated ways of fighting crime on the site exist or can be developed. However, it would take significant resources that craigslist apparently has but it not willing to dedicate to addressing these problems.

6) How could the recent series of craigslist murders have been avoided?

I don't believe they could have *absolutely* been avoided. I do believe crime in general would be significantly reduced on craigslist if they allocated reasonable resources to fighting it and that decisions made today determine to a large extent the magnitude of tomorrow's crimes.


P.S. let me know if you need me to clarify anything or you want me to answer anything else! D.

---- Original message -----
Sent: 2009/04/24 20:41:45
Subject: Re: RE: Re: Radio Appearance tonight

Okay thanks very much. Here are a few questions, but please feel free to throw in anything else you'd like to.

1) What's wrong with Craigslist?
2) Does Craigslist turn a blind eye to illegal activities like prostitution?
3) What could they and what should they be doing differently to police this type of activity?
4) How dangerous is it to meet someone on craigslist, be it a prostitute or just a regular date?
5) If you do meet someone on craigslist, what steps should you take to guarantee your safety?
6) How could the recent series of craigslist murders have been avoided?

MORE: Twitter: "does [craigslist] promote prostitution and endanger the safety of its users?" WABC Radio with Curtis Sliwa invitation:
Sorry, I can't... but feel free to ask me anything you'd like! I'd do my best to explain my opinions and address whatever questions there might be. Whether you choose to use it on your show (now or later) or not doesn't really matter to me... I'd be glad to help in any way I can, I just can't be on the show.


----- Original message -----
Sent: 2009/04/24 19:50:44
Subject: Re: Re: Radio Appearance tonight

Sure. You can post whatever you'd like. Would you be willing to come on with assumed name? I appreciate the offer of reading your posts, but on radio it just works so much better if there's someone on to explain it and maybe take calls.

From: dperiod
To: Frank Morano
Sent: Fri Apr 24 16:43:49 2009
Subject: Re: Radio Appearance tonight

Hi, Frank!

I do appreciate your interest but I value my privacy a lot! So an appearance on any radio show is not my choice...

I'd be glad to post my opinions on my craigslist criticism blog (like I have done for a long time) and you have my permission to use the info any way you'd like.

I could just go ahead and answer your question "does [craigslist] promote prostitution and endanger the safety of its users?" in a new entry on my blog. If you'd like to refine the question or ask further questions after I get the initial response posted, just let me know.


P.S. could I post your email/emails on my blog? thanks! D.

----- Original message -----
Sent: 2009/04/24 19:05:53
Subject: Re: Radio Appearance tonight


I produce Curtis Sliwa’s nationally syndicated show and we were wondering if you’d like to come on with Curtis at 11:30 PM EST tonight to discuss craigslist. Does it promote prostitution and endanger the safety of its users? It would be by phone and last about ten minutes.



Frank Morano
Executive Producer

WABC Radio
(212) 268-5730

(212) 613-3849 (Please note new e-mail address)
2 Penn Plaza, 17th Fl
New York, NY 10121

Thursday, April 9, 2009

would valid craigslist criticism stop if craigslist would disclose their financials to the public?


Dear dperiod:

BTW, if you think this is bad enough, consider that there are much bigger
companies reducing the quality of their customer service to cut costs to
increase their profit.

And these big companies have shareholders putting pressure on them to "meet
the numbers". That is why the "short-termism" of Wall Street is a bad thing.

Yuhong Bao

@yuhong2"non-commercial" poseurs secretly cleaning up huge profits (like craigslist appears to do) are much worse than up front for profits


@craigscriticism FYI - link is broken on your twitter page - re: forums - i'll check it out, but I would like 2 hear what u want out of CL
@allofcraigs honesty and transparency would go a long way: stop redacting basic info re:craigslist in legal complaints, disclose profits etc@craigscriticism cant fault u 4 wanting more from CL - but it's a free service & u get what u pay 4 - i would love 2 know how much CL makes
@allofcraigs you may well get your wish:): I'd keep my eyes open on the law suits -- it's probably just a matter of time until we'll know...@craigscriticism well, my eyes & ears are wide open. I'm nosey, that's why I created my website ;-) Keep me up 2 speed on any dirt.@allofcraigs can't promise... (been quitting more times that I care to remember -I want to see the truth but wish someone else did the work)

@craigscriticism craigslist can't police billions of posts - who's to blame? look into mirror, it's called accountability. bad apples
@allofcraigs do you really think 26 employees (that's *everyone* including Craig) is ALL the resources they should allocate to serving CL? D@craigscriticism Keep in mind that I don't think that there are many for-profit public companies that disclose their profits.@yuhong2 I'm not aware of any other for profit that has made anywhere in the range of claims craigslist has made and so greatly benefited $$@craigscriticism craigslist can't police billions of posts - who's to blame? look into mirror, it's called accountability. bad apples@allofcraigs and I got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn:); the needs of the community are not met--hang out in the feedback&help forums & see@craigscriticism On #3, that is not the question I was asking, I am asking if *List Foundation* *legally* incorporated as a non-profit.@yuhong2 SFGate, for instance, reported on their bash celebrating the non-profit status ( -- is it real proof? no.@craigscriticism On #2, my point was I doubt people would really care that much about whether it was a for-profit or a non-profit.@yuhong2 as long as they backed up their claims... (evidence is strong that they are NOT doing that thus the need for volunteer disclosure)


#1 would valid craigslist criticism stop if the for profit craigslist would voluntarily disclose their financial information to the public? I seriously doubt it... I believe people would be appaulled to see what's really going on...and that's why craigslist/ Craig Newmark & Jim Buckmaster go to ridiculous length to keep even basic things secret (see the heavy redaction of ebay's complaint against craigslist, for instance)

#2 the difference between for-profits and non-profits: if craigslist would be a non-profit, nobody could profit from it (making out with humongous profits for years, as it appears...): whatever amount would exceed their legitimate expenses (which include normal salaries and benefits for all employees including Craig & Jim) would *have to* be used towards advancing the mission! and they would have the legal obligation to disclose what's really going on -- their financial situation -- ; by all indication, there is no reason for the severe under staffing (26 employees for a huge number of users! -- that's ALL the craigslist community gets, after having built craigslist to where it is today...) and antiquated under development of the site... the rest of the resources available appear to be pocketed...

#3 was List Foundation a non-profit? : if it wasn't, Craig certainly made it sound like it and people believed it! from the users, to volunteers, to sponsors, to the media... (I do believe this should constitute evidence for fraud)


I think you do have a point. Disclosing the profit craigslist makes would have reduced the criticism
considerably. After all, there are many other possible reasons why some companies have
poor customer service.

Yuhong Bao

@yuhong2 thanks for the email, Yu! is it ok to post it on my blog like I did with Eve Batey's of sfappeal? (re: Delia@craigscriticism Yes. Ignore the last question I asked in my email about peopleslist because that was written before I read all the posts.
@craigscriticism: Why are you obessed with the difference between for-profits and not-for-profits? I think it is just a legal technicality.@craigscriticism: Actually I think the difference is that non-profits survive on donations. Correct me if I am wrong.

@craigscriticism: Do you have any proof List Foundation actually incorporated as a non-profit or was it just another name for craigslist? from web
@yuhong2 Yu,140 characters is very limiting. lets have this discussion on my blog, ok? I'll try to post that entry this afternoon EST ~Delia

Thursday, March 26, 2009

another craigslist death...

EVEN MORE: March 28 update -- it's temporary (looks like fresh twits rank high on Google search and also get pushed down by newer twits) D.

Twitter: impressed with Twitter -- my prior twit made it right under the link for craigslist official blog (search
for "craigslist violent crime") D


Twitter: violent crime -- what is craigslist doing to prevent it? what *should* they be doing given their humongous profits? D.


more craigslist violent crime -- what is craigslist doing to prevent it? what *should* they be doing given their humongous profits? a lot more then just giving some suggestions... Jim is really stretching it (last paragraph) again: those few suggestions do not amount to "measures," Jim -- serious measures are what you should be having but you have nothing of the kind ... nor do you intent to do anything about it, by all indication... D.

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

craigslist "customer service" -- the fundamentals are just not there...

MORE: craigslist "customer service": the fundamentals are just not there... D.
Twitter... @Payo looks like show to me, Paul -- Craig and his tiny "team" can't possibly provide anything resembling adequate customer service...Delia

hoping Paul got it... as for Craig? he's either lobotomized or he *knows* what's going on! -- there is just no way to provide adequate customer service for the number of people using craigslist with the extremely limited resources he is willing to dedicate to it...

and is he calling me a "stalker," again? good :) -- that's when I know I hit a really good one! *lol* (probably this one this morning -- he posted his "feedback needed" -- the blog portion of it -- soon after (where he asked people to ignore "trolls" and "sites desperate for traffic" -- is he talking about Eve's site? what a jerk...) and the I-got-a-stalker twit was posted soon after I gave Paul the hint...

well, guess what... you can't shut people up! (as much as you'd like to...)


P.S. love Twitter !-- reminds me of an idea I had a long while back: this is the only way you can have a real conversation (if it happens on neutral grounds) D.

comcast trouble with the email...

if you've emailed today, haven't got it yet D.

is Craig Newmark / craigslist pimping? The lawsuit's strength and weaknesses

Twitter: is Craig Newmark / craigslist pimping? The lawsuit's strength and weaknesses... (feel free to join the discussion) D.
As far as I can tell the biggest strength is showing that regardless of what craigslist claims to be its reason for having "erotic services" the actual effect is very different and the biggest weakness is got to be mistakenly presenting the erotic service section as "forums" instead of advertisement.


P.S. curious what people think

P.P.S. please email instead of posting comments