FINAL: #comment 1851
http://mediactive.com/2010/04/06/net-neutrality-has-always-been-up-to-lawmakers-will-they-pay-attention-now/#comment-1851
as usual, Seth's voice would have balanced this entry but you appear to have driven him away... Jon left much earlier and I will be on my way also... bye!
Delia
P.S. submitted a comment to your iPhone entry (#1821)-- appears to be counted but not posted (no big deal, I would have left anyways) D.
EVEN MORE: Twitter (aside) (iPhone; iPad etc.) Dan Gillmor praises Zittrain, apparently without noticing the contradiction (http://bit.ly/cL65xc) any opinions? 2 minutes ago via web
MORE: not sure if I did something wrong when trying to post it... will see..
...
...apparently without noticing the contradiction
Dan,
(http://mediactive.com/2010/04/08/complicating-relationships-in-media-apple-ny-times-dealings-raise-questions/#comment-1821)
re: "The iPhone, locked down from the beginning, started Apple down a road I cannot support"
and... neither do you have one as your own cellphone... good! I can believe that what you are saying is what you actually believe.. which is the 1st step in being taken seriously -- not the case with Jonathan Zittrain who uses an iPhone *himself* but would have us all believe... *we* shouldn't!
Delia
Showing posts with label Dan Gillmor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dan Gillmor. Show all posts
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Friday, February 19, 2010
(aside) NYT: should readers' needs and wants matter?
MORE
http://mediactive.com/2010/02/17/there-are-no-spoilers-in-news/#comment-1378:
sorry about the delay...
Seth, I see you are tilting at windmills as usual :) As far as I can tell, you are never going to get those things acknowledged... (mostly because they are true... *lol*)
Dan,
I'm not sure if you grossly distorted what I said on purpose but it certainly looks like it...
here is what I said:
"If the NYT ran a poll that showed that *the vast majority* of readers would prefer that info to be segregated somewhere where it could be easily avoided, would that matter to you?
I think it should!" {emphasis just here to make my point]
and here is what you responded to Seth who brought up my post:
"If the NYT doesn’t obey *a small number* of self-deluded readers in this case" {my emphasis]
if at this point, you truly believe that it is laughable that the needs and wants of the users should be taken into consideration (that if the vast majority of long term readers would rather be able to read the paper version of the NYT without giving up the ability to watch the Olympic games without already knowing who won, the almighty NYT should just decline it...), I fear for the well being of your new project (you should have learned this basic lesson when your first project failed -- it's prohibitively expensive not to do so).
Delia
P.S. and let's not pretend the NYT has no financial interest in this... from the short term business POV, they would *love* to plaster that stuff on the front page asap so they would sell more copies of that particular issue. Horrible idea! if that would be pissing off the loyal long term paper readership...I'm having a hard time believing you just don't get this. And to say they are just doing it in the interest of solid journalism! yeah, right... and I got a bridge to sell you! (in Brooklyn); this is the ind of stuff that has been bothering Seth for a long time -- as it should! D.
Dan,
I find it strange that you appear to give no consideration to the wants and, arguably, needs, of the people reading the NYT which should ultimately dictate what's being done about issues like this.
If the NYT ran a poll that showed that the vast majority of readers would prefer that info to be segregated somewhere where it could be easily avoided, would that matter to you?
I think it should!
Delia
http://mediactive.com/2010/02/17/there-are-no-spoilers-in-news/#comment-1378:
sorry about the delay...
Seth, I see you are tilting at windmills as usual :) As far as I can tell, you are never going to get those things acknowledged... (mostly because they are true... *lol*)
Dan,
I'm not sure if you grossly distorted what I said on purpose but it certainly looks like it...
here is what I said:
"If the NYT ran a poll that showed that *the vast majority* of readers would prefer that info to be segregated somewhere where it could be easily avoided, would that matter to you?
I think it should!" {emphasis just here to make my point]
and here is what you responded to Seth who brought up my post:
"If the NYT doesn’t obey *a small number* of self-deluded readers in this case" {my emphasis]
if at this point, you truly believe that it is laughable that the needs and wants of the users should be taken into consideration (that if the vast majority of long term readers would rather be able to read the paper version of the NYT without giving up the ability to watch the Olympic games without already knowing who won, the almighty NYT should just decline it...), I fear for the well being of your new project (you should have learned this basic lesson when your first project failed -- it's prohibitively expensive not to do so).
Delia
P.S. and let's not pretend the NYT has no financial interest in this... from the short term business POV, they would *love* to plaster that stuff on the front page asap so they would sell more copies of that particular issue. Horrible idea! if that would be pissing off the loyal long term paper readership...I'm having a hard time believing you just don't get this. And to say they are just doing it in the interest of solid journalism! yeah, right... and I got a bridge to sell you! (in Brooklyn); this is the ind of stuff that has been bothering Seth for a long time -- as it should! D.
Dan,
I find it strange that you appear to give no consideration to the wants and, arguably, needs, of the people reading the NYT which should ultimately dictate what's being done about issues like this.
If the NYT ran a poll that showed that the vast majority of readers would prefer that info to be segregated somewhere where it could be easily avoided, would that matter to you?
I think it should!
Delia
Friday, February 12, 2010
(aside) Dan Gillmor's Mediactive: can advertisers be just... told off?
Dan,
re: "By all means, tell advertisers (and mean it) that they don’t run the news operations."...
how do you *mean it* if advertising is what makes your business work? (wouldn't they know you are bluffing?) you say yourself the advertisers are the main customers because they are the ones doing the heavy paying; what would stop them from turning around and giving their money to those of your competitors who would accommodate them? unless you are talking about some industry wide pact and aren't those destined to fall apart especially under the kind of serious financial troubles we are seeing today?
Delia
re: "By all means, tell advertisers (and mean it) that they don’t run the news operations."...
how do you *mean it* if advertising is what makes your business work? (wouldn't they know you are bluffing?) you say yourself the advertisers are the main customers because they are the ones doing the heavy paying; what would stop them from turning around and giving their money to those of your competitors who would accommodate them? unless you are talking about some industry wide pact and aren't those destined to fall apart especially under the kind of serious financial troubles we are seeing today?
Delia
Friday, February 5, 2010
the hazards of mixing non-profit with for profit
Dan,
I'd give the article Seth linked serious thought -- it brings up the kind of issues (IRS issues when you mix non-profit with for profit) I was concerned about when you chose to be adviser for Spot.us -- could be a dangerous thing to have your name associated with.
Delia
I'd give the article Seth linked serious thought -- it brings up the kind of issues (IRS issues when you mix non-profit with for profit) I was concerned about when you chose to be adviser for Spot.us -- could be a dangerous thing to have your name associated with.
Delia
Sunday, December 27, 2009
(aside) Dan Gillmor's upcoming book: mediactive
Dan,
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..." :)
*kidding*
Delia
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..." :)
*kidding*
Delia
Sunday, August 23, 2009
(aside) Mediactive; Dan Gillmor's future book
EVEN MORE:
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:)...
Delia
MORE:
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.
STILL MORE:
Dan,
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.
Delia
EVEN MORE:
Seth: you are welcome!
Dan:
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.
MORE:
Dan, (awaiting moderation -- my 1st post on this blog)
http://mediactive.com/2009/08/03/amazon-drm-and-demands/comment-page-1/#comment-234
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.
Delia
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:)...
Delia
MORE:
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.
STILL MORE:
Dan,
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.
Delia
EVEN MORE:
Seth: you are welcome!
Dan:
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.
MORE:
Dan,
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.
DeliaDan, (awaiting moderation -- my 1st post on this blog)
http://mediactive.com/2009/08/03/amazon-drm-and-demands/comment-page-1/#comment-234
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.
Delia
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
will craigslist go public?
MORE
I think they will have to seriously worry about fraud charges if they do but the way Jim talks about it makes me think they hope they can get away with it and they are slowly preparing the public for it...
re: (about 2/3 into the interview)
Q: you have absolutely no plans to ever go public? (great question, BTW! and very well asked it's just that Jim is vague and ambiguous and she appears to fall for it... why no follow up questions?)
Jim: (notice how he breathes heavily before he begins his answer -- he does appear much more uncomfortable than Craig delivering all the BS, he may be a decent guy that just got caught up in this and feels like he has no choice but to follow Craig's BS lead; Craig, on the other hand, appears to enjoy fooling everyone from friends, such as Dan Gillmor -- although it looks like he might be waking up for good -- to foes... no to mention "the girlfriend," poor Eileen...)
"Well, in our view we have no advantages of doing that, at least from what we know now..." --> of course there is a heavy dose of ambiguity and confusion that follows that statment
Jim:(...) "somehow it doesn't seem appropriate that we would be managing things like investors' expectation about future revenews and profits"
--> that's the inappropriate part??? NOT the fact of going public after making people believe they would never do that and continuing to receive volunteer resource and benefit from word of mouth etc.? (this should have never been a question ... but then again, they should have never turned for-profit, definitely not without voluntarily disclosing their profits -- thekeran's link; 8th comment -- so people could see what they are made off...)
Delia
P.S. No Jim... it just seems appropriate that you would forget about investors! (and continue to make untold millions after millions after millions yourselves! while still claiming to be a "public service" and continue to ask for and accept peoples' help -- now, isn't that much much better? if you are not completely rotten, get out of this mess while you can...) D.
I think they will have to seriously worry about fraud charges if they do but the way Jim talks about it makes me think they hope they can get away with it and they are slowly preparing the public for it...
re: (about 2/3 into the interview)
Q: you have absolutely no plans to ever go public? (great question, BTW! and very well asked it's just that Jim is vague and ambiguous and she appears to fall for it... why no follow up questions?)
Jim: (notice how he breathes heavily before he begins his answer -- he does appear much more uncomfortable than Craig delivering all the BS, he may be a decent guy that just got caught up in this and feels like he has no choice but to follow Craig's BS lead; Craig, on the other hand, appears to enjoy fooling everyone from friends, such as Dan Gillmor -- although it looks like he might be waking up for good -- to foes... no to mention "the girlfriend," poor Eileen...)
"Well, in our view we have no advantages of doing that, at least from what we know now..." --> of course there is a heavy dose of ambiguity and confusion that follows that statment
Jim:(...) "somehow it doesn't seem appropriate that we would be managing things like investors' expectation about future revenews and profits"
--> that's the inappropriate part??? NOT the fact of going public after making people believe they would never do that and continuing to receive volunteer resource and benefit from word of mouth etc.? (this should have never been a question ... but then again, they should have never turned for-profit, definitely not without voluntarily disclosing their profits -- thekeran's link; 8th comment -- so people could see what they are made off...)
Delia
P.S. No Jim... it just seems appropriate that you would forget about investors! (and continue to make untold millions after millions after millions yourselves! while still claiming to be a "public service" and continue to ask for and accept peoples' help -- now, isn't that much much better? if you are not completely rotten, get out of this mess while you can...) D.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
people are waking up!
great post by Dan Gillmor:
"If you are generous enough to do this kind of work for free, please consider doing instead it for a nonprofit site of some sort. Please don’t be giving away your time to mega-wealthy media barons." (last paragraph)
(he is not naming names but... we all know them...)
Delia
P.S. also a great comment on Seth's blog (5th comment):
Joe Beaudoin Jr.: "Frankly, I find that reprehensible. I can understand people donating their time to a non-profit organization like Wikipedia.... fine. But when people up at the top are rolling in the dough on unpaid labor?
Since Wikia is a for-profit organization, it stands to reason that their workers (contributors, admins, and the like) are all "off-the-clock", unpaid labor... Frankly, were it any other company, such acts would be illegal and the Department of Labor would be on them like vultures on a rotting carcass."
"If you are generous enough to do this kind of work for free, please consider doing instead it for a nonprofit site of some sort. Please don’t be giving away your time to mega-wealthy media barons." (last paragraph)
(he is not naming names but... we all know them...)
Delia
P.S. also a great comment on Seth's blog (5th comment):
Joe Beaudoin Jr.: "Frankly, I find that reprehensible. I can understand people donating their time to a non-profit organization like Wikipedia.... fine. But when people up at the top are rolling in the dough on unpaid labor?
Since Wikia is a for-profit organization, it stands to reason that their workers (contributors, admins, and the like) are all "off-the-clock", unpaid labor... Frankly, were it any other company, such acts would be illegal and the Department of Labor would be on them like vultures on a rotting carcass."
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
Owen's story
just so you don't get distracted by the last comments by Seth on Dan Gillmor's blog, here's a good summary of Owen's story (the opinion is a bit off, I'll explain later):
"My only point was to mention that they lied, outright lied, when they said they didn't benefit financially from the eBay transaction, and that they acted in poor character when they decided to malign the co-founded Phillip Knowlton, who did nothing to deserve this treatment. Phillip walked away with a lot of money, but he was also demonized, by people whom he had formerly trusted. And again, as was reported above, the only reason he sold was because he was being squeezed out." (comment by Valleygurl in Valleywag)
the thing is that, as I said on Dan Gillmor's blog... if we go by what Craig said on his blog, on the issue of having profited from the transaction, he didn't straight out lie... was he vague and ambiguous, which resulted in having even seasoned journalists believe he didn't profit financially? -- absolutely! and that's nothing new for Craig...(it seems to be his trademark -- he appears to be extremely good with ambiguity: things just "happen" to click in his interest, over and over and over... the chance that would just happen seems to be minute) ... that's another reason why I found Owen's story quite plausible...
however, on the issue of Phillip Knowlton's part in the affair, Vallygurl would be correct... craigslist was way more than just vague and ambiguous: it demonised somebody they temselves squeezed out, somebody that as a consequence had no choice but to sell...
and the real straight out lie seems to be the "symbolic ownership" (no dollar value) Craig talks about... which is at the crux of Craig's whole story (as we know today, craigslist was profitable at the time -- I don't think that was publicly known in 2004 when Craig told his story)
Delia
P.S. keep in mind that Owen's story does NOT come with proof attached (but then, neither does Craig's ...)
P.P.S. also, as far as I'm concerned, bringing to light the truth about things other publications got wrong is the redeeming value of tabloids such as Valleywag... D.
"My only point was to mention that they lied, outright lied, when they said they didn't benefit financially from the eBay transaction, and that they acted in poor character when they decided to malign the co-founded Phillip Knowlton, who did nothing to deserve this treatment. Phillip walked away with a lot of money, but he was also demonized, by people whom he had formerly trusted. And again, as was reported above, the only reason he sold was because he was being squeezed out." (comment by Valleygurl in Valleywag)
the thing is that, as I said on Dan Gillmor's blog... if we go by what Craig said on his blog, on the issue of having profited from the transaction, he didn't straight out lie... was he vague and ambiguous, which resulted in having even seasoned journalists believe he didn't profit financially? -- absolutely! and that's nothing new for Craig...(it seems to be his trademark -- he appears to be extremely good with ambiguity: things just "happen" to click in his interest, over and over and over... the chance that would just happen seems to be minute) ... that's another reason why I found Owen's story quite plausible...
however, on the issue of Phillip Knowlton's part in the affair, Vallygurl would be correct... craigslist was way more than just vague and ambiguous: it demonised somebody they temselves squeezed out, somebody that as a consequence had no choice but to sell...
and the real straight out lie seems to be the "symbolic ownership" (no dollar value) Craig talks about... which is at the crux of Craig's whole story (as we know today, craigslist was profitable at the time -- I don't think that was publicly known in 2004 when Craig told his story)
Delia
P.S. keep in mind that Owen's story does NOT come with proof attached (but then, neither does Craig's ...)
P.P.S. also, as far as I'm concerned, bringing to light the truth about things other publications got wrong is the redeeming value of tabloids such as Valleywag... D.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)