STILL MORE: Seth's comment
EVEN MORE of my old thoughts...
MORE (more on my OLD thoughts on the issue)
... and no, Emily Brill didn't do a very good job on it (more like a good start --just in terms of *ideas*, as far as where the *issues* are --> she should have dug much deeper! [my casual take on the topic quite a while back]; {also related]
Delia
P.S. I would expect things to have changed by now, at least I *hope* they did... but there is probably still plenty to be concerned about and it would thus make a story worth telling! D.
Showing posts with label aside. Show all posts
Showing posts with label aside. Show all posts
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Sunday, April 11, 2010
(aside) (iPhone; iPad etc.) Dan Gillmor praises Jonathan Zittrain
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
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
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
Thursday, January 28, 2010
(aside) following on twitter: the truth & the fancy
STILL MORE: twitter: (aside) following on twitter: the truth & the fancy http://bit.ly/9Z5Xfc 16 minutes ago from web
EVEN MORE:
thanks for the invitation, Marcelo! but now that I know how you operate … I know you will find my interesting tweets, whether I follow you or not! *lol*
Delia
P.S. take care!:) D.
MORE:
Marcello: fair enough!
Delia
P.S. tried to find you on twitter; still don’t know how
many people you follow — nothing came up under your name or the name of the website (strange for someone who wants to reach a whole lot of people…) D.
Hi, Marcelo!
(http://www.centerfornewmediastudies.com/2010/01/28/you-should-be-on-twitter-all-day-long/comment-page-1/#comment-125)
How many people do you follow on twitter and do I understand correctly that you don't really read each and all of their twits, you just scan for "interesting stuff," which appears to be mostly leads for people that might be interested in your services and you do this through the search function spending 45 minutes/day at it.
As you describe it, a much larger amount of your time seems to be spent on what appears to be largely self-promotion that you also hope would be interesting to people (*could* be ... although if you do it largely to promote yourself at least some people might regard it as spam).
Delia
P.S. I truly don't get it how could people truthfully follow literally thousands of people on twitter (some of them, *tens* of thousands) without doing little else.
P.P.S. Also, I can't see how you could possibly form a meaningful relationship on Twitter (way too restraining) -- it seems to me you'd have to take it to email and/or phone at some point and eventually meet in person, unless all you mean by "relationship" is getting people to try your services. D.
EVEN MORE:
thanks for the invitation, Marcelo! but now that I know how you operate … I know you will find my interesting tweets, whether I follow you or not! *lol*
Delia
P.S. take care!:) D.
MORE:
Marcello: fair enough!
Delia
P.S. tried to find you on twitter; still don’t know how
many people you follow — nothing came up under your name or the name of the website (strange for someone who wants to reach a whole lot of people…) D.
Hi, Marcelo!
(http://www.centerfornewmediastudies.com/2010/01/28/you-should-be-on-twitter-all-day-long/comment-page-1/#comment-125)
How many people do you follow on twitter and do I understand correctly that you don't really read each and all of their twits, you just scan for "interesting stuff," which appears to be mostly leads for people that might be interested in your services and you do this through the search function spending 45 minutes/day at it.
As you describe it, a much larger amount of your time seems to be spent on what appears to be largely self-promotion that you also hope would be interesting to people (*could* be ... although if you do it largely to promote yourself at least some people might regard it as spam).
Delia
P.S. I truly don't get it how could people truthfully follow literally thousands of people on twitter (some of them, *tens* of thousands) without doing little else.
P.P.S. Also, I can't see how you could possibly form a meaningful relationship on Twitter (way too restraining) -- it seems to me you'd have to take it to email and/or phone at some point and eventually meet in person, unless all you mean by "relationship" is getting people to try your services. D.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)