MORE: agaricus@ Gary, I'm giving you the benefit of a doubt -- don't make me regret it! ~Delia (http://tiny.cc/BisaD) will check tomorrow eveninghalf a minute ago from web
Gary,
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.
Delia
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.
Sincerely,
Gary Wolf
Contributing editor, Wired
Posted by Gary Isaac Wolf to craigslist criticism on September 9, 2009 10:41 AM
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
(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) http://tiny.cc/BgGeR)
Delia
#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) http://tiny.cc/BgGeR)
Delia
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Gary Wolf tells the truth but holds on to many assumptions
MORE
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
Gary,
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.
But 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!)
Delia
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 (http://tiny.cc/yiymq) ~Delia
Gary,
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 (http://tiny.cc/BgGeR) -- 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)
Delia
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
Gary,
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.
But 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!)
Delia
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 (http://tiny.cc/yiymq) ~Delia
Gary,
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 (http://tiny.cc/BgGeR) -- 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)
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
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? http://tiny.cc/EBJvtprior 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?
Brad,
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.
Delia
(http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/craigslist-expands-coverage-of-cities-by-25-percent/#comment-313987)
New York Times reference to SC AG v. craigslist: just sloppy or intentionally misleading? http://tiny.cc/EBJvtprior 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?
Brad,
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.
Delia
(http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/craigslist-expands-coverage-of-cities-by-25-percent/#comment-313987)
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)
STILL MORE:
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)
Delia
EVEN MORE:
Twitter: interviews with Craig Newmark continue to resemble PR jobs (http://tiny.cc/MRF1W)
MORE:
(http://www.socialbrite.org/2009/06/14/all-for-good-a-craigslist-for-service/comment-page-1/#comment-54)
Same comment as for Jim, even more surprised given that you referenced the article (and you presumably read the criticism). D.
...
Jim,
(http://benetech.blogspot.com/2009/06/craig-newmark-beneblog-interview.html)
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)
re: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31325183/ns/us_news-giving/
Delia
P.S. take care, anyways! D.
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)
Delia
STILL MORE:
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)
Delia
EVEN MORE:
Twitter: interviews with Craig Newmark continue to resemble PR jobs (http://tiny.cc/MRF1W)
MORE:
(http://www.socialbrite.org/2009/06/14/all-for-good-a-craigslist-for-service/comment-page-1/#comment-54)
Same comment as for Jim, even more surprised given that you referenced the article (and you presumably read the criticism). D.
...
Jim,
(http://benetech.blogspot.com/2009/06/craig-newmark-beneblog-interview.html)
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)
re: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31325183/ns/us_news-giving/
Delia
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.
Delia
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.
Delia
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)