does facebook facilitate the spread of syphilis, does craigslist facilitate all sort of crimes?

STILL MORE:

@roncallari thanks for the link, Ron! same issue: only thing correct is that the guy did not prove it but it is definitely a possibility ~D. 2 minutes ago via web in reply to roncallari

EVEN MORE:

http://gigaom.com/2010/03/24/facebook-causes-syphilis-and-craigslist-kills-people/#comment-1016443

sorry about the delay...

re: "no one is saying that Facebook actually causes syphilis, but they are saying that it is to blame for people getting syphilis, in the same way that people blame Craigslist for other people’s homes being broken into or whatever the case may be."

Matthew, as I said in my 1st comment:

"Quite possibly, Facebook may facilitate the spread of syphilis (and thus cause the observed “rise in syphilis” like the actual Telegraph title says) and Craigslist may well facilitate killings, as well as all sort of other crimes."

this is the issue that needs to be addressed ... but you *can't* even get to it if you fall in the trap of Craig Newmark and similar and believe that regardless of what the facts show, facebook/craigslist/etc. just can't have anything to do with the fourfold rise in syphilis, for instance... so all that's left is to blame it all on "human nature" and watch all sort of ills go through the roof without even attempting to do anything about it!

compare that with actually acknowledging what's going on and taking measures to keep things under control -- and it's no trivial matter (peoples' lives are often at stake!)

Delia

P.S. already said everything I had to say on this -- take are! D.

MORE:

you are welcome!

Again, as far as I can see, you are only correct on the fact that based on the info presented *we don't know*... not that there is no evidence (they listed plenty of it! it's just not conclusive) or it *couldn't* be the case that say, if Facebook went down for a significant length of time, the rates of syphilis would go down to a quarter of what they are while Facebook is operational, all other things being equal.

And of course, you can never prove 100% that all other things were equal but the Telegraph article would have been much stronger if they would have shown that they checked for the other major things that could have caused the number to go up fourfold and none were found.

Delia

P.S. I'm not buying the argument that it's like the phone or the automobile is somehow directly (physically) causing syphilis -- how silly, that's not what the argument is about at all... Although plenty of people have fallen for that and other of Craig Newmark's ridiculous PR, that's just a means of causing confusion and evading the problem: it's distracting from the fact that the use of particular phones and/or automobiles (like the use of Facebook or craigslist) can easily cause an increase in serious crimes. And there are things that could and should be done about it.

To stay with this analogy, most people don't really doubt the fact that forbidding the use of the phone for texting while driving an automobile reduces vehicular manslaughter and putting this into law makes sense. It has nothing to do with the ridiculous argument that the phone and/or automobile are killing people... D.

let's give Mathew Ingram another try:

Matthew,
(http://gigaom.com/2010/03/24/facebook-causes-syphilis-and-craigslist-kills-people/#comment-1015285)

I'm not sure if you misrepresented the article on purpose or simply misread it but I'll give you the benefit of a doubt. It talks about "rising" and "resurgence" not direct causation (so your title is either a mistake or intentionally misleading). And no, it does not prove it but the problem with the sort of argument you are making is that it implies NO correlation just because none was properly found -- that simply means we don't know! Not that it's not true, that it *couldn't* be true... Quite possibly, Facebook may facilitate the spread of syphilis (and thus cause the observed "rise in syphilis" like the actual Telegraph title says) and Craigslist may well facilitate killings, as well as all sort of other crimes. Any casual peruser of craigslist would have to be seriously dimwitted not to realize there are plenty of illegal things listed and it is at best unclear that craigslist is doing what it should to prevent serious crimes.

Delia

(comic) According to Mathew Ingram, Craig Newmark is a trust expert!

EVEN MORE: So Mathew Ingram "forgot" to post my comment -- is he hoping his readers would just eat up his dubious interview? the sad part is that *plenty* of them will; for the rest, he is embarrassing himself and he must know it...D.

MORE: Twitter: (comic) According to Mathew Ingram, Craig Newmark is a trust expert! http://bit.ly/91D5Y1 4 minutes ago via web

Good God, Mathew! (counted but not published at this point, will check later)
(http://gigaom.com/2010/03/18/craig-newmark-on-the-webs-next-big-problem/#)

after the ebay v. craigslist suit (see the AuctionBytes coverage if you haven't already) you use Craig Newmark as a *trust* expert? *lol* Sorry but I can only laugh ~Delia

(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

(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

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

(living on craigslist guy) not one of the dummies:)

UPDATE: looks like Jayson changed his mind and posted my comment -- good:) D.

MORE: surprise, surprise... Jayson didn't publish my post; why could that be? is he hoping for direct help with his project from Craig&co? quite possibly...his project (book, movie, whatever he's hoping for) would probably turn out to be much less candid (and truthful, I fear) if he is after getting such endorsement but it *would* give it a serious boost from the POV of marketability, etc. like it happened for "24 hours on craigslist" (which did have Craig in it, briefly...)

Delia

P.S. oh well... hopefully he got the hint that his estimate of revenue could be better and what is one way to improve it D.


Hi, Jayson!

(http://www.livingcraigslist.com/?p=523&cpage=1#comment-1031)

I'm pleasantly surprised that you didn't just fall head over hills in love with craigslist and became fanatical (*literally*) about it and its owners, like way too many journalists have done before you.

If you want to know more about the profits thing, you may want to try your luck with Peter Zollman of the AIM Group -- he may well give you a freebee copy of his report on this (hint: tell him your story and that you have *journalistic* training; may help or hurt to tell him I sent you to him -- I'm not sure:).

Delia

P.S. good luck with everything and take care! D.

as I was saying.... some people are so far gone

... it may just be too late

found another one: Howard Owens, and again, not the dumbest person around, *otherwise* :)