If you include the entire email thread in the same post, you can quote what I've written here. -Gabe On 11/21/07, Shelley Powers wrote: > > So, can I quote you on this, Gabe? In my weblog? > > I'm assuming you're up for this, otherwise you wouldn't write it. Own > your own words, or something to that effect. > > Shelley > > Gabe Rivera wrote: > > Eh, despite the title, I don't think that post was all that bad. > > > > You know, if a gender-neutral (i.e. gender-rigged) version of Techmeme > > were possible and prudent (most women I've talked to feel otherwise) I > > bet it would still link very infrequently to your blogs. > > > > Happy birthday, happy thanksgiving, ... > > > > -Gabe > > > > > > On 11/19/07, *Jeneane Sessum* > > wrote: > > > > Rocket Science to Rivera, come in Rivera... > > > > > http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2007/11/19/help-me-push-this-post-up-techmeme/ > > - yep, it's working just like it should. Just read Mathew's post. > > http://techmeme.com/#a071119p111 > > > > Long live the circle jerk. > > > > meee > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 19, 2007 11:59 AM, Shelley Powers > > wrote: > > > > Seth Finkelstein wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 10:11:09AM -0500, Jeneane Sessum > wrote: > > > > > >> Seth I don't know how all this developed, but it's not cool > > to pull people > > >> into email conversations they didn't have anything to do > with. > > >> > > > > > > > > Sorry Jeneane, I shouldn't have cc'd or Gabe when I originally > > responded > > to Seth. I hope you'll forgive me this last email response > > including you. > > > > > Which I didn't do (in terms of not "have anything to do > > with"), per: > > > > > > > > >> Point to my blog posts and quote those instead. Although I'm > > happy > > >> to open my mouth pretty much any time, I still don't know > > how I got here. > > >> > > > > > > Sigh. I read this post of yours: > > > > > > http://allied.blogspot.com/2007/11/hair-club-for-men.html > > > > > > November 15, 2007 > > > The Hair Club for Men > > > > > > boys boys boys boys boys boys boys boys lots of lots of boys > > boys boys boys. > > > > > > noticed i'm not getting picked up in techmeme discussions > > these days. > > > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > > > > but boy there sure are a lot of boys on there tonite! boys > > boys boys > > > boys boys boys boys boys lots of lots of boys boys boys boys. > > > > > > ----- > > > > > > Posted by Jeneane Sessum at 10:45 PM (2) shouted it. | > > Trackback Links > > > > > > I hit the comment link. I saw this from Shelley: > > > > > > "I've been deliberately blocked, ... Welcome to the club. Did > you > > > really expect anything different?" > > > > > > This is a public blog post, and public comment. No > > confidences > > > involved. I don't think it's worth a blog post of my own, and > > such a > > > post would sound as if it were scolding. So I send an email > > to Shelley > > > since as an algorithm-studier, I'm virtually certain it's not > > deliberate. > > > I cc'ed you, as Shelley seems to say to you that you've also > been > > > deliberately blocked. I cc'ed Gabe, since I expect he'll > > *confirm* that > > > there's no deliberate blocking (and besides, I do think it's > > helpful > > > for him to hear the discontent, even if nothing comes of it). > > Again, > > > neither comment is private. Shelley has also done a blog > > post saying > > > something similar a while back, so I'm not comment-diving to > > embarrass > > > her (which is another reason not to make it a blog post of my > > own). > > > > > > > > > > Of course its deliberate blocking, Seth. Techmeme filters are > > not based > > on an algorithm that's derived purely from linking patterns and > > statistics of linking, but are based on a preliminary seeded > > pool of > > people, which has been a primary factor of what does or does > > not show in > > the page. As such, unless one buys into the predominant > > themes, or maps > > on to the predominate characteristics of the webloggers > > directly or > > indirectly seeded, one is filtered out -- blocked, as it were, > > from > > inclusion. > > > > > > > In my way, I consider this all a good deed, because it > > serves > > > nobody for Shelley, and perhaps you, to think Gabe is > > deliberately > > > blocking women/critics. There's A-listers who *would* do > > something > > > like that, so it's a doubly bad situation (accusing someone > > who didn't > > > do it, and diverting attention from people who would do it). > > > > > > > > Yes, Gabe is blocking women. He's done so by setting the > > initial pool in > > such a way that like attracts like, and the dominant > > characteristics of > > the 'inside' group are white, male, middle or upper class, and > US > > centric, predominantly Silicon Valley. What he's done is > > establish a > > pattern of acceptability to the point where either a woman > > assumes a > > predominantly masculine writing style, rigidly refraining from > > emotional > > context (which is allowed the men, ala Scoble), or gets > > adopted by link > > daddy like Om Malik, and thus becomes 'respectable' enough to > > be included. > > > > The list is nothing more than a list, but what he's also done > > is given > > the insider group dominated primarily by white (or Asian) > > males, Silicon > > Valley based, well to do, and connected, a 'get out of > > diversity free' > > card. After all, none of the insiders really have to reference > > or link > > to the outsiders, a large, and significant portion of which > > constitutes > > women, because they're not on Techmeme, and if someone tasks > > them with > > such exclusion, they can state, probably with a great deal of > > truth that > > they mainly engaged in discussion with those more 'visible' -- > > ala Techmeme. > > > > You've made your opinion known, Seth. This is my opinion and > > the reason > > I wrote that comment, and what I've written in the past. You've > > misconstrued what was said, and frankly, condescendingly > > corrected me, > > and Jeneane. Not disagreed -- corrected. This isn't the first > > time > > you've 'corrected', not disagreed, and I find it patronizing. > > You wrote: > > > > > > > When I talk about making risk/reward calculations for > > whether > > > I should get involved in something, I sometimes note that if > > I had > > > said what would happen beforehand, people wouldn't believe me > > > (i.e. I will write this post, and Shelley will say I've > > embarrassed > > > her, and Jeneane will not recall it was her blog comment > > thread ...) > > > It's hardly the worst activism outcome I've ever had, but in > > terms of > > > cost/benefit, this one wasn't worth it :-(. > > > > Perhaps its because you didn't start this email just to > > communicate, but to lecture. I like you Seth, and admire what > > you're trying to do, but Gabe is not going to change his > > algorithm, because it gives him the exclusivity he craves. He > > doesn't want Techmeme to be either diverse or inclusive. And I > > will not desist in writing that yes, I am being deliberately > > blocked. And Jeneane will write, and rightfully so, that > > Techmeme is so male dominated that frankly, I'm surprised the > > people who appear there aren't embarrassed by it all. (But > > then I remember who we're talking about.) > > > > > > Lest you think I'm picking on you, Seth, I am well aware of my > own > > 'correcting' and 'lecturing' ways, and how they hurt, rather > > than help, > > a discussion. Such as now. > > > > Sorry for long email, I know you're all busy. I just get > > irritated when > > the men folks tell me why I write what I do. > > > > Jeneane, apologies again for including you in this _last_ > > missive on > > this topic. > > > > Thanks for the birthday card. > > > > Shelley > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Jeneane D. Sessum > > www.jsessum.com > > http://allied.blogspot.com > > www.BlogSisters.com - founder > > Email: jeneane.sessum@gmail.com > > Cell: 678-294-0900 > > www.linkedin.com/in/sessum > > > > > >