Category: Connecting

Categories
Connecting

Comments and other snowflakes

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

I just wanted to point out that I have re-activated new user registration on most of my sites, including RealTech. If you register for an account and I know you, I’ll also give you trusted user status and you’ll be able to comment without the comment going into moderation. You don’t have to use your real name or provide a web site to register.

If you register and I don’t know you, become known (leave comments) and I’ll change your status in time. In addition, for those (hi Bud) who have asked, I am looking at how to provide comments feeds, but so far all I’ve found with Drupal is per-user feeds.

The only reason I have comment moderation on at all is because I still have problems with spammy comments. These are not the automated type; they’re from people hired to hand enter comments into sites, while linking back to a commercial site. I am not going to provide free text link ads in my space.

I’ve been rather fortunate not to have problems with comment trolls, and haven’t since my sites started coming in under the radar. I’m not sure if I’m not getting trolls because I’m not writing on controversial topics, or if I’m doing something that creates an anti-troll defense. Of course, I’m also liberal when it comes to the term troll. For instance, I don’t mind passionate, even angry, disagreement. Anger is not an artificial construct, and I won’t slap a person down if they write genuinely, but angrily. I may not like what I’m reading, but unless it becomes obscene, or I get wet from the foaming-at-the-mouth froth coming through the screen, I figure it’s one of those things. I do mind pat-on-the-head condescension, no matter how politely termed. Nothing will bring out the fire in me quicker than condescending behavior.

Others are less fortunate (or more popular) in their comments, such as Matt Asay at CNet, who does seem to have some trouble determining the difference between using a pseudonym when leaving a comment, and leaving a comment anonymously. Rogers Cadenhead responded in comments to Assay’s post and at his web site, noting this difficulty.

H3h wasn’t anonymous. He referred to his web site (h3h.net) in another comment on CNET, and that site contains his real name, which is presumably how you got it. Making an example out of him, simply because he posted a single rude comment you didn’t like, makes you look like a noob. To save you time, my name is Rogers Cadenhead.

About negative commentary, Rogers has this sage advice:

If you publish on the web and accept user comments, you’re going to be a punching bag for a steady procession of dillweeds. Your choices are to stop taking comments, pick them off one by one like Asay, or just keep telling yourself you’re a beautiful snowflake and soldier through it.

I will never be able to get “beautiful snowflake” out of my head when it comes to comments, ever again.

I also wanted to point out another comment attached to Assay’s post.

One of the strengths of Ubuntu is the civility (enforced if necessary) of the community that goes with it.

I had no idea that Ubuntu enforced civility in its user community. I thought it was only the Mac that whipped out a titanium hand and slapped you across the face if you behaved badly.

But, I digress. The worst comments I have received over the years were all from people who attached their names to their comments. Most of the time, the comments weren’t even overtly hostile— coached in honeyed terms but with dagger edges, meaning to wound, while seeming to help. An anonymous “troll” is nothing in comparison.

I think anonymous commenter bashing is more of a control issue than a problem, and by that I mean people wanting to control their space to the point where perhaps they should not have comments.

We also have to accept some responsibility for the tone of comments we’re getting. If we make an outrageous claim, or take a controversial stance, we’re going to attract more negative commentary. We’re free to delete the commentary, but we shouldn’t feel victimized because it occurs. For instance, when Asay makes statements such as the following, I find it difficult to feel sympathy:

I mostly have stopped reading comments to this blog because what passes for “discussion” in the comments section tends to be inane, rude, and/or vapid, and often all three at the same time. “On the Internet, no one knows that you’re a dog,” goes the saying. Or that you’re a jerk.

I’m sorry, dear, but if this is the caliber of material you typically write, I’m not surprised most of your commentary is negative. What a condescending, and downright rude statement to make about the people who take the time to register at CNet and leave a comment at your sorry ass site.

How we treat commenters was also an issue related to the recent BoingBoing discussion. What fed the fires at the BB site was how badly even the more mildly censorious commenters were treated by the moderators. If you treat people like crap, don’t be surprised if they act crappy.

Oh, and by the way, Mr. Asay, if you read this, my name is Shelley Powers. Now you won’t have to spend time looking up the obvious.

Categories
Burningbird Connecting

Community and Technology

I am cleaning out my weblog after all these many years. Seven years. Seven years of past discussions and writings, many of which no longer make sense when taken out of the context of the previous times.

Every once in a while, though, I’ll find an old post that seems to highlight, not only what I felt then but what I feel now. One such was the following, posted May of 2002. Long before the Techmemes, WordPresses, OpenIDs, and the social networks; much earlier than the Facebooks and Twitters, it read:

————————-

Dave responded to my earlier post with a thoughtful and considerate posting that asked a very valid question:

So anyway, here’s a question for Shelley. When I see your site update on Weblogs.Com, I usually go for a visit to see what the bird is burning about now. I think of that as a community feature. Do you think it’s valuable? If not, why do you participate?

First, thanks for stopping by Dave, always appreciated. And as a point of clarification — I dropped that silly rule about comments I had about five minutes after I originated it, so please feel free to drop in with comments.

Back to the question: Why do I participate in pinging weblogs.com, when my interest tends to be on the people aspect of weblogging rather than the technology?

Though my focus is on the participants, I also appreciate much of the technology used in weblogging, particularly the weblogging tools such as Movable Type, Radio, and Blogger. And I also appreciate community services such as weblogs.com that let me know when my favorite webloggers have updated.

To me, technology provides a framework that allows me to communicate with my weblogging community easily and without a lot of hassle. I’ll alway be grateful for the folks who create all this technology that makes my weblogging life a lot easier. Still, technology is only an enabler — the content of the weblogs is the key aspect to “community” in my opinion.

If technology could be considered equivalent to the nerves in the brain, it is the people that provide the chemistry that enables the synaptic (community) connections to be made. Without the chemistry provided by the webloggers, the technology is nothing more than bits and bytes and wires all jumbled about in a chaotic and undifferentiated mess, thrown into the ether.

Consider my own community of webloggers — the virtual neighborhood that I reference fondly and at length. Technology will tell me that Bill Simoni’s weblog can be accessed at the URL, http://radio.weblogs.com/0100111/. And technology can let me know when Bill has updated his weblog, through weblogs.com.

Bill uses technology to create his weblog (using Radio), which is accessed through additional technology (the Internet). And I read the weblog through my browser (Mozilla by preference), contained on my laptop — yet more examples of technology.

However, technology doesn’t tell me that Bill is expecting a baby any day now. And technology doesn’t tell me that Bill has a nice, self-deprecating sense of humor, is pretty excited about the baby, and has a a thing about grammar and spellchecking.

That’s community.

If Userland and Movable Type and Blogger were to discontinue innovating their products as of this minute, we would perhaps have less fun toys to work with. We’d miss out on better products, and more reliable hosting, and more interesting ways to post, and better ways to aggregate the postings, and more efficient approaches regarding notification…

…but we’d still have our community. You’d have to take the Internet down to take down our community, and due to the pervasive nature of the Net, I don’t think this is even possible, now.

Ultimately, the community is not dependent on the technology as much as the technology is, itself, dependent on the community. Because without the community, why would we need the technology in the first place?

—————

What I didn’t know then but I do now is that online communities are both dynamic and mutable, and if not created or destroyed by technology, can be fragmented by technology. When I wrote the original post, if someone would say something online I would know what they said–it would be in their weblog. Now, though, this same person posts photos in Flickr, and short quips in Twitter, and sends virtual chocolates or plays Scrabulous in Facebook, or MySpace or whatever the new thing will be in 2008–and there will be a new thing in 2008–as his or her weblog remains silent, sometimes for weeks. But I only, still, listen to the weblog.

Technology has created new paths and in the wake of passing, left us a conundrum: follow the paths to stay with the community, or remain where we are, either to be part of the fragments left behind, a new community, or no community at all.

Then one looks closer at that long ago post and realizes that technology’s fragmentary effect on community is illusory, at best. Life triumphs over all, as it always has with any community, virtual or not. Every person, but four, in the comment thread or mentioned in the earlier post has either quit weblogging, or died. Of the four remaining, Allan and I are still friends, though our communication with each other is sporadic; I haven’t talked with Bill in months; Dave and I stopped being part of the same community a long time ago–not because of technology, but because of who we are, and who we became.

Categories
Connecting

Nullifiers

One thing I’ve discovered this weekend, is there are some people who suck the life out of a discussion. They use their popularity, their rank, their legions of fans, to overwhelm and crush any opposition. No, crush is a melodramatic word. They nullify opposition.

Sometimes they’re sweet in their weblogs; sometimes they’re not. Typically they’re held up for admiration and respect, and given accolades and affection by many. Yet there’s a dark side to them, a seeming need to control everything around them.

When they become involved in a discussion, the focus changes from the topic to the person. I don’t know about others, but it almost invariably leaves me going, “Why do I continue doing this?” They take what joy I have in this space, this writing, and they taint it, corrupt it.

People complain about trolls, but anonymous people who come into a space and leave a bit of snark are nothing more than the buzz of a bug. Flap your hand, chase them away. No, these people are never treated like trolls. Ostensibly, they don’t act like trolls. But when they’re done, if the discussion is not dead, it’s certainly been redirected. And they’re satisfied; they have control. Even if all their control brought, was discord.

I’m not perfect, I know that. This is more observation than proclamation. People read Techmeme to see what discussions to get into. From now on, I’m going to read it to see which ones to avoid. It’s not a healthy place for me.

Categories
Connecting

With sadness

This has been a week of sad good-byes.

Danny Ayers and Dan Connolly both write on an incredibly tragic event. Last weekend, while Chimezie and Roschelle Ogbuji were having a rare night out, a baseboard heater caught fire in the basement. Though the babysitters were able to escape, the Ogbuji’s three little girls–Imose Esosa Ikpia, Chikaora Credell Zion, and Anyachiemeka Chibuzo Anastar–weren’t so fortunate. The oldest was 6, the youngest just a baby. Three beautiful little girls.

This last weekend, Marc Orchant passed away from his heart attack earlier in the week. He was only 50, and leaves behind a wife and two kids, and friends and co-workers who will miss him, as well as a community who respected him deeply.

Then tonight, Bill Humphries posts another sad note: Anita Rowland passed away today, losing her fight with cancer. Anita has been around for so long, it’s difficult to think of her gone. Anita left behind a beloved husband, Jack William Bell, family, and too many friends to count–both online and off. Jack has created a memorial page, for leaving comments, writing If you knew Anita or she touched your life in some way — something that applies to many, many people — please leave a comment with some memory of her here.

Frank reminds us of an interview he did with Anita, five years ago. Thank you, Frank, for capturing her voice.

My deepest sympathy to all of the families and friends.

Hug someone you love. Reach out to a friend.

Categories
Connecting Copyright

Virgin bites Creative Commons on the butt

Wayback Machine entry for post including comments.

Rogers Cadenhead finds an ad featuring Molly Holzschlag. About my post, he wrote:

Shelley Powers puts the blame for this squarely on Creative Commons for not educating users of its licenses. If you release photos for commercial reuse, but you don’t secure model releases from people they depict, you’re subjecting yourself — and those who use your work — to a thorough proctological workup by an intellectual property attorney.

Actually, I never said any of this. I said that this demonstrates that people are confused about the commercial license, because why on earth would a person add this CC license when they don’t have model releases? Or really want the photos used in ads?

Virgin Mobile’s part in this is less interesting, to me, than the issue of people putting a for-commercial CC license on a work that can’t possibly be used without a lot of additional work for commercial purposes. I didn’t once say that Virgin’s use of the photos wasn’t without its own problems.

Additionally, I’ve looked at many of the photos used in this campaign. Why on earth would the people use the commercial license with these items? None that I’ve seen are anything more than casual snapshots.

I’ve written–oh, a time or two–on my concerns regarding the Creative Commons licenses. I’ve stated that they’re confusing, that people are socially pressured and overly encouraged to use such without understanding the impact, and that we don’t really understand how these licenses work with existing laws.

Doug Pardee sent me an email giving me a heads up on an uproar at Flickr about photos Virgin Mobile is using for an ongoing campaign. Seems that Virgin Mobile used Flickr’s CC licensed photo search engine to find photos that allowed commercial use. The company then used such commercially, including a photo of an underage girl without her or her parents’ signed consent.

What’s interesting is the debate on this, as people who aren’t lawyers ask each other what does ‘commercial use’ mean, and when can a person publish a photo of an individual and so on. There is still a massive misunderstanding about the terms used in these licenses, and little done on the part of the CC promoters to do anything other then grunt, “CC, Good!”

Even now, with this discussion raging over at Flickr, another Flickr Forum item discusses the Wellcome Trust decision to release its image collection under CC, and then references those on Flickr who don’t do the same, saying, “Compare the Wellcome Trust’s attitude to that of some of the photographers here on Flickr who consider EVEN educational use of their photographs to be GRAND THEFT PHOTO.”

I would assume that the Wellcome Trust had lawyers who helped in the decision to release photos, and did so with a very clear understanding of the license, the implication, and what the CC licenses mean in regards to existing copyright laws. Obviously, the same cannot be said for many Flickr users, and social pressuring is only going to make matters worse.

In many countries, including the US and Australia, commercial use of photos requires signed consent of identifiable people, and signed consent of a guardian if the person is under legal age. To me, commercial use does not mean that your photos will be featured in a magazine. It means that your photos will be featured in an ad, and used to sell something. However, the only example of commercial use the CC organization provides is one where a person takes a photo and someone else prints it and sells the print. These are two completely different acts. Does this mean I’m wrong? If I am, then how does one classify the use of a photo in a commercial? As editorial use?

To me, editorial/educational (non-commercial) use means that your photos can be used in magazines or to accompany newspaper articles, or in classes or other forms of instruction. Such use also means that your photos can be used to promote organizations and attitudes you may despise, or even hate, but that’s besides the point.

This is what I understand about the CC, but I’m only a layman, and only have a layman’s view of all of this. Don’t look to the lawyers for advice, though; they’re so hemmed in by the rigid and restrictive rules of their profession, I’m surprised they can even identify themselves as lawyers, much less give a public opinion on anything.

Definitely don’t look for clarification or even discussion on these issues at the CC site. This is the ultimate ‘feel good’ organization, where the world is full of happy happy people creating happy happy works sharing with other happy happy people who would never abuse such generosity.

More at:

dsphotographic