Category: Culture

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
Art Money

Stop creating and get a real job

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

I don’t know that I agree with Nick Carr’s assessment that the Bebo deal is equivalent to sharecropping. Anyone who contributes anything to any social networking site should be aware that what they contribute will eventually be monetized in some way by the site owner. In other words, if you want to give it away for free so that others profit, I don’t necessarily have a lot of sympathy.

I did like what Broadstuff had to say on the issue, though.

A good rule of thumb with the mass Tech Media is that when such howls of outrage are heard, the howlee is generally onto something. And what Bragg is articulating in essence is this simple thought – the only real difference between the New Music Aggregators and the (automatically despised) Olde Aggregators is that the Olde Industry actually paid the artists something.

That, in a nutshell, is the bottom line on this discussion. It’s not whether the artists knew they weren’t going to get paid or not, but the fact that we hold social networks like Bebo up to high acclaim while sneering at the old record companies, when both groups profit from the efforts of the artist. However, it is only the old companies, those badies, that actually pay for music. Even if the payment is considered miniscule, it is pay and is a whole more than you’ll ever get for your efforts at Bebo or any other site that promises you “fame”.

The intrinsic value of fame on Bebo aside, I am irked to see this discussion used, yet again, for the cry that all art demands to be free and that artists should be happy with getting attention. If artists want to pay the rent or buy food, then they should get a “real” job, and quit whining because people download their stuff for free.

According to people like Michael Arrington all recorded music should be given away for free, and artists make their only income from concerts. If they can’t make their living from concerts, or busking for tossed dimes in the subway, than they should consider music to be their hobby, and get a job digging ditches.

Of course, if we apply the Arrington model to the music industry, we should be able to download all the songs we want–as long as we’re willing to sit through an ad at the beginning and in the middle of every song. Isn’t that how Techcrunch makes money? Ads in the sidebar, taking time to download, hanging up the page. Ads at the bottom of the posts we have to scroll past to get to comments? And in between, loud, cacophonous noise?

It angers me how little value people in this online environment hold the act of creativity. Oh we point to Nine Inch Nails and Cory Doctorow as examples of people who give their work away for free but still make a living. Yet NIN levies an existing fame, selling platinum packages at several hundred a pop to make up for all the freebies, and Doctorow has BoingBoing as a nice cushion for the lean years. They bring “fame” to the mix, and according to the new online business models, you have to play the game, leverage the system if you really want to make a living from your work. We don’t value the work, we value the fame, yet fame doesn’t necessarily come from any act of true creativity.

All you have to do to generate fame nowadays is be controversial enough, say enough that’s outrageous, connect up with the right people in the beginning and then kick them aside when you’re on top to be successful. You don’t have to have artistic talent, create for the ages, or even create at all–just play the game. If you do it right, you get Techcrunch. If you do it wrong, there’s the ditch.

Though I may not agree completely with what Nick wrote in the previously linked post, I agree wholeheartedly to what he wrote in a follow-up post, written in response to Arrington’s statement, Recorded music is nothing but marketing material to drive awareness of an artist.

As a poem, one assumes, is nothing but marketing material to drive awareness of a poet. As a sculpture is nothing but marketing material to drive awareness of a sculptor. As a film is nothing but marketing material to drive awareness of a director.

In the fallen world of the social network, “awareness” is the highest, most noble accomplishment that anyone could possibly aspire to. Because, you see, “awareness” is a monetizable commodity.

In a world where the only measure of success is attention, can anyone truly be great?

Categories
Diversity

Perception

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Wired.com:

At least one heckler thought the backlash was because of Lacy’s gender instead of her questions. MyBlogLog founder Eric Marcoullier, who twittered a few swipes against Lacy during the talk, told Wired.com after the keynote that Lacy’s gender might have been behind the reaction of the geeky masses.

“I think there’s some degree of sexism,” he said. “Because she’s a chick, her ingratiating nature is taken as ass-kissing. If it were some guy at Forbes asking the same questions in the same manner, we just would have thought he was drawing Mark out.”

I found it interesting that few people commented on the fact that Zuckerberg is an uninteresting, colorless individual, who has been variously accused of stealing code and spying on his clients, and in this case, tossed the interviewer to the wolves rather than suck up to his own responsibility. Seriously, would the audience have been more comfortable if Lackey had balls, and scratched them during the talk?

Ohmigod, she twirled her hair during the talk! She’s flirting with Zuckerberg! Here’s a clue for you guys: women with curly hair often twirl it when they talk. It’s not a mating move.

I watched the video and did not think Lacey was “bad”. I didn’t think anything about it was “good”, either. This was obvious a canned interview situation, probably vetted by the Facebook PR people to make sure Zuckerberg doesn’t say anything outside of the box.

If there’s a failure anywhere, it was this type of situation being staged as a “keynote”. Fake interviews to make the “interviewee” seem more personable, one of us, lack honesty, whether they’re deemed successful or not. Did people really expect this to be a true interview? I guess there is one born every minute.

All in all, everything I’ve heard about SxSW this year tells us this party is over. Oh, and if women are going to interview demi-gods like Zuckerberg, they better be butch while they’re on stage.

Categories
Diversity Web

Women and tech, money and sex, and Wikipedia

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Seth Finkelstein has one of the better takes on the Wikipdia “sex” scandal. I wouldn’t even be interested except for two things:

1. Seth and All’s Wool both mention about the deep irregularities associated with the Wikipedia Foundation’s money, including how Foundation money is finding it’s way into founder Jimmy Wales pocket. If the organization hasn’t been audited recently, I would say it’s due.

2. Why is it that most of the time women and Silicon Valley or women and tech generate a lot of buzz in the tech community, it’s in reference to women and clothes, women and clothes, or women as former girlfriends? Or some variation of the latter: woman as vamp, woman as bitch, woman as whore, woman as babe, etc…and this geek or that tech.

Wow, guys, we don’t only dress and date. Next time you pair “women” and “technology”, try writing a story about women who program, design web sites, write or speak about technology, participate in standards committees, manage companies, or generally do things that you all don’t seem to notice or give a damn about until we’re either stripped naked or wearing purple, or have our sex chats blasted across your front pages.

Categories
Art

Body Worlds

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

I went to the Body Worlds exhibit at the St. Louis Science Center today. If you’ve not heard of this, it’s an exhibit of preserved human bodies formed into shapes to best demonstrate the human anatomy.

The human bodies are without skin, so that the muscle, bone, tendons, organs show. Believe me when I say that there is nothing at all gross about the exhibit. On the contrary, it was all rather fascinating. Our bodies are incredibly sophisticated machines, and the exhibits were a celebration of our wonderful sophistication.

In addition to the staged human bodies, the show also featured cross sections and preserved organs, both diseased and healthy. Another interesting type of display was the vein work sculptures, displaying only the veins.

What was terrible, though, is that I had the strongest craving for beef jerky during the show. I confessed my hunger to my roommate, and he said that he had the same craving. As we were leaving, we could hear the people behind us, debating where to go to lunch because they were starved.

There was something very Freudian about all of this.

update

I gather there was or is a 20/20 investigation of Body Worlds, especially about where the bodies originated. According to the information I know, the bodies used in the displays at the Body Worlds in St. Louis were all donated at the behest of the individuals, and with permission of the individual families.

As for whether the show was purely entertainment, most of the show is devoted to a closer look at organs, including those diseased, as compared to healthy. Displays of lungs damaged by smoking, livers damaged by drinking, and one cross section display of an obese man with diagrams detailing of the damage to his body based on his weight–including a cross section of the pacemaker he wore–were juxtaposed with bodies seemingly in the peak of health and vitality.

Was the work educational?

One elderly woman wearing a camel colored coat, and a hat with a little feather was talking with three kids who part of a school tour group. Their discussion was occurring over an exhibit of hip bones, including one demonstrating a hip replacement. Evidently, the kids had been at the display, looking at the hip replacement when the lady heard them talking. She started telling them about her own hip replacement, her mobility before and after, answering their questions. The small group of four were so intent, they were completely unaware of the kids’ chaperons, patiently waiting for them to finish so they could move on.

Was the work art? Art is, as always, in the eye of the beholder.