Did You Know That The Web Is A Plot By A Bunch Of California Cultists To Destroy Your Life? The Sunday Times Tells Me So...

from the uh-what-now? dept

Mon, May 18th 2009 12:39pm — Mike Masnick

It really is bizarre that nearly every handwaving critique of how "evil" the internet is, from the point of view of elitists who worry about the loss of the old gatekeepers, seems to make every single mistake it accuses the "internet generation" of making. For example, it's difficult to catalog just how many things Bryan Appleyard gets factually wrong in his Sunday Times piece all about how evil the internet is and how it was designed by a bunch of California cultists who are trying to destroy all that is good in the world. What's amazing, for such an elitist article that claims that professionals do news better and that the internet is destroying the ability for the press to do journalism properly, is that he would make a factual error in almost every sentence. It's really stunning, actually.

Late in the piece he notes that "this article -- it always happens -- will be sneered at all over the web by people who cannot think for themselves because they are blindly faithful to the idea that the web is the future, all of it." Ok, fine. Let's not sneer, and let's actually think for ourselves... and how about we correct some of Mr. Appleyard's errors -- just for the fun of it?

The web is in trouble. Last week craigslist, a vast classified-ads site, had to abandon its "erotic services" category because of claims that it was an "online brothel" being used by sexual predators.

Oops. Wrong. First of all, it didn't "have" to do anything. The law (section 230 of the CDA for Mr. Appleyard, and if he wants the relevant cases we can point those out too -- though, this is the sort of stuff we thought the professionals were supposed to look up themselves) is quite clear that Craigslist is protected and it didn't have to do anything. It chose to make a change to the way it handled such ads, but Mr. Appleyard even gets the facts wrong there, in claiming it "abandoned" the category. It did not. It simply moved it to a new area called "adult services," which now has its ads pre-monitored as opposed to post-monitored as before.

And in France L'Oreal discovered eBay could not be forced to stop selling cheap knock-offs of its products.

Oops. Wrong. A French court ruled that eBay was not liable for users selling counterfeit L'Oreal goods (the same way US and Belgian courts have ruled as well). It's not eBay selling the goods. eBay is just the tool and the platform. It's users who sell to each other. And they are still breaking the law. All the court case said was that L'Oreal should have to go after those individuals, rather than forcing eBay to do so. This is common sense, in the same way that we ticket the driver of a speeding car, rather than Ford for making a car that can speed.

After British villages rose up against the intrusion of Google's Street View, Greece has banned the mobile camera cars that put pictures of people's homes and streets on the internet

Oops. Wrong. While British villagers who didn't quite understand how Street View worked got quite upset about it -- that part is true -- their protest went nowhere. The UK's privacy watchdog actually took the time to understand what Google was doing (something Appleyard apparently did not) and said it was fine. As for Greece, it did not ban the camera cars. It simply put the project on hold while it gets more info. That seems like a rather pertinent detail. Oh, and the wonderful professional mainstream media that Appleyard is such a big fan of? It reposted all the embarrassing images that Google took down. So, Google was quick to remove those images, but it was the professional media that actually got them attention. Based on Appelyard's reasoning above, concerning both Craigslist and the L'Oreal/eBay case, the mainstream press is actually guilty of intruding on people's privacy.

Privacy campaigners fear the power of Google and the online ad company Phorm to gather and exploit personal information. They invade your computer, monitor your web-browsing and buying, check where you are and then bombard you with targeted hard sells.

Oops. Wrong. While there are some fears (some more reasonable than others) about Phorm and Google, to lump the two together is quite misleading. The two companies are amazingly different in how they work -- and it's a bit of a stretch to claim that either "gathers and exploits" personal info, though we'll grant that for the time being. The thing that neither of them do, however, is "bombard you with targeted hard sells." In fact, whether you like what either company is doing, the whole point of their targeted advertising is to offer up soft sells that are more likely to get attention, rather than hard sells.

Those are the first two paragraphs alone. From there, he charges that a group of Californians created Web 2.0 as a "cult," in partnership with Google, who somehow proactively monitors everything you do (ignoring, of course, the fact that you have to actually use Google's services for it to monitor anything). Then he complains that free stuff is available online, along with the standard complaints about how he doesn't like social networks and he hates the fact that many people use the web to shop? Why? That's not really explained. The best he can come up with is quoting some guy who insists the internet is a passing fad:

"The internet", says David Edgerton, professor of the history of technology at Imperial College London and author of The Shock of the Old: Technology and Global History since 1900, "is rather passe . . . It's just a means of communication, like television, radio or newspapers."

The evidence for this? Well, that's shaky and non-existent. The evidence against it? Well, I'd say there's a ton. But we'll just start with the obvious one: television, radio and newspapers were all broadcast forms of communication -- one to many. The internet is many to many (and one to one, and one to many). To claim that it's basically the same is like claiming that automobiles are just faster horses.

One great promise of web 2.0 was that it would lead to a post-industrial world in which everything was dematerialised into a shimmer of electrons. But last year's oil price shock and this year's recession, not to mention every year's looming eco-catastrophe, show that we are still utterly dependent on the heavy things of the old economy.

This is just great. Appleyard claims what "the promise" of web 2.0 is, without any citation to back that up. I don't know anyone who ever claimed that the point of "web 2.0" was to "dematerialize" everything into electrons. In fact, many of us have focused on how physical things still matter quite a bit. But, if you're trying to set up the creators of modern web services as evil cultists, you may as well set up a total straw man about what they're trying to do. Because, we all know that the "professional press" never makes stuff up like all those crazy amateurs do.

So what, if not everything, will the web change? The key feature of web 2.0 that is currently driving change is its intense focus on the individual.

That's funny. I could have sworn we were just reading about how the backers of the web were trying to make everything "communal" with all this sharing and "amateur empowerment" and such. And now we're told that web 2.0 is about individualism? Wasn't Appleyard just sneering at all those community sites like Facebook and Twitter -- which are the very opposite of an intense focus on the individual?

Blogging, tweeting and Facebooking all give the individual the unprecedented opportunity to blather to the entire world.

Wait, so communicating with others is all about individualism? I'm confused...

The first objection to this is that it destroys institutions and structures that can do so much more than the individual.

What is this "it" that destroys institutions and structures that can do so much for the individual? Web 2.0? How is "it" destroying anything? "It" is not doing anything at all. However, managers of those institutions who failed to adapt to a new marketplace (and, in the case of newspapers bet the farm on raising way more money than they could ever pay back) certainly had a lot to do with destroying institutions. But, do we see any analysis of that? Of course not.

The Wall Street Journal carried an analysis that is still the best thing I have seen on the subject. But the story needed half a dozen qualified financial journalists to put it together, and masses of research that no lonely blogger could possibly do . . . This throws into relief the intractable fact that the liberty which the web offers to the individual voice is also a restriction on group effort.

Fair enough. Though, I'll say that by far the best analysis I got of the financial crisis came from a series of different blogs (mainly by economists) that understood the issue at a far deeper level than anything I read in the Wall Street Journal. And, the great thing was that many of them did work together. They used those awful "individualistic" tools like blogging, Twitter and Facebook to connect and talk and come out with a much more interesting analysis.

Institutions -- publishers, newspapers, museums, universities, schools -- exist precisely because they can do more than individuals. If web 2.0 flattens everything to the level of whim and self-actualisation, then it will have done more harm than good.

I'm still quite confused by this odd, and totally unsupported theory, that web 2.0 somehow breaks everything down to the individual. In fact, most of us have seen the opposite. The rise of useful communication tools actually make it much easier to create those sorts of necessary institutions on the fly, in a way that's a lot more flexible, meaningful, relevant and useful than the old stodgy organizational structures of the past.

A further objection to the cult's radical individualism is that it doesn't have the intended hyper-democratic consequences. Wikipedia, for example, has tackled inaccuracy and subversion by introducing forms of authority and control that would seem to be anathema to its founding ideals.

Note that Appleyard does not explain what those "founding ideals" are, or how the minor changes to the system over time go against them or somehow prove "radical individualism" (which is still something Appleyard seems to have made up whole cloth) to be wrong.

Bloggery is forming itself into big, institutionalised aggregators such as The Huffington Post and The Daily Beast, and remains utterly parasitic on the mainstream media it affects to despise.

Um... wait. Weren't we just being told a single paragraph ago that blogs were the antithesis of institutions? I mean... it was right there. And now, suddenly, blogs are evil because they're institutions? I'm confused again. And I'm curious how sending sites more traffic is "parasitic," but we've discussed this before.

Even Twitter is already coming to be dominated by conventional, non-web-based celebrity -- Oprah Winfrey in the US and Stephen Fry over here.

Dominated. Mr. Appleyard, you don't have to follow them. I follow neither Oprah nor Fry, and Twitter works just great. I see no domination.

The slightly more sinister aspect of this is that excessive individualism leads with astonishing rapidity to slavish conformity. The banking crisis may not have been caused by the internet but it was certainly fuelled by the way connectivity and speed created a market in which everybody was gripped by the hysteria of the herd.

Now there's a new one. This one comes just three paragraphs after Appleyard tells us that the WSJ had a great analysis of why the financial crisis happened -- though, it appears Appleyard didn't bother to read it. Nor has he apparently read any history of bubbles or mass hysteria. The market crash of 1929? Mass hysteria. Must have been caused by the internet. I'm sure the Dutch tulip craze was caused by the same. There couldn't have been any herd mentality-based bubbles prior to the internet, could there? I'm sure the Sunday Times has a big professional research department (you know, the sort of institutional resources that individualistic bloggers can't afford). Perhaps next time, Appleyard should try using it.

Or there is the weird phenomenon of flash mobs. People agree by text message or tweet to assemble in one place and, suddenly, do so. This was originally intended as a joke or art piece designed to demonstrate sheep-like conformity, but it rapidly became an aspect of cultish libertarianism. It doesn't work. Flash mobs in Russia are simply prevented by cutting off mobile-phone coverage. Old-world politics is more powerful than the web.

Wait, because Russian police cut off mobile phone coverage to stop a flash mob, the whole concept of flash mobs is dead? Again, I'm having trouble seeing how that makes any sense.

And, finally, the everything-free, massively deflationary effects of the web may be over. Rupert Murdoch, head of The Sunday Times's parent company, has said he is thinking of charging for online versions of his papers. The hard fact that somebody, somehow, has to pay for all this is breaking into web heaven.

I like how just the fact that Murdoch is thinking about charging for the news means that the "deflationary effects of the web may be over." Got any data to back that up? Or doesn't the professional press do that sort of thing? Finally, we've already dispensed with the myth that the news isn't paid for. You would think that such a professional would know that subscriptions have almost never paid for the news. Far be it from us, the mere individualistic, cultish amateurs, to actually look at the actual data and point out that subscriptions have almost never even covered the cost of printing and delivery. Journalism has always been paid for by advertising, and just because the content is free online, it doesn't mean that it hasn't been paid for.

I doubt Mr. Appleyard will read this. After all, the web is full of such dangers, and any attempt to correct his factual errors is obviously coming from just another individualistic cultist who cannot think for himself.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: amateurs, california, individualism, web 2.0

44 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Garrett, 18 May 2009 @ 1:15pm

Well this was one of the more stunning displays of ignorance I've seen this month.

But I honestly want to know....what is that fuels these hyperbole dripping rants? Fear of change? Fear of the "youth"? Fear of their own slow slide into oblivion? All three, just coupled with total lack of (or desire to find) understanding?

My father was once weary of the information age, but once he saw the power and freedom of having the combined knowledge of the whole world at your fingertips, he never looked back. Whats stopping this guy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2009 @ 1:16pm

"One great promise of web 2.0 was that it would lead to a post-industrial world in which everything was dematerialised into a shimmer of electrons."

He seems to have confused Web 2.0 with Star Trek.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2009 @ 1:21pm

It is not serious.
Bryan Appleyard is a self-conflicting satirist. His brand of comedy is circular illogic. http://www.bryanappleyard.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ChimpBush McHitlerBurton, 18 May 2009 @ 2:11pm
  
  Re: It is not serious.
  OH MY FUCKING GOD!
  
  Mike has been Onionized. Or in this case...
  
  'Cheese and Onion'ized.
  
  Is this the new, subversive form of institutionalized mind control? Plant a piece in the Sunday Times which attacks the avant garde and is read by most as serious...then when it it attacked, fall back on the fact that the piece is penned by a 'satirist' and giggle at the gullible rube who 'bought' it.
  
  ...all the while, most of the public never see the tear-down by the debunker, and take it as fact.
  
  Brilliant.
  
  CBMHB
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Peter (profile), 18 May 2009 @ 1:22pm

well done
This was very well done, Mike. Though I know plenty of people who will read the piece and come away from it convinced of the internet's toxic impact on journalism. I hope Appleyard does read you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gabriel, 18 May 2009 @ 1:24pm

Stop please... you're killing me!
Mike... you've got to stop! Or at least slow down... I can't keep up with all your posts!

Thanks for keeping on top of all this stuff... and more importantly, analyzing and responding the way you do.

Again, another great piece!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- interval, 18 May 2009 @ 1:38pm
  
  Re: Stop please... you're killing me!
  Seconded. While amusing, its shocking to know that a lot of people will read his (Appleyard's) piece and come away buying it whole-hog. The unknown part I come away with is knowing how much of Appleyard's own bs he believes. What's his goal in all this; that the masses will suddenly make some amazing realization and stop using the internet? That mare is much too large to shove back in the stable; Appleyard must realize this, at least on some level.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steve, 18 May 2009 @ 1:28pm

Follow-on
Hey Mike! Great read as always. I follow you on this one over at my own blog. My name links to my write up.

TTFN
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rob R., 18 May 2009 @ 1:33pm

hmm
Bet ya 50 bucks Murdoch wears tin foil on his head at night (maybe under his hat during the day?) and might even have a lead-lined bedroom to keep the government from either spying on his thoughts at night or maybe even implanting things as he sleeps.

Seen the big ugly aliens lately, Mr. Murdoch?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rob R., 18 May 2009 @ 1:38pm
  
  DOH!
  I meant Mr. Appleyard.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Luís Carvalho, 18 May 2009 @ 1:34pm

Ooops... You did it again...

One of this days TechDirt will receive a Cease and Desist letter to stop making imbecils of all those that... well... are imbecils. :)

About this article, apparently, for what I read above, that "gentleman" considers web 2.0 the cullprit behind everything he could squeeze in his rant. Too bad they didn't give him more space, then he could have added the AIDS, Cancer, Corruption, Ignorance, etc. to the list.

Well done Mike, too bad this "faster horse" will never read this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2009 @ 3:38am
  
  Re:
  Don't forget H1N1!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kerry, 18 May 2009 @ 1:39pm

Bryan Appleyard
Interestingly enough, Mr. Appleyard has his own blog: http://www.bryanappleyard.com/blog/

After reading his original article and getting a headache; my only response really to finding out that he has a blog is to just blink in disbelief. Wow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Luís Carvalho, 18 May 2009 @ 1:51pm
  
  Re: Bryan Appleyard
  "A blog about, among other things, imaginary ideas - What ifs? and Imagine thats. What if photographs looked nothing like what we see with our eyes? Imagine that the Berlin Wall had never come down. What if we were the punchline of an interminable joke? All contributions welcome."
  
  LOL
  
  I have no imaginary idea of what he's saying, but, this is really looking funny enough for a PUNCHline.
  
  LOL
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chronno S. Trigger, 18 May 2009 @ 2:00pm
  
  Re: Bryan Appleyard
  Are we sure this is the same guy? I'm poking around his web site and I don't see anything there like this. I'm seeing a bunch of linked to articles from The Sunday Times but not this one or anything resembling this. In fact, he seems to half embrace the internet instead of completely shun it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Luís Carvalho, 18 May 2009 @ 2:13pm
    
    Re: Re: Bryan Appleyard
    See the last link in the Iggy Pop post. It's named WEB.
    
    This is the link: Web
    
    I tried HARD not to laugh.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ChimpBush McHitlerBurton, 18 May 2009 @ 2:15pm
    
    Re: Re: Bryan Appleyard
    Yup. Same guy.
    
    http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article6301123.ece
    
    Yike s.
    
    "And by the half-light of burning republics, The Sunday Times looks just like The Onion"
    
    CBMHB
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2009 @ 3:56pm
  
  Re: Bryan Appleyard
  "After reading his original article and getting a headache; my only response really to finding out that he has a blog is to just blink in disbelief. Wow."
  
  You want to really fry your brain? Check out this article he wrote January '08: http://www.bryanappleyard.com/article.php?article_id=135
  
  That's right. Just a little over a year ago he thought Web 2.0 was the best thing EVAR!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - TW Burger, 18 May 2009 @ 5:12pm
    
    Re: Re: Bryan Appleyard
    Yes, that is odd but also indicative of someone being paid to write a particular point of view or with an undiagnosed bi-polar disorder.
    
    Apparantly, Bryan Appleyard is either a sociopathic mercenary hack or mentally ill.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2009 @ 1:51pm

What? WHAT?
"The slightly more sinister aspect of this is that excessive individualism leads with astonishing rapidity to slavish conformity."

That has to be the STUPIDEST single thing ever expressed in the English language.

I feel dumber just having read it.
If there were ever PROOF that old media should die, it IS someone that can utter that sentence in all seriousness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
batch, 18 May 2009 @ 2:09pm

At least we live in interesting times?
Old systems are being replaced by something new and different, not simply improved upon. Of course, that also means the old, stuck-in-their-ways, and entrenched will fight it tooth and nail, but in the end, you can't win a fight against progress. New generations won't look fondly back on the newspaper any more than any of us looks back on the horse and buggy fondly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pete, 18 May 2009 @ 2:20pm

One of the most bizarre thoughts...
... the original Sunday Times article was written by someone, in effect, proposing a return to subscription based news service.

Yet you would have to ask yourself the question, is this the quality of journalism I would be happy to pay money for?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2009 @ 2:27pm
  
  Re: One of the most bizarre thoughts...
  imagine what you get when nobody is paying anymore. then you will be happy to pay
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Derek Kerton, 18 May 2009 @ 2:59pm
    
    Re: Re: One of the most bizarre thoughts...
    ...and then imagine what you might get if advertising paid the writers, as it always has. It'd be pretty similar, no?
    
    And then imagine there might be some business models that you nor I are smart enough to figure out today. Those might provide some recompense, too, yes?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2009 @ 2:26pm

Just inresponse to this little part:
-He also talks about how free stuff is avaliable online blah blah blah-

Yah I know, how dare those people put up their own work and not profit from it so people have an alternative software/OS/etc to use. The evil demons they are
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2009 @ 3:01pm

Newspapers
Unbelievable. If this is the kind of story "professional" newspapers print, then the sooner they die off the better.

Newspapers these days will stop at nothing to demonize the Internet, will they?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2009 @ 3:35pm

The fact that I can read his article ONLINE, completely negates his point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Poster, 18 May 2009 @ 3:55pm
  
  Re:
  You know, that's a very good point.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Poster, 18 May 2009 @ 3:54pm

On the off chance that Appleyard does actually read this:

You are an idiot. Please stop writing. Your article may have given me cancer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DJ, 18 May 2009 @ 4:42pm

Horse-less carriages
I have no links to offer, nor articles to cite, but I do recall learning that automobiles were once considered as no more than a passing fad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2009 @ 6:30pm

Looks like a troll
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fentex, 18 May 2009 @ 7:29pm

There seems to be a theme in Appleyards complaints where he looks for dominance he doesn't share in (and finds it even where others can't), and complains about it.

Taken as a whole his complaints parse as "I, and mine, are losing control and we don't like it".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Felix Pleşoianu, 18 May 2009 @ 10:09pm

I think what we're dealing with here is a classical case of paranoia. Just look at the symptoms:

* sees conspiracies everywhere, and generally a lot of things that just aren't there
* systematically ignores anything resembling evidence
* contradicts himself repeatedly

Yup, pretty much textbook paranoia...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bettawrekonize, 18 May 2009 @ 10:48pm

"Late in the piece he notes that "this article -- it always happens -- will be sneered at all over the web by people who cannot think for themselves because they are blindly faithful to the idea that the web is the future, all of it."

In other words he doesn't want his work to be criticized because he knows that his work doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Just because someone disagrees with him doesn't mean they can't think for themselves? So if someone criticizes him that automatically means they can't think for themselves? Are the only people who can think for themselves those who don't criticize him? What nonsense.

"for such an elitist article that claims that professionals do news better and that the internet is destroying the ability for the press to do journalism properly"

If these professionals can't substantiate their position to those criticizing it then why should we take them seriously?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bettawrekonize, 18 May 2009 @ 10:50pm

If these professionals can't defend their positions against the non professionals (the average Joe) on the Internet then why should we take their position seriously?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bettawrekonize, 19 May 2009 @ 12:35am

"Did You Know That The Web Is A Plot By A Bunch Of California Cultists To Destroy Your Life? The Sunday Times Tells Me So..."

and I thought I was a crazy conspiracy theorist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2009 @ 3:11am

WOOOSH
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Cenobyte, 19 May 2009 @ 5:40am

Internet is a fad
I hate to say it guys but at least the part of the internet being a fad is correct in a Ben Kenobi kind of way. Much like writing on walls, radio, fax machines, and vhs systems before it, sometime in the future it will become mostly irrelevant and finally become completely irrelevant to its original purpose. I know it seems pretty crazy now to think that there is anything more flexible and useful than the internet is or how there could ever be, but there will be. I don't know what it is, but I do know in the history of man every time we have said "That's it, it's perfect and can't get better than that" we were wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
JustMe, 19 May 2009 @ 5:44am

Nice work, Mike
good for a few chuckles!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chet Kuhn (profile), 19 May 2009 @ 8:48am

I have added another intellectual hero to my list...
And it is Michael Masnick. Time and time again, you refute the ridiculous, and nearly without exception, I agree with you 100%. Today is no exception. The inability of established players in today's business world to grasp the fact that new business models exist, and must be embraced, is stunning in its regularity. Excellent job, Mike, on continuing to call out those who cannot seem to grasp the fact that the world changed.

You keep writing, and I'll keep reading. :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bettawrekonize, 19 May 2009 @ 9:55am

"The inability of established players in today's business world to grasp the fact that new business models exist, and must be embraced, is stunning in its regularity."

This doesn't bother me as a free market would simply put these people out of business. What bothers me is that we don't live in a free market, we live in a society where these dinosaurs distort the free market by lobbying for government intervention (ie: patents and such).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bettawrekonize, 19 May 2009 @ 10:01am

BTW, we shouldn't take these potential threats to our freedoms lightly. If it were up to these people the Internet won't exist for the general public and there are powerful entities that want to suppress our freedoms on it. Just the other day there was a post here about how one needed to register with the government to get a blog in Italy ( http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090504/0148494730.shtml ). This stuff shouldn't be taken lightly whatsoever and we should never assume that our freedoms can't be taken away from us. Never take your freedoms for granted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hephaestus (profile), 19 May 2009 @ 11:31am

You guys know anything about the stages of grieving?
With this guy being in the print news media business it seems to me this guy is somewhere between the first and second stages of grieving. You are going to see alot more of this as newspapers and media groups fail.....

The stages of grieving go like this......

1-Denial - "this can't be happening to me"

2-Anger - feelings of wanting to fight back or get even

3-Bargaining - Attempting to make deals to stop or change the loss.

4-Depression - overwhelming feelings of hopelessness, frustration, bitterness, self pity, mourning

5-Acceptance - You have to accept the loss, not just try to bear it quietly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lucretious, 19 May 2009 @ 2:09pm

I'm a "sexual predator" because I like getting a BJ at the end of the work week?

I never knew......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]