Apparently I'm A Google Shill And I Didn't Even Know It
from the well-that's-awkward dept
So, there's been this slightly weird tangent in the Oracle/Google patent & copyright dispute, in which Judge Alsup -- for reasons that are still not clear to anyone -- ordered both companies to disclose the names of any "authors, journalists, commentators or bloggers who have and/or may publish comments on the issues in [the] case." Both sides made filings last week, with Oracle disclosing -- as was already public -- that it had blogger Florian Mueller on staff as a consultant, and mentioning an Oracle employee who blogged about the case. Google, on the other hand, told the court that it hadn't paid anyone to comment on the case at all, but did mention that in the course of its regular activities, it does give money to various companies, some of whom may have had employees who commented on the story. Judge Alsup came back earlier this week and told Google it didn't try hard enough and to find some names to name.Earlier today, Google did its filing and apparently found some names... including mine! Yes, I know that we've had some haters declaring for years that I'm a Google shill, so this must be the confirmation of all their conspiracy theories, rumors and attacks, right? Well, no. I'm named in the section about CCIA -- the Computer and Communications Industry Association. Why? Because CCIA sponsored some research that we did. Here's what the filing states:
The CCIA has commissioned studies by Mike Masnick, CEO of Floor64. See http://www.floor64.com/about.php. Mr. Masnick has commented on the case on the TechDirt website and on his personal friendfeed.com account. See Ex. X (available at https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120523/11050519050/boom-jury-says-no-patentinfringement- google-oracle-case.shtml and at http://friendfeed.com/mmasnick/a3a94012/jurygoogle- did-not-infringe-on-oracle-patents).And, yes, CCIA has commissioned a study by my company (Floor64) which I co-authored. And that's, uh, public knowledge. Here's my post back in January announcing the Sky is Rising report, in which it says, upfront, that it was sponsored by CCIA. And, of course, you can go check out the Sky is Rising report yourself directly, which has a nice big CCIA logo on the front. Hell, if you want, you can also donate some money for the ebook version -- and it, too, will come with the CCIA logo.
I'm not sure how that has anything to do with Google. Google is a CCIA member, as are a bunch of other companies. And, honestly, if you'd asked me yesterday, I would have said that I thought Oracle was a CCIA member too, because it's an organization that represents a bunch of top tech companies, including Microsoft, eBay, Sprint, Facebook, AMD, Fujitsu, Dish Networks and more. However, it appears that Oracle is not a CCIA member, though I only learned this today from the filing, which also notes that Oracle and Sun used to be CCIA members. So, I'm not sure what any of that says about anything.
And, of course, if the point of this exercise is to uncover "shills" who are really speaking on behalf of companies without disclosing it, once again this argument falls down. My position on issues related to copyright and patents has been pretty damn consistent since before Google existed. And that continues up until today. I will regularly call out Google for patent and copyright behavior that I believe is bad. And that's because I say what I think. The editorial content of this site has never been for sale, nor will it ever be. Because the only way I survive in this business is with my reputation.
Also, I'm not sure what's with the Friendfeed link in the filing. To be honest, I'd completely forgotten about Friendfeed, which I thought was shut down after Facebook bought the company. But I believe my Friendfeed just sucked in my Twitter account and Techdirt's Twitter account into a single feed. And apparently it lives on without my knowledge.
Separately, because all of this struck me as interesting, I remembered that we did some work with Oracle too! And, just as with what we did with CCIA, it was disclosed publicly at the time. Oracle (along with Intel) sponsored a section of our site, and a series of webinars that we did. And yet, Oracle did not disclose me in their original filing and I don't believe that they filed a new filing here either. Of course, as with CCIA, our relationship with Oracle did not include them having any say in editorial either. In fact, with the order as broad as it was from Judge Alsup, I'd argue that there's a much stronger argument that I should be in the Oracle filing than the Google one. But, of course, Oracle didn't include us because it was a random blog sponsorship thing they did a while back which had nothing to do with editorial (or even intellectual property issues).
In the end, this comes right back to some of the concerns that were raised about Judge Alsup's broad order in the first place. If you want to find tenuous connections, they exist. In fact, Google's filing lists out a bunch of other names (including many people who I know or consider friends), almost all of whom have a long, long history of holding the exact same positions, and where the connection to "Google money" is, at best, weak.
Like many folks, I was curious to see who would be named on both of these lists, but the order was so broad that it seems to have swept me up into it (on one side, though a broad reading says it would make more sense for me to be on the other one!), and that's silly. I'm a big boy and I can handle people not understanding the details here and attacking me, but the fact that we did unrelated research for a different organization that Google is a member of -- and that gets me named on a list of "shills" just doesn't seem right.
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: bloggers, commentary, disclosures, shills
Companies: ccia, floor64, google, oracle
Reader Comments
The First Word
“The pull quote
My position on issues related to copyright and patents has been pretty damn consistent since before Google existed.15 years. 40,000 posts. All of it archived right here on this site, completely searchable.
It's probably too much trouble to ask anyone wandering in shouting "shill" to consider the evidence to the contrary but out of everything listed in this post, I'd point to that.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
What's stupid...
"You didn't try hard enough, Google". WTF????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's stupid...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What's stupid...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What's stupid...
Oh well, I'm sure once this leaves Crystal Ball territory all the trolls in the world will want to put their stupdity on display for all of us to see.
Sadly, I have yet to receive a check from Google, despite writing for the site. And, given that I, like Mike, have been critical of Google in the past, this is all much to do about nothing....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What's stupid...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What's stupid...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's stupid...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The pull quote
15 years. 40,000 posts. All of it archived right here on this site, completely searchable.
It's probably too much trouble to ask anyone wandering in shouting "shill" to consider the evidence to the contrary but out of everything listed in this post, I'd point to that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The pull quote
I can get behind that logic....with a snowplow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The pull quote
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The pull quote
Mike is so forward-thinking, he was shilling for Google before Google even existed. (Techdirt: August 1997; Google: September 1998.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This proves it...
Passing a law making running red lights illegal meant that the government who passed it actually meant that running them is legal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pirate Mike and Pirate Google are in cahoots! Cahoots, I say!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...nice big CCIA log really sounds like a tasty campfire treat to me for some reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
*feels shame*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google shill and more
*Begin Conspiracy*
I suppose we could start the rumor that The Pirate Bay was originally called The Pirate Michael Bay, but then Michael Bay was brought to tears at the thought, so Pirate Mike went into hiding.
He found a place, way up on the 64th floor and that's what brought the name, Floor64.
Why the 64th floor? Because Mike is a geek and all geeks speak binary and 2^6 = 64. That's the connection to Google! It's so obvious. Two people started Google, Google has 6 data centers in their establishment of world control, starting with the entertainment industry.
Now you see, Pirate Mike is making it clearly obvious he's a Google Shill. The connection is mathematically proven. It's all in the equation.
/sarc/troll/tin-foil hat melted
Sorry, it's Friday and I'm losing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google shill and more
23!!! AHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Google shill and more
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Google shill and more
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Google shill and more
Not only that! As we all know, "Google" is a play on the mathematical term googol, which means one with one hundred zeros after it. In other words, ten to the hundredth power - or, ten to the power of (ten times ten).
If you add 6 and 4, what do you get? Ten!
It's just too obvious. But the conspiracy goes even deeper than that!
If you raise three to the second power, you get 9. Now, if you multiply 11 by 2, you get twenty-two. Three raised to the power of twenty-two is 31381059609. BUT! This is also the power of nine raised to eleven!
9/11!
And there's more! If you actually divide nine by eleven, you get .81818181... that is, .81 repeating. Eight plus one equals nine, which equals two to the power of three - the very factors of six which you just mentioned!
It gets even scarier! Take that two and three, factor in 10 for Google, and 1 for Mike "Lone Wolf" Masnick, and what do you get?
2 * (10 ^ 3) + 1 = 2001! As in, September 11th, 2001!
It's obvious, and sinister! A Google-funded Mike Masnick was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks!
I keep telling this to the FBI, but they never listen. They never listen! It's obviously a government cover-up!!!
Also, aliens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Google shill and more
Sorry, "three to the power of two."
The rest is mathematically accurate, and also completely sane.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Google shill and more
Don't forget, there are 3 vowels in the word "Google" which significant, given Google has six letters!
Google existed for 6 years before Joel T's alleged infringement, Google has 6 letters in their name, Google has 6 data centers -- ahhh 666, Google is the evil!
But since Pirate Mike was the first Google Shill, before Google even existed, AND since he clearly has a time machine, he is really the Devil! Who else can jump through time, create an evil empire (Google), dare to stand up against government safety bills (PIPA/SOPA/ACTA/TPP), hate artists, encourage chaos (The Pirate Michael Bay - now renamed The Pirate Bay since Pirate Mike didn't want to be confused with Michael Bay), cattle mutilations, and Brittany Spears' head shaving incident!
It's all there and we all fell more Pirate Mike's evil Googlation (Google Domination) plan!
I'm ashamed of myself for not being smarter and seeing through such lies.
The greatest trick Pirate Mike The Devil ever pulled, was convincing TechDirt readers that piracy didn't exist!
/yeah, I know, overboard but still fun. No Offense Mike, I figured if we chimed in maybe we could take the wind out of the sails of the usual AC-conspiracy rants.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Google shill and more
Conspiracy rants? Google put his name on its list of shills. No conspiracy theory, just a big time outting. Truthfully, it's widely known, and now it's public due to Google's legally required disclosure of who are its paid shills.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google shill and more
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google shill and more
Oh, but according to the paid shill himself, it is a shill list:
"I can handle people not understanding the details here and attacking me," Masnick writes, "but the fact that we did unrelated research for a different organization that Google is a member of gets me named on a list of 'shills' just doesn't seem right."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google shill and more
Second: Notice I knew what you were by your comments...a troll. You do nothing but harrass people until they see as you do. Take a personal tip from me, and don't troll and maybe you could learn how to get a proper counterpoint.
Please keep in mind that I am only trying to help you make better at your arguments than your usual name calling. Name calling never works in a well thought put argument. If you know the answer, answer it the best to your knowledge. As it has been demonstrated below, an AC had stated his opinion without name calling and calling people out. People were inclined to help him clarify his statement for better understanding all around.
So if you really want to make a proper rebuttal, do it, but please do it without name calling (it is quite useless), and it only gets you labeled as a troll depending on how you use your name calling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google shill and more
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google shill and more
Did you notice at all that I sometimes don't agree with the articles written on TechDirt? No, you just keep on name calling.
Stop repeting conspiracy theories you see in your mother's basement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google shill and more
Mercy me, that's not passive.
Did you notice at all that I sometimes don't agree with the articles written on TechDirt? No, you just keep on name calling.
Who can tell what you think, all you do is cut, paste and recycle the same tired shit.
Stop repeting conspiracy theories you see in your mother's basement.
What conspiracy theory. Google proclaimed Masnick as one of it's paid shills. Masnick is quoted bitching about being included on a "shill list".
I guess you don't have a canned response for this so you decided to go with the 'conspiracy theory' response. Swing and a miss, strike three.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google shill and more
So as you can see, not all my responses to you are canned reactions. Maybe if you would cite where you get your information, avoid name calling, harrassing and trolling anyone who debunks your theories, have a well thought out logical and reasonable comment beyond the usual "Mike is a pirate shill" derping that you usually do people would be willing to help you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google shill and more
What the hell does this even mean:
You now think that this article confirms Mike being paid by Google. Mike wrote about Google back in 1997 and Google went online in 1998.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google shill and more
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google shill and more
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google shill and more
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google shill and more
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google shill and more
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Google shill and more
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Google shill and more
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google shill and more
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google shill and more
Maybe you can ask him how many times he's used the Pirate Bay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Google shill and more
That would be exactly zero times.
In fact, if you count the number of times he hasn't used The Pirate Bay, it would rapidly approach some very large number. Like, say, a googol!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google shill and more
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Holes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
His opinions are always so one sided!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
:-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: :-)
Troll 'logic' in this case goes like this:
Mike posts an article talking about something good google has done = proof Mike works for, and is shilling for, google.
Mike posts an article critical of something google has done = proof that Mike works for, and is shilling for, google, because look, he's done articles talking about good things they've done in the past, so it means the article critical of them is just an attempt at misdirection!
You may find this a little odd, but that's just because troll 'logic' works different than normal, namely backwards. Instead of looking at facts and evidence and arriving at a conclusion based upon it, they go with the conclusion they already want and work to find proof for it, and if lacking any, make it up as well as they can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: :-)
They did a Bing search, found your accusations of him being a shill, ran with it to satisfy the judge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: :-)
I have seen it when he's chastised Google as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: :-)
As I said this kind of thinking only makes sense(and I use that word very loosely) if you use troll logic, and start with the conclusion you want, and go from there. Using plain old 'normal' logic would get you a very different conclusion, as well as requiring actually reading, and comprehending, what is being posted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: :-)
Try applying logic to this: If Masnick is not a Google shill, why would Google say that Masnick is a Google shill? EFF, CDT and PK are also listed as shills. They criticize Google from time to time as well. Google understands that true shills need to maintain an appearance of impartiality so they tolerate occasional, superficial criticism from their shill army so they can say: "Look we said something negative about Google, we're not shills"..... right up until when something like this happens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: :-)
.....gets me named on a list of 'shills' just doesn't seem right."
I suggest you take that characterization up with him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: :-)
Try applying logic to this: If Masnick is not a Google shill, why would Google say that Masnick is a Google shill? EFF, CDT and PK are also listed as shills. They criticize Google from time to time as well. Google understands that true shills need to maintain an appearance of impartiality so they tolerate occasional, superficial criticism from their shill army so they can say: "Look we said something negative about Google, we're not shills"..... right up until when something like this happens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: :-)
Try applying logic to this: Google repeatedly denied that anyone in that filing was a shill.
In fact, it appears that a big reason Google even mentioned their names in the filing, is that Oracle claimed in their filings that they were shills, and Google explicitly wanted to deny it. It's certainly the case with the CCIA:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: :-)
CCIA is a group not owned by Google but certainly dominated by them. They are the 800 pound gorilla, plain and simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: :-)
Perhaps, but Google does... and now so does the rest of the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: :-)
Well, I don't quite know if you noticed, but I think there are a lot of people here outside myself who do not see the connection/conspiracy theory in that you do. The list was not a list of paid people as Oracle Systems had claimed. I'm pretty sure mike wrote about a then, up and coming search engine named Google back in 1997. But I'm sure you're too young to know about how Google started off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I work in IP with media related companies. I think that your position (you Mike Masnick)in the "IP wars" sometimes is superficial and silly: Media companies bad, Tech companies, good. But in general, as I said, this site is great and, at the very least, it has helped me to "sharpen" my arguments.
As a regular of Techdirt I can attest that whenever you or your fellow writers have found Google or any other tech company in the wrong, in your opinion, you have been even harder with them.
I have no doubts about your integrity and I only want to thank you for all your efforts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think that is a comment more on your own integrity than that of Masnick's.. It is clear to anyone who can read, that Masnicks integrity is somewhere well below zero at this point.
face it he's been outted for all the things he waffles on about here..
he is after all a paid shill and lobbyiest
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Oracle notes that Google maintains a network of direct and indirect 'influencers'; to advance Google's intellectual property agenda. This network is extensive, including attorneys, lobbyists, trade associations, academics, and bloggers, and its focus extends beyond pure intellectual property issues to competition/antitrust issues." It alleges that "Google brought this extensive network of influencers to help shape public perceptions concerning the position it was advocating throughout this trial."
So while you may not consider yourself a Google shill, apparently Google does and has named you as one of the influencers that are paid to advance Google's intellectual property agenda.
So after all these years of denial, you've been outted by your paymaster in spectacular fashion. Pirate Mike; Google pissboy and paid shill. At least now, there's no denying it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"So while you may not consider yourself a Google shill, apparently Google does and has named you as one of the influencers that are paid to advance Google's intellectual property agenda.
So after all these years of denial, you've been outted by your paymaster in spectacular fashion. Pirate Mike; Google pissboy and paid shill. At least now, there's no denying it."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nice try, Same Anonymous Coward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's neither what Alsup ordered, nor what Google listed... did you confuse Oracle's allegations with Google's response, or perhaps with the voice in your head?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I did, but there was nothing really interesting:
https://www.google.com/search?q=pissboy+and+paid+shill&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8& ;client=ubuntu&channel=fs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
There's no punctuation misunderstanding in Zach's recasting of a direct quote.
Go bone yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
IF name=="Shill"
THEN action==console
ELSE action==console
ENDIF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Second: Notice I knew what you were by your comments...a troll. You do nothing but harrass people until they see as you do. Take a personal tip from me, and don't troll and maybe you could learn how to get a proper counterpoint.
Please keep in mind that I am only trying to help you make better at your arguments than your usual name calling. Name calling never works in a well thought put argument. If you know the answer, answer it the best to your knowledge. As it has been demonstrated below, an AC had stated his opinion without name calling and calling people out. People were inclined to help him clarify his statement for better understanding all around.
So if you really want to make a proper rebuttal, do it, but please do it without name calling (it is quite useless), and it only gets you labeled as a troll depending on how you use your name calling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Careful Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not so fast chubby. Are you seriously suggesting that you were commissioned to perform a study for CCIA costing tens of thousands of dollars and you didn't know who all of the members of the group were? What total horse shit. Who on earth do you think is stupid enough to believe that?
About the only way that is remotely conceivable is if you were hired directly by Google, who later had it published under the CCIA banner. And that's probably exactly what happened, I'll still never believe that you don't know who the members of the CCIA are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ad hominem.
"Are you seriously suggesting that you were commissioned to perform a study for CCIA costing tens of thousands of dollars and you didn't know who all of the members of the group were?"
The amount of money doesn't have an effect one way or the other.
Mike didn't say that he didn't know who all the members of the group were -- he said that he would have thought that Oracle was a member.
"About the only way that is remotely conceivable is if you were hired directly by Google, who later had it published under the CCIA banner."
As has already been pointed out, the CCIA includes amongst its members Microsoft (a competitor of Google) and Facebook (an ally of Microsoft). This group is hardly friendly to Google.
"And that's probably exactly what happened, I'll still never believe that you don't know who the members of the CCIA are."
I give up. If you'll never believe something, then what's the point of trying to determine the truth of things?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Mike didn't say that he didn't know who all the members of the group were -- he said that he would have thought that Oracle was a member.
You are either an even bigger idiot (if that's possible) or an enormously ingratiating lickspittle.
A professional tech consulting firm performs an extensive study for the "CCIA" and it doesn't know who the members are or aren't. That is simply unbelievable and you should be embarrassed for trying to legitimize this bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Second: Notice I knew what you were by your comments...a troll. You do nothing but harrass people until they see as you do. Take a personal tip from me, and don't troll and maybe you could learn how to get a proper counterpoint.
Please keep in mind that I am only trying to help you make better at your arguments than your usual name calling. Name calling never works in a well thought put argument. If you know the answer, answer it the best to your knowledge. As it has been demonstrated below, an AC had stated his opinion without name calling and calling people out. People were inclined to help him clarify his statement for better understanding all around.
So if you really want to make a proper rebuttal, do it, but please do it without name calling (it is quite useless), and it only gets you labeled as a troll depending on how you use your name calling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The other side of the equation
Had Google stood by its original response, then the judge may have eventually conceded that he had no proof otherwise.
But now, as Mike pointed out, Google has disclosed more detail than Oracle; and, as a result, a sheer greater number of names.
Unfortunately, that sheer greater number of names may be all that the mainstream coverage focuses on. I fully expect to read about "Google's dirty list of secrets, the names of which far outnumber the single blogger and employee on Oracle's list..."
Of course, the other side of the equation, is that this unfairly smears all the names listed as being nothing more than corporate shills. I think Google should have considered the effect on the identified companies' reputations, before (irresponsibly) listing their names.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The other side of the equation
It's laughable to suggest that Google somehow got pushed into these disclosures or went too far. They have the expertise and means to fight and disclose as little as legally possible. Yet there it is, a list of paid shills will all of the likely suspects. A shill is a shill. They took the money in exchange for helping Google advance its agenda and now their reputations reflect that fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The other side of the equation
This was not suggested anywhere in my post...
"They took the money in exchange for helping Google advance its agenda and now their reputations reflect that fact."
Simply not true. Mike Masnick was commissioned by the CCIA (not only Google) for that study, which he completed. There is no evidence that he is currently receiving payment from Google for his postings on Techdirt.
And the EFF employee who blogged on this case, has held consistent opinion on API copyrightability that "long predates his association with EFF, and in fact predates Google’s existence".
Also, for a shill, the EFF has had no problem criticizing Google in the past:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/08/google-verizon-netneutrality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The other side of the equation
If that is true, then why did Google feel compelled to identify Masnick as a paid shill when so ordered by the Court?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The other side of the equation
And it did exactly that, listing literally everyone who commented on the case who ever had any association with Google, even before the case or after they no longer were associated in any way with Google. If you think Masnick is the equivalent of Florian Mueller of FOSSPatents, as you clearly do, the evidence presented in the filings shows you couldn't be more wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The other side of the equation
This was not suggested anywhere in my post
Really, what does this statement of yours mean?
...I wonder if Google shouldn't have stood more firmly by its original (truthful) answer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The other side of the equation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The other side of the equation
so as not to get pushed?
Thanks, keep it coming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The other side of the equation
Second: Notice I knew what you were by your comments...a troll. You do nothing but harrass people until they see as you do. Take a personal tip from me, and don't troll and maybe you could learn how to get a proper counterpoint.
Please keep in mind that I am only trying to help you make better at your arguments than your usual name calling. Name calling never works in a well thought put argument. If you know the answer, answer it the best to your knowledge. As it has been demonstrated below, an AC had stated his opinion without name calling and calling people out. People were inclined to help him clarify his statement for better understanding all around.
So if you really want to make a proper rebuttal, do it, but please do it without name calling (it is quite useless), and it only gets you labeled as a troll depending on how you use your name calling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The other side of the equation
Google is careful like that. They don't do very much of anything on this level directly, it's always through third parties, charitable trusts, and other ways of avoiding any direct connections.
How was the EFF financed? A trust. Why do you think that the EFF went from being a defender of rights "after the event" to an organization pushing an agenda (one that just happens to fit almost perfectly with Google's stated intentions and desires")?
What is funny now is that, since Mike admits to working for the CCIA, pretty much everything that he quotes or highlights from this group is now suspect. Does he quote it as truth, or did he write it himself, or does he know the authors personally, or is he quoting from it because he gets paid by them?
Mike would hang the RIAA and MPAA types from their balls for something like this, but everyone here seems to think it's okay because it's Lord Masnick himself. The Emperor has no clothes!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.scribd.com/doc/103832136/12-08-24-Supplemental-Google-Disclosures
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Second: Notice I knew what you were by your comments...a troll. You do nothing but harrass people until they see as you do. Take a personal tip from me, and don't troll and maybe you could learn how to get a proper counterpoint.
Please keep in mind that I am only trying to help you make better at your arguments than your usual name calling. Name calling never works in a well thought put argument. If you know the answer, answer it the best to your knowledge. As it has been demonstrated below, an AC had stated his opinion without name calling and calling people out. People were inclined to help him clarify his statement for better understanding all around.
So if you really want to make a proper rebuttal, do it, but please do it without name calling (it is quite useless), and it only gets you labeled as a troll depending on how you use your name calling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Shill Mike derpderpderp Mike's a shill derpderpderp"
Gets old after a while. I'm only offering you an out each time I post that comment after you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Getting a kick from these comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Getting a kick from these comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's embedded right there in the post, smart guy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I applaud you. Now try to do it all the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But it doesn't include embedded documents?
Just a random thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy
you just can't be too paranoid these days...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy
Mike has exactly the same "degree of separation" from Google as he does from Microsoft, the Dish Network, eBay, Sprint, or Yahoo!, all of whom are CCIA members. Yet Mike is not even accused of "shilling" for them.
And he has a more direct connection with Oracle, as he explained... yet Oracle didn't reveal this information in their filing.
In fact, if you actually read the filing, you'll note that about half of the people on that list also worked for Oracle or their lawyers at one time or another. And none of them were listed in Oracle's filing.
For a perfectly good reason. As Google explained, repeatedly, they did not pay any of those people (nor anyone else) to write opinion pieces on the lawsuit. They were simply told by the judge to list anyone who took money from any organization Google gave money to, who also wrote anything about the case at all.
This, in contrast with Oracle - who did pay people to write posts about the lawsuit, including people who were directly employed at Oracle at the time.
Frankly, it appears the reason Google chose those specific organizations and people is because Oracle directly accused them of being shills for Google in the case filings, and Google wanted to prove they were not. One of those organizations is the CCIA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy
I lean in the direction of asking bloggers to disclose all corporate connections, be they financial, personal, etc. So I would probably say that if you are contracting with the CCIA, you do have a relevant association with its members. In other words, I don't think there can be too much transparency.
If we want to extent the concept to say Mike is shilling for all the members of the CCIA, I'll go for that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy
Yes, no disagreement there. I was just pointing out that being on Google's short list does make you more visible. You have gained an association with Google that other bloggers not on the list haven't been given. Whether your wanted that association or not doesn't change the fact that Google has given it to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy
I'd love to see a bigger list of any bloggers who have received money from Google in some fashion. Not advertising generated by a machine, but any blogger who has been paid for work done for Google, or even the sorts of things like getting free entertainment/dinners, free or discounted trips/services, etc. The same sorts of things DJs, many journalists, and many government workers are supposed to disclose. Google, on the one hand, said, "We can't give you names because there are so many of them," and then, on the other hand, has just said, "Here are the only people who fall within this set of guidelines."
I'm suspect there is a middle ground between those two extremes that Google isn't disclosing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy
Actually that is totally standard for many writers. If they were working on a piece about AT&T they would mention at the start of the piece that they had formerly worked for AT&T.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy
Well, when Mike released the report, he explicitly said it was funded (in part) by the CRIA. And there is a big CRIA label on the front of the report. Seems pretty transparent to me.
If we want to extent the concept to say Mike is shilling for all the members of the CCIA, I'll go for that.
"Shilling" means that you are getting paid specifically to promote the viewpoint of the people that are paying you. There's no evidence whatsoever that Mike's opinions are anyone's but Mike's, as evidenced by the fact that he routinely contradicts many of the viewpoints of CRIA members.
(To the degree that they even have a viewpoint - after all, this is an organization that has Dish TV, Google, and Microsoft as members, and they couldn't be more different in their opinions, especially regarding things like software patents or copyright laws).
Suzanne, have you ever taken money from anyone, for your art or otherwise? If so, then by your own definition, you're "shilling" for them. Have you taken money from any organization? If so, then by your own definition, you're "shilling" for every member of that organization.
Please tell me, I'd like to know. Exactly who are you "shilling" for? Who pays for your opinions, here in the comments?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy
I used to freelance for national magazines (this was years ago), so if my work was published in them, it was a fair assumption that I got paid from them.
In the Internet years, I have written blogs (starting back in 1993-94). At that time I was working part-time for Apple and getting paid from them until they dropped OneNet and started to fund an alternative project, eWorld, instead.
I have done consulting projects for various companies, and I used to write for ColoradoBiz magazine, eMileHigh, and Courtney Pulitizer's CyberScene. Two of the three were paid gigs. I knew many members of the tech, VC, and entrepreneurial communities. They made a point of talking to me because I was media.
Most relevant for my comments in Techdirt have been my experiences in music. Actually most of my work for musicians has been pro bono precisely so I could say I was volunteering my support because I liked them rather than because they were paying me.
I started writing a music industry blog for Brands Plus Music. The founders of the company have gone on to other things, but I decided to keep writing about topics that interested me. It was my music manifesto, of sorts, because I was getting bored with most of what was coming out about the music industry. People kept saying the same things over and over again and I wanted to cover something on the fringes. Precisely because I knew a lot about the music industry but didn't care if I was paid from it, I felt free to give my honest opinions. I wasn't beholden to anyone and I wasn't trying to sell myself as a music consultant or as a speaker at conferences.
My last big topic series for the blog was on the gift economy, which is how I stumbled on the P2P Foundation. About that time the shareable movement was also picking up steam. And then came Occupy Wall Street. They were addressing economic issues that went far beyond the usual IP arguments.
Last year I became more aware of the huge amount of lobbying Google was doing, so that has shaped my opinions, too.
In comparison to the P2P Foundation and the shareable movement, Techdirt does strike me as very Google-centric. Topics that get discussed over and over here have much to do with issues very relevant to Google. But issues that might affect corporate ownership, the value or non-value of the stock market, sustainability, etc., not so much.
Whether or not Mike has a financial arrangement with Google (I assume he has received money or perks from the company over the years), I do see this as a forum that reflects Google's interests. Whether that is intentional or merely reflects the fact that Mike and Google are closely aligned on many issues, I don't know, but to point to other, more radical points of view, I routinely toss out the P2P Foundation. As I have said, I see the big tech companies moving toward consolidation of power much like big companies in the past have done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy
Then you're (still) shilling for those magazines, and whatever your opinions here in the comments, obviously they are simply a reflection of those national magazines, who paid you to espouse their opinions.
In the Internet years, I have written blogs (starting back in 1993-94). At that time I was working part-time for Apple and getting paid from them until they dropped OneNet and started to fund an alternative project, eWorld, instead.
So, if you ever wrote something about Apple, even if it's negative, then obviously you only espouse that opinion because you were paid by Apple to do so. You were also paid by OneNet, so obviously you're just parroting OneNet's corporate press releases.
I have done consulting projects for various companies, and I used to write for ColoradoBiz magazine, eMileHigh, and Courtney Pulitizer's CyberScene.
More people who pay you to post their opinions? Good Lord, is there anyone who you won't take money from so you can espouse their opinions here??? You're a total shill slut, I tell ya!
I started writing a music industry blog for Brands Plus Music.
"Music industry blog?" Don't make me laugh! Obviously, you were really just shilling for Apple, ColoradoBiz, eMileHigh, and CyberScene. If you wrote anything in that blog, obviously you were just paid to regurgitate their press releases. It was simply an "astroturfing" blog, created for the sole purpose of pushing their agenda on the Internet.
My last big topic series for the blog was on the gift economy, which is how I stumbled on the P2P Foundation.
Wow! So a consortium of Colorado magazines, allied with Apple, are behind the P2P Foundation! I never knew that. Thanks for clearing that up! Now that it's confirmed, I'm going to spread it far and wide, and especially on any blogs associated with the P2P Foundation.
...Now, let's be clear here. This is obviously satirical, but it is in no way different than what the AC's here are saying.
The fact is, you had much more of a relationship with those magazines than Mike ever had with Google. Mike has never "freelanced" for Google in any way. He has never done a consulting project for them. They have never paid Mike for anything he's ever written on the Techdirt blog. They have never sponsored a conversation here.
Unlike Oracle (which Mike revealed upfront in the discussion itself). Or Sun, or AmEx, or IBM, or UPS (which Mike likewise disclosed upfront). You can see everyone who sponsored a conversation by going to The Insight Community Cases page. You'll notice that Google is not among them.
I assume he has received money or perks from the company over the years
Your assumption would be wrong. Here's what Floor64/Techdirt received over the years:
1. The non-profit CCIA, of which Google is one of a dozen members (and of which Oracle used to be a member), co-sponsored The Sky Is Rising report. (The other sponsor was Engine Advocacy, a political non-profit that represents startup tech companies, not "big players" like Google or Oracle.)
2. Mike said that years ago, when he (and others) were holding a roundtable discussion, Google donated space for that meeting. This would probably be around the time that you were freelancing for national magazines.
3. Like 99% of the Internet, Techdirt has AdSense.
That's it. No more money, no more perks. That is the extent of Mike's connection to Google.
So why are the AC's harping on it?
One (likely) possibility is that they're shills themselves. At least one AC posts exclusively during business hours, from a Washington DC IP address. Another revealed that he's an IP lawyer by profession.
But it's also likely that they've simply bought what a number of high-profile conspiracy theorists have claimed about Google. People like Rupert Murdoch, MPAA head Chris Dodd, or everyone who writes for the RIAA blog. People like copyright lawyer Chris Castle (the man behind Music Tech Policy), major-label artist David Lowerey (the man behind The Trichordist), or indie filmmaker Ellen Seidler (the woman behind popuppirates.com).
These are also the same types of people who actually believe Google orchestrated the SOPA/PIPA blackouts, solely because Google profits from piracy. The same ones who believe that Google controls the EFF, Demand Progress, the CDT, or any other non-profit that advocates for an open Internet. And now they're trying to do the same thing with Techdirt.
So, why Google, and not (say) Microsoft's Bing or adCenter? Simple: Microsoft generally shares the MPAA and RIAA view on IP protection. Google has an opposing viewpoint, and they actually spend almost as much in lobbying money as the MPAA and RIAA do, so they're big enough to be a threat. If they can present Google as a "piracy apologist," then tar and feather everyone who has ever been vaguely associated with them, then they'll once again have a free reign in Washington.
At the very least, they'll be able to demand that Google give them more money. Which they can then use to pressure all other tech companies into giving them more money.
And, sadly, you appear to be falling for it. For your own sake, I hope you change your mind. Especially since you like something called the "P2P Foundation," which must be a piracy site, and deserves to be instantly shut down by the Government. Without the EFF, CDT, Demand Progress, etc. (all of which will be discounted as "piracy apologists" who are "shilling for Google"), then it'll be much harder to stop things like this from happening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy
In terms of Mike, he hasn't actually said he hasn't received money or perks from Google. He has disclosed some, but hasn't gone on record about any others. Fans of his have assumed the only relationships are the ones that he has disclosed, but as far as I can tell, he hasn't said that there haven't been other relationships with Google. And that's been my point. Many bloggers do have connections with companies they cover. Sometimes they disclose that and sometimes they don't.
At any rate, I think I have clarified my stance on things. I consider Techdirt to be Google-centric when compared to many other sites writing about economic issues. Whether that is coincidental or reflects a more formal arrangement with Google doesn't really matter to me. But if I want to see discussions on a wider range of issues, I have found other sites to be better. Some of the ones I enjoy are far more radical than Techdirt concerning IP laws and how they impact business and ownership.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy
Yes, he has.
The problem is, he said it in the comments the first time someone accused him of being a Google shill, which was years ago.
Yes, that accusation has been flying around for that long (at least).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy
Yes, he has.
Could you provide a link? I've done searches and could never find it. Has he actually said, "I have never been paid by Google for anything?" I know he has used their facilities for an event and he has said that. But has he said there have been no other exchanges of money, freebies, etc.?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy
I searched for it myself, but I couldn't find it. I believe it was back when Techdirt was first writing about how bad SOPA/PIPA were, and the usual A.C. SOPA/PIPA apologists claimed he was only saying it because he was paid off by Google.
But when he said that Google provided space for that meeting, he also explicitly said that was all she wrote (unless you count AdSense). I believe this was before The Sky Is Rising came out, but I can't be sure.
In any case, when any company has paid Techdirt for anything, Mike has always stated it upfront. He always reveals his sponsors for e.g. TED talks, speaking engagements, Insight Community conversations, etc.
There's a big reason for this: Mike's income and influence largely depend upon his transparency and integrity. He has a huge incentive to be honest about these things.
Which is why these A.C.'s attack him, publicly, in the comments here. Whatever their motivations, they're interested in nothing other than a smear campaign.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy
That's what I am trying to point out. You can do selective disclosure and make it look like full disclosure. Unless you say, "Google has NEVER paid me or given me anything," there can be speculation about your relationship with the company because that is how deals are done in many cases.
If you are around politicians and business people long enough, you learn that some things are made public and some things aren't and there are ways to spin lots of stuff in your favor.
Think about all of those freebies you get at conventions. Yes, they are trying to influence you. Maybe you are influenced and maybe you aren't. If it is a dollar toy, it probably isn't worth citing. If it is something worth $200+, it might be worth citing if you are writing about the company or if you are asking your own company to do business with the giving company. It happens all the time overseas in the form of bribes. It's an interesting topic and one I think worthy of discussion here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy
So, what, unless Mike specifically says a company never gave him anything, we should assume he's shilling for them?
Come on, Suzanne. This is really ridiculous. If he doesn't disclose financial information, then he's hiding something; if he does disclose financial information, he's still hiding something, and only "making it look like" he's not hiding something.
By this same logic, Mike is shilling for the RIAA. I mean, he never disclosed that the RIAA ever paid him a dime, but that's just "selective disclosure," since he never said the RIAA didn't pay him, either.
Unless you say, "Google has NEVER paid me or given me anything," there can be speculation about your relationship with the company because that is how deals are done in many cases.
There is no "deal" here. There is no "relationship with the company" to speculate on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy
People are going to speculate unless there is a statement from Mike saying there has never been an exchange of money or freebies. Any tech blogger that writes about matters that tend to reinforce a particular company is subject to speculation. Happens all the time.
I think it is an interesting topic. I didn't start it. But since Mike brought up the concept of shilling for Google, I'm happy to explore just what "shilling" might mean and why people think there may be a connection between Techdirt and Google.
How taking money or freebies influences bloggers is a huge topic, so I'm not covering anything that hasn't been discussed in depth other places. Every blogger is subject to speculation about what they have or haven't gotten from the companies, artists, etc., that they write about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy
Every blogger is under suspicion. You guys may not like that, but that's how it is now. It's kind of like Lance Armstrong saying, "I've never tested positive for anything." That's not quite the same as saying "I've never used any performance enhancing drugs."
And, in addition, there's a lot of gaming of the Internet. We have people who buy followers and friends. So yes, it does tend to be assumed guilty until proven otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy
Guilty until proven innocent right?
I am going to assume you are single as no man would want to prove to you every-time he came home that they had not been with another woman.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy
You don't know just how close you are to the messages being sent to women: Don't get drunk, keep your legs together, watch how you dress, don't go into certain neighborhoods, watch who you hang out with, don't give strangers your phone number.
At any rate, you guys can keep protesting that suspecting bloggers of getting paid is unfair, but it is so common that it's not even up for debate among people who follow these discussions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy
wow, whoever said that !!!! take a long hard look at yourself, what you are, and how you conduct yourself..
personally I find you disgusting, sexist and a moron.. let me guess, you make sure your wife is home, in the kitchen having dinner ready for you when you come home from your hard day and the bar ??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy
Turns out the most beautiful woman in the world prefers me that way.
They say the best revenge is living well. I plan on lasting at least as long as my male predecessors. See you at my 100th birthday party.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy
Mike did make such a statement in the comments, though I can't find it now. But since you remember him saying that he used Google's facilities once, I guess you remember that he made that statement. And I guess that's not good enough for you.
How about a statement from Google, that said, under perjury of law, that there was no direct relationship between them and Techdirt? And that they did not pay Mike (nor anyone else) any money whatsoever to write about the case?
Because that's what you've got.
Google's filing has to divulge the extent of their "relationship," by law. If there was "an exchange of money or freebies," and Google didn't divulge it, they would be guilty of perjury in a high-stakes legal case.
The plain fact is that you, Suzanne, invented this "relationship" out of whole cloth.
What I can't figure out is why. I know why the various AC haters do it: they are rabid IP maximalists, and have a political agenda against Google. But I thought that you were smarter than that.
I guess I was wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy
I only remember him saying he used Google for an event. I've never seen any comments from him about whether Google has been a client or if he and Google have had any business dealings, etc. Has he actually said this or have you interpreted what he has written to mean this?
The plain fact is that you, Suzanne, invented this "relationship" out of whole cloth.
Mike started this shill thread. Blame him for bringing it up.
What I have commented on is the fact that (1) I find Techdirt more Google-centric than other anti-IP blogs and (2) the fact that all bloggers are questioned about the relationships with the companies they write about. You don't seem to get that. Nearly every blogger who writes about tech is challenged about their relationships. For anyone to think Mike shouldn't get scrutiny is naive.
What I find odd is that you don't understand this. Because Mike has been a consultant in Silicon Valley, I would find it strange for him not to have dealt with Google, but perhaps that has been the case. Has there been a complete list of Floor64 clients posted anywhere?
There have been so many posts all over the Internet about which bloggers are mouthpieces for which companies that it has been inevitable for such talk to hit Techdirt as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy
I think this might be one of the comments you were looking for Karl. (I remembered it also and my Google-foo was strong today):
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111123/00002616879/why-public-is-willing-to-rally-agai nst-sopapipa-not-it.shtml#c873
Unfortunately, the link in the comment Mike was responding to seems to point to Techdirt Insider Shop now, so it's hard to tell what it was referencing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy
I wouldn't care if google has been paying him and I don't like google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy
Transparently and objectively, how much has the MPAA/RIAA paid you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy
I am skeptical of an anti-IP movement if it doesn't push for bigger changes as well. If it strikes me as "what's good for Google," then I suspect it will stop short once it threatens Google's (or another big company's) stock price. Among big tech companies, I like Google more than some of the rest of them. But I have been hearing too many justifications coming from Silicon Valley that sound a lot like the old justifications from other industries that were once in power. Once you have a lot of people dependent on a certain system and especially when you have a few people making huge amounts of money in that system, a certain inertia tends to set in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy
The "big tech mentality" is a lot more fractured than you think, frankly. Issues like DRM, IP protections, etc. are not shared among larger tech companies, much less the entire industry. As I said, compare Google and Microsoft (both of which are CCIA members).
In any case, nothing about Techdirt represents (or is intended to represent) "big tech" companies. Techdirt's main focus is, and AFAIK always has been, about startups. As I said before, the other sponsor of The Sky Is Rising is Engine Advocacy, which represents startup tech companies, not legacy players.
I am skeptical of an anti-IP movement if it doesn't push for bigger changes as well.
It's a simple matter of focus. IP reformers (not the "anti-IP movement" as you call it) exist in a wide swath of political viewpoints: leftists, centerists, Libertarians, etc.
Of course, Techdirt does focus on far more than just IP issues. Tech-related immigration laws, cyber security, or privacy rights are also a big part of this blog. I (and I guess you) happen to be more interested in IP issues, but that just says something about us.
If it strikes me as "what's good for Google," then I suspect it will stop short once it threatens Google's (or another big company's) stock price.
The notion that Mike cares about Google's stock price is ridiculous. Google has some of the same opinions as Mike, but he's also routinely criticized Google in the past. And if Google went under, Techdirt would lose nothing.
Once you have a lot of people dependent on a certain system and especially when you have a few people making huge amounts of money in that system, a certain inertia tends to set in.
You should really read this blog more often. Because you're actually saying the same thing Mike has been saying for over a decade.
I guess that means you're a shill for Google too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy
Among big tech companies, Google is the one I like the second best (I think Amazon is probably my first choice because it isn't trying to monitor everything I do). If that makes me a Google shill, so be it.
I know that the tech companies aren't a united block. I have enjoyed the various legal battles they are inflicting on each other as a way to keep them in check.
But in terms of thinking that tech solves all problems and that the Silicon Valley way of thinking is better than what comes from other industries or places, yes, I see a mindset and power influence settling in. I do see tech solving some problems (I hope technology knocks out fossil fuels and its infrastructure as soon as possible), but I roll my eyes at some of what is written by Silicon Valley-mindset bloggers. They sound so much like defenders of old industries used to sound.
What I like about the P2P Foundation is that it has proposed using the connectivity of the Internet to break down old corporate structures. It is looking for solutions that truly put the power at the grassroots level. It is quite anti-corporate. Silicon Valley is not anti-corporate. In fact, most of the people there seem to be hoping to make money by growing big companies that can generate a lot of money for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy
In the interests of full disclosure:
Since I'm a full-time college student now (studying computer science), my brother has had to loan me a lot of money.
My brother is currently working for one of Amazon's subsidiaries. Before then, he was working for Yahoo! (a competitor of Google), though he didn't like it much. Before then, he worked for Digidesign (Avid/ProTools guys).
Does that make me a shill for these companies? I don't think so. I have huge criticisms of Amazon (mainly regarding their non-open Kindle), I defend Google here (though I probably would defend Yahoo! if those same accusations were leveled against them), and I was openly critical to my brother about ProTools, especially their DRM (I wouldn't even use the MBox he sent me because of it).
As far as the "thinking that tech solves all problems" bit: I don't entirely disagree with you, but that has nothing to do with Techdirt. Mike is not focused on whether "tech solves all problems." He's mainly interested in how businesses (including content creators) should adapt to market changes caused by disruptive technology, which in our lifetimes is the Internet.
If you want more, then you're doing right by looking elsewhere. Just don't blame Mike when he doesn't live up to your particular political demands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy
Yes, I don't find Techdirt disruptive enough. In terms of music, I think the Internet has disrupted the arts, but I don't think the solution is to tell artists to sell more stuff. Why don't I think that? Because I look at incomes, particularly among younger consumers, and I don't see the funds there to support the arts and artists. (A significant percentage are consumers who are living at home because they are underemployed and heavily in debt.) Therefore, I think we need much more expansive thinking in terms of how everyone gets supported.
I have been lately reading about the increased use of robots, which has resulted in job layoffs. Yes, technology has traditionally resulted in new, better paying jobs, but the speed at which it is being adopted is perhaps faster than we can adjust. Therefore, we might need to look at different economic systems based on new realities. It's as significant as the Industrial Revolution.
As long as people don't mind that I will not necessarily embrace some of the thinking here, I will keep posting on a few topics and will sometimes offer alternative view points.
As for why I got involved in this discussion, it's because (1) I do see Techdirt as Google-centric and (2) I know how the media tends to work in terms of payments, sponsorships, freebies, etc. There are reasons why some people have assumed Mike has gotten payment from Google. I'm just pointing out why people might think that. Maybe he has gone on record to say he has never received anything from Google, but I haven't been able to find it, though I have looked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oracle of Google
I bet everyone in the blog-o-sphere can be linked to either Oracle or Google within 7 hops.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oracle of Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oracle of Google
Done in one...
1. all my credit cards/banks/etc prob use some DB or another by oracle...
Done in one...
guilty! guilty! guilty!
hee hee hee
ho ho ho
ha ha ha
ak ak ak
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Time and time and time again, authors of comments contrary to the TD narrative are derided as shills of the AA's, studios, labels, etc. And when the Lord High Piracy Apologist is publicly outted as a shill- all of a sudden the fact that he's a paid shill for Google doesn't "magically delegitimize" his points. Interesting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
it's sunny day, (except for Masnick).. who has been outted
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Plus, my view on shills does not represent anyone esle that have claimed that a particular commenter is a shill. I only speak for myself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
1. 4chan (doubt it, they are more mature than that).
2. Oracle Systems...or their fans (butthurt over Google's loss and thinking Mike was not only paid but seem to think he was the only one).
Or it could be just a bunch of 12 year old amateture programmers thinking they are clever but not realizing they will never leave their parents' basements.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
we all knew it, now it's confirmed..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
PLus Mike did state CCIA's involvement upfront in the sky is rising so this is nothing new.
And again, even if Mike is paid on behalf of google that does not magially make his poijnts invalid. It just means Mike's views are google's views.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
we all knew it, now it's confirmed..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously, though, why did this warrant a defensive post on Techdirt? Specifically, this could have been filed just as full disclosure, but it really feels like a defensive article after one's been attacked. Did I miss something in one of the comments sections?
If Mike's done some work for the CCIA (As he has, I remember The Sky Is Rising) and the story checks out, then why would a post like this be warranted? Really the tone of the article does more to discredit Mike than the Google reference in my eyes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Gene Poole
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Gene Poole
I'm not trolling, just saying I don't understand what's with all the hubbub, bub.
Maybe I just don't read the comments sections enough, but I don't see why it really matters either way.
If he was a Google shill (still don't like that, feels like it should be schill to me, but the internets tell me I'm wrong) then it hasn't stopped him from criticising Google in the past, so whatever. integrity not compromised, or something.
If he wasn't a shill, then who cares, and why does it warrant an article on the subject? Truth will out, etc.
Retarded, inbred moron or not, it doesn't make sense to me to make a big deal out of it. But maybe that's because I'm (apparently) from the shallow end of the gene pool. meh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Gene Poole
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paymaster throw masnick under bus
you must be expendible, disposable, feel good ??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Paymaster throw masnick under bus
I love how you shills like to claim dishonesty where there is none.
Plus, even if Mike is being paid to make specific google approved statements all that means is you're debating google's points and not Mike's. You anti-techdirt shills still haven't made good counter arguements againt those points be they Mike's or google's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Paymaster throw masnick under bus
That gets to the issue for me. I think Google's points aren't the best ones out there. I keep pointing people to the P2P Foundation (I have absolutely no connection to it, I just like it as a source of ideas) because there are much bigger issues than who is protesting copyright issues on YouTube. In other words, a lot of stuff that gets talked about here does revolve around Google, while there are vast economic issues that don't explored here and yet will influence the future of world economics. Whether Techdirt means to be Google-centric or not, it sort of is because of the topics that get discussed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Paymaster throw masnick under bus
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Paymaster throw masnick under bus
Good one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
we understand completely, can you handle that ??
lets face it, you are a shill, you are allready trying to defend yourself before anyone can comment..
but you have to face the facts, that are clear, you would have attacked those people heavily if you had not been one of them..
and your not even a man enough to admit it..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Plus, Mike ALREADY REVEALED the studies were funder by the CCIA back when he first published them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Another classic, thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
In fact all indications are that Mike would still say what he's saying for google never existed. With the obvious exception of the oracle versus google case since there would be no google for oracle to sue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apparently I'm A Google Shill And I Didn't Even Know It
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Slow news day?
Never overlook the capacity for the extremists to, well, be extreme!
Thank you all for the vicarious pleasure of wallowing in your extremism. I never could have experienced it without you!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They can't argue against the substance of Mike*'s arguements so they resort to playing the "omg mike is google puppet game"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Next thing you'll be telling us you're a paid shill for Techdirt, really Bob in disguise, and every AC who has been and ever will be.
And what's this with the number 7? Techdirt, Floor64, Masnick, Michael all 7 letters!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Six Degrees...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Six Degrees...
Doing such a thing would invite a slander lawsuit by those Google named.
To think Google doesn't employ lobbyists in the blogosphere is hilarious.
The judge knew what was up and told Google to comply. And they did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Six Degrees...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shilling
Are you saying what you are saying because a company is paying you, or are you saying what you are saying because it is what you believe, and the company is paying you in support of what you believe (in the form of sponsorship, contracts, freebies, ads)?
In the most open circles, whatever the relationship, and whatever came first (the money or the opinions) all gets disclosed up front.
And even more so, I have seen writers say things like if a wife or partner has a relationship with the company the writer is writing about and so on.
And of course it is very standard for writers to say if they have stock in a company they are writing about. Many intentionally don't hold stock in companies they might write about so that their opinions can't be viewed as attempts to influence the price of those stocks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Shilling
If a writer is reviewing products, music, movies, books, etc., most likely the writer hasn't paid for those review copies. Some publications have a rule as to whether the writer can keep the review products or must send them back. So if you are a writer, you might end up with a lot of free stuff. Or your publication might. Or they might donate all the free stuff and disclose that.
For stuff like restaurant reviews, some reviewers disclose that they are coming to the restaurant and then restaurant provides free food. In other cases, the reviewer pays for his own meals and doesn't disclose that he is there planning to write a review, so he experiences what the average patron would experience.
Travel writing is a big grey area. Sometimes the writer's publication will pay, sometimes the writer will pay, and sometimes the entire trip is free, paid for by the airlines, hotels, restaurants, etc. hoping to get writers to come and cover them.
Most music reviewers and photographers get free tickets to the shows they attend.
As a writer who covered the Colorado tech scene, all the events I attended I got into for free. No one was paying my expenses, so if I had to pay for all the tech events I attended, I couldn't afford to do so. All of the events I attended were in Colorado, so it wasn't like I was getting big budget freebies -- I just didn't have to pay to get into a local conference or networking event. While attendees might pay $100, media would get in for free.
So many bloggers have gotten into events for free or have received free products or trips that the FTC started to crack down and more bloggers are disclosing what they have gotten for free from the companies they write about. If a blogger is being flown all-expenses-paid to an amusement park in Florida to write about her great week there, she is supposed to disclose that in the related blog posts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eric Goldman suggests we have a "pretty cool party"!
Eric Goldman suggests we have a "pretty cool party":
http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2012/08/google_actually.htm
What do you think? A "Google shill" party?
--Michael Barclay
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Eric Goldman suggests we have a "pretty cool party"!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is a typical disclosure
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is a typical disclosure
Required FTC blogger disclosure - Overlawyered: "After all, the rules (to be precise, 'guidelines' backed by government lawyers with relevant enforcement powers) make clear that nondisclosure of a single minor freebie will not in itself suffice to trigger liability but instead will be counted 'among several factors to be weighed' in evaluating the continuum of behavior by individuals engaging in social media (it seems the rules also apply to Twitter, Facebook, and guest appearances on talk shows, to name a few). FTC enforcers will engage in their own fact-specific, and inevitably subjective, balancing before deciding whether to press for fines or other penalties: in other words, instead of knowing whether you’re legally vulnerable or not, you get to guess."
A Screamingly Effective Blog Disclosure Policy: How (and Why) To Get One : @ProBlogger: "What does the recent FTC announcement mean for a humble, professional, freebie-accepting, affiliate-pimping, mostly-broke blogger eking out pennies or flats of free soda per post?
It means you need to write a blog disclosure policy.
What if you have nothing to disclose? (Pity the fool who has nothing to disclose.)
No matter. Write one anyways. A blog disclosure policy is an opportunity to demonstrate your character. It is an opportunity to sell your character and even your soul.
Because what else have you got to offer, really?
Your blog disclosure policy is a vehicle for soul-selling, storyselling, storytelling, and maybe even making some cold hard cash – even if you’re not there yet."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is a typical disclosure
Because what else have you got to offer, really?"
B.S.
I am offering an honest opinion and you want me to sell my soul?
I guess you can lie in a blog post but not in a disclosure statement eh? Yep. That is how I judge peoples character. By their (non-)disclosure statement.
Talk is cheap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is a typical disclosure
Mike states that it is his opinion. If lawyers have convinced you that you need a disclosure agreement to state your opinion, I guess that is too bad.
I feel sorry for you if you cannot believe anyone is honest.
Maybe I am being paid by Floor64.
Believe what you will, won't affect my life one iota.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is a typical disclosure
I'm just trying to explain the state of blogging today. Say whatever you want about me. It doesn't change perceptions of bloggers and their relationships with the companies they write about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This is a typical disclosure
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This is a typical disclosure
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This is a typical disclosure
he of all people needs to maintain a higher standard, not a lower one that is displayed by Masnick..
I could not count how many times masnick has taken that path, stating that because someone used to work for company X that they cannot possibly then change to company Y.
Now masnick hiself has been outted, your right his guard dogs are trying their best to run guard for him..
but facts are facts, are they not masnick, plus the fact that you did not admit it yourself.. and are trying to 'act' all stupid and ignorant.. just goes to show your complition...
your integrity is zero, but for most it has always been zero, so probably going well into the negative region now..
did you really not know ?? I doubt it, you claim to be some kind of expert, of course you knew, but money payed for your silence.. until your overlords at Google decided you are expendible. the threw you under the bus.. compared to Google your are not to be trusted.. and so is google.. so you make a good couple..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This is a typical disclosure
If I were to suspect Mike of being a shill, or of having a stake in any other company, it would be twitter.
Everyone is biased one way or another. The sooner people realize this, the sooner they can quit reading disclaimers on every site they go to.
"Say whatever you want about me."
I am not a fan of yours but you have my apologies for making it personal. Sorry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is a typical disclosure
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is a typical disclosure
Techdirt and the value of the velvet rope approach to media — Tech News and Analysis: "The site, which is run by founder Mike Masnick through a company called Floor 64 (Full disclosure: I consider Masnick a friend) has had an online store for some time now where readers and fans could come and buy the usual type of swag many publishers offer, including e-books based on the site’s coverage. But the store has now been updated with some new features, including the ability to buy lunch with Masnick (for $250) and to do a Google Hangout with him."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is a typical disclosure
sadly masnick is neither of these things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
how funny is it now that Masnick has to write about himself in the same position, and try to paint a rosy picture of it.
somthing about throwing stones in glass houses comes to mind.. still damn amusing.. (except for masnick and his trolls/shills)..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"I'm A Google Shill"
way to celibrate 15 wasted years of your rutted life !!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dali would be proud!
Mike, does this qualify for some sort of record? Wow. I'm completely under/over whelmed with the hyperbole exhibited here.
Wow. Just Wow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's how Wired put it
Google Outs List of People Not Paid to Comment on Oracle Suit | Wired Enterprise | Wired.com: Google has reiterated that it has not paid any authors, journalists, commentators, or bloggers to report or comment on its legal battle with Oracle over the Android mobile operating system.
But in response to an order from the judge presiding over the case, the web giant has provided a list of individuals and groups who have commented on the case and have received money from the company, including Google attorney William Patry, Java creator James Gosling, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
“Pursuant to the [judge's order], the required disclosure does not include advertising revenue, disclosed experts, or gifts to universities,” Google said in a court filing on Friday. “It does, however, include ‘all commenters known by Google to have received payments as consultants, contractors, vendors, or employees’ and employee-commenters at organizations who receive money from Google.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Here's how Wired put it
Paid consultant, vendors, employees or employee-commenters at organizations receiving money from Google. I'd venture that Masnick is regarded by Google as a paid consultant.
I find it telling that in a video debate Masnick is called by a Google shill by his opponent who cited his CCIA study as evidence. There was no real pushback by him, obviously now I know why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Here's how Wired put it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is amusing how our regular critics have shown their lack of understanding in this post. Mike is clearly being transparent (with a hint of sarcasm) and he clearly did works related to both companies (including a collective where Google is part of).
But doing a work that is indirectly for Google is proof enough despite the fact that many, many other companies are also his "customers" as part of the CCIA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i keep forgetting this chat has a limit
Oh right, so this just was a "drink the (fake) poison" test to find out who are the real faithfull and who are 'not sure'.. LOL..
nice try masnick.. so according to you everyone with a valid argument is a "troll" and everyone else is in your pocket ?..
but I do not see you defending the FACT you are a PAID GOOGLE SHILL, that has been outed by your paylords..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
every cloud ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Last Word
“Re: Re: The pull quote
He made Google popular.