Category: Blogging

The Kathy Sierra flap

I’m not getting this whole Kathy Sierra thing. Apparently, Frank Paynter set up a blog called Mean Kids where people were encouraged to be rude and childish toward various objects of derision, including Sierra, tech writer of some note. Somehow this derision escalated to death threats, and now we have this:

As I type this, I am supposed to be in San Diego, delivering a workshop at the ETech conference. But I’m not. I’m at home, with the doors locked, terrified.

The thing is, something must have happened to bring garden-variety derision to the level of death threats. Did Sierra provoke Paynter’s mob? Why did she become the object of all hatred instead of somebody else? And why is she sitting at home with the door locked?

I’m not saying it’s all OK to post vicious personal attacks on people’s blogs, just that there seem to be a few dozen facts missing from the story, and now that the meankids.org blog has been taken down, it doesn’t look like we’ll ever get them.

One consequence of this is “Kathy Sierra” has replaced “Cathy Seipp” as the number one search on Technorati. The threat of death must be more compelling than the fact of it.

UPDATE: Kudos to Valleywag for calling “bullshit” on this Sierra mess. Sierra is playing the “misogyny” card against Chris Locke, when all he did was call her a dipshit. And it appears that he was right. Dave Winer is also standing up for Locke, and he’s to be congratulated for that.

See Chris Locke stand up for himself. As I initially suspected, there’s a Wellbert connection to this deal: meankids has the flavor of the Well’s flame conference, and Locke used to be a Wellbert moderator.

In any event, it appears that Sierra is seriously overplaying her hand, and as a result she comes across as a whiny little crybaby. Misogyny is a bad thing, of course, but that doesn’t mean that all women are exempt from all criticism. Locke said Sierra is “a dipshit”, which is neither misogynist nor inaccurate.

The coming bumper-crop of news

My old blogger buddy Jeff Jarvis is trying to figure out what’s happening to the news, and how to inject a little optimism into the business:

This Friday, I’m giving a keynote at the University of Texas International Symposium on Online Journalism. My topic: “The end of the mourning, mewling, and moaning about the future of journalism: Why I’m a cock-eyed optimist about news.” I’d like your help. Tell me why you’re optimistic about news: what we can do now that we couldn’t do before, where you see growth, where you see new opportunities. (I’ll put the spiel up as soon as I figure out how to export Keynote with my notes.)

Here’s what I’d tell the children:

The good news about the news is that there’s no shortage of news. The best experts forecast a nearly boundless supply of news clear into the next century, so the news conservation efforts of the past (recycling, echo-chambering, and other forms of plagiarism) are no longer necessary and will phase out as soon as we have the means to harvest the coming bumper-crop of news.

And things aren’t just rosy on the supply side, they’re looking real good on the demand side. Previous generations of news consumers had to get by on two newsfeeds a day, one before work in the morning and the other after work. Now we can graze and forage on news all day long without becoming over-educated.

The challenge to news harvesters is in the construction of the apparatus that harvests raw news, processes it, and takes it to market. In previous generations, this process was most efficient when centralized in local news factories, but today and tomorrow the process will become more decentralized, sometimes even taking place on consumer premises under the control of news robots which sift, sort, organize, and filter according to consumer preferences. The process of moving these functions from central offices to consumer equipment is just beginning, although we’ve had working prototypes of the news robot for 25 years.

The revenue picture has never been brighter, as each feed is easily supported by multiple sources of ad and subscriber fees.

The key elements are understanding that decentralization is in fact multiple centralization, and that each center of news processing is a potential revenue generator. That’s all I wish to say at the moment, but you can do the math.

And Hook ‘Em.

Fixing gay babies in the womb

Southern Baptist Seminary president Albert Mohler has accomplished a great feat of trolling on his blog, exploring the question of detecting and correcting homosexuality in pre-born fetuses:

Tyler Gray addresses these issues in the current issue of Radar magazine. In “Is Your Baby Gay?,” Gray sets out a fascinating scenario. A woman is told that her unborn baby boy is gay. This woman and her husband consider themselves to be liberal and tolerant of homosexuality. But this is not about homosexuality now; it is about their baby boy. The woman is then told that a hormone patch on her abdomen will “reverse the sexual orientation inscribed in his chromosomes.” The Sunday Times [London] predicts that such a patch should be available for use on humans within the decade. Will she use it?

This question stands at the intersection of so many competing interests. Feminists and political liberals have argued for decades now that a woman should have an unrestricted right to an abortion, for any cause or for no stated cause at all. How can they now complain if women decide to abort fetuses identified as homosexual? This question involves both abortion and gay rights — the perfect moral storm of our times.

Homosexual activists have claimed that sexual orientation cannot be changed. What if a hormone patch during pregnancy will do the job?

He’s got both gay activists and hardcore fundamentalists upset at him and sparked an article in the Associated Press.

Our hat’s off to the preacher.

Objects in blogs smaller than they appear

Bjørn Stærk was one of the classic, anti-idiotarian warbloggers, like me a cheerleader for the invasion (we used to say “liberation”) of Iraq. He’s done some re-thinking and abandoned the main principles of war-bloggerdom, and I endorse his message:

Who were these people? They were us. “Us”? This seemed a lot clearer at the time. Us were the people who acknowledged the threat of Islamist terrorism, who had the common sense to see through the multicultural fog of words, and the moral courage to want to change the world by force. It included politicians like George W. Bush and Tony Blair, it included the new European right, it included brave and honest pundits, straight-talking intellectuals in the enlightenment tradition.

And then there were people like me, who labelled ourselves “warbloggers”, and called our friends “anti-idiotarians”. Phew, all those labels! Now, anyone who knows me knows that I’ve been drifting away from where I started for years. They’re going to laugh if I pretend that I’ve ever been an Islamophobe, or that I was among the most eager of the Bush supporters, and use that to claim special insights into these people. Some of the ideas I criticize I believed for a long time, some for a short time, and some I never liked at all.

And by “us” I don’t mean that everyone thought alike, I mean that there was an identity based on an unspoken agreement about who were “ok” and who weren’t. And – God help me – I was ok. I haven’t been for a while now, but it’s only recently I’ve realized just how little there’s left of what I believed five years ago. Our worldview had three major focus points – Iraq, terrorism and Islam – and we were wrong about all of them.

When you’ve been attacked, it’s easy to get swept up in emotion, and that’s what happened back in 2001. I believe the lust for war would have subsided sooner in many of us if the blogs weren’t simply an echo chamber for un-critical reinforcement of existing biases, but that’s essentially all they are.

Teaching the hive mind to discriminate

Writing on his blog, Chicago law professor Cass Sunstein invokes the name of the sainted Hayek to endorse the decentralized nature of Wikipedia and other peer-production exercises:

Developing one of the most important ideas of the 20th century, Nobel Prize-winning economist Friedrich Hayek attacked socialist planning on the grounds that no planner could possibly obtain the “dispersed bits” of information held by individual members of society. Hayek insisted that the knowledge of individuals, taken as a whole, is far greater than that of any commission or board, however diligent and expert. The magic of the system of prices and of economic markets is that they incorporate a great deal of diffuse knowledge.

Sunstein fails to appreciate that markets are a special case in group dynamics, where knowledge is maximally distributed. So I pointed that out to him:

Wikipedia is all about process, and because its process is so different from Britannica’s, it’s not really accurate to describe it as an “encyclopedia”. Wikipedia is actually the world’s largest collection of trivia, gossip, received wisdom, rumor, and innuendo. It’s valuable because any large collection of information is valuable, but not in the same way that the verified, expert summaries in an encyclopedia are valuable.

If it’s true that the “knowledge of individuals, taken as a whole, is far greater than that of any commission or board,” it’s also true that the sum of their prejudice, mistaken beliefs, wishful thinking, and conformance to tradition is greater.

All of this is to say that group endeavors like Wikipedia produce breadth but not depth. For some endeavors depth is important, but for all others it’s fine to consult the rabble.

Marketing, for example, can gain much by mining the dark corners of Wikipedia; engineering and medicine, not so much, as knowledge is not dispersed at the depths as it is at the surface.

Which brings us back to Hayek. Markets do a great job of bringing information about the wishes of buyers to bear on the consciousness of sellers. Everybody who participates in a market is an expert on the subject of his own wishes or his own product. But when you leave the realm of buying and selling, expertise is not as widely dispersed as participation, and then the decentralized model falls down.

And then we’ve got a little back-and-forth with Tim Wu on Tech Lib, where Wu says:

So its obviously true that decentralized and centralized systems are better for different things, as RB points.

One thing I think is interesting, and don’t quite understand, is how often, however, humans tend to underestimate the potential of decentralized solutions

That’s what Hayek was getting at in his paper — there’s no question that if you put a perfect, planned economy next to an unplanned economy, the planned economy will win. Hands down.

But we aren’t good at knowing when information problems will cripple what would have been the better system.

So maybe we’re overcompensating, as RB suggests, in the direction of decentralized systems, but I happen to think we have to fight a perfectionist instinct that drives us too over-centralization

Just ask Napoleon III

Here’s the essential issue, as I see it: It’s undeniably true that information exists nearly everywhere, hence the potential information present in a large group is greater than that in a small group, and that’s why markets allocate resources better than committees. But it’s also true that misinformation exists nearly everywhere, so there’s also a huge potential for large groups to be misguided.

So the real question about information and group scaling is this: are there procedures for separating good information from false information (“discrimination”) that are effective enough to allow groups to be scaled indefinitely without a loss of information quality? It’s an article of faith in the Wikipedia “community” that such procedures exist, and that they’re essentially self-operative. That’s the mythos of “emergence”, that systems, including human systems, automatically self-organize in such a way as to reward good behavior and information and purge bad information. This seems to be based on the underlying assumption that people being basically good, the good will always prevail in any group.

I see no reason to believe that groups have this property, even if one accepts as given the fundamental goodness of the individual. And even if some groups have this property, does it follow that self-selecting groups do? Polling, for example, seems to pretty accurate when it’s done by random sample. But self-selected polling is notoriously inaccurate. If a web site puts up a presidential preference poll and supporters of one candidate or another urge each other to vote, the results are skewed.

This is what happens in Wikipedia and many open source projects: participation is limited to people with an interest in a particular outcome, and they distort the process to get the desired result. Participation is not automatically tailored to align with expertise, as it is in markets.

The methods we have for separating fact from fiction, such as the expert opinion, scientific method and random polling, don’t scale to arbitrarily large groups.

Hence the work of large groups is suspect.

Another neutrality dissenter

Venture capitalist David Cowan didn’t drink Google’s free speech Kool-Aid either:

…the campaign for net neutrality has transcended logic, manuevering instead to prevail upon Congress with an emotional appeal to the voters. “If we are silent, if we don’t stand up for Internet Freedom,” warns Hollywood star Alyssa Milano, “corporations will take away our right to choose!” As always, it’s easy and popular to demonize corporations.

In his letter to the public (a great PR play, and a nice pander to regulators who look for reasons to work), Eric Schmidt wrote that net neutrality will prevent broadband carriers from controlling what people say or do online. As I have blogged before, Eric is certainly a genius (I can pander, too), but this call to fear is wrong on so many levels, not to mention egregiously hypocritical. (Remember China?)

For one thing, accelerating a stream of packets, even at the mythical expense of some random packets, does not “control what people do online.” Also, ISPs are not public utilities; they are businesses whose owners–including individual investors and pension funds–have no legal obligation to amuse Eric with whatever internet sites he craves. (Should AOL and the mobile environments of AT&T and Verizon be legally forced to provide access to outside content?) Having said both those things, the market will not reward ISPs who effectively block or even slow access to the full array of web sites–there is demand for express traffic and free traffic, so both sevices should and would exist.

It would be extremely helpful if more VCs would speak out on this issue, as one of the other arguments Google uses pertains to innovation and helping all those struggling college kids in their dorm rooms trying to build the next Google.

Google’s censorship abuses

The Christian Coalition joined Google’s Save the Internet coalition after being convinced that the Internet’s lack of regulation was a danger to their free speech. The free speech argument is a red herring, of course, as the enhanced IPTV services from AT&T and Verizon that are bringing change to the Internet have nothing to do with content or viewpoints. The Save the Internet movement is really a cynical ploy on Google’s part to shackle ISPs in order to extend their search hegemony into video delivery. But Save the Internet says it’s really important, so we have to trust Google to preserve free speech because we can’t trust the Telcos and ISPs.

Is this remotely believable?

We’ve seen one example of Google’s concept of free speech in China, and another regarding their own Vice-President of TV, Vincent Dureau. After he correctly observed that the Internet can’t scale to HDTV, Google called out its Public Relations shock troops to sanitize Dureau’s remarks. The Google PR team is spinning like mad, but Dureau hasn’t backed down and we applaud him for that.

And now we have another egregious free speech violation that should be of interest to Google’s followers among the Christian Coalition. Nick Gisburne is an atheist activist who posts videos on YouTube criticizing religion generally and religious texts in particular. His favorite technique is citing violent passages from the Holy Books without commentary, letting them hang themselves. This was fine with YouTube as long as Gisburne confined his criticisms to Christianity, but when he posted a video of verses from the Koran, YouTube deleted it and cancelled his account:

My YouTube accounts have been deleted

Deleted accounts are not quite part of the plan! This is now a censorship issue.

My NickGisburne and Gisburne2000 accounts were deleted because of ‘Inappropriate Content’, basically a video of material (no added commentary from me) from the Qur’an. I added nothing to that video, I was merely using material from the Muslim Holy Book, and for that I was removed from YouTube, along with all my videos, and everyone’s subscriptions to me (over 500).

I’ve seen the video in question and Gisburne’s description is correct: it consists of nothing but verses from the Koran and background music, without even a word of added commentary.

So the question, gentle reader, is this: can we trust Google to manage our Internet? I see no reason to believe that we can.

See Instapundit for a handy collection of relevant links.

The really important stuff

A couple of days ago, Professor Weinberger was complaining that the diaper-wearing nutcase feminist astronaut story was going to wipe out serious news for two weeks, but that cable news obsession will probably pale in comparison with what I expect to be an avalanche of fake mourning for Anna Nicole Smith, arguably the most worthless example of misspent protoplasm in recent history.

John Cole notes the irony:

I can not be alone in my observation that it is rather humorous that the person who most likely will rescue two feminists from public scrutiny is a stripper/turned Playmate who graduated into a full-fledged celebrity drunk, an addict and alcoholic through and through, as well as a terrible mother.

No dude, you aren’t alone.

Oh, by the way, there’s some sort of trial thing going on in Washington, but the tragic loss of America’s Princess depressed the prosecutor so bad he had to rest his case. Or something.