Looking for Something?
New Media Expo Blog
Navigation
  • Archive by Category "Op-Ed"
    • (  »   Page 2)
Browsing Category

Op-Ed

Does Your Blog Just Tell People What They Want to Hear? A Honest Look at Social Success

Author:

Oh, the ripples a single blog post can make. It’s been a long time since a post about social media got people as worked up as Cathryn Sloane’s “Why Every Social Media Manager Should Be Under 25” at NextGen Journal. I’ve read dozens of blog post responses to her, and as of writing this post, there are 482 comments on her post itself.

In reading the responses, there are a lot of very thoughtful points being made. At the same time, there’s something about this whole discussion that is making me cringe a little. It’s highlighting a very important and oft-ignored problem in op-ed blogging: the tendency to overvalue the popularity of our own posts when they haven’t truly added any value. As I continue to read blog posts about age and social media, it’s making me more and more uncomfortable.

Cathryn’s post struck a nerve with a lot of people, but the vast majority of commenters were older social media managers (and other older people working in the social media space, regardless of official title). Understandable, since those were the people she was attacking with her post. And the vast majority of people who wrote rebuttal posts were also older social media managers. Again, understandable given her attack.

But what I’ve seen most of the time (read: not all of the time) are defensive rebuttal posts that are simple masquerading as a “discussion” or “conversation” on the topic when they aren’t really adding anything to the debate at all. I have to ask myself, what do these posts accomplish other than perhaps making the blogger feel good about him/herself?

To me, a discussion or conversation about the topic is all about debate and, more importantly, learning. I actually think that’s where Cathryn’s post was extremely successful. Regardless of your opinion of the piece, what she published was an opinion about something that she felt needed to be addressed. She supported her opinion with a few reasons and put it out there for the world to read. Whether or not she did a good job or has a valid opinion is a moot point. She was, in her blog post, seeking to make a difference, to change your way of thinking, to highlight an injustice she thinks is a problem in this industry.

Did the rebuttal blog posts do the same? Or did they just say, “NUH UH!” and get liked and tweeted by the same hundred or so people who’ve been liking and tweeting all rebuttal posts and comments?

In other words, did your post make a difference, or did it just tell your community what they wanted to hear? Did you actually add to the conversation with new ideas or did you just defend yourself by calling someone wrong? Did you seek new ways of looking at the topic or did you just rant?

Take a good hard look at how successful you are on social media. If you say, “HITLER IS BAD!” it’s not hard to get your audience to agree with you. But what does that prove? Did you teach your readers anything? Did you really start a conversation? This applies to every controversial topic, not just the wildfire that caught online about age and social media this past week.

An example: Let’s say I write a post about how automated DMs are bad. Of course the vast majority of the NMX/BlogWorld community is going to agree with me, and if I write a passionate, well-written post, it’s likely going to get a lot of social shares. But so what? All I’m doing is preaching to the choir. I’m not bringing new people to church. Putting the popular opinion into a blog post doesn’t alone make you a good blogger or good at social media.

That’s not to say that you have to be controversial when you blog about something, but I do think it is important to be honest about your social media success. Before you smugly say that Cathryn knows nothing about social media, perhaps take a good hard look at how often her post has been shared, how many true discussions it has created, and how many people have admitted that she does have some valid points that they hadn’t considered before.

Are you achieving the same things with your op-ed posts or are you simply telling people what they want to hear and patting yourself on the back when people like it?

Are Your Actions Aligned with Your Online Goals?

Author:

It seems like every day, I’m confronted with something else I “should” be doing online. Sometimes, the advice is even contradicting. That doesn’t mean it isn’t good advice, but what it does mean is that I need to wade through the river of choices and determine what is best for me and my content.

You’re probably doing the same thing – picking and choosing the techniques and tips you want to use online to promote your blog, podcast, web series, or business. But are you making the right choices? It may be easier than you think: Just make sure your actions are aligned with your goals.

Have You Defined Your Goals?

Why do you blog? What’s the point of your podcast? What are your hopes for the future of your web series? What are you trying to achieve online for your business?

What is your goal?

You might answer that question differently than I do; that’s okay. There’s no right or wrong answer. And goals change over time, so don’t be alarmed if your answer today is different – even drastically different – than your answer to that question a year ago. The problem comes when you don’t know your goal at all.

  • Is your goal to make money (or make more money)? If so, how much? A livable income? Millions of dollars? Somewhere in between?
  • Is your goal to spread a message about a specific cause, idea, or way of thinking? If so, to whom? A specific group of people? Everyone?
  • Is your goal to build your brand? If so, are you hoping to reach new people? Or are you trying to change what people currently think about your brand?
  • Is your goal simply to have fun and meet interesting people? Are you hoping to build a community? Are you just looking get involved with existing communities?

Of course, these are fairly big questions to answer, and they’re certainly not the only goals you can have for your online activities. What’s important is that if you don’t have an answer yet, you’re searching for it.

Two Rights, All Wrong

You’ve probably heard the saying “two wrongs don’t make a right.” Well, I’d like to introduce you to another saying: Sometimes, two rights can be all wrong.

Recently, I attended a webinar led by someone well-respected in the Internet marketing industry. This person gave some really good advice about formatting your blog posts and writing them in a certain way to get more results with your call to action. So, I gave it a try, more than once in fact.

The results were horrible. Those posts got the same amount of traffic (on average) as other posts on my site, but I noticed that readers unsubscribed from my RSS feed and mailing list at much higher rates on those posts. I even had a few long-term readers contact me to ask about those posts and voice their negative opinion about them.

Clearly, this was not a good choice for my blog to start writing posts this way.

Similarly, not long before this, I read some advice from a different person about what not to do on your blog. I thought, “Wow, I’m doing this majorly wrong!” and changed things up. Again, my readers responded, but not in the way that was promised to me. They had an extremely adverse reaction, which continued until I un-changed the changes I had made.

Now the reason I’m not writing about the specific advice or advice givers (even though I don’t like to blog about “some people”) is not because I don’t want to warn you. It’s because I don’t think you need to be warned. Dozens, maybe even hundreds or thousands of people are using these techniques successfully. They just aren’t right for my specific needs.

Why is this relevant? Because the only way I know they aren’t right for my specific needs is that I have my goals defined.

You can’t just look at traffic numbers. Sometimes, stats say a lot. But other times, it makes sense to do something even if your traffic dips, because it helps you reach goals in the long term. The same can be said of sales. When you don’t have goals defined, you can’t see the big picture, so all you have to go on are stats and your gut.

Are Your Actions Failing?

Before you know your online goals, don’t jump to conclusions about your actions failing or succeeding. Sometimes, what looks like a massive failure might actually be a success – you were just looking at the big picture from the wrong angle. For example, maybe an eBook you release doesn’t sell at all, but it does help solidify you as an expert in your field. Or maybe you’re not getting many comments, but your traffic is growing steadily and you’re making more money with CPC/CPM ads every month.

The bottom line is that your first step has to be defining your goals. Only then can you start to measure what matters and start reaching those goals.

Working in Social Media at 27: Yes, I Am Over The Hill

Author:

I’m 27 years old, and that’s me pictured at right pouting. Why? Because according to Cathryn Sloane, I am too old to be a social media manager. In her post yesterday, “Why Every Social Media Manager Should Be Under 25,” Cathryn writes,

“You might argue that everyone, regardless of age, was along for the ride, or at least everyone under the age of 30. I’m not saying they weren’t, but we spent our adolescence growing up with social media. We were around long enough to see how life worked without it but had it thrown upon us at an age where the ways to make the best/correct use of it came most naturally to us. No one else will ever be able to have as clear an understanding of these services, no matter how much they may think they do.”

Of course, outrage ensued. Nearly all of my social-media-savvy friends commented on this story on Facebook, with most linking to it and some even writing their own blog posts about it. On the New Media Expo Facebook page, there’s currently 50 comments on our share of this story…and counting.

In other words, people are not happy.

A New Understanding

Cathryn is right that every generation has defining events and overall themes. These events or themes shape the way you think. I would go even further and say that this is not age-related. When you belong to a certain group, you have experiences that shape the way you think. I’m from a rural area, so I’m going to think differently than someone from a large city. I’m female so I’m going to think differently than a male. I’m tall so I’m going to think differently than someone who is short.

I’m 27, so I’m going to think differently than someone who is 67.

These differences do not wholly define us, nor do they make us better or worse than someone else. But let’s not pretend that these differences aren’t there at all, and age definitely leads to a different way of thinking. We don’t always understand why someone older or younger than we are acts a certain way. This lack of understanding is not a problem unless we fail to acknowledge it.

In fact, I don’t like the term lack of understanding. I would instead say that with each generation, there is a new understanding of the world. Not better, just new. We need to be honest about that.

Generation Y has a new understanding of social media. When we dismiss this fact, we fail to see the whole picture.

How Generation Y is Different

Social media is nothing new. At the heart of it, marketing is marketing, whether you are doing it on Twitter or on in a print ad campaign. But when marketing to different age groups, you wouldn’t do it the same way. Think of an extreme case, like promoting a product to a 70-year-old grandparent versus a 7-year-old grandchild. If you use the same technique, you will probably fail because these people are at different points in life and want different things. But these people also want different things because of how and when they grow up. If you take that 70-year-old person and rewind until they are once again seven years old too, he’s probably going to respond to the same marketing differently than the 7-year-old from current times.

As the age gap narrows, these differences aren’t as stark, but they’re still there.

So a member of Generation Y is, in general, going to have different needs than a member of Generation X. In fact, studies have show that there are stark differences between Generation Y and other generations.

  • Less than half of 16- to 24-year-olds were employed during the summer of 2011. This is the smallest percentage since 1948, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Unemployment at such high rates during young adult years is a unique experience for this generation. (Stats source)
  • About 5.9 million Americans aged 25 to 34 lived with their parents as of 2012, according to the U.S. census. This is a whooping 25% increase from 2007. Studies also show that Generation Y adults are putting off marriage longer than their Generation X and Baby Boomer counterparts. Again, this “delay” of an independent life with family responsibilities is unique to this generation. (Stats source)
  • On average, 18-24 year olds send or receive about 109 text messages per day. This number drops to about 42 for 25-34 year old, and then drops even lower for Generation X and Baby Boomers (about 26 for 35-44 year olds, about 14 for 45-54 year olds and under 10 for older cell phone users). And keep in mind that this is just looking at cell phone users, not averaging in zeros for people who don’t have cell phones. So, one of the main ways Generation Y communications is not nearly as readily used by older generations. (Stas source)

These are of course just three examples of how Generation Y is different. Why does this matter when it comes to the age of social media managers? Because these differences aren’t learned and can’t be unlearned. They are natural and inherent. Many members of Generation Y don’t remember what it’s like to not have a cell phone in hand and they aren’t on the same life paths that members of older generations were on when they were leaving high school and college.

A Discussion, Not a Debate

I’m not afraid to admit that Cathryn is right: at 27, I’m already over the hill. How do I know this? Because whenever I’m visiting my family over holidays, I take the time to talk to my younger cousin, Katie (pictured at right), who is now 17 years old. Technically, we’re both members of Generation Y, but I find picking her brain is fascinating and enlightening.

Did you know that when her and her friends want to plan something special, they don’t send out evites? Okay, maybe not so surprising…but how about this: they usually don’t create events on Facebook either. It’s not for lack of checking Facebook. They’re just not into it for anything casual. They instead start a text message chain and invite people and track RSVPs that way.

Did you know they don’t have email? Part of the reason they definitely don’t do evites or any other party-planning that requires email is not because they see it as out-of-date. It’s because most of them do not have email addresses that they check with any level of frequency, just throw-away accounts they can use to sign up for stuff, but they never check.

Did you know that there’s an immense amount of social pressure to be “seen” with the right people online? If someone who’s not part of the “in” crowd in high school likes your Facebook status, your other friends will automatically NOT like your status unless a third person steps in and also likes the status? It’s seen as a social stigma if you and a single other undesirable person like the same status.

I’m not ashamed to say that I did not know any of that stuff until Katie told me – and I don’t understand it. I grew up liking evites and Facebook events. I grew up liking email. I grew up without social pressure online. I am different than she is. I wouldn’t know these things without a discussion because they don’t come naturally to me.

And that’s what we need: not a debate or all-out war over who understand social media better, but rather a discussion so we can education ourselves about how different age groups view social media differently.

Opening the Doors

When you write definitive and defensive posts about how your generation is better, you close the door to this discussion. Similarly, when you leave comments on said post that are patronizing, you close the door.

I think Cathryn’s post was poorly written and her argument was full of holes, yet every commenter who called her a child, claimed that she needs to grow up, or otherwise dismissed her opinions based on her age just proved her point that the older generation does not know how to effective communicate with the younger generation. We can’t respect your experience if you can’t respect our fresh point of view.

Where Cathryn ultimately fails in her piece is not in suggesting that companies need to consider hiring younger workers for social media management spots. I actually agree with her on that one to some degree. I do think that omitting younger people from this industry based on lack of professional experience is the wrong approach. Practical experience with social media should be worth as much as professional experience.

No, where I think she goes wrong is in asserting that there is nothing to be valued in professional experience at all. Being in the workplace, no matter what your job, teaches you valuable skills like team work, leadership, and organization. I know several people way past the age of 25 who do a lovely job as social media managers. What they lack in social media immersion they make up for in real-world education.

The solution is to open the doors to discussion in the world of social media. As a business owner, it’s important to hire people who “get” social media. This might translate to mean hiring a 60-year-old candidate who has been active online in a professional sense for several years and was a marketing professional for decades before that. Or it might translate to mean hiring a recent grad who has a passion for social media and understand your consumers. Better yet, it might translate to mean hiring a team comprised of people from several different backgrounds.

In any case, in the new media industry, we need to open the doors to discussion more often. Instead of talking about why we’re better and what we can teach one another, let’s talk about why we’re different and what we can learn.

What is an Internet Troll? The Answer Might Surprise You

Author:

What is a troll? It seems like a simple question, and one that those of us online wouldn’t even give a second thought before answering.

“In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.” or so Wikipedia tells me.

But I think this is a definition that is changing before our very eyes, and if we’re not diligent about understanding what trolling is, we could have a very serious problem on our hands. Maybe we already do.

In the coming weeks, I’m going to be posting a series of articles about trolling, online harassment, and Internet behavior, so I think the logical place to start would be here, with the very definition of troll.

Definitions from Twitter

To start, I asked Twitter. Twitter knows everything, right? So I asked, “In the length of a tweet, give me your definition for “Internet troll.” Here are some of the responses I received:

@Seth_Waite: ugly little monsters with nothing better to do than leave mean spirited, off topic, and nasty remarks across the web

@elvestinkle: someone seeking reactionary response rather than than a meaningful back and forth discussion #likeafisherman

@ManyaS: One who makes comments specifically designed to generate an often defensive, argumentative or opposing reaction from someone.

What A Troll Is Not

So a troll is argumentative, a troll is a troublemaker, a troll is mean. But are we applying this term too loosely to people online? I’d like to make an argument for people who are often called trolls, but who are not.

Not everyone who disagrees with you is a troll, even if they disagree in a mean or nasty way.

We need to be clear about whom we are calling trolls, because a lot of people who are not trolls are getting lumped into that mix. In my opinion, a troll has to satisfy the following points:

  • A troll does not add to the conversation in any way.
  • A troll’s main purpose is to cause trouble.
  • A troll is not angry or otherwise emotional about the topic. In other words, they have no horse in this race, nor do they care about the “outcome” of the debate. They will say whatever gets the biggest reaction.
  • A troll does not respect your comment or community policy. They do not care if they get banned.
  • A troll is not trying to be funny.

I bold-faced the most important point, the one that can most easily tell you if a commenter is a troll or not.

Sometimes, people leave really negative comments on my blog posts, but at the end of the day, if they are adding something to the conversation, I can’t justify calling them trolls. Even if the conversation is off-topic. Because they’re emotionally involved.

So let’s say that someone comes to my blog, reads a post, and leaves a comment about how my post makes no sense, how they disagree with everything I’ve said, and how everything I do is wrong. They end it with a comment wishing my demise. Stuff like that is not uncommon online.

But is that a troll? I would argue no. They are not commenting in order to disrupt the conversation or get a rise out of me. They truly feel like I’m a horrible person and they hate what I do. Now, if it’s my blog, I have every right to remove that comment if I want, but the person isn’t there to just make trouble. They’re voicing an opinion because they feel emotional about a topic.

Often we say to one another, “don’t feed the trolls,” when we really mean is, “don’t feed the haters.” Haters and trolls are two different beings.

The Rise of the Troll Kings

What scares me is the new level of “troll” out there. Or, at least, they’re often called trolls, but I don’t think that’s the right term for them. These people aren’t trolling. Trolling is annoying, but typically harmless. What these people are doing is harassment.

If you haven’t read it yet, I invite you to check out this tale of “trolling,” which tells the story of a feminist blogger named Anita Sarkeesian who has been harassed and attacked since she posted a (since successful) Kickstarter project to raise money for a research project involving the portrayal of females in video games. Anita’s Wikipedia page was vandalized, her inbox was filled with drawings of her being raped, her site was attacked in an attempt to take it down, and her persona information (including phone number and address) were posted in online forums. Someone even made a “game” where the player’s only mission was to click on Anita’s picture to “beat her up” – with clicks revealing increasingly black-and-blue images of the blogger.

This is not trolling, people. This is something far above trolling. If you call that activity trolling, those must be the troll kings, at the very least.

Yet, one of the problems we face is that these attackers are being called trolls and many of them think of their actives as trolling, nothing more. Trolling does not have consequences (beyond occasionally being banned from a website), but harassment does.

So What’s Next?

Like I said, over the course of the next few weeks, I’m going to be publishing a series of posts about this very topic – online harassment, trolling, and Internet activity in general. For now, though, I’d love to hear your thoughts on trolling. What is your personal definition of Internet troll? Do you agree with me that not all negative commenters are trolls? Do you think there’s a difference between trolling and harassment?

Is New Media Destroying the News? How the Obamacare Ruling Highlighted a Growing Problem in the Media

Author:

Yesterday, several politicians tweeted in celebration that Obamacare (new and controversial health care law in the United States, for those of you who are living in other countries and not paying attention to U.S. news) was repealed. The problem? It was actually upheld by the Supreme Court, not found unconstitutional and repealed. Mashable actually has screenshots of tweets from six politician, and these mistakes were later deleted when the real news about the ruling came out.

But don’t be too hard on these Republicans, no matter what your political persuasion. It’s hard to blame individuals when several media outlets on both sides of the political spectrum, including CNN, Fox, Huffington Post, and TIME all got it wrong too.

This is a growing problem in the United States and around the world – and as much as I love social media, blogging, and other online content, I think it might be new media’s fault.

The Race is On

One of the reasons newspapers are failing is that news reported this day is delayed. I subscribe to The Washington Post, but I have to admit that I rarely read the actual news, except local stuff about arts problems and the like. Op-eds are interesting, but when it comes to straight news stories, almost everything printed in the paper is stuff I already read online the day before. Being so connected means that I see breaking news when it is happening, and I don’t even need to leave Twitter for this information in many cases.

The world of news reporting online is extremely fast, and this need to be first is permeating other news sources as well. Everyone wants to break a story, and you know longer have days or even hours to do that. You have minutes. Sometimes, you have seconds. If you want to be the first source, you have to be incredibly fast or someone will beat you to the punch.

I think that’s what happened here. News sources like Fox and Huffington Post are pressured to try to report on a major news story first, and when that happens, mistakes are going to be made. It’s inexcusable to put speed before quality, especially when it comes to reporting the news. I can forgive a typo or even incomplete information, but it’s a harder pill to swallow when a story is completely wrong simply because it was more important to report first in the hopes of being correct than it was to spend a few minutes doing some fact-checking.

This is certainly not a new problem, as even before the Internet became such an important news outlet there were people who put speed before quality. I am, of course, reminded of the famous Chicago Daily Tribune headline “Dewy Defeats Truman,” which was published in 1948 even though Truman was the real victor in that presidential race. But I think the fast pace of the new media world has made large factual mistakes more commonplace. If you aren’t quick to report on a story, a million no-name bloggers, tweeters, and would-be journalists are already talking about it, and you’re late to the conversation.

A Culture of Not Caring about the Facts

More alarmingly, I think the new media world has created this culture of putting opinions first and facts second. Look at the incorrect tweet issue, for example. A politician, no matter how powerful, is not a news source, so the pressure to be first, as media outlets like CNN might feel, is absent. But just because you don’t have this need to be the first in reporting the news doesn’t mean you don’t have an inner need to post your opinions immediately.

This is, in my opinion, something that has invaded our culture due to new media. We don’t give ourselves time to think. We have this internal feeling of bursting if we don’t tell you want we think right now. Facts be damned.

It’s a problem.

Although several media outlets got it wrong in their struggle to be first on this issue, plenty of sources got it right. Still, the politicians called out by Mashable weren’t the only ones who tweeted incorrectly about the situation. This tells me that one of two things happened:

  1. The tweet was queued up and ready to go as soon as the announcement was made.
  2. The person immediately tweeted after seeing one report about the “repeal” without doing any additional fact-checking.

But why? Why the need to voice an opinion about something so quickly that you barely give yourself time to skim an article about it? At least TIME has a business reasons for being wrong – they were trying to be competitive in their industry where being first matters. But why do we as individuals subconsciously put speed before quality when voicing an opinion?

It’s the same thing that drive people, sometimes 20+ comments deep, to type “FIRST!” on a post by a popular blogger. It’s the need to be important.

Being important feels good. I’ll go back to something comedian Jordan Cooper once shared with me. When you make someone laugh, you feel good, and that’s why humorous posts and videos often go viral. Because you don’t have to create a joke – you just have to be the first person to share the joke with a friend. When you tell someone a joke they’ve never heard before, you feel good, and  you feel important. The same thing is true of a news story. When you’re the first to voice your opinion, when a friend hears it from you first, you feel good, and you feel important.

Social media and blogging has made it hard to get this “fix” of feeling important. Before, you could say to your neighbor “I really don’t agree with the Obamacare ruling,” and they might say, “Oh really? Tell me why you think that.” Now, the answer might be something like, “Yeah, that’s what a lot of people on Facebook have been saying.”

If we don’t express our opinions quickly, our thunder is stolen. At least, that’s what it can feel like subconsciously (or even consciously).

The New Media Monster

So is new media destroying the news? Yes, in some ways, I think it is. We’re smack dab in the middle of a major media shift, and although there have been some definite improvements, the Internet is still an informational free-for-all. I don’t think this is a reason to dislike or avoid new media, but I do think that we all have to start taking more responsibility for what we say online so that we never let the egotistical feeling of wanting to be first overcome the duty we have to be correct.

Did The O’Reilly Factor “SPIN” BlogWorld in the Wrong Direction?

Author:

Yes, it’s that time of year again…time when we look back and reflect on BlogWorld NY, which is now in the history books. As a speaker at BlogWorld every year since it launched several years back in Las Vegas, I’m proud to say I love BlogWorld, what it represents, and the audience that it brings together. Bloggers, online marketers, and even celebrities from all over the world come together to network and discuss how blogging and social media is changing the way we do business online.

This year, I was quite excited to see Fox News on the exhibit hall floor talking with many of the exhibitors and attendees. I was fortunate enough to meet up with the Fox News team and do a quick interview with Jesse Watters, the producer of The O’Reilly Factor. The interview consisted of a wide range of questions, everything from blogging, social media and technology, to making money online and of course politics. I was told the video would air on The O’Reilly Factor on Monday and I was quite excited to see what they would put together for the show.

Not only was I excited to see if I would get coverage on Fox News network, but I was also excited to see that BlogWorld would also gain some national television exposure and be introduced to a whole new audience. Monday came and I was thrilled to see that I made it to prime time television, but I was quite disappointed that no one in the video received a name reference, and also the manner in which Fox News portrayed the attendees, audience, and intent of BlogWorld.

Instead of focusing on the benefits of blogging and internet marketing, Fox News took a different approach and almost made a joke out of it. I understand that The Factor needs to align their segments with their audience, but they also could have provided a greater value for their audience by letting them know about BlogWorld, the unknown world of blogging and how it really is changing the way people do business online. Heck, even Rick Calvert was interviewed for the piece, yet no one knew he was the founder of BlogWorld, since Fox News didn’t bother to put a name or title with anyone they spent time interviewing.

If you didn’t get a chance to catch the segment when it was live on Fox News, be sure to visit their web site and watch the full video. After you check it out, send Bill O’Reilly an email at oreilly@foxnews.com and let him know your feelings concerning how The Factor represented BlogWorld and bloggers.

Digital Hatfields and McCoys: America’s Need for Better Judges

Author:

Every day, judges have to deal with cases involving technology they don’t understand. This is simply a fact of life. However, with the rise of cases involving the Internet, we absolutely need judges who better understand how this technology works.

The average age of our Supreme Court justices in the United States is 66, and this number is on the low side since two of the nine justices sitting on the court were appointed in the last three years. Supreme Court justices are appointed for life; they hold their position until they resign, retire, or die unless they are impeached.

And what of other courts? According to a 2010 study by ProPublica as reported here, “About 12 percent of the nation’s 1,200 sitting federal district and circuit judges are 80 years or older[…]Eleven federal judges over the age of 90 are hearing cases — compared with four just 20 years ago[…] The share of octogenarians and nonagenarians on the federal bench has doubled in the past 20 years. The demographics of the federal bench have no analogue on the state courts, where judges mostly occupy their office for a term of fixed years and generally have mandatory retirement ages, often in their 60s or 70s.”

Why is this important? As a blogger, podcaster, web TV producer, or other kind of digital content creator, why should you care about the age of judges in the United States?

Digital Hatfields and McCoys

If you’re like me, you’ve become engrossed in History‘s recent mini-series about the Hatfields and McCoys. This legendary feud between families started with a little bad blood about events happening during and after the Civil War, and the major incident causing the feud to escalate was a dispute over a pig in Hatfield possession that the McCoy family claimed belonged to them. From there, things really escalated, with the families continually fighting, suing one another, and even taking the law into their own hands. It got out of hand.

All because of a pig.

I mention this because the Internet seems to be a breeding ground for digital Hatfields and McCoys. Bloggers, podcasters, commenters, and others online are very concerned with their rights to say what they want to say. But just because you legally may have the right to say something doesn’t mean you should. Online arguments have a way of escalating very quickly, just likes the feud between the Hatfields and McCoys did in the 1800s. Too often, people on both sides resort to fighting dirty, even when the original argument was over something as stupid as a pig.

And beyond that, many Internet users do not understand laws regarding free speech. Just because you’re allowed to voice your opinions does not mean you’re allowed to threaten someone or insinuate that your opinions are facts. You can and probably will be sued if you make a habit of doing these things.

The problem is that you can also be sued and punished for writing posts that do fall under the protection of free speech, simply because the judge doesn’t understand how the Internet works.

Aaron “Worthing” Walker versus Brett Kimberlin

To see how this can easily effect digital content creators, one needs to look no further than the case of Aaron Walker (previously blogging under the pen name of Aaron Worthing, according to Popehat) and convicted Speedway Bomber Brett Kimberlin. Aaron wrote about what happened (supported with court documents, video evidence, and other facts) here, which I highly recommend checking out so you understand the background of the story.

The story is rather complicated but according to The Blaze and other sources, Kimberlin and his supporters have been attacking bloggers (like Walker) who write about him with lawsuits, threats, and more. He’s filed over 100 lawsuits to date. Walker and his wife both lost their jobs due to Kimberlin and his allies harassing their employers.  Another political  blogger “Patterico” was “swatted”.

(Edited to add: Patterico’s real name is Patrick Frey whose day job happens to be working as an assistant District Attorney in Los Angeles. – police were sent to his home after someone (allegedly from Kimberlin’s camp) placed a hoax phone call to the LA police department claiming to be Frey. Posing as Frey the caller confesses to shooting and killing his wife. This resulted in the SWAT team being dispatched to Frey’s home with guns drawn. Frey was handcuffed. His wife and children were woke by police officers to verify they were alive and safe. You can read Patterico’s account of this incident here. Did you ever think someone would send the SWAT team to your home over a blog post? – Rick)

Kimberlin was recently granted a “peace order” (which is similar to a restraining order) against Walker claiming his blog posts were harassment and that Walker had incited numerous individuals to make death threats against Kimberly via blog comments and tweets.

I’ll be honest: I personally couldn’t care less about the politics behind this all. Kimberlin’s liberal music, support of the Occupy movement, etc. in relation to his past convictions don’t bother me because, at the end of the day, he served his time. I get why many conservatives and even some liberals don’t like him. But that isn’t what my post is about.

This is about the fact that the judge in Walker’s most recent court appearance clearly does not understand the Internet. Walker was accused of violating this peace order because a blog post he wrote about it was considered “contact” with Kimberlin. Furthermore, the judge overseeing this case, insinuated that Walker is responsible for the death threats Kimberlin has been receiving. Walker was arrested for “inciting,” which is encouraging others to “act in a violent or unlawful way.”

The anti-Kimberlin camp isn’t totally innocent. According to eye witnesses, Walker did not represent himself well in court and the judge became increasingly agitated. Guys and gals, if you have to stand before a judge, get a lawyer.

In addition, those on Walker’s side who resort to anonymous threats to Kimberlin are no better than people on Kimberlin’s side who have threatened Walker or have had others “swatted.” But just like it’s not one Hatfield’s fault that another member of his family shot a McCoy, it’s not Walker’s fault that his supporters took matters into their own hands. They are the people who should be brought to trial, not Walker.

Yet Walker was arrested, simply because the judge did not understand how the Internet works. Kimberlin set up a Google alert so he knows when someone is writing about him. Walker’s post may have popped up, but this clearly does not constitute contact. Has the judge ever used Google alerts? My guess is no.

Walker’s story also inspired others to write about Kimberlin, some very negatively and even in a harassing way (imo), but inspiring action is not the same as encouraging action. If Walker had said, “Hey everyone, send this guy death threats,” that would have been another matter. He didn’t (as far as I can tell).

At the same time, I do think this has gone too far. I refer again to the idea that just because you are legally allowed to do or say something doesn’t mean you should. As deplorable as a person might be, no one, including Kimberlin, deserves to live in fear because they’re getting death threats. We have to be responsible for the things we post online, and if we’re aware that what we write or say is going to cause physical harm to another person (or death threats, which are just a step removed from physical harm), I do think we have the responsibility (morally, if not legally) to edit what we post.

Who has the Power?

Right now, I believe certain people have powerful responsibilities.

First and foremost, Kimberlin needs to stop attacking anyone who writes facts and even opinions about him online. When you do controversial things (both in the past and in the present), some people aren’t going to like you. They have a right and perhaps even a duty to stand up and say why they don’t like you, and suing these people is taking advantage of the legal system. Instead, Kimberlin should spend his time in court against people who actually send him death threats.

Second, if you’re a blogger in the anti-Kimberlin camp, you need to be fair, factual, and professional. Realize that some of your readers are not as mature as you. Do not encourage them to “take up the cause” on your behalf. They aren’t always going to represent you the way you want to be represented. Instead, encourage your readers to do their research and come to their own conclusions about Kimberlin or anyone you don’t like. Present your case and understand that there are two sides to every story.

Lastly, if you’re an America, use your vote to make the judicial system fairer for online content creators. This also applies to people living in other countries with the same  problem. Judges who admit to having no idea how the Internet works should not be involved in Internet-related cases. Term limits or forced retirement is necessary to protect younger generations from rulings by people who don’t understand the latest technology. We need to be a collective voice, demanding that the first amendment is upheld online and that bloggers and other content creators should be treated fairly.

Google and The Borg Have More in Common than You’d Think, At Least on YouTube

Author:

You will join Google+. Resistance is futile. At least, if Google has anything to say about it.

Google is currently testing out a new “like” button for YouTube so users will be forced to join Google+ if they want to give videos a thumbs up rating. If you aren’t logged in, you can still watch videos, but you can’t rate them. Not everyone is seeing this button change yet (for example, I still have the old like button), but more and more people are starting to notice this change.

If you haven’t seen it already, celebrity blogger and Star Trek alum Wil Wheaton recently posted a pretty strongly-worded message to Google on Tumblr after becoming aware of the new button:

Oh, go f*** yourself, Google. This is just as bad as companies forcing me to “like” something on Facebook before I can view whatever it is they want me to “like.”

Just let me thumbs up something, without forcing me to “upgrade” to G+, you d***heads.

He elaborated upon that rant in a longer post on his blog, saying,

By crippling functionality on sites Google owns (like YouTube) and forcing users to “upgrade” to a service that they may not want or need to get that functionality back, Google is making a huge and annoying mistake.

Amen to that. Google+ is not dead, but I’m guessing the company has been disappointed with this network so far. Based on the hype when it initially launched, I think they expected it to take over Facebook and perhaps even Twitter. While Google+ isn’t a failure (yet), it also hasn’t really done those things. Super intelligent, long conversations possible on Google+, but the general public is still sticking with Facebook for now, at least for the most part. Does that mean Google+ can never succeed? No. But at the moment, they’re fighting a losing battle and making poor decisions.

Google is  like a cornered animal. Instead of being smart and coming up with a good get away plan, they’re just peeing all over in fear and charging at your face snarling, both of which are not good options.

The Google+ button on YouTube is an attempt to force people to use their network if they want to continue using a service they love (YouTube). But forcing people on the internet to do anything typically doesn’t work out very well.

Beyond that, Google isn’t seeing the big picture. Will some people break down and join Google+ if it’s necessary for YouTube liks? Maybe. But they aren’t going to use the platform in most cases. They’re just doing it because they have a gun to their back. They’re joining so YouTube is still functional. And those who don’t join Google+? They’re simply going to stop liking videos. That’s bad news for content creators, and what’s bad for the people putting videos online is bad for YouTube in general. Fewer likes = less funding for content creators = fewer videos = less traffic.

Assimilation by force never goes very well. On the other hand, if you create ingenious products and tools with the consumer in mind, people will be begging to join your ranks. Look at Pinterest. Millions upon millions of users have joined over the past few months and not one of them has been forced.

I think Neil Gaiman said it best in his reply to Wil’s post:

I wish Google would leave the Social Network thing to others. When Google does what it does, and does it well, it changes the world. When it rides bandwagons, it’s irritating.

Google has amazing abilities. Why do they have to take over every part of the Internet? Why be a jack of all trades when you already are the master of one?

I sincerely hope that Google rethinks this Google+ YouTube button. They can still put such a button there – just give us a way to like without connecting as well. I think that’s a fair compromise. But even better would be to simply leave the like button as it is currently. I’m on board with changes when they’re good, but this one just plain stinks.

What do you think of the new Google+ button on YouTube? If Google makes this change permanent, will you sign up for/log into Google+ so you can use it? Or will you just avoid rating videos from now on?

Original image (sans text) via thms.nl at Flickr’s Creative Commons.

Facebook Buys Instagram: Should Users “Like” This Status Update?

Author:

instagram facebook Today, Facebook overlord Mark Zuckerberg announced the company has acquired the user-friendly smartphone picture app Instagram, which made news last week when it (finally) came to Android. The purchase price? A whopping ONE BILLION DOLLARS. But all things considered, that might be a bargain for Facebook, depending on user reaction.

And I think users are still awe-struck by the news, which was kept pretty quiet until today’s announcement. But the question on their minds, is this: Should I like this change? Or should I run for my life?

As of writing this post, Zuckerberg’s status has been liked by 86,391 people, and it’s only been about an hour. Of course, there’s no dislike button on Facebook, which might tell another tale if it were available. But that made people liking a status so quickly means that the company does have some support – and I’m an optimist. Personally, there are several things about Facebook and their policies that I do not like, but I think this acquisition is going to be awesome for both companies.

Instagram and the Little Engine that Could

You all know the story about the little engine that could, right? Basically, it’s the kid’s tale of a engine who is faced with going up a huge mountain carrying a heavy load. He repeats, “I think I can, I think I can” over and over to stay motivated and make it to the peak, even when others find it an impossibly daunting task for such a small train. Instagram has been that little engine.

The company has…or, well, had…only 13 employees, and less funding from investors than you’d think, given their popularity. I’m assuming that one of the reasons it did take so long for them to come to Android was lack of resources. There’s such cool potential with Instagram, but being a small start-up isn’t easy.

Now, they’ve got no excuse. If I was CEO Kevin Systrom, I would be tempted to fill my office with money and roll around in it. More money allows you to give customers a better user experience, expand the project to be available to more people, get creative with your offerings, and more. Having an investor like Facebook makes it possible for Instagram to get even better – and that’s a good thing for users.

The Dark Shadow Cast by Facebook

Of course, the downside is that the person paying the bills pretty much gets to call the shots. Facebook has already said that they plan to keep the company as it’s own brand, rather than absorbing it into Facebook. I imagine that it will be similar to Google and YouTube – the companies will heavily work together, but Instagram isn’t going to just disappear before our eyes.

At least, that’s my hope. Again, I’m an optimist.

But I think Facebook is maturing as a company, and they realize that changing Instagram to be something exclusively for Facebook users is not a good direction for the company. In his announcement, Zuckerberg wrote:

We think the fact that Instagram is connected to other services beyond Facebook is an important part of the experience. We plan on keeping features like the ability to post to other social networks, the ability to not share your Instagrams on Facebook if you want, and the ability to have followers and follow people separately from your friends on Facebook.

In other words, Facebook has a cool new kickball, but they are going to share it on the playground with all the other kids so everyone can play kickball together. They just get to be pitcher.

Still, I think it’s something we need to keep an eye on as users. My hope is that Facebook will use this acquisition to make their own photo-sharing offerings stronger for Facebook users, but without mucking it up for current Instagram users who don’t want to be forced to use Facebook or change the way they use Instagram drastically. That might not be what happens in reality.

I do think, though, that we need to give Facebook and Instagram a chance.

And a final thought: What say you, Google+? For a network that has been competing with Facebook, this is a pretty big blow. I bet smaller networks like Pinterest and even Twitter have just gotten juicier-looking to Google!

Your turn to weigh in! What do you think of the Facebook-Instagram deal?

Should You Block Pinterest on Your Blog?

Author:

Pinterest recently released a new bit of code that you can add to your website which will block anyone who tries to pin your posts. It’s pretty simple. You just add a line of code to your header/footer and would-be pinners will receive a message when they attempt to pin anything from your site that says the site doesn’t allow pinning. Hear that? It’s the sound of Pinterest haters everywhere rejoicing.

But whether you use this social network or not, is blocking Pinterest a good idea? In my opinion, no.

At least, not for most bloggers. There are a few exceptions:

  • If your blog is photography-based, with posts containing little content beside your pictures, it might make sense to block Pinterest.
  • If your blog is about showcasing your artwork and, again, contains little written content, it might makes sense to block Pinterest.
  • If you hate traffic, it might makes sense to block Pinterest.

Okay, I think the last point probably doesn’t apply to anyone here…but the first two certainly might.

Pinterest has been getting heat lately because the platform basically makes it easy to repost any picture you find online. Pinterest does abide by DMCA rules and will remove pins when asked to do so by anyone who owns the picture in question, but this new opt-out code will make it even easier for bloggers to just say no to Pinterest.

Only…why would you want to?

I’m not arguing that artists and photographers should share their work for free. I believe everyone deserves to get paid for the work they do. However, Pinterest isn’t about stealing your work to use for some kind of personal gain. It’s about sharing your work so that others can find it. Curation is the theme here. Pinners are trying to help drive traffic to your site, not hoping to get away with not paying you for your work.

When someone steals a picture from Google images and publishes it on their blog without buying it (or crediting it properly/getting your permission if that’s what is required by the license), they’re using your work in a way that robs you of the money or traffic you’re supposed to get as the picture’s creator. They’re doing so because they don’t want to spend the money to pay you for your time. It’s the same as copy/pasting my words and posting on your own blog without permission – it’s wrong.

For example, let’s say that I am blogging about cake. Mmmm cake. Instead of taking a picture of a cake myself, buying a picture of a cake, or finding a free image to use, I steal a picture of cake you took for your own blog. It’s wrong. I’m using that picture for my own gain because I’m too lazy/cheap to do the right thing. You get no benefit.

Pinners, however, aren’t using your pictures without permission for their own gain. They don’t own their pin boards any more than we own our Facebook profiles. They’re using your picture as a preview in order to encourage others to be fans of the posts you create. It’s a recommendation, the same way it would be for someone to share a link on Twitter or Facebook. Pinterest just happens to create visual links, like a little preview of your site to encourage people to click through.

And because most people are visual learners, I think as Pinterest grows, this could lead to more traffic for any visual-based site (food, crafts, fashion, etc) than any social media site where just links are shared. Think about it. You’re more likely to be interested in a recipe if there’s a picture of the finished product to entice you, right? Allowing pinners the ability to pin your posts can lead to a LOT more traffic than places where people just share the title/URL.

Of course, like with every social media site, some users are jerks. They pin pictures without linking to the original source. They copy/paste the entire blog post into the description so people aren’t encouraged to click through to your blog. They change the pin URL to lead to their own site. They download your pictures and then upload them as if they own them.

But these users are a VERY SMALL percentage of users, at least in my experience. Don’t let a few bad apples ruin the bunch for you. Pinterest is working to make the platform better (for example, there are plans to limit the characters in a description to avoid c/p of the entire post). You should definitely contact Pinterest if some users are pinning your work incorrectly…but don’t give the middle finger to the entire platform! You’ll be missing out on the potential for lots of new traffic if you do.

Now, like I said, the opt-out code could make sense for some people. If your website or blog is all about your artwork (photography or otherwise), it might make sense for you to say “thanks but no thanks.” Personally, I would want as many people as possible sharing previews of my work, but I can also understand how you’d want to limit the way people share. For the typical blogger, though, blocking Pinterest just doesn’t make sense in my opinion. This platform is such a cool new traffic source, and unlike some other recent networks *cough*Google+*cough* it seems to have attracted the attention of the general public, not just people who blog and use social media. For most people, blocking Pinterest is cutting off your nose to spite you face. Before you make this decision, I recommend you at least spend a few weeks giving the network a try first-hand.

Feel free to disagree with me in the comments! Will you block Pinterest on your blog now that this option is available? Why or why not?

Learn About NMX

NEW TWITTER HASHTAG: #NMX

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Previous Page  
Next Page