Infothought

"Life Trumps Blogging"

"Life Trumps Blogging" - on blog-vacation this week and into next week.

An apropos cartoon:

Boing Boing Silently Ununpublishes A Few Violet Blue Posts

[Original research! Not an echo! News!]

In a long MetaFilter discussion about the incident, user "xchmp" noticed that a few of the Violet Blue related posts which were deleted, ahem, "unpublished" from Boing Boing were now back on the website (let us call this "ununpublished").

After investigating, I've found it's true, they were indeed silently ununpublished. Check this out (do it now, since the cache will change over time).

In the following page, compare the Google cached version ("Jul 6, 2008 19:11:10 GMT") with the current version. Look at the lower left-hand "Older" link on the two pages. The current version links to the "ununpublished" post mentioning Violet Blue, the version of July 6 cache links to the previous post. The cached version links to a different, previous post, since the Violet Blue related post was not present at the time the cached file was generated (note that could be sometime earlier than the cache date).

Another example:

Compare the Google cached version ("Jul 9, 2008 15:10:58 GMT") with the current version, again at the lower left-hand "Older" link. Same effect.

You can even see Google picking up the posts now. For example right now for a Google search on [site:boingboing.net "MondoGlobo podcasts"] I get just two hits. Neither is the post, both are other items on boingboing.net (this will change in a few days, so look now - that's how you can tell the posts are new).

Moreover the *cached* copy ( Jul 3, 2008 18:25:01 GMT) of http://www.boingboing.net/2006/10/15-week/ doesn't have the post, even though the string is showing up in the snippet (it's known that the snippets and index update faster than the cached files)

These posts, all by David Pescovitz, seem to have been rewonderfuled:

http://www.boingboing.net/2005/05/17/bdsm-dolls.html http://www.boingboing.net/2005/05/27/transparent-tape-scu.html http://www.boingboing.net/2005/12/21/violet-blues-top-ten.html http://www.boingboing.net/2006/10/19/mondoglobo-podcasts-.html

[ Source lists: http://files.bangshang.com/unpublished.php ("cillit bang") http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pzVyO44trg7ys2C31Bt3pCw&hl=en (Violet Blue) ]

[Note: This post may change to elaborate or add additional material]

My _Guardian_ column on Internet Group Polarization Argument

"Don't just blame the internet for polarised viewpoints"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jul/10/blogging.politics

Networked communications are too easily indicted as potential causes of factionalisation

Also titled "The net is not always to blame" on the front page. I didn't pick these titles, but they're reasonable.

Interestingly, the editing cut out some of what I thought were my best phrases, e.g. describing a certain chattering-class viewpoint as "Since words are their living, they tend to assume others live by words."

Note part of writing professionally is that sometimes you can't write about what everyone else is writing about. Which is why the column is not about GoogleViacomYoutube. Anyway, here I show my technology-positive side, and argue strongly against the idea of the Internet tearing society asunder. Which means in terms of policy factions, that I'm again refusing to put myself on the side of the reactionaries, even though I abhor the hypesters.

[For all columns, see the page Seth Finkelstein | guardian.co.uk.]

More BB/VB notes: A personal disclosure, Google-effects?, NYT

Full disclosure: I had a length conversation with Xeni Jardin (the Boing-Boinger part of the controversy). I don't know anything more about the mystery reason than I did before (I didn't ask, and she didn't tell). The discussion was more an exchange of perspectives about (my paraphrase) A-lister power and responsibility. I mention this, with permission, as the personal core of my blog is/was chronicling the difficulties of net-activism (that endeavour didn't work out so well, but that's another topic).

There's an interesting post from a sexuality films site which lost some links as collateral damage, about possible Google implications (NSFW - don't follow this link if you're at work) of the events:

Back in late 06/early 07, when we realized just how vague, eratic, and fallable Google's ranking methods could be, we moved to uncouple our fortunes from the whims of Googlebot. This Boing Boing "unpublishing" things suggests that it's time for a re-evaluation of our PR tactics.

I'm not sure how much of an effect there really is, as the pagerank/keywords don't seem all that substantive. But there may be a "trust"/anti-spam Google effect which could be especially significant for sites which deal in sex-related material.

Memesterbation (linking so that this post shows up on trackers) - NYT article on the topic

Boing Boing / Violet Blue notes

Regarding speculations about what Violet Blue did to be, well, dewonderfuled, note she was still considered properly Boingy as late as 2007-07-27, in a now "unpublished" post about "Short link amuse bouches for Friday". Her offense must have been after that date.

The only thing that seems to fit the timeline is the trademark case she brought against a porn star using the name "Violet Blue", which was filed in October 2007. But there still seems to be something missing, given the very intense personal feelings on display. I don't put much stock in the lovers-spat theory _per se_, that's just attention-seeking by tabloid blogs.

Again, I am so disappointed. For all the argument-Olympics of hairsplitting over rights, it all comes down to power, to might-makes-right. Boing Boing is not notable for extending charity and understanding to those they accuse of having committed ethical transgressions against openness and transparency. Being A-list means being able to set the terms of discussion (to a good approximation). Nothing more for me to say here, it wouldn't do any good.

And it makes me very, very, wary of Boing Boing as any sort of attention-source supporting anything I do. Yet another sad argument (if any were needed) for the ultimate wisdom of giving up.

My previous blog post was in the top ten Google results for searches on [Violet Blue Boing Boing]. It got around 210 hits from Google on 7/1 and 40 hits on 7/2. Whoopee.

Violet Blue "unpersoned" from Boing Boing ?

The Violet Blue / BoingBoing incident, where many posts mentioning popular sex writer Violet Blue were suddenly deleted from one of the biggest blogs around, has been garnering more and more notice in the relevant fan-bases. The strangest aspect is that it seemed to have happened out of the, err, blue.

"I've been racking my brain thinking of what issues I might've come down on the wrong side of," Blue told [the latimes.com writer] on the phone. "There's been no argument, there's been no disagreement, no flame war, none of the usual things."

Which makes it all very, very, odd. Generally when something like this happens, the parties involved know the general reason (... even if they don't agree on the specifics). And none of the obvious speculations fit (sex-related material? There's still plenty of that on Boing Boing. Copyright? No, doesn't seem to be an issue). The Boingers aren't talking, not even to newspaper inquiries per above. Which is another weird part of the story. That sort of behavior generally indicates a legal problem, but nobody can figure out what would apply here.

I dug around earlier, and the post removals definitely seem to be real and deliberate. That is, not only have the HTML article files disappeared, but someone seems to have gone into the article database and deleted the entries there, and then rebuilt the associated HTML article files (so that the previous-post and next-post links didn't show the now-deleted post). It's not clear when this happened - I couldn't find cached versions that narrowed down the timeframe enough.

I kept thinking this has got to be a bug, that somehow Violet Blue's website ended up on a spam blacklist by accident. But the stonewalling seen over the last few days makes that theory less and less likely.

People are now trying to sneak comments about the event into various Boing Boing threads, and obviously having those comments removed. You can just imagine what sort of post you'd find about all this on Boing Boing if it were someone not favored, instead of themselves ("Megasite erases hip sexy blogger, readers use The Internet to protest!"). Plus the supercilious apologism from certain quarters, is a sight to behold.

I have a saying: It's Always Different When It's You :-(

Update: Boing Boing speaks. WOW! Say it isn't so :-(. They really did wilfully and deliberately unperson her. It's all true: "Violet behaved in a way that made us reconsider whether we wanted to lend her any credibility or associate with her.". I wish I could convey vocal tone, to underscore the sincerity of saying I am so disappointed.

New Frontiers in Top-Level-Domain Business Models!

[Commenting on ICANN approving new TLD process, I wrote this for a mailing list, responding to a post about The Money is What Matters!]

A _Guardian_ column I wrote about this last year is relevant:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/aug/23/guardianweeklytechnologysection.internet

"The domain name system is full of rent-seekers, speculators, squatters and various scammers."

I've seen some of the shenanigans that go on. We've about to be inundated with clever schemes based on exploiting top-level domains.

Stuff like "dot-greed" is too obvious. Personally, I want ".cmo", for typo-squatting, I mean, Chief Medical Officers. And also ".cim", for more typo-squatting, I mean, the Common Information Model.

If we don't get dot-ex-ex-ex, to sell to defensive registrations to trademark owners, I mean, for sex sites, how about ".hate", for a similar idea? That is, the new TLD ".hate" would be said to be for self-described hate-sites to self-label. But you, Mr/Ms Trademark Owner, can buy a pre-emptive registration for a special rate.

I'm sure there's a wide ranger of ingenuity that will be applied, given the lucrative mix of speculation, typo traffic, certification fees, and trademark issues. ICANN has just bought itself years and years of litigation headaches.

[End message]

I've also been mentioned (thanks) in Charles Arthur's Guardian article I've got a .bridge I'd like to sell you :

It's weird. As our regular columnist Seth Finkelstein has repeatedly pointed out, the arguments against the ".xxx" suffix (regularly touted as a red-light district for the web) are simple: it wouldn't restrict porn to that area, and it would simply be a bonanza for domain name registrars and con artists or cybersquatters looking to make a quick buck.

Bonus link - Rich Kulawiec explains (at length)

We don't need any more gTLDs: if any are created, they will quickly be overrun by abusers and rendered as much a wasteland as .info is today. In the process, registrars will profit, abusers will profit, and everyone else will be forced into pointless expenditures (to proactively or reactively defend themselves from the ensuing abuse).

Jimmy Wales now making BIG BIG speakers fees, "Harry Walker Agency"

Some images are unfortunate:

The Harry Walker Agency, "The World's Leading Exclusive Speaker's Agency", announced exclusive representation of Jimmy Wales for speaking engagements. In an amusing juxtaposition, the front page of their website now has him right above Karl Rove. And that gives you a sense - both intentionally and unintentionally - of the sort of level he's now inhabiting.

This type of agency charges megabucks for its clients. The exact number for Wales isn't given, but from other material I've seen, I'd estimate $50,000 a shot is a ballpark figure.

And what can you get for all that money? (which could probably buy a whole starving village in Africa). I like this:

# Democracy and the Internet

Freedom of speech and the distribution of knowledge is the foundation of Wikipedia. Mr. Wales predicts that the internet will democratize developing countries by making the world 'flat,' opening markets, promoting cultural understanding, and giving developing nations the resources they need to compete in the 21st century. With current total Internet usage by one billion people set to double in the next five to 10 years (with the majority of new users arising from developing nations), Mr. Wales asserts that internet will combat stereotypes, censorship, media control, and monopolies while simultaneously allowing citizens of developing nations to have a more prominent voice. As Mr. Wales states: "It does not take a lot of technology to foster open dialog and debate. Even the simplest technologies like mailing lists, wikis, blogs can help a lot. What is needed mostly, I think, is more content in local languages, and support from people around the world to help others join in the global conversation."

As the saying goes: The thing speaks for itself.

So, though Wikipedia is more like a sweatshop than Santa's workshop and has a poorly-run bureaucracy with the group dynamics of a cult fueled by peddling a type of spiritual transcendence through selfless service to an ideal - someone is definitely benefiting.