Disqus - Friends of MarkDykeman

Re: Scribkin’s WordPress Plugins - Let Me Show You Them

eng1ne — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:45:42 -0000

I actually wrote this post over a year ago (5-17-08 to be precise) so the site has undergone many changes since then. Onle of the last changes I made was to go with a very light theme with no CSS so that people could choose their own font via their browser preference.

However, that doesn't mean I'm not using *any* plugins now.. In fact, I currently have 33 active plugins, including: Add to Any, Akismet, All In One SEO, Disqus and more.

Hm, I could probably stand to get rid of some of the older ones, though.

Re: LEAKED: Details of the Facebook Home Page Redesign [Screenshots]

rizzn — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 15:08:07 -0000

It might have been more accurate to term this something other than a "redesign," at least in your writeup. This isn't so much an aesthetics upgrade as an info-infrastructure upgrade. What data appears where has been adjusted. A redesign implies radical changes to the UI, which hasn't happened at all.

Re: LEAKED: Details of the Facebook Home Page Redesign [Screenshots]

rizzn — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 15:05:13 -0000

Looks more or less the same.

Re: My Thoughts on the FTC Disclosure Rules and Bloggers

rizzn — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 19:22:37 -0000

Wow, could you be more of an jerk?
Before you ask a blatantly stupid question like that, perhaps you should go
through and do a Google search on my name. Go ahead. I can wait.

I've been covering these FTC guidelines for months and months, before anyone
in the PR, marketing, tech or blogging world picked up on it, let alone the
mainstream press. I've been on numerous podcasts, guest posted, and been
quoted in the press dozens of times on this. I've read this document more
times than I care to admit, and I find your question more than a little
insulting.

Here's a little test for you - find me the word "blogger" defined in section
255 (not section 255.1 or any other subsection - section 255 where the
definitions are).

You won't find it.

The word blog is used once or twice in the examples, but never is it defined
what the FTC considers a blog. Surely, if you read Chris Brogan's site,
you're well aware of the liberal definition of the word blog in today's day
and age. Never once does the FTC document clearly define what social media
users they're targeting, and though the examples try to enumerate that, the
press statements from the FTC (Rich Cleland is who I'm referring to) have
made it clear that they're not sure they have a handle on it and wish to
create an environment of FUD so that everyone and their dog will hafta worry
about this.

This is the definition of Chilling Effect. Chilling effect is even
mentioned by name in the FTC documents (see: "Analysis of Comments
Concerning What Communications Should Be
Considered “Endorsements” Under § Section 255.0 of the Guides").
Unfortunately, the FTC chose to ignore such analysis and dip their little
paws into First Amendment regulation.

Mark my words - the first time this goes to court because some Twitter user
didn't say the right thing the right way, these guidelines will see the need
for revision. No judge with any respect for the constitution will allow
this.

Re: My Thoughts on the FTC Disclosure Rules and Bloggers

rizzn — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 14:00:17 -0000

I hafta wonder, then, if you've considered all the ramifications of these
regulations.
Given how nebulously these guidelines have been written (they never *once*
define terms within the guidelines), and the fact that guidelines haven't
been updated in thirty years, you hafta at least admit the fact that in 30
years, let alone one or two, the lattitude that the FTC has granted
themselves here can be widely interpreted to start regulating a lot of
things with this set of guidelines.

This is government creep at it's finest. Sure, if you believe every word
Rich Cleland has uttered the last several weeks, they sound pretty
innocuous. Truth is, though, most of what Rich says is in direct
contradiction to what's actually in the guidelines.

Re: My Thoughts on the FTC Disclosure Rules and Bloggers

rizzn — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:41:36 -0000

You're mistaken.
You should read the guidelines and the proposed changes, as well as much of
the analysis over at SiliconANGLE.

Re: My Thoughts on the FTC Disclosure Rules and Bloggers

rizzn — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:27:04 -0000

Again, that's an incorrect interpretation of the *guidelines.*
*Part* of the purpose of the *guidelines* is to define *specifically* how
bloggers define disclosure of financial relationships that could be
nebulously construed as endorsements.

Do you do consultant work for one of your clients then write about something
from your industry in a comment on a blog? If you don't properly disclose,
and that comment shows up on Twitter or Facebook or some other place where
your name and face appear in a lifestream, you could be guilty of improper
disclosure, since the money you receive could (and probably
does) influence your worldview in the opinions you express.

Then, you and your employer could be held liable.

The FTC needs to stay out of my speech. This isn't right.

Re: My Thoughts on the FTC Disclosure Rules and Bloggers

rizzn — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 23:04:16 -0000

Free speech actually does guarantee us the opportunity to subvert important details.

See any presidential debate.

For that matter, define important. What's important should be defined by the speaker (or content creator), not the government, and ultimately by the audience.

Audiences in social media tech typically demand transparency on sponsorship relations, and speakers and content creators who don't disclose should be free to blow their reputation.

Re: My Thoughts on the FTC Disclosure Rules and Bloggers

rizzn — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 22:57:17 -0000

Incorrect.

Bloggers, according to the guidelines, can be fined. Rich Cleland has been spinning it in the press as if they cannot, but read the guidelines for yourself, and you'll see otherwise.

Bloggers and social media users (Twitter, Facebook, etc) that are employed and use social media to promote their work can be held liable as well, if the FTC isn't particularly satisfied with the style disclosure they use.

Re: My Thoughts on the FTC Disclosure Rules and Bloggers

rizzn — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 22:51:42 -0000

Wrong.

Certainly endorsements and testimonials are covered in *certain aspects* of other industries (mostly diet pills and celeb endorsement deals).

Bloggers and social media users are *particularly* singled out, and Old Media is left to do as they will.

A newspaper man can go to a movie for free, and not disclose. That's fine.

If a blogger does the same, he can go through a painful investigation with the FTC, as can the advertiser.

Re: To the FTC that whole Trust Agent thing is nonsense

StevenHodson — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 22:38:42 -0000

I agree that there are misuses on either side of the fence. I also believe that the guidelines being put forward should apply across all media - regardless of print, video, podcasting or blogs. If it was I would withdraw my objections without a second thought.

Re: To the FTC that whole Trust Agent thing is nonsense

StevenHodson — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 22:08:11 -0000

The thing is Chris is that it doesn't matter if it is a "gift" or a "loaner". Under the FTC guidelines because gadget sites like Gizmodo have an on-going association with manufacturers they will have to start displaying a disclosure notice with each post. Where it gets really interesting is if that same disclosure is going to have to be applied to old posts - since as we know even year old posts can gain new life.

Re: Kindle available in over 100 countries

StevenHodson — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 17:35:51 -0000

Oh I don't put all the blame on Amazon here. As with the iPhone I can well imagine that the telco's are more than responsible for this.

Re: Washington Post’s Twitter ruckus exposes social media bubble

rizzn — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:22:36 -0000

in all seriousness, though...
... yes, their biz models would probably be better served by being
transparent social media publishing platforms.

They're not, though, and much of the WaPo business functions on the
one-directional broadcast model, not the bi-directional communication model.
As such, they don't have the luxury in that model to not control the spin
and image of the organization in hierarchal fashion.

Remember how CNN and Sanchez became the lightning rod for the #CNNfail
situation?

Did you read how WaPo got thrashed by Jeff Nolan today on an unrelated
topic? (
http://siliconangle.net/ver2/2009/09/28/the-ala...)

The difference is that Sanchez could engage frankly and try to diffuse the
issue, where as WaPo will go the way of the record industry, turning into a
whipping boy for all their foibles.

Their choice, I suppose.

Re: Washington Post’s Twitter ruckus exposes social media bubble

StevenHodson — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:18:12 -0000

funny guy :)

Re: How be we get the story right Mr. Boyd

StevenHodson — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 17:10:56 -0000

I have and will be working on a follow-up this afternoon

Re: Ed Bott gets all picky on Apple

StevenHodson — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 00:41:31 -0000

Hang on :) don't apologize for posting a valid comment that is expressed in a calm and reasonable way. I appreciate that people can get a little heated - hell I'm guilty of that but that doesn't mean that blatant insulting of other commenter's is tolerated - if only here. I like it when people stir the pot but with the knowledge to back up what they are saying which you obviously can. I look forward to any comments you wish to make here ....

Re: Ed Bott gets all picky on Apple

StevenHodson — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:32:18 -0000

Who let the loose screw loose in the comments ?

Re: Ed Bott gets all picky on Apple

StevenHodson — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:24:54 -0000

hey! .. no need to get insulting. If you can't express your opinion intelligently and at least some modicum (if you know that that means anyway) of quality sarcasm then save the effort for one of your Apple message boards where they might enjoy that kind of thing.

Re: Serious conversations? Not on Twitter

StevenHodson — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 20:07:19 -0000

I wouldn't even want to try doing anything like that especially when it comes to a popular program like FeedDemon.

Re: Serious conversations? Not on Twitter

StevenHodson — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 20:06:32 -0000

not to mention that the whole crowdsourcing hype about it is just that hype unless you have very large numbers of followers. The number of times that I have put out a question or asked for help for something and that I have gotten a reply other than spam I can count on one hand.

Re: A social media application I would like to have

StevenHodson — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 20:07:04 -0000

just out of curiosity Nick have you looked at Feedly at all? I had thought about doing a FeedDemon newspaper style like it if I can get the time to decipher how they're created (I know it's XML and CSS). As I told you on Twitter the other day I'm really looking forward to seeing where FeedDemon is headed in the next version.

Re: A social media application I would like to have

StevenHodson — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 19:32:42 -0000

interesting idea. not sure how much I like the UI or how fast it scrolls with new data. it's not quite the "trend" idea that I talked about but I'm going to try it out for a few days.

Thanks

Re: http://blog.louisgray.com/2009/09/find-similar-people-and-interests-with.html

StevenHodson — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 18:14:11 -0000

<gives the email server a shake to see it is stuck> :) nm .. should always check the right mail folder <snicker>

Re: http://blog.louisgray.com/2009/09/find-similar-people-and-interests-with.html

StevenHodson — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 03:40:34 -0000

Thanks Louis I'll play around with it tomorrow after I get back from my appointment at the hospital. Which is at 10:30 and for those that know me will know how hard it will be to make it on time - and awake :)