Disqus - Latest Comments for rizzn

Re: Videos > The VentriloChoir - eGuiders. We Search. You Watch.

rizzn — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 04:24:39 -0000

Truly disturbing.

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: Mormon's Use <i>Reno 911</i> Drag Queen in Their Ad - mediabistro.com: FishbowlLA

rizzn — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:20:27 -0000

You do what you gotta do to pay the bills.

Sorry, no offense, but Vantee is a *truly frightening* drag queen.

Re: Hello world!

rizzn — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 04:21:25 -0000

Something that's been particularly irritating - the fact that all the third party comment systems (from JS-Kit to Disqus (especially Disqus) to Intense Debate) make it all but impossible to transfer comments from one system to the other.

Re: Hello world!

rizzn — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 04:18:07 -0000

testing something.

Re: The Mayo Clinic apparently blocking Shooting at Bubbles

rizzn — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:30:52 -0000

LOL.

Rizzn.com is blocked from most educational institutions, I've found. When I turn on the laptop to get some work done while I wait to pick my kid up from school, it shows SiliconANGLE and rizzn.com both as blocked on their WiFi.

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: My Thoughts on the FTC Disclosure Rules and Bloggers

rizzn — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 22:40:34 -0000

I've got a problem with it. I've got a major problem with it.

Stop me if you've heard this one:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The FTC, acting on behalf of and on the authority of Congress, is creating what they're calling laws (even though they're really guidelines) that abridge the rights to free speech by individuals *and* the press.

Certainly disclosure is a good thing. I do it where it's practical.

These guidelines are overtly vague and have a chilling effect on online speech. I'm against them.

I'm sure you knew that already. :)

Re: What I Don’t Get about the FTC’s New Blogger Guidelines

rizzn — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 06:08:20 -0000

Creating a token print version was one idea I jokingly suggested in one of the podcasts I've done on this topic.

Simply print out all your blog posts and mail yourself a copy, perhaps sell a few for a penny to friends.

It's a print version. There's circulation. Technically would fit the description of a print publication, yes?

It's silly, but it highlights the ambiguity and loopholes you can drive trucks through on this set of guidelines.

Re: A Response to NHL Preview- 10 Things You Need to Know

rizzn — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 03:38:13 -0000

Who's Sidney Crosby?

Re: Dealing with the information glut the wrong way

rizzn — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 15:14:46 -0000

I'm pretty surprised you're agreeing with Erick here.

For one, Erick still hasn't figured out a way in 18 months to get the best out of Twitter and cut through the noise. That means he is being intellectually dishonest, or he's dense. It's easy to cut through the noise. (see my comments here: http://siliconangle.net/ver2/sabackchan/2009/10... )

Secondly, Wave isn't just an App, and you of all folks (being a former developer) should be aware of that. Wave is a set of protocols, and is basically the same thing we were fantasizing about with regard to a federated Twitter - an ecosystem for content sharing, a fat pipe.

I'm still in the process of wrapping my brain around it, but looking at it as that fat activity strams pipe we talked about a few months ago, the potential is endless, and it *is* a game changer.

Re: Roman Polanski Can’t Touch Jacko for Creepiness

rizzn — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 14:42:18 -0000

That's absolutely insane.

Words can't express.

Can pop culture get any more screwed up?

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

rizzn — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:16:58 -0000

You steenkin' dinosaur! You probably agree with the WaPo's recent policy guidelines regarding social media.

There, I said it.

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

rizzn — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:07:07 -0000

Good grief.

There's plenty of idiocy to write about in the newsprint biz. Stowe shoulda known better.

Fact checking. Steven haz it.

Like my adaptation of the old axiom: if a story sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Fact check it.

Re: The Cartoon That Predicted Google Chrome OS

rizzn — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 21:58:12 -0000

Actually, it sorta is.

It's technology 101: a browser isn't an operating system. Even my gramma can tell you that, and she can't find the start button.

Re: I have 3,571 tweets that show that Twitter isn’t for lunch anymore

rizzn — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 02:54:14 -0000

My policy, in general, is to "rip into" (or engage in debate) pundits and praise startups. Pundits know how to dish it out and take it. Startups, if they're not good or don't impress me for whatever reason, don't get the press.

Why waste time on a startup going point by point as to why it sucks? The 'net is littered with half-assed attempts and blatant site clones. It's better to ignore them and let them go away than to give them air time and come across as someone who is constantly negative towards business.

Re: I have 3,571 tweets that show that Twitter isn’t for lunch anymore

rizzn — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 02:50:01 -0000

I wasn't aware John had a reputation for being an ass-kisser (if I'm reading your comment correctly). Have you read his work recently? He gives praise where it's due, but he's not against calling folks out when the situation requires, either.

[Disclosure: I work for/directly with him - but I suppose that means I know his work a bit better than most]