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]

TrafficBlogger — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:27:56 -0000

Jeez get over it.
Good post Ben.

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

empoprises — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 19:23:37 -0000

Boy, just wait until Steven Hodson or Mark 'Rizzn' Hopkins post some medical breakthrough, and the folks at the Mayo Clinic can't read it. They'll be really sorry then!

I just read something that mentioned how many sites are blocking social media services such as Facebook and Twitter - I think the figure was somewhere around fifty percent. While some in the social media world dream on about how social media will transform civilization as we know it, the reality is that a bunch of organizations are really afraid of Facebook quizzes and cranky observations.

But will these closed environments result in a lack of innovation as people are blocked from in-depth technical conversations AND LOLcats? The jury's out.

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

twitter-10223 — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 16:44:03 -0000

Um, there's a whole section, 255, that is definitions. Did you read the things at all?

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

dannybrown — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:43:18 -0000

Mark, I have read the guidelines as it affects my US clients, thanks.

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

dannybrown — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:35:08 -0000

Exactly, and that's what I said. It's not a crackdown on bloggers, it's a crackdown on false advertising. If a blogger lies via a sponsored post then they should be held accountable just like anyone else.

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

whitneyhoffman — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 06:02:39 -0000

I can see that it will depend on how the term "advertising message" is interpreted; the testimonial or endorsement part certainly would cover both.

Moreover, the most important part of the Guidelines is as follows:

The Guides in this part represent administrative interpretations of laws enforced by the Federal Trade Commission for the guidance of the public in conducting its affairs in conformity with legal requirements. Specifically, the Guides address the application of Section 5 of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. 45) to the use of endorsements and testimonials in advertising. The Guides provide the basis for voluntary compliance with the law by advertisers and endorsers. Practices
inconsistent with these Guides may result in corrective action by the Commission under Section 5 if, after investigation, the Commission has reason to believe that the practices fall within the scope of conduct declared unlawful by the statute.

In other words, the guidelines provide a basis for voluntary compliance with the law, by advertisers and endorsers- its whole purpose is to clarify the legal stance of endorsements and testimonials in advertising, and includes those on the web.

So, if it's not an advertising message in any way shape and form, it may not be covered. I can see where this could be interpreted as a safe harbor for traditional media. But in the examples given regarding a blogger who reviews video games, I have a hard time seeing how that is substantially different from when David Pogue reviews gear in the New York Times.

We'll just have to wait and see what the FTC starts to do to enforce these Guidelines, as is always the case- the individual cases flesh out the real boundaries and contours of the law.

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: The Cartoon That Predicted Google Chrome OS

facebook-100000359340645 — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 00:59:37 -0000

A graphical user interface isn't an operating system; it's another layer added to the system. Not many non-commercial users run command-line-only operating systems these days. In the same manner, the browser could be simply acts as another layer on top of the GUI.
It's not too hard to imagine all system related applications in a HTML/Javascript frontend instead of a traditional graphical toolkit. So really, despite performance issues, there's no reason that the browser couldn't make the underlying operating system irrelevant.
Of course, performance dependent things like 3D games would not be run through a browser.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's a pretty terrible idea. But I'll leave that to Ted Dziuba: http://teddziuba.com/2008/09/a-web-os-are-you-d... (just look at the last image, if you want to get the gist of his argument)