First we picked up the clue phone, then we climbed on the Cluetrain, and then. . . then, we had the opportunity to respond to that Instant Message icon bouncing or blinking or chirping or whatever at us.
In the ongoing wake of the weblogs.com fiasco, best chronicled from David Weinberger’s thread, not much has been left unsaid. )If you aren’t inclined to use Dave’s audio feed of the rationale, by all means consult Jeneane’s transcription.) Yes, it was free, God bless Dave for being so generous for so long; yes, there must have been some way more gracefully to handle this transition.
I first noticed that something was up when I made my daily pilgrimage to tom.weblogs.com, but I didn’t read the page closely; I figured that Tom had sent someone pesos instead of dollars, and that all would be well shortly. When the magnitude of the change sank in — Tom’s Commonplaces would be gone indefinitely, maybe forever (for all I knew) — I was amazed, and began reading more widely and more deeply. I (selfishly) don’t want Tom’s writings to just up and disappear; they’re much too important a part of my blogging years.
If, as the wise man once said, ”On the Web, we are writing ourselves into existence,” then what happens when someone turns off the switch?
One of the resonant points that Cluetrain made involved the extent to which the Web makes relationships possible in new, unfamiliar, powerful, (dangerous) ways. It’s precisely about relationships, not just tools, not just media. Dave built four years of relationships — good business and good neighborliness — and then gambled that goodwill in a single gesture. More than that, he gambled the Web-based-existence of three thousand people who had no say in his decision.
If Dave wanted to shuck off his online dependents, that was his prerogative; he had the power so to do. It doesn’t seem wise, though; it doesn’t enhance Dave’s stature as a father (and trustee) of the weblogging revolution, or increase someone’s motivation to conduct business with him, and it doesn’t seem the sort of thing most people would want done unto them. I wish Dave had tried a gentler route, and seen how much more positive response he’d have gotten.
Posted by AKMA at June 15, 2004 11:18 PM | TrackBackI don't feel like I've been involved in a fiasco. My weblog is gone, but (and entirely dependant on me, not Dave Winer) not gone indefinitely or forever. My writings aren't going to just up and disappear. (And I'm not writing myself into existance, though I am writing a text into existance.)
Dave Winer hasn't gambled my good will. He earned it through years of development and hosting. Through providing a free tool to back up and interact with my weblog. Through working hard on standards and community and communication. Through writing interesting things. For encouring me and others. And for being one of the most honest and positive writers in blogdom.
My web-based existence hasn't been gambled; it has been nurtured. I don't feel shucked; I feel given to. And Dave's stature seems enhanced relativistically and those around him shrink.
Posted by: David Golding at June 16, 2004 01:46 AMAt some point, ya gotta figure that a fish is gonna swim. Just based on its past behavior.
Which is all I'm going to say about this, except that if Tom Matrullo needs a home, I got one for him.
Posted by: Dorothea Salo at June 16, 2004 08:41 AMI think Dave is 100% within his rights to shut down a service he'd been providing for free. If you're not allowed to do that, who would ever commit to providing a free service? For me, the only real issue is the abruptness of the shut down. It obviously would have been better for users had they had more (any) notice, but Dave says that wasn't possible.
Posted by: David Weinberger at June 16, 2004 09:43 AMI'm going to fail at resisting the compelling urge to utter this:
So, Dorthea... How's the water?
(As I quickly back-stroke away...)
;^)
Posted by: dave rogers at June 16, 2004 01:12 PMEchoing Dorothea, I can't say I admire David Golding, Dave Rogers, or Doc Searls for their school spirit. Do you really think that academic gig or that invite to Davos would've happened without weblogs.com? Loss leaders are promotion, not generosity.
Posted by: Ray at June 16, 2004 03:33 PMLots of echoes around, mainly from people who didn't use weblogs.com. Ray may have been promoted to, but I received generosity. (It's not even like it's an either/or.)
Kurt Vonnegut once said that we are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful what we pretend to be. If we are writing ourselves into existance on the web then we are mean, petty and spiteful, ready to jump at every 0.001% case. (Fortunately the web disproves the post-Columbine anti-computer thesis, for we are generally nice people offline.)
Posted by: David Golding at June 16, 2004 05:52 PMRay, would it have been much better for me to join the usual suspects in heaping scorn and opprobrium on someone who has done me no injury for the sake of... what, exactly? Your admiration?
Posted by: dave rogers at June 16, 2004 06:10 PMMaybe I didn’t state this clearly, but I applaud Dave for carrying everyone he did, for so long.
Do I think he should have handled this better? Yes. I prefer to frame my argument in terms of how people in relationships ought to treat those with whom they’ve established those relationships, but for a strictly legal analysis one might consult James Grimmelman (relative to the “rights” argument).
Does that count as an unwarranted, vicious attack, “echoing” the usual suspects?
Posted by: AKMA at June 17, 2004 07:02 AMWater's pretty good, Dave, thanks.
http://puzzling.org/logs/tech/2004/June/16 expresses things pretty well, I thought.
As for my skin in the game -- I'm quite fond of Tom Matrullo and his ex-blog. He's taking it well, of course, but I still confess to being mildly irked on his behalf.
Posted by: Dorothea Salo at June 17, 2004 09:51 AMMaybe AKM Adams and James Grimmelman should consider shucking off the monumentally loaded language.
Anyway, enough from me.
Here's an informed response to join Evan Williams's:
http://anthonyjhicks.com/ajh/weblog.nsf/l/CCD8BC70F38D9C7DCA256EB5004609BF
Posted by: David Golding at June 17, 2004 05:38 PM"Does that count as an unwarranted, vicious attack, “echoing” the usual suspects?"
AKMA, if you're addressing me, I'm sorry if I left you with the impression that I found your post to be an unwarranted personal attack. I did not. In fact, I found your post one of the most appropriate on the subject. You expressed your feelings, which you are entitled to, and for which no one may criticize you. You expressed an opinion on whether or not it might have been handled better. And you refrained from making any sort of personal attack on Dave Winer. Which, I think, is what I essentially outlined as an appropriate response in my own weblog entries on this issue.
Dorthea's comment wasn't especially bad in that respect either, relying on a shared understanding of Dave's checkered history to imply that somehow this was inevitable or something. Of course, Dave has done a lot of good for weblogs and computer software, but that somehow seems to be ignored in Dorthea's obtuse riposte.
My reply to her was to note that there are plenty of fish who seem to have to swim in a sea of personal attacks as well. And I'm a fish that swims in a sea of irony.
Or something.
I thought Ray's comment was rather off point, and I'm disappointed he didn't choose to answer my question. As for his lack of admiration for me, well, I hardly know how my life will go on.
As for the legal analysis, I am not a lawyer. But it seems to me that if there is a legal case to be made, than the appropriate thing is to make it, rather than relying on the hypothetical validity of some legal theory as justification for publicly trashing another human being.
We've seen this again and again in the "blogosphere." And perhaps it's old news to people who grew up in usenet, or online bulletin boards pre-www. But it seems to me we lack a set of social norms for "cyberspace" or the "blogosphere" which would, in the "real" world, serve to inhibit our baser tendencies in this regard. One seldom encounters this sort of behavior from adults except on afternoon television shows like Jerry Springer. In most adult venues, when emotions run high and people begin to make these sorts of personal attacks, other adults step in to defuse the situation by reminding people of decorum, or taking a break, or something. It seems sad, to me, that any effort like that in the "blogosphere" is met with resentment and derision.
It seems to me you're familiar with a guy who made a remark to the effect, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." I think we could all do with a little more oil poured on the waters these fish swim in.
But what do I know? I'm just a cynical misanthrope. ;^)
Posted by: dave rogers at June 17, 2004 09:59 PMIt's always absolutely amazing to me when people accuse AKMA of employing loaded language on anything ... Do you really know anyone at all who chooses his words more carefully?
Posted by: Trevor Bechtel at June 18, 2004 11:34 AMSince I stumbled into AKMA's space to mutter an imprecation, I'm stumbling back again to mutter a thanks.
Dave (Rogers), I'd mistakenly assumed your question was rhetorical -- something about your use of "usual suspects" and "heaping scorn and opprobrium" made me suspect its sincerity. If that's oil poured on the waters, someone dropped a match afterwards. Anyway, no, I don't believe you or anyone else should do anything merely for the sake of my admiration. It's an insignificant prize, easily won.
Posted by: Ray at June 18, 2004 11:52 AMSorry.
Trevor, I ask you to consider "fiasco", "indefinitely", "forever", "disappear", blah blah blah, "gambled", "earned", "shucked", "stature".
Posted by: David Golding at June 18, 2004 12:55 PMDavid,
Thanks for your apology.
How are any of the words that AKMA used loaded beyond their regular commonsense meanings? AKMA provided with a deep meaning for "fiasco" through his link. It is a clear and kind definition. With the exception of "blah blah blah" which I can't actually find AKMA using in this post, how are any of the other words loaded beyond there common uses? At the point when AKMA was writing were "indefinitely", "forever", "disappear", not exactly what Winer was himself saying? I'm interested in words which AKMA could have used instead of "gambled", "earned", "shucked", "stature", which could have carried the sense that I take him to mean around Winer's actions relative to the future of his weblogs.com clients, what Winer has done to collect/inherit/accrue his place in the blogospher, the way in which users were stripped/removed/disenfranchised from weblogs.com or Winer's place in the blogosphere itself.
Posted by: Trevor Bechtel at June 18, 2004 02:11 PM"Dave (Rogers), I'd mistakenly assumed your question was rhetorical -- something about your use of "usual suspects" and "heaping scorn and opprobrium" made me suspect its sincerity. If that's oil poured on the waters, someone dropped a match afterwards. Anyway, no, I don't believe you or anyone else should do anything merely for the sake of my admiration. It's an insignificant prize, easily won."
In hindsight, my use of the phrase "usual suspects" was too flippant, and I regret that. However, the question was sincere. "Heaping scorn and opprobrium" - which is not what I've observed in AKMA's post, I repeat - was chosen to contrast what I've observed in many other weblogs, and I should have made that distinction clearer, with your characterization of my, I thought, light-hearted rejoinder to Dorthea as not "admirable."
I take your reference to "school spirit" to mean some blind subservience to the figure of Dave Winer. While I disagree with Dave Golding's position on the nature of AKMA's post, I've known him online for a number of years now, and he's nobody's obsequious sycophant.
So I inferred that what you would find admirable would be to validate or participate in what is, in my opinion, an overreaction and worse to Dave Winer's action. People may have whatever opinion they wish of Dave Winer's character or personality, and some of them may even be correct, but his public vilification serves nobody's interests.
My choice of words was intended to place what is clearly not admirable conduct in stark contrast to your characterization of Dave Doc and I as being unworthy of your admiration, raising the question of just what you would have preferred us to do? Join in, or do nothing?
I'm unworthy of anyone's admiration for a great many reasons. This episode, I feel, is not one of them.
As for your admiration being an insignificant thing, I'll take you at your word for that, only noting that you've managed to imply that I can't even clear the low hurdle of "easily won."
And finally, I will point out you still haven't answered the question. But I suppose it's largely moot now.
Posted by: dave rogers at June 18, 2004 03:26 PMDave Rogers: Our debate (such as it is) rests on different ideas of "victimhood". I saw three people with nothing to lose leaping to the defense of someone who held all the cards, and dismissing the justified concerns of those who were given no notice and no say. Whereas you saw a vicious mob springing up in ignorance to attack a hardworking man who had never done them any harm. There's not much room for negotiation between those moral-high-grounds, but I think AKMA and David Weinberger both managed to find it, and I and you did not.