On the off chance you were not reading the WSJ on Christmas Eve, you may have missed Jessica Vascellaro's piece on being unfriended. Thought provoking and funny. Here's an excerpt:
Unfriending online "friends" is emerging as the latest offense in the world of social networking. Sites such as Facebook and MySpace allow people to build personal profiles with photos, videos and up-to-the-minute updates about their lives, then to share them with select users, or "friends." The process has even turned the word "friend" into a verb, as in, "so-and-so just friended me on Facebook." Users agonize over whom to friend (your mom? your ex-boyfriend? your boss?), and worry about whether their friend requests will be accepted or ignored, lingering in cyberspace in what some dub "friend purgatory."
Find it here.
Thanks for reading, and don't forget to write.
Showing posts with label WSJ. Show all posts
Showing posts with label WSJ. Show all posts
Monday, January 19, 2009
Thursday, September 25, 2008
WSJ: First They Go Color, Now It's Social Media!
ARS Technica is reporting that WSJ is introducing social media content and functionality to its much anticipated too long in coming redesign. This screen shows you what they're planning:
My friends, I'm guessing we will be seeing the first three digit CPM for social media. Maybe that's hyperbole, but I don't think so. The folks at the Journal are smart enough to know that to truly monetize these pages they are going to need to really integrate messages into the discussion.
Let's just hope News Corp doesn't bring the bling from MySpace pages on over. Cuz I would hate to see this sort of thing in the grand dame of financial news:
Holla Holla WSJ!
Thanks for reading, and don't forget to write.
My friends, I'm guessing we will be seeing the first three digit CPM for social media. Maybe that's hyperbole, but I don't think so. The folks at the Journal are smart enough to know that to truly monetize these pages they are going to need to really integrate messages into the discussion.
Let's just hope News Corp doesn't bring the bling from MySpace pages on over. Cuz I would hate to see this sort of thing in the grand dame of financial news:
Holla Holla WSJ!
Thanks for reading, and don't forget to write.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
WSJ POOP
As you know, FCC head Kevin Martin, and indeed the entire Commission, have decided that Comcast’s clandestine slowing of Internet traffic for BitTorrent users was illegal.
Well, the editorial board of the WSJ believes that Martin and commission have it all wrong. One of the choicer paragraphs in their…well… piece of crap is the following:
To the extent that Comcast and BitTorrent have worked out their differences, Mr. Martin is forcing a solution in search of a problem. But the bigger concern is that the chairman is taking a huge step toward putting in place a regulatory regime that would give the FCC, rather than Internet service providers, unprecedented control over how consumers use the Web. Mr. Martin is also greasing the skids for a potential Barack Obama Administration to take an Internet industrial policy who knows where.
My favorite bit there is that the Journal believes that as long as the two companies are OK with each other, it’s all okiedokie. Forgetting that the citizens that use Comcast were the primary injured parties. And BTW, the FTC is ensuring that there is less corporate control of how people use the web. Enabling a level playing field ensures that consuemrs control their web use, not anyone else.
And here’s another.
Giving the government more say in network management, by contrast, introduces all kinds of potential for political mischief. Net neutrality is a slippery slope toward interventions of all kinds -- not merely over access but ultimately over content. Naturally, the most powerful lobbies will have the largest sway. Mr. Martin's decision in this case may well be driven by his own political hostility to Comcast and the cable industry for resisting some of his other policy priorities.
Privacy should be a concern of everyone. After all, the nutters who write editorials at the WSJ may someday be appointees in someone’s government. And net neutrality is a huge privacy issue in a country where 5 companies control virtually all major media outlets. One of which, I might add, owns the WSJ.
Mr. Martin's bad instincts notwithstanding, the FCC's job is not to determine business models in the private sector.
Well, I agree. But what Mr. Martin did was point out the ILLEGAL act of a company that was secretly changing its business practices. The editors at the Journal can try to obfuscate all they want, but the reality is that government can and should play a role in identifying ILLEGAL ACTS and punishing the perpetrators. As much as they might want to “outsource” this obligation, there are still things we don’t entrust to Blackwater.
But then the WSJ is just fine with ILLEGAL ACTS. As long as someone makes some dough in the process.
Well, the editorial board of the WSJ believes that Martin and commission have it all wrong. One of the choicer paragraphs in their…well… piece of crap is the following:
To the extent that Comcast and BitTorrent have worked out their differences, Mr. Martin is forcing a solution in search of a problem. But the bigger concern is that the chairman is taking a huge step toward putting in place a regulatory regime that would give the FCC, rather than Internet service providers, unprecedented control over how consumers use the Web. Mr. Martin is also greasing the skids for a potential Barack Obama Administration to take an Internet industrial policy who knows where.
My favorite bit there is that the Journal believes that as long as the two companies are OK with each other, it’s all okiedokie. Forgetting that the citizens that use Comcast were the primary injured parties. And BTW, the FTC is ensuring that there is less corporate control of how people use the web. Enabling a level playing field ensures that consuemrs control their web use, not anyone else.
And here’s another.
Giving the government more say in network management, by contrast, introduces all kinds of potential for political mischief. Net neutrality is a slippery slope toward interventions of all kinds -- not merely over access but ultimately over content. Naturally, the most powerful lobbies will have the largest sway. Mr. Martin's decision in this case may well be driven by his own political hostility to Comcast and the cable industry for resisting some of his other policy priorities.
Privacy should be a concern of everyone. After all, the nutters who write editorials at the WSJ may someday be appointees in someone’s government. And net neutrality is a huge privacy issue in a country where 5 companies control virtually all major media outlets. One of which, I might add, owns the WSJ.
Mr. Martin's bad instincts notwithstanding, the FCC's job is not to determine business models in the private sector.
Well, I agree. But what Mr. Martin did was point out the ILLEGAL act of a company that was secretly changing its business practices. The editors at the Journal can try to obfuscate all they want, but the reality is that government can and should play a role in identifying ILLEGAL ACTS and punishing the perpetrators. As much as they might want to “outsource” this obligation, there are still things we don’t entrust to Blackwater.
But then the WSJ is just fine with ILLEGAL ACTS. As long as someone makes some dough in the process.
Thanks for reading, and don't forget to write.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)