Publishing 2.0 - Latest Comments in Morality 2.0

Re: Morality 2.0

Scott Karp — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 17:06:28 -0000

Brian, if you ever come back here for an honest debate, I will gladly engage you. If you ever come back to pick a fight, I will ignore you.

If you read this blog, you'll find plenty of examples of my admitting when I'm wrong, particularly when I've been unfair to other people.

But I don't think I've been unfair to you -- twice now I have allowed you to hijack what might otherwise have been an interesting conversation. I'm not going to do that again.

If you want to view everything in terms of winning and losing, that's your choice. It's such a waste, I don't see how anybody wins.

Re: Morality 2.0

Brian — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 14:58:01 -0000

Thanks for proving my point, winner.

Re: Morality 2.0

Scott Karp — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 14:36:47 -0000

Brian,

I don't know why I'm letting you suck me into it, but here's what I said about the comments on chartreuse:

(You can see some of the Ã¢â‚¬Å“moralityÃ¢â‚¬Â debate in the comments on NickÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s post and in comments on the multiple posts that Chartreuse did.)

If you actually READ through the comments, you'll see that there was a lot of debate BEFORE you showed up AND I DID respond to you explaining what I thought was new.

But, please, do go pick your fights elsewhere and/or take Scott Baradell's advice.

Re: Morality 2.0

Brian — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 13:47:33 -0000

You could have easily made that clear Scott, but you made a point to call out the commentors, not Chartreuse. It wasn't Chartreuse that you couldn't defend your intra-comments position against. It was me.

I've never bullied you (but of course every time we disagree you'll pull out all the stops to win, won't you?). What's with your competiveness? This isn't about winning.

You stopped the conversation at the other thread when you couldn't answer the questions posed to you. Then you changed the questions.

I didn't ask that you agree with me. I asked for you to demonstrate specifically how I was wrong. You still haven't done it. I was hoping to learn something.

You don't have to worry about me any longer though, because I am through reading this blog. You can't be a seeker of wisdom if you think you know it all already.

At least I have the good sense to know there's a lot I don't know.

Re: Morality 2.0

Scott Karp — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 13:21:16 -0000

Brian,

Since both you and I pointed to the "what's new" debate on chartreuse, I'm not going to repeat what's there.

What I will take issue with is your characterizing my continuing to disagree with you as somehow not playing by the rules. You think there are no new elements in the MySpace phenomenon. I think there are. You think I lack historical perspective. I think you lack the ability to perceive what's new. All two sides of the same coin.

But you're accusing me of being intellectually dishonest essentially because I won't just agree with you and concede that I don't know what I'm talking about.

It's entirely possible that I DON'T know what I'm talking about, and I'm ready to admit mistakes.

But you haven't convinced me yet, and I'm not going to let you bully me into it, as you tried to bully me when you first commented on my blog.

That said, I have NEVER said that you, Brian Clark, don't understand the morality issue. NOR have I said that liberals want their kids to see porn. But I won't take you to task for mischaracterizing, which is inevitable in these forum.

If anybody could take issue with whether I'm characterizing them accurately it's chartreuse, but he was "man" enough to continue debating it on the merits rather than descend into ad hominem.

Re: Morality 2.0

Brian — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 12:55:55 -0000

It's not being unfair to Scott at all, but thanks for your input Karl.

Misrepresenting what other people say is innappropriate by any standard. Don't be an apologist for that type of behavior under the guise of "civil conversation."

I've read Danah Boyd. Nothing she says changes the fact that the problem with MySpace is (1) it's more popular than any of its predecessors and (2) it's 2006, not 1996 or 1986 or 1956. The culture itself is what has changed, and maybe Scott should be writing about that, because that's what he's really complaining about.

Re: Morality 2.0

Karl — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 12:35:18 -0000

Brian, that's entirely unfair to Scott. He's responding here which is entirely his right, and you are commenting here, as he permits. Nothing wrong with either thing.

Lets keep personal attacks out of the conversation.

MySpace, in many, many ways, is a new thing. Read Danah Boyd. She's certainly not anti-MySpace, but she is aware of and speaks of its dynamics and what they represent.

Yes you could consider MySpace the latest version of AOL's old profile-surfing chatrooms. You could consider it the latest version of much of what has come before.

But as a whole - how it is being used - in such a public way - in such a public space - represents something very new.

Re: Morality 2.0

Brian — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 12:24:45 -0000

Just in case you are referring to my comments at Chartreuse's blog (and I think, due to some of the repetition in condescending word choices, that you are), then you are once again mischaracterizing things.

No one is arguing (at least not me) that MySpace's UGC may be scary to mainstream advertisers. That's such a "duh" that I can't believe you spend so much time on it. Red state / Blue state doesn't matter, unless your argument is that liberals *want* their kids to have access to porn.

You went way off topic at the Chartreuse post and started talking about how "new" and "complex" this whole MySpace thing is. I said you're wrong, and you just can't admit that you lack historical perspective. In fact, you can't seem to bear the thought that you're not always right in general. You refused to respond in that thread anymore, and then you post mischaracterizations of the argument here.

Why?

I agreed with you on the moral and safety issues, but you didn't want to hear that. I knew you'd be over here this morning trying to "win" the argument. Of course, you change the argument to suit your purposes, which does nothing for your credibility.

The only thing "new" about the problems seen on MySpace is scale. Why can't you respond to what I actually wrote? Why can't you list the "new layers of complexity" that MySpace presents compared to the last 10 years of free homepage services?

Because you can't. You lack the history, but you're not man enough to just admit that and move on.

I would encourage everyone who reads this post to actually take the time to figure out for themselves if Mr. Karp is intellectually honest in his characterizations here today by reading his comments and the responses to them:

http://chartreuse.wordpress...

Re: Morality 2.0

Karl — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 12:04:05 -0000

I realize that :) I guess you can read the article two ways.

I don't think it refutes my point any more then Howard Stern's track record does.

Will there be *some* advertisers who won't want to be associated with user-generated content and the risk involved there - sure. Definitely. But there will most assuredly be others who seeing a buying audience - will engage it.

Re: Morality 2.0

Scott Karp — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 11:46:04 -0000

Karl, that CNET article is the one I cited above, which shows that big brand advertisers are HORRIFIED by appearing next to "red-light" content and have specific guidelines AGAINST it. The article completely refutes your point!

Re: Morality 2.0

Karl — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 11:43:35 -0000

"Will Big Brands ever be willing to cede full control of brand management in a world of user-controlled media? (Not whether they SHOULD, but whether they WILL.)"

They already are!

CNet: Blue-chip ads, red-light content

I will stand behind what I said earlier... if there are sales to be made - advertisers will push product ANYPLACE. And I'm sure - very sure - viral marketing/word-of-mouth and MySpace must go together like an advertiser's wildest dreams.

Re: Morality 2.0

Scott Karp — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 11:26:46 -0000

Let's take teenagers as an audience -- I'm sure virtually all teenage MySpace pages would comply with big brand advertiser standards (or would be close enough), but what about the handful that don't?

It's not about disliking the audience or its content, it's about managing the risk posed by some percentage of the audience's content.

The BW article gives a nice taste of the corporate risk management sensibility. Perhaps that sensibility needs to change -- but in an age of (at least the attempt at) corporate accountability, it's a hard road.

And, char, where is your evidence that advertisers aren't complaining about MySpace? They're not going to issue press releases -- and neither is MySpace -- unless somebody catches it and writes about it, as BW did.

Re: Morality 2.0

chartreuse — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 11:18:31 -0000

Forget moralizing, lets talk money.

If advertisers don't like the content then probably the content producers don't like them.

MySpace isn't producing the content, the audience is. When advertisers complain about MySpace they are complaining about the audience. And that ain't gonna sell many iPods. That's why you don't hear a peep out of the advertisers and you don't hear a peep out of the MySpace audience.