Entries from April 2007 ↓

Something that flitted across my google reader lately was the top 10 reasons to consider using Silverlight, the new cross-platform Flash competitor from Microsoft. Reason number 10 was a mystery:  

“Ah… #10. I can’t reveal this yet - there’s a big surprise up our collective corporate sleeve that will be announced at MIX. I hate to hold back on you, but anticipation is part of the pleasure, as my mother used to tell me as a child when I was waiting impatiently for Christmas to come!”

Source: Tim Sneath : Introducing Microsoft Silverlight

Presumably, this can only mean Microsoft is open-sourcing large chunks of this new platform of theirs. No, seriously. It makes sense, they’re going up against Flash, and one of the only ways to compete against something that’s got wide market adoption and is ”free as in beer” is to release a competitor that’s ”free as in speech”. Having better features just won’t do it, when the opposition already owns the market. Microsoft has been trying to paint themselves as the less evil empire for a while now, so it just makes sense to build something major and open source it. Evolve or die, as they say, and they’ve well and truly given up claiming that Open Source is just another word for communism.  They’ve even got a lab dedicated to interop with open source technologies,  blogging at Port 25.  

Anyway, the real question is: which bits will be open sourced, and what licence are they going to choose? If they want to have any credibility at all they’d better pick something OSI-approved. For style points, they should pick the MPL. I wonder what Mozcorp would make of that one…anyway, I expect my friends Mary and Simon will tell me I’m completely off base with this, but I thought I’d hang it out there just in case I’m right :-)  

 BTW The answer to the question in the title, I suspect, is no. It’s probably not going to gain significant adoption vs Flash, even if it’s open source. But it will be interesting to watch.

Guy Kawasaki, who is a blogger/author that every startup CEO needs to read, seems to have fallen in love with The Turk. Maybe one of the companies he backs will actually find a good use for it.

Have you done a search and seen the jobs being offered? Most of them are simple SEO work - writing filler to wrap adsense around and confuse the search engines, or “voting up” something or other. And the payrates offered are atrocious.

Update: After marking up this screenshot. I figured out how to get a list without doing a search, just clicking on HITs, you can go here. There are only 193 “HITs” posted right now. None of them pay more than $5. That’s not even worth the time I took to make the screenshot, let alone the time I took to write this post. But, I guess I’m a startup CEO, not a starving third worlder! But frankly, anyone with a clue and with an internet connection knows that their time is worth more than this. BTW (obligatory plug) if you’ve got a clue and an internet connection (and Firefox), you really ought to try the Interclue Beta.

Essentially, it was an idea that sounded great and original and interesting and got Amazon a lot of attention when they released it, but it doesn’t seem to have gotten used in the way they might have hoped. I guess there are a lot of ideas like that. Maybe things will change, but I imagine that they’re looking at the lack of uptake and pondering that to make it worthwhile they would have to be doing 100x more business, so why bother when they’ve got so much else on. (note to self: finish post about Google Answers…)

But as for Amazon trying stuff non “book” related, I’m vastly more impressed with S3, EC2, SQS, etc than I am with Mturk. We are planning to migrate Interclue onto S3 and EC2, once we have launched (Soon! I promise!) and got some more investment underneath us. Amazon is a great company, doing great things.

Last minute thought: I wonder if there’ll be an upsurge in mturk uptake on the supply side after they start rolling out millions of OLPCs…

Nope, some of them are at least half serious. Most people I know still haven’t figured out what Web 2.0 is all about, but for a lot of the people I read, it’s getting pretty old hat, and a few of them are trying to define the next revolution already.

ReadWriteWeb asked people to come up with their own definition of what Web 3.0 means, with tickets to the O’Reilly Web 2.0 Expo on the line. My contribution was:

Web 3.0, highly abstract noun:

1. Term used by Web 2.0 startups to differentiate themselves from other Web 2.0 startups.
2. Term used by Web 2.0 pundits temporarily bored of writing about Web 2.0 startups.

I didn’t win. I probably should have made it even more snarky.

Of the winners, I really liked Robert O’Brien’s  definition. I think he’s right about the way things are heading in terms of personalised and integrated information flows. Interclue is definitely headed in that direction.  Stowe Boyd and Fred Wilson have been talking about this sort of thing for ages.

Realistically, there will be no “Web 3.0″ until O’Reilly change the name of their conference. They are the thought leaders, and despite one or two recent missteps by Tim, I can’t see them losing thought leadership anytime soon. So the question is, what would inspire them to make that change? See my list of potential factors after the cut.

Continue reading →

Tony Hung argues very cogently that what’s really needed is a comments policy, not a code of conduct, but I think he’s missed the point. If you want to maintain the moral highground when you censor people who have got out of line in your comments section, particularly if you are in an argument with them at the time, or have a “history” with them, then it’s very handy to be able to point to a code that applies not only to them, but to you, and not just when you’re in the comments section. Otherwise you’re clearly at an unfair advantage. If when you point to these “principles” you can also point to the fact that a fair old number of people have subscribed to exactly the same principles, and that they were arrived at by a consensus process, then that defintely increases the height of your moral highground.

Whereas if you have a comments policy that doesn’t apply to you or your blog posts, that somewhat lowers it.

And the ability to censor people who have got out of line is the point. If you have no code of conduct or comments policy, then what are you going to do when someone posts something appalling? You either engage in ad-hoc censorship or you make up a policy in the heat of the moment (looks bad!) or if you’ve totally rejected the idea of censoring comments and it’s gotten out of hand then you might have to shut the whole blog down (as happened with Meankids and unclebobisms, which started this whole mess).

In general I see no reason that there shouldn’t be some shared principles out there that I can point to rather than having to point to my own. If there’s a badge (but the sheriff’s badge is awful, Tim, sorry) that makes it easy for commenters to spot the principles of my blogging and comments section, then all the better - just like the Creative Commons for copyright. I’m not expecting anyone come in and *enforce* anything on me, but then I wouldn’t choose to subscribe to a set of principles that I disagreed with, so if I transgress then I’ll withdraw and apologise. There are people out there who refuse to apologise for anything they’ve said, but I’m not one of them - I think if you can’t admit when you’re wrong, then people aren’t going to trust you when you claim that you’re right. More importantly, how are you going to trust yourself?

I’ve got a little badge on this blog pointing to a “Blog Honor” code of conduct. It relates to disclosure policy, and in truth I linked to it because I didn’t have time to write my own, and it seemed fairly close to what I believed at the time (and still do).

The “code of conduct” that Tim O’Reilly is calling for does not cover disclosure, but the real question is whether linking to any shared codes of conduct is a good idea. To say the least, it’s somewhat controversial. I think that as posted, it’s impractical and doesn’t show the depth of thought I would expect from Tim, who’s one of the biggest blogospheric thinkers out there. Sadly he’s being more or less shredded in the comments of the assembled masses, who hate even a whiff of censorship far more than they respect Tim or Kathy, it would seem. Seth Finklestein is an anti-censorship crusader (who I generally have admired in the past when I’ve run across his writing), so it’s no wonder he’s one of the loudest critics, and he makes a valid point about enforcability. I think his comments insinuating this is designed to reinforce the tyranny of the supposed “A List” are dead wrong, however. [1]

In my case, I thought “good start, needs more work” and got stuck in over at the Wiki they set up. I think having a voluntary code of conduct that people can sign up to if they want is not a bad idea if it’s structured properly, which to me means it’s got variants and versions, and ideally you can fit it all in a microformat as well as link an online version that not only shows the code but links to the discussion regarding each point so that people can see why those points were arrived at. So if people want to allow anonymous posting, or what to play with their trolls, but still want some sort of set of declared principles to point to when they delete a comment for stepping over the line, then they can do that.

The alternative to a shared Code of Conduct is posting your own individual one, and I think it’d be very hard to go past borrowing and tweaking this one by Allen Jenkins, as Tyme did. Allen has is own wise words about all this.

If there was going to be a shared code of conduct, then you’d want it to be agreed as part of a shared process, not handed down by fiat. What an enormous number of Tim’s commenter seem to have missed is that this is exactly what Tim wanted to happen, and why there was a wiki and a mailing list set up to discuss it. But naturally enough everyone ignored those and fired away on their blogs or in comment sections.

[1] The problem of “enforcement” happens when someone who’s blog is wearing the badge ignores the code. Obviously it can’t be enforced on anyone who hasn’t signed up for it.

SethF appears to be arguing that an “A lister” involved in such a dispute would win any such arguments with the help of the “Pilot Fish” wanting to impress them and scared of being, ah, I don’t know, excluded? Called out? I’m not sure. I’m not buying it. Arguably being attacked by an A-lister is a great way to get noticed - and if they’re wrong to attack you then it’s going to be obvious to some of the other big guns, who will call out that A-lister, and bingo, you’re subscription count jumps up.

The moment another “A lister” comes in on the other side, then any “Pilot Fish effect” will pretty much evaporate because they wouldn’t know which way to turn. And I think it’s a delusion that the “A listers” somehow all conspire in some fashion to stay on top of any given argument. I also think calling the rest of the blogosphere “pilot fish” is pretty damned derogatory - certainly anyone who wants to gain an audience won’t want to be seen to be a slavering toadie, and anyone who doesn’t want to gain an audience is really unlikely to care what these supposed A listers think of them. So I just don’t buy that line of argument at all.

Besides, the reason these people are the “A list” is partly because they usually make a certain ammout of sense. I can only read so many feeds, and anyone who stops making sense just gets deleted.

Of course, the problem with wanting to engage in this particular conversation, which covers a topic of great interest to me (and was long before Kathy’s shock announcement), is that it’s taking time away from Interclue, which I will get back to forthwith!