LB's Rambles

How to Help a Veteran

With Veterans' Day coming up this week, it's a good time to remember that we owe a tremendous debt of gratitude towards this country's service men and women. (Disclosure: that would include my younger daughter and her husband.)

USA Today has a list of ten specific actions you may take to show your support both for troops on active duty and veterans. Some involved contributing money, some for contributing time. However you choose, your participation will be most welcome - and most necessary. Thank you.

Hat tip: @Remind_org via Twitter.

Project Valour-IT

We interrupt our usual flow of communications-related posts to ask you to consider a special kind of communication, coming from wounded American soldiers. Project Valour-IT provides special technology to help wounded soldiers communicate and recover. It's important work. They're in a fund-raiser now through Veterans' Day - you can get full details at the above link. I hope you'll consider a contribution.

Hat tip: The Kitchen Dispatch and Instapundit

Nigeria Wants Its Good Name Back

At any rate, that's the lesson I take away from reading that Nigeria is fed up with the scammers who have made "Nigerian Scam" an unfortunate, if generally accurate, phrase. According to Ars Technica, not only has Nigeria shut down hundreds of scams, it has actually arrested some of the perpetrators.

Well, good. I don't know about you, but my spam filters have been catching several would-be scammers daily - some presumably from Nigeria, others from elsewhere in Africa and around the world. The pitch generally doesn't vary much, and I apparently have lost the opportunity to get millions of dollars deposited directly to my bank account in exchange for acting as a financial agent for a transaction I know nothing about.

The article speaks of how the scammers have bilked millions of dollars from victims worldwide, which makes me worry about the general level of gullibility around me. The news from Nigeria of a crackdown is both welcome and long overdue.

The New Paradigm for News

We had a terrific session at BlogWorld Expo this afternoon on "Shifting the Paradigm: Traditional Media Adoption is Changing the World." An English translation of that might help: the discussion, really, centered on the still-uncomfortable relationship between traditional and new forms of media. There were some surprising conclusions from the panel, moderated by Andrew Lih, a professor for ten years at Columbia University and Hong Kong University. He was joined by Eric Olsen of BlogCritics and Jon DeNunzio of the Washington Post.

Among the surprising turns taken during this discussion was this comment, agreed to by the panel: if you look at Wired Magazine and wired.com and wonder which would survive ten years from now, it would probably be the magazine, rather than the online version. As one of the panelists observed, the magazine is so unique, and obviously created with so much passion, that it overshadows the website, which doesn't seem quite as inspired. It's not what I would expect to hear at a new media conference.

While there was general agreement on the precarious state of newspapers, there also seemed to be a feeling of some guarded optimism - and I must say I share that perspective. Old media must adapt and change - but I don't share the viewpoint held by many at this conference that newspapers in particular are on their way to extinction. I was delighted to hear the other point of view at the conference today.

"Paid Conversations," the FTC, and Bloggers

A great conversation today at the BlogWorld Expo about the new Federal Trade Commission rules about disclosure for bloggers. The FTC wants bloggers - and specifically bloggers - to disclose anything they may have received in exchange for - really, in commection with - any endorsement.

Which raises all kinds of problems.

What's an endorsement? Is it a favorable - or even unfavorable - review? What about book reviews, product reviews, game reviews, music? If a blogger is sent a product to review and returns it, does that count as value received for the blogger, to be disclosed? (The opinion of at least one lawyer in the room: yes.) It is enormous and extremely confusing.

The sentiment in the room today - several hundred people - was split, perhaps 60-40 in favor of allowing these "paid conversations," but there is little or no agreement on how best to fulfill these new rules - which apply to bloggers only.

And that fact today led the Internet Advertising Bureau to call on the FTC to dump these new regulations which, they say, unfairly target online media. There is, quite clearly, no intention to require the New York Times to disclose when publishers send review copies of their books - but that would be required of an online book review by a blogger, according to most interpretations of the new rules, even if the reviewer sent back the book after reviewing it.

I have always been a believer in transparency, in giving the readers/users as much information as possible to help them understand any possible influences on what they are reading online. But I think the FTC guidelines can and will only be enforced selectively - and that opens a whole new political can of worms.

Transparency and the FTC

As most readers, probably know, the Federal Trade Commission this week announced new regulations to force bloggers to disclose any freebies they may have received in return for product endorsements. I haven't read the 80+ pages of regulations, and I'm not an FTC lawyer, but I think, on balance, it's a bad idea.

Readers of this blog know that I have written frequently about the need for transparency - not just in advertising, but in virtually all kinds of communication. But I believe, strongly, that it is up to the blogger to be transparent. I also believe, strongly, that the nature of social media makes it almost impossible NOT to be transparent; there are plenty of other bloggers who will be quick to point out any lapses.

I would recommend two articles, because they take opposite sides in the debate and are, I think, both quite well written. Catharine P. Taylor thinks the new FTC regulations are necessary. Jeff Jarvis does not. I think he has the better argument, but I leave it to you to decide.

Uncivil Warfare

Those of us who despair at what appearsto be the appallingly low level of civil debate and even conversation in this country are, I'm afraid, behind the times. Or to put it another way, you ain't seen nothing yet - unless you look backwards at some earlier masters of the insulting barb.

If you want to read some really amazingly good zingers, check out these, posted by Dick Adler at The Knowledgeable Blogger, passed along from Ivor Davis, author of "Five to Die" about the Manson case. These are insults to savor.

Hat tip: The Rap Sheet.

Rethinking Copyright

Is copyright law, as it exists today, in serious need of a rethinking and a complete overhaul? A lot of people would argue that the answer is "yes." I'm a writer, and I certainly can understand the need for copyright protection. But I think James Boyle, of Duke University Law School, makes a pretty compelling case in the Financial Times for taking another look at copyright law and moving towards a system that could make older books - particularly "orphan" books, whose copyright owners can't be traced - more readily available.

Hat tip: Instapundit

Sanity Returns to the Southeast

It sounds as if sanity has been restored, at least somewhat, to the Southeastern Conference. Earlier this week, we noted that the SEC was planning to write rules aimed at blocking everyone - game-attending fans in particular - from saying anything on social media about games in progress. The prospect of a lot of vigilantes in the stands, trying to keep people from using Twitter or Facebook, prompted a wave of both revulsion and ridicule.

So it's a relief to hear, via Mashable, that common sense has prevailed. While the SEC is putting rules into place essentially blocking video, and forbidding the commercial use of its information, they are allowing regular social media communications, including the transmission of non-commercial still photos. In other words, as the Mashable article says, "the SEC is intent on protecting the broadcasting rights of CBS, but casual, not-for-profit social media use by fans will be permitted." Sounds a lot more defensible and a lot smarter, doesn't it?

Idiots and their Enablers

A school board in Canada has decided to remove the classic novel, To Kill a Mockingbird, from the curriculum of a 10th grade high school English class. Why? According to the Toronto Star, because one parent complained about "a racial epithet."

Let me repeat that. One parent complained. And the school instantly catered to this display of ignorance and stupidity by caving and removing the book.

Sadly, it is not surprising to find ignorant parents. More sadly, it is hardly surprising to find school officials who are eager to be enablers of idiots, empowering would-be tinhorn censors. The parent may, in time, learn something. I have few such hopes for the school officials.

The one bright point in this, I suppose, is the knowledge that such attempts usually backfire. People who may never have heard of To Kill a Mockingbird, possibly even including the now-deprived students of that school, may read it now to find out what the commotion is all about.

Hat tip: The Rap Sheet