Comments on: giving vs taking

By: formerlyfooled

formerlyfooled — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 11:31:54 +0000

That’s a profound and accurate observation.
When I read why you decided not to charge for your “cartoons drawn on the back of business cards”, it made perfect sense based upon the inevitable direction creative works on the internet have been going.
People are stealing others work as if they have the right to it because it is so easily accessable to make use of.
Marketing tools aside, I’m of the opinion that goodwill and giving freely what one can give artistically will make this period of societial change less painful and more profitable in non-monetary ways for the giver until the supply and demand issues become balanced toward exchange from the taker.
Now that I’ve put you to sleep.…, I hope you’ll keep your blog running for years to come because it definately is a well done and classic site. Visiting it has convinced me to try a bottle of some of that wine you’ve invested in.
ff
formerlyfooled

By: RoniF

RoniF — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 19:08:30 +0000

http://efioricet.org >Fioricet - is most usable tabblets... Do you know this?

By: mktg4nerds

mktg4nerds — Mon, 23 Oct 2006 19:22:30 +0000

but what’s the sense in “giving” if no one’s “taking”?
my guess:
90% of the time = mental masturbation

By: Nate

Nate — Wed, 18 Oct 2006 12:30:12 +0000

maybe the number of blog writers is similar to blog readers because no one is reading most of the blogs.

By: nancy

nancy — Wed, 18 Oct 2006 05:29:26 +0000

Marti,
I have a friend name marty with why. He is too funny. oH no I feel ho HO. Ho. hO double trouble. )))))

By: Paul Jardine

Paul Jardine — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 12:16:03 +0000

I read this description of the difference between Dotcom and Web 2.0, which was originally thought of by an IBM guy called James Snell. It’s probably too geeky for most neophytes, but it says it more concisely than anything else I’ve seen. (newline for dramatic effect)
chmod 777 web

By: Marti

Marti — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 00:44:00 +0000

I have a friend who’s a funny 1. I want to be funny 2.0
*snicker*
Didja see your Squidoo?

By: henriette weber andersen

henriette weber andersen — Sun, 15 Oct 2006 03:15:33 +0000

isn’t it interesting then, that a lot of companies is making a living on the web ( my experience is with viral companies) in the dotcom way ( buying traffic and placement etc?)
and they are really hyped by the media nowadays -
my point is, that even though web 2.0 is happening, sometime it seems like
A: companies are aware of it
B: they don’t really give a damn
C: they still have the good old procedures…
Businesses hasn’t changed much around here from my pov… even though they are viral and hyped and employing bloggers..
just my 2 cents *s*
miaaauv

By: Crosbie Fitch

Crosbie Fitch — Sat, 14 Oct 2006 18:34:47 +0000

They were/are both about overvaluations of eyeballs.
The public aren’t actually being exploited, though plenty of snake oil salesmen will try to present them as a free energy source to be exploited at will.
Public works belong to the public. You cannot violate that fundamental law of webdynamics.

By: nancy

nancy — Sat, 14 Oct 2006 06:25:01 +0000

I have a good old friend who said I should be aware of people using me on the internet. I think he says this because he sees the burnt toast syndrome in me.
So help me out blogger heroes:
dot.com was about the media and message becoming user friendly
and
web two.O! is about users getting used?
Or is my toast burnt because my toaster isn’t UL listed?

By: Robert

Robert — Sat, 14 Oct 2006 02:07:29 +0000

Seth,
Who gives a fuck anyway? I blog, you blog, we all blog together. Some get fat. Good luck to them. So what? I get my pound of flesh by way of immense enjoyment of interacting with an audience, the thrill of growing the blog and reading fine overintellectualising about a topic far too few give a toss about to make a difference to the majority. We all get ripped off one way or the other in mainstream life and on the web. Tough titty and boo-frigging-hoo.
I’m happy. Millions of others are too. Let’s move on and blog some more. Enlightenment will hopefully grace us all one day. Until then WTF!

By: Hugh MacLeod

Hugh MacLeod — Sat, 14 Oct 2006 00:03:23 +0000

Web 2.0… the latest target of “Victim Culture”. What’s next, Seth? Appearances on Oprah?
I agree with Crosbie in one sense… there will be both good and bad investments in the Web 2.0 space… although when I think of “Web 2.0″, I think more about me and my friends blogging, rather than the myriad of companies trying to make money from it.
Meanwhile, I continue to find Seth’s ideas on this topic patronizing and intellectually dishonest.…

By: Seth Finkelstein

Seth Finkelstein — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 23:22:05 +0000

I discuss that in detail in my post connecting to The Great Unread. If you wanted to gloss that as "You're a fool", it's harsh in terms of social conjugation ("I'm full-bodied, you're hefty, he's fat"), but arguably factually accurate. One of the ways marketing operates is that people don't like to admit, even to themselves, that they can be emotionally manipulated and deceived ("Maybe other people can be conned, but not me!"). Same way people like to think they're above average even when some must be wrong about that. I think it's healthier to recognize one's flaws, even if one succumbs to them, than to pretend it's really virtue.

By: Crosbie Fitch

Crosbie Fitch — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 23:16:38 +0000

In both cases (Web 1&2) canny bastards made a lot of money by selling finest silks to emperors.
The illusion here is people thinking it’s possible to buy idyllic desert islands (quietly fertilised and cultivated in the preceding years to provide abundant flora and fauna), build hotels upon them and get stinking rich by soaking the tourists. Nature does the hard work developing the flora and fauna, but it’s not free energy to be harnessed.
The more you try to exploit the imagined benefits of owning a natural ecosystem, the more you realise you own nothing except title.
A lot of people will make a lot of money selling desert islands to developers who build hotels on them and then sell them to rich mugs who think they will remain unspoilt by exploitation.
And then web 2.0 crashes when people finally realise the public domain isn’t the free energy source it appears to be and cannot be appropriated for sale (despite what the smallprint says).

By: Hugh MacLeod

Hugh MacLeod — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 22:49:36 +0000

Seth, if it were half the pyramid scheme you say it is, you would not still be blogging. Unless you were a fool.
So why are you?