Blog: The absolute latest random thoughts
Kari Byron news
09.2002 10.2002 11.2002 12.2002 01.2003 02.2003 03.2003 04.2003 05.2003 06.2003 07.2003 08.2003 09.2003 10.2003 11.2003 12.2003 01.2004 02.2004 03.2004 04.2004 05.2004 06.2004 07.2004 08.2004 09.2004 10.2004 11.2004 12.2004 01.2005 02.2005 03.2005 04.2005 05.2005 06.2005 07.2005 08.2005 09.2005 10.2005 11.2005 12.2005 01.2006 02.2006 03.2006 04.2006 05.2006 06.2006 07.2006 08.2006 09.2006 10.2006 11.2006 12.2006 04.2007 05.2007 06.2007 07.2007 08.2007 12.2007 01.2008 02.2008 05.2008 06.2008 07.2008 08.2008 12.2008 01.2009 02.2009 03.2009 04.2009 05.2009 06.2009 07.2009 09.2009 10.2009 11.2009 12.2009 01.2010 02.2010 03.2010 04.2010 05.2010 06.2010 07.2010 08.2010 09.2010 10.2010 11.2010 12.2010 01.2011 02.2011 03.2011 04.2011 05.2011 06.2011 07.2011 09.2011 10.2011 11.2011 12.2011 01.2012 02.2012 04.2012 07.2012 10.2012 11.2012 01.2013 02.2013 03.2013 05.2013 05.2014 06.2014 07.2014 12.2014 01.2015 02.2015 03.2015 06.2015 11.2015 02.2016 03.2016 04.2016 05.2016
5.11.2016I FOUND IT! After years of pondering in the back of my mind, I found an article by Clay Shirky that summarizes what I’ve been seeking for years:From: Larson, Eric M.
Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 10:00 AM
Subject: Collective Action and "opting out"?Hi, Clay! At last week's AllVoices webinar you mentioned a really interesting concept in passing: That the studies/experiences in the "psychology of collective action" show that that people tend to "opt out" when the participation rates are unknown.In other words, "Gee, I don't know how big a deal this is, so I guess I won't go" -- which would be the flip side of, "Wow! It sounds like that thing is going to be popular; I'd better be there!" (Or maybe, "Gosh, it's going to be a tiny group; I'd better go to help them out"?)Here’s the closest thing I’ve found so far, from later that year…THE CONSERVATIVE DILEMMADisciplined and coordinated groups, whether businesses or governments, have always had an advantage over undisciplined ones: they have an easier time engaging in collective action because they have an orderly way of directing the action of their members. Social media can compensate for the disadvantages of undisciplined groups by reducing the costs of coordination. The anti-Estrada movement in the Philippines used the ease of sending and forwarding text messages to organize a massive group with no need (and no time) for standard managerial control. As a result, larger, looser groups can now take on some kinds of coordinated action, such as protest movements and public media campaigns, that were previously reserved for formal organizations. For political movements, one of the main forms of coordination is what the military calls "shared awareness," the ability of each member of a group to not only understand the situation at hand but also understand that everyone else does, too. Social media increase shared awareness by propagating messages through social networks. The anti-Aznar protests in Spain gained momentum so quickly precisely because the millions of people spreading the message were not part of a hierarchical organization.With the loss of Posterous, I’ve lost some of my comments. My original blog post is still up at:The response I got from Peter Fleck (buried in my email now) gives fodder for later research:I dug around a bit, Eric, but I think Shirky is summarizing some of his work indirectly. I found places he speaks to collective action like Chapter 7 of "Here Comes Everybody" (about street protests in Leipzig) and I can sort of understand the "opt out" statement in the light of the "everybody knows that everybody knows..." framework.This Wired interview might also be useful:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/08/clay-shirky-is/And this podcast maybe although I haven't listened.
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2008/10/shirky_on_coase.htmlUltimately, I think you have to get through to Mr. Shirky himself.Peter
4.29.2016Wow. Rare to get hypocrisy (or lies) in writing, but sometimes it happens. If you ever wondered if NameCheap stands by the public claims they make in places like https://blog.namecheap.com/how-to-report-a-fraudulent-website-to-a-registrar/ here's proof in black-and-white that they don't:
Begin forwarded message:
Thank you for your email regarding the domain name com-give.com. While the domain name does have Namecheap.com as the registrar, we cannot oversee the data being transmitted through its website. We do not own the domain name mentioned in your complaint, we are simply the company the domain name was purchased from.
The issue would need to be addressed through the hosting provider to see if their terms of service are violated and would need to be addressed through the domain registrant as they should be the individual that controls the particular content being exchanged. We have no way to police such issues as we do not control the hosting company in this instance.
While we understand the inquiry, we are not in a position to determine the validity of your statements. If you believe you are a victim of an internet crime, or if you are aware of an attempted crime, you can file a complaint through Internet Crime Complaint Center at https://complaint.ic3.gov. In case we receive a request form a law enforcement authority of the United States we will assist them in their investigation.
> The site "com-give.com" is cleverly using sub-domains to scam people. See:
> Obviously registered with the intent of scamming people in giveaways. Will you bother to shut it down?
Legal & Abuse Department
Ticket ID: MRO-489-36585
Department: Domains -- Legal and Abuse
Status: Awaiting Client Response
Hmmm... From their blog:
NameCheap takes fraud very seriously. We do everything we can to keep the internet safe for everyone. If you find out a website is fake, just follow these directions:
1.) Go to Domain Tools located here and type in the domain.
2.) Find out who the domain is registered with.
3.) Write a formal complaint in an email.
4.) Send it to the registrar’s abuse department. NameCheap’s abuse department can be reached at abuse(at)namecheap(dot)com. If we find the charge valid, we will suspend the domain.
Please keep the internet safe for everyone. Report fraud whenever you see it!
Safer Alcohol (@saferalcohol) Why Is The Government Hiding A Safer Way To Drink Alcohol From Us?
I have to admit, Twitter's ad targeting is pretty good, because more often than not when sponsored tweet shows up in my feed.... I find worthy of exploration.
That happened this morning when the video clip from "safer alcohol" appeared.
It turns out that the organization sponsoring it is the "Coalition For Safer Drinking" and the link is to an informational website at SaferAlcohol.com. But unless their website simply isn't mobile optimized, which would be unfortunate for an organization advertising on Twitter, there isn't much information on their informational site.
And there's no call to action, so other than keeping a note of the site somewhere in my bookmarks (or Evernote or OneNote a text file in Dropbox or some other place I'll lose track of it) I don't know what I'm supposed to do.
The video references some repressed government research, and I'm always up for a good conspiracy theory, but I can't find what research they're talking about – it sounded good on video, but I don't know how or where I can read more.
That's interesting. They're based in White Plains, New York (so where is this Arizona thing coming from?) and they write:
We're Product Launchers, a company that has introduced products from outdoor tossing games and fleece lined leggings to the multi-million dollar As Seen on TV product, STRUTZ arch supports. We're not manufacturer's representatives. We're entrepreneurs that know how to garner placement in stores, catalogs and on home shopping networks. And our approach is different.
Yes, so far they're very different!
This light drinker is still intrigued, but not for the same reason I was a few minutes ago...
emlarson.com: Home | Blog| Work | Tech | Life | Lord | Play | Mail
Entire site contents Copyright © 2000-2005 Eric M. Larson
All rights reserved, please don't steal my stuff, etc. etc. etc.