Monday, June 12, 2006

Companies that should NOT blog

Blogs are for ethical, enthusiastic, altruistic companies only. Businesses who provide a truly valuable, beneficial, non-harmful product or service. People with expertise in vital areas.

Arrogant, misanthropic, miserly, deceptive businesses have no interest in beginning a dialogue with consumers. why should they have to commit their callous lies and greed in writing on the web? they are not that stupid. no blog, thanks anyway.

Tech evangelism, and transparent pro-corporate PR, have been proven to be killer apps for blogs, as Robert Scoble and Shel Israel have proved, as documented to great effect in their book Naked Conversations.

There is "blog abuse".

As just another advertising, marketing, politicizing, or propaganda outlet, the blog falls flat. When you try to force the blog to be a super hyped vending machine, the intimacy of one-to-one personal communications suffers massively.

But the blog has an intrinsic character structure. And a blog has its own concerns to pursue, unknown to those who strive to overpower it.

A blog is made of glass, born transparent. Opaque objects stand out like a sore thumb in the blogosphere. Deceivers wither, shooting straight from the hip at a worthy target is prized in blogoland.

Ken Lay should delete his pathetic personal page.

Blogs and blogoid web objects are for those who wish to have a candid, spontaneous textual interaction with unknown others. Those who can handle flames, trolls, abuse, questions, suggestion, opposing opinions, and critique.

Only corporations and businesses, plus whoever else, who want a volatile communication exchange with the external web world need worry about blogs, RSS/Atom, podcasts, etc.

When any corporation acts stand-offish, reluctant, uncertain about blogs, and why they ought to have a voice in the blogosphere...'s a pretty sure bet what the Real Reason is.

You catch my drift, amigo?


Miss Kitty said...

So what do you have to say about broadcast networks who are new to the blogosphere? I'm weirded out at the thought. I guess if most networks didn't censor/moderate comments, I might not feel so vaguely ill about it.

steven edward streight said...

To what broadcast networks do you refer?

What's the difference between censor and moderate?

Do online newspapers repulse you by not enabling reader comments directly associated with an article, rather than dumping you into a "discussion forum"?

When the blogosphere has become completely screwed up, we will have already moved on to newer venues.

Miss Kitty said...

I was referring to NPR, mostly. And the Faux--umm, Fox News "opinion polls," too. But they're not blogging, though I sure feel as if they are. OK, so the Fox "opinion polls" are bad sorta-blogging. They usually have little to do with the news: "And now, a Fox Poll: Do you think speeders should be hung by their genitalia in public?"

Good question, censor vs. moderate. Is moderate simply a "nicer" or more "socially appropriate" word for censor? (I'm reminded of William Lutz's great essay on "weasel words" that's in my comp class's textbook. Maybe "moderate" is a weasel word for whenwe don't want to be direct and say "censor.") Is it a bad thing to take off comments on one's blog that call the author nasty names? Or comments that are so vitriolic they verge on incoherent? (I got a few random, nasty comments on my blog a few weeks ago and was really weirded out by them, but I left them up anyway in the interest of freedom of...well, something. Perhaps a lesson on How Not to Behave on the Internet.)

Discussion forum vs. comments directly related to an article: I guess what weirds me out about that is that often, reader discussions veer away from the article at hand. Maybe this is simply human nature, and I've been grading too many comp essays that do this.

steven edward streight said...


What I meant was: I moderate comments at my blog, but I'm not "censoring" anything, I'm protecting myself and my readers from malware.

I moderate the comments that line up to be included in my blog.

But I don't judge by content. I judge by the intent, as displayed in a generic comment spam remark, followed by a link to some dubious or harmful, spyware attaching site.

I don't censor, but I also don't open the door of my blog to spambots. Flames, trolls, harshers, and flashbats don't bug me man.

I give a slopbucketing with special effects.