As I hinted at in the previous post (with unprecedented delicacy at that), I don't exactly sympathize with Shelley Powers' ritual execution of TypeKey. As also hinted at in the previous post, others have already written it off as utter nonsense, whatever I have to say about it has already been said and more eloquently so than I could ever hope to put it.
For background purposes, however: in short, her rant wasn't really about TypeKey, since, obviously, there was virtually no information available about the project at the time she posted it. Her post was rather her projected insane illusions of what TypeKey might be in a parallel universe revolving around her. She makes gross assumptions on which she constructs more assumptions, ending up with an Eiffel-tower-like assumption-super-structure brainchild of her twisted fantasy.
Now, however, a TypeKey FAQ has been published. It answers just about all questions and speculations that were floating about regarding the future authentication service known as TypeKey. Even Dave Winer, who by know is infamous for his obvious jealousy of the popular Trotts, was quite content with the answers it provided, and could only stutter a feeble cough of abstract displeasure at the face of them.
Shelley Powers' latest post on the subject, entitled "TypeKey: Final Act", makes her real motif surprisingly obvious. Shelley knows she often makes asinine and offensive comments in other people's weblogs, and now she's afraid that she won't be able to continue to.
Note that Shelley has read the TypeKey FAQ, that her post is actually a response, or follow-up, to it. Note also that the FAQ explicitly says, using baby-language and extremely obvious examples, that it's up to each and every weblog owner to for themselves decide which TypeKey identified users to ban, and which not to. The TypeKey FAQ also says quite clearly that TypeKey will only globally ban (i.e. refuse service to) users which "violate the TypeKey Terms of Service: for example, by abusing the service by tampering with the system or posting bulk comments or spam". Furthermore, the FAQ also makes it painfully obvious that use of the TypeKey service is optional, and, that MT can be hooked up to alternative authentication services, other than TypeKey, instead.
In spite of all of which, this is what she has to say about the ramifications of TypeKey for her and for others like her:
I guess I and all the other troublesome, negative, critical, contrary, rude, nasty, vicious, and dissenting voices that you see as graffiti on the wall will be gone, and though we can write in our own weblogs, we'll never be part of the conversations. Free to speak, true; but not to be part of a discussion; on the outside looking in through the window at the party, trying to be heard through the thick panes. After a while though, shouting in the street gets discouraging and disheartening, and perhaps some day we'll just be gone for good.
Just think, though: when we're gone, you won't need TypeKey. That's great, isn't it? Shelley Powers
It's obvious, isn't it? That she thinks TypeKey is some sort of personal attack on her. An elaborate scheme from the Trotts to kick her off the internet, or at least to gag her up. Read that last sentence of hers from the quote above, she makes it perfectly clear that TypeKey, in her mind, has nothing to do with comment accountability, nor with stopping spam, it's just a service designed to take over the blog world for the sole purpose of shutting her up. Delusions of grandeur, anyone?
I don't know how she came to such a conclusion, because surely it has nothing to do with reason. Perhaps it's "female intuition", I have no idea, since I'm not female and thus never employ it, I don't have the option of blaming my stupid ideas on it, either.
The essence of her post is really -- really -- not worth mentioning at all, it's just an even worse display of kicking and screaming, refusing to actually listen to the answers given to her.
I've seen again and again, the weblogger write the most inflammatory material in an essay, and when you respond to the tone they set in their writing, or to their responses to your earlier comments, you're told to be nice, or be gone.
We say, commenters should be held accountable for what they say. I say, but then, who holds the weblogger accountable?
Be nice, or be gone. Shelley Powers
Since Shelley obviously doesn't like the whole "be nice" paradigm, I've tried to leave being nice out of this post as much as possible, as a way of celebrating the "good old days", and all that was so fucking great about them, which we'll look back on once TypeKey has taken away the possibility to be rude and mean. I can only hope I've managed to make as little sense and as much assumptions about her as she'd liked me to.
Comments
This Typekey stuff is wonderful, the FAQ is not obtuse and most definitely answers the questions in a way that highlights the seriousness of interactions on the web.
I think the Typekey melee has more to do with alignments and less to do with trusted comments. You quote Shelley:
Free to speak, true; but not to be part of a discussion; on the outside looking in through the window at the party, trying to be heard through the thick panes.
I believe her points about comments are a little jaded, because anybody could manage their space. What the Typekey thingy does -- in my mind -- is simply remove and enhance the selective fallacy of, 'let's have a discussion, I want to communicate, hear my voice and tell me yours.. blah blah blah; oh, and eff off spammers.'
And anyway, the statement 'free to speak and be part of a discussion', exactly what does this mean? Evident from your links to a "satirical" post from Pilgrim, and the admittedly 'poke a finger in my chest' tone of this entry, there's really no discussion going on. It's more like the Roman senate from Caesar's commentaries -- vested interests and periodic celebration of the mediocre was a blight on those interactions.
Re: Shelley and her delusions of grandeur. Well, it's hard not to take the Panglossian view on this whole thing. I suppose the points being made, questioning the wisdom of it, are about as substantial as the discussion they're engaged in. It's a remarkable thing, to see people disagree in public, and imagine the same instance if RealPlayer users could have engaged in this manner upon the announcement of the pay-service, RealPass, back in the day.
Comment by gummi at 13:40, 24 Mar, 2004 #
Gummi: You're right in that I don't even bother with meeting most of her arguments, because they're not worth it. She just iterates assumptions upon assumptions, I just don't see the point.
I tried to meet all her arguments with one single argument which is that even though she obviously has read the FAQ, she has not understood a single word of it, or, more likely, she does not want to understand it.
However, this post is not first and foremost a serious argument in the debate of wether TypeKey deserves the benefit of a doubt or not, it's more a challange to her idea that being mean and rude is something that is so fucking important to protect.
"I believe her points about comments are a little jaded, because anybody could manage their space [with or without TypeKey]"
Exactly right. TypeKey only takes away the cat-and-mouse game between obnoxious spammers and weblog owners since weblog owners no longer have to rely on banning (mostly dynamic) ip-addresses or (made-up) e-mail addresses. One has always been able to delete posts, thus to silence those one finds offensive, this has nothing to do with TypeKey.
The first comment to this post was actually just a single sentence, saying "you have a small penis", or something to that effect, posted by someone anonymous. I deleted that comment, not because it was offensive, I can live with that, but because it had nothing to say. And here's the real kicker: I did not need TypeKey to do that.
Comment by Tomas at 13:58, 24 Mar, 2004 #
All other possible issues aside, if using TypeKey on kottke.org means that Ms. Powers will never comment on my site, then 6A has done me a great favor.
Comment by jkottke at 15:20, 24 Mar, 2004 #
Just to clarify. I don't think her arguments are mean spirited, if anything, the whole tit-for-tat in postings is how people tend to react when trying to parse the utility of something with the American lens.
I think the idea of how it -- *key -- effects the way other people will interact with other weblogs, is the most important point which she has brought up. But the answer to this question lies in the whole idea of discussion. Most folks gravitate towards places where they can comfortably exchange views in that 'me too' fashion, anyway.
Registering for comments would just mean that your circle of commenting will be restricted, and in her case, the ability to take part in discussions and genuinely ask awkward questions.
Here's an example. Let's say Mr. Pilgrim elicits *key on his weblog. Now imagine Mr. Winer does the same. How long do you think it would take for these "adults" to kick each other off. If anything, the mud slinging would just move on to other people's sites, and the whole graffiti aspect would be even worse.
As you say, we don't need *key to do that.
Comment by Gummi at 15:32, 24 Mar, 2004 #
Gummi: I actually don't think *key (assuming you mean TypeKey or an alternative authentication service) will be used primarily for banning people, no.
First and foremost, I think it will be used to differentiate between authenticated comments, and moderated ones. I think that authentications services like TypeKey will be used to guarantee that the commenter is indeed the person he or she is claiming to be.
I don't think people have a screaming need to ban each other, because they can already delete comments, without TypeKey (and effortlessly so by using one of the many plugins for MT). I don't think Mark Pilgrim will be banning Dave Winer just because he supposedly "suddenly" can with TypeKey, he has always been able to delete or not delete comments to his weblog. TypeKey doesn't change that at-all or what-so-ever.
Comment by Tomas at 15:54, 24 Mar, 2004 #
Yeah, *key is Typekey, I'm just tired of typing that word in full all the time.
I will admit it seems on the surface that banning folks is not on the top of the agenda, but authorising the comment queue will, in effect, be a ban.
But hey, I'm not trying to preach about banning per se. I'm just trying to point out that the control over comments will be so much easier, which is cool, but the offside is the temptation to say, "no, eff off, your comment will not see the light of day." Since this is a personal thing then it's more than a little futile to blame *key for future behaviour.
I think this comes down to the agenda whore tendancy, some folks -- and I'm guilty of this, guv'nor -- are using this whole *key thing to talk about stuff which could be facilitated by the technology, be it moderation, awkward comments, freedom of speech, Patriot Acts and centralised Big Brother Corporate running dog lackeys of the capitalist conspiracy. All that stuff are deep rooted in human traits, and I think we know that software can't overcome that, yet.
Comment by Gummi at 16:59, 24 Mar, 2004 #
A person's blog is analogous to a party. You invite people to come in and join the fun, whether it is just letting them look around or joining in the conversation. If they piss people off and the host doesn't like it, they are shown the door, which is locked behind them.
Sure the internet is "free" (just like the world is, right?), but people are also free to have parties -- of any kind that suits them -- in their little corner of the internet and invite whom they want.
Why does she want to crash the party and hang around where she isn't wanted? She can start her own party if she wants.
Comment by beerzie boy at 01:14, 26 Mar, 2004 #
Excellent post.
I especially like the phrase, "her projected insane illusions of what TypeKey might be in a parallel universe revolving around her."
Pure gold. Thanks!
Comment by Michael at 22:14, 29 Mar, 2004 #
An interesting read and it did a great job (for the most part) of not taking her rant too seriously. The only point that you strayed was that crack about female intuition. That just seemed like a school-yard knee jerk reaction of someone casting about for something witty to say and falling short.
It also ends up sounding like you ascribe her fears\insecurities to either a) her gender or b) just her which is a mistake as there are many others out there that sadly share her same viewpoint regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation or worst of all the kinds of segragation... OS orientation.
Comment by Jack Spade at 03:29, 01 Apr, 2004 #
Jack: I figured that since her "opinion" and her assumptions (about the service which is in alpha-state and is unreleased) can't possibly be based on reason, then what else? I guessed female intuition. Wrong guess, perhaps, I don't know.
I ascribe her "fear/insecurities" to her, nobody else. I don't see why anyone else is to blame for it.
Comment by Tomas at 13:46, 01 Apr, 2004 #
Moral aspects of keyword optimization
Trackback from Traffic Statistics Users Newsfeed at 09:53, 01 Oct, 2004 #
The discussion has been closed on this entry. Thanks to everybody who participated.