When I was writing my last book, I used to go run at the gym for about an hour every morning to clear my head. The TVs were always set on ABC, so I’d zone out to either “Live with Regis & Kelly” or “The View”–two shows I’d never watched before.
I was always struck by the constant fear mongering about the Internet, particularly on “The View.” It seemed every day there was a story about pedophiles patrolling MySpace, ex-wives putting retaliatory dirty-laundry-airing videos on YouTube and 20-somethings getting fired because of college keg party pictures on Facebook. The message to housewives was loud and clear: DO NOT LET YOUR KIDS USE THESE HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE SITES!
Yesterday after a pretty brutal morning, I found myself sitting on the couch, flipping channels for a little background noise and settling on my old jogging buddy “The View.” Mainly because Lil’ Wayne was the guest and the combo of my favorite saucy rapper and ultra-right-winger Elizabeth Hasselbeck sounded TiVo-worthy. It was the first time I’ve watched the show in at least a year.
Imagine my surprise that Joy was texting away on her Blackberry while on air, and a conversation about a study that showed good friends could help you live to 100 years old immediately brought up Twitter. “This is why I am on Twitter,” Joy said, “We’re all on it now except for Whoopi…We like to have all these friends. It’s like a community of people who are interested in you.” Nods all around. Turns out– as I learned from “The Soup” on Friday night–they’ve been talking about it all week, as has every other Oprah-wanna-be. Yes, even Tyra. (See video below.)
Wait a minute, ladies. Wait. One. Minute. You’re telling me that you are blasting your every move out to a bunch of strangers’ mobile phones, and there’s no fear of stalkers, crazed fans or psychos? Not even from Elizabeth? I had to check to make sure I was really watching “The View.”
It’s easy to dismiss this as yet more celebs jumping on the Twitter bandwagon. But that masks the really remarkable thing Twitter seems to have pulled off. It has seemingly side-stepped the whole fear-of-technology mania that usually plagues most social media sites as they start to tip mainstream. There was that little report about terrorists using it and that was pretty much it. Throughout 2007 I heard these same ladies make the argument that spending all this time on MySpace and Facebook was eroding kids’ abilities to make friends. Now just two years later, the same people are equating Twitter with real world friendships. What gives?
Is it that everyone has finally gotten used to the idea of real world and digital friendships overlapping? I doubt it. Because you still hear fear mongering with a lot of the other sites. There’s just something about Twitter that’s less scary. And that may prove its biggest strength and differentiator.
I think part of it is how simple the site is to use, the flexibility of using it via the web or mobile, and the relatively low barrier to that “a-ha!” moment. You know, the mini-endorphin rush you get from knowing what your friends are doing at any moment, or for a celebrity, hearing from fans in a more direct, more immediate way then you could before.
But that’s only part of it. I think the key to Twitter’s mainstream celeb success has been the asynchronous, non-committal nature of the site. As Facebook and MySpace grew, we all experienced that social pressure akin to seeing someone on the street that you know, but don’t want to talk to and wondering how you can politely avoid them. Most people who indiscriminately add “friends” just because they asked don’t wind up really using Facebook to connect with actual friends, because they don’t want to over-share photos, contact information, or videos with “friends” who are essentially strangers.
But on Twitter, the personal information is contained by the restraints of the site itself. It’s just short text updates, unless you chose to link to a picture or video. People feel like they know you, while you actually give up very little personal information. You get intimate connections with as many people as you want, but on your own terms. People can follow you, without you following them. You can still see what people you aren’t following are saying about you and respond, or not. And you can add someone for a bit, then unfollow them, frequently without them noticing while they still follow you.
It reminded me of a conversation I had with Reid Hoffman, LinkedIn CEO and uber-Web 2.0 angel a few weeks ago. He pointed out that lifecasting never took off in a big way because it was originally conceived as video. Many people don’t want to show that much of their lives, and most friends just don’t have the time to watch. It’s not that people don’t care, it’s just that sometimes we’re not great editors. We tend to think we’re more interesting than we really are.
But Twitter is noncommittal, bite-sized lifecasting in a manageable text form. It’s similar to how I refuse to check one long rambling voice mail, but I’m happy to scan hundreds of texts or emails. Hoffman compared it to the difference between watching a vacation movie of your friend sitting on a boat in the water for an hour, versus reading one 140-character Tweet that your friend was sitting on a boat enjoying the sun.
Ironically, the asyncronicity of Twitter was hotly contested by a lot of early adopters who pressured the Twitter team heavily to change it to an auto-follow model. Evan Williams & crew always held out, convinced it was of key importance to how the site would grow and scale. Looks like they were right.
There’s a typo in the first sentence. I believe it should read:
“When I was writing my last book, I used to sit on the toilet for about an hour every morning to clear my bowels.”
lolz…n now what comes out is just ‘tweets’ n no more bowels. and it aint scary either…:P
Personally I prefer the adult version of tweeter: http://www.anonboad.com
That is no typo dude. The woman means it!!! And Twitter as she says, is happening because we think we are interesting to many…
I agree, some people are lookers , trying to make a wave(for air time) actually just a drop.lewd I say.
You linked to your book in the first sentence of the post? WTF are you thinking? I can’t believe you were hired by this blog and I’m sorry you made it back from Israel in one piece
Whoa. Easy there. I agree that it’s seriously unprofessional to peddle one’s wares like that, but wishing them harm? Over pushing one’s book??
Lighten up.
Eric, look at the URL – it’s also an AFFILIATE LINK TO AMAZON (tag= is Amazone URL parameter to identify affiliates). I maean, come on….she’s not only linking to her book, but wants to make some affiliate cash from anyone clicking on the link and buying the book.
If that’s what she wants to do, fine. But it’s sleazy as hell to do this AND without and disclosure.
Talk about astroturfing. Not the first time she’s done this and you can already see her reputation precedes her regarding sleazy marketing in her articles. Maybe she prefers to shill her products than actually advance or even KEEP her journalist career? One you stop believing a journalist’s words, that journalist is finished. TC should clean up this kind of stuff as it hurts them too.
Yeah, she should have fsturl’d it or something.
What is this article related to , seriously got confused.
does anybody actually bother reading all of Sarah’s posts? i don’t have time for a novel…thats why its called a blog
It sucks when, all of the sudden, the “A-list” becomes the “B-list.” Welcome to our world, Sarah!
Alright, Sarah, you know someone has to point out just how tacky it is for you to link to your book in the first line of a post you’re authoring for TechCrunch…
I thought I’d do the honors and try not to be too mean about it. Otherwise, great post. I like the “lifecasting light” tie in.
why is that tacky? linking is better than explaining what it was about again, no? you can click or not dude.
Because it has nothing to do with the content of the post!
Of course, the fact that you don’t understand why it’s tacky (and really that’s being kind) just reinforces the argument that you shouldn’t be writing for a blog of this caliber.
“linking is better than explaining what it was about again”
why the hell would you have to explain what your book was about in the first place? It has nothing to do with the story
“you can click or not dude.”
It’s about standards Sarah. You’re not writing on a blogspot blog. This is TC. This means that every word you write stands for something.
But if you want to demean the value of your words, fine.
Sarah, why is there an affiliate URL parameter in that link? Please do explain.
Maybe this is how she TechCrunch is paying her? If so, that’s fine. If not, tacky as hell…
Jeff, if this is a form of “payment” then there should be full disclosure to the reader by TC. To be honest, I think it’s worse if TC are “paying” journalists with affiliate links in lieu of cash. I doubt it though, since other writers on TC aren’t clumsily putting in affiliate links to their own products (double dipping no less!). It would seem it’s just Sarah Lacy foolishly thinking we wouldn’t notice this.
Sarah, the article is nice and conveys a lot. It might be because you are working on your new book, your mind and senses seems to have remotely shifted to the “book editorial style” . If you request Mike or any of your close friends to move a few steps back wards and read the above article, I’m sure you would figure that out. The copy and the style is more suitable for a book rather than a blog. btw – Hope the work on your new book is shaping up well. all the best
At what point did TechCrunch commenters become torchbearers for journalistic integrity? It doesn’t matter if she plastered the book cover on every post she ever does. Get over it.
Don’t like the writer? Don’t read the post. Don’t like the link? Don’t click it. It’s that simple.
Right, Matt, so simple. You don’t like my comment? Don’t read it. Better yet, don’t respond. It’s that simple.
Just trying to respond using your logic…
And Sarah, let me throw the question back at you: How is this not tacky?
+1 to Bob. Looks like Matt doesn’t actually follow his own advice LOL
Jesus. I just wasted 3 minutes of my life that I will never get back. Sarah, you owe me 3 minutes.
That’s a pretty insightful post; a refreshing and original perspective of what works, and is compelling for users in a web social network context. Makes sense of a number of things, from original reaction to Facebook feed, to its current interface problems, ‘verticalization’ of social networks, to Oprah’s embracing of twitter.
Maybe what is contained above can form basis of SocialNetwork 2.0. Redoing of elements common to almost all web networks, bringing in hereto ‘unconverted’ users along with greater usability and utility for existing ones.
“noncommittal, bite-sized… in a manageable text form.”
good point, exactly the same reason seesmic comments on blog posts blow so much ape.
seriously. Does anyone watch those?
Test
Test passed.
6 stories on the current TC homepage have the word “Twitter” in the title. Just thought I’d point it out.
Indeed. Really like TechCrunch but this is crazy.
Great article, but I think you are thinking too much. Most of the people on TV out making some piece of technology evil either never use the technology much and so don’t understand it or their money is made making things evil. Twitter’s clear advantage over any other technology for communication is that it really allows you to galvanize your community and interact in a safe manner with your audience, if you use it in a well thought out manner. In other words Twitter is a media dream and PR heaven (most times) plain and simple and they can not vilify something they rely on so heavily. Let’s test it just a little bit.
If the internet, email and sms are dangerous for children wouldn’t Twitter multiply this hazard potentially, especially given that it relies on all three? That’s only if the logic of their original arguments against these technologies were sincere. I don’t believe that email or sms or computers for that matter are dangerous. Still, responsible use of Twitter requires a little planning and some rules of engagement and personal security is nearly assured. Reality: the adverse effects of this medium are in fact multiplied by its scale.
Your article really captures the fear mongering, but the simple explanation is that no one vilifies anything they like and many only vilify things THEY have no use for. Twitter still resides right next to all the other technologies these people hold as dangerous whether we’re talking cell, computer or website. Most are just reacting to a fad and many won’t learn more about their computers or necessarily change their attitudes about tech. These people just found something they like and because they like it, its good and its potential to do good is unlimited. Aren’t all BFFs like this!
BTW, Hasselbeck is no more of an “ultra right winger” than Joy Behar is Ultra left winger.
Unfortunately, I have actually seen a few episodes of the terrible show with an ex girlfriend.
Exactly. I had to laugh when this pathetic article tried to make that point. As if the other 4 idiots on the show aren’t ultra-leftist morons.
Absolutely concur… Ms. Hasselbeck is *signficantl* farther left than say, the John Birch society, or any number of other genuinely ultra-right dogma.
Methinks that only someone far off in the left side of the spectrum would see Hasselbeck as ultra-right, being so relatively far away from their own POV
A very interesting article.
Sophisticated social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace are feared because TV personalities and soccer moms don’t understand them. Twitter is simple enough for them to understand, so they know that there is nothing to fear.
It’s sad that Twitter might win not because it is the better site, but because it appeals to the lowest common denominator.
Facebook is murky in that they want you to think it’s safe and private, yet they also want to force you to share as much as possible. Twitter is a better user experience because you know what you’re sharing and with who. Have fun trying to figure out or remember who sees what you post on Facebook. And they muddle it up on purpose.
I know. I hate Facebook’s new privacy settings–before I could make a manual list of who could and couldn’t see my photos, or videos, or wall posts, or…you get the picture. Now I have to either totally block a feature or let everyone see it. And they hide the privacy functions, too.
Twitter, on the other hand, is simple. Everyone sees everything; enough said. So as long as you don’t say something stupid, you’re safe. (Facebook makes it so that only your “friends” see everything, which lets you relax your guard, but then crazy anti-tech crusaders decry that relaxing, and so on…)
I actually thought that the article was pretty good. Why does everyone always complain about the journalism here? I don’t know if many of the commenters are actual bloggers themselves, but it’s kind of crazy.
Wow. This is one of the worst written, ill-informed, meandering articles ever posted on Techcrunch. Most alarmingly, Lacy mistakes the term “asynchronous” for “non-reciprocal”.
All of the social networks, including Facebook and MySpace are asynchronous; ie., they’re not architected as real-time clients like Skype or AIM. In fact, Twitter (along with FriendFeed) is probably the most synchronous or real-time of all the social networks. What Lacy is trying to say is that Facebook requires a reciprocal relationship between users (ie., friend approval) for the exchange of information. By contrast, Twitter is set up as a non-reciprocal social network (ie., users can follow without reciprocal approval).
Hey Sarah, why don’t you go back to Newsweek or wherever you came from until you better understand the industries you’re claiming to cover.
I think she meant to write ‘asymmetric’.
that’s the term twitter execs use actually. but nice try.
no really, asynchronous means not synchronized in time. asymmetric is what you meant [i 'm greek so i can tell]
anybody want to try out my twitter-like calendar? http://sociocal.com/
“that’s the term twitter execs use actually”
[citation needed]
Hey Lacy,
Do a Google search on “Twitter” and “asynchronous” and the only search result that matches the way you are using the term in this article is YOUR Business Week article. http://www.busi...9034_395864.htm.
Just about everyone else understands that asynchronous means non real-time. Just because you used the term incorrectly once doesn’t mean you should continue to do so.
Fess up, you’re a dimwit.
“that’s the term twitter execs use actually. but nice try.”
Unbelievable. I see Arrington should have test run you for at least six weeks to get a better grip on just how much damage you’re capable of doing to his blog and your own reputation and done so long before he hired you.
Yeah, I know you freeelanced for him before. Big deal. Not the same thing. I would have worked you like a tractor for six weeks straight, then I would have told you “No thank you” and “go away”. Mike can ban me if he wants to for my saying so – hey, win some, lose some.
This is what you do that I find unbelievable:
1) You stir the pot with blather about Israel and the Middle East in a way that barely relates to current tech issues and/or tech industries at all
2) You cant’ write despite your extensive archive of online and offline writing; your posts are too long, wandering, and sort of “squishy” to be sharp enough to wind up on this blog
3) You obviously don’t make enough money writing books, writing for and running blogs so you put affiliate links in your TC articles, which falls somewhere between “tacky” and “obscenely desperate” on the Prideless Fool Scale
4) People call you out for your obvious inability to use the English language correctly and/or to consult a reputable online dictionary and/or Wikipedia before posting your tripe and this is what you say: “Nice try.” Who’s nice try, Sarah? How about “Your own nice try?” You’re not fooling anyone. Get over it, and find a place that fits your style better than TC does. You are a viper.
LOL
Celebrities are using twitter as a marketing vehicles. Most of the time they have someone else ghost write. They call their fans, ‘friends’, to make them feel more inclusive.
Twitter for celebrities is a 140 character info-mercial to promote a personal brand, and eventually sell shit.
yall are sheep.
It’s only a matter of time before Twitter becomes scary. People post dumb things on Facebook and MySpace, and they’ll do the same thing on Twitter. It’s not the platform that’s the problem, it’s the people using it.
We’re all slowly learning how to manage our public personas from these platforms. Some of us are better than others.
twitter is the digital equivalent of CB radio….will blow over soon enough… theres only so much of self-promotion we can take.
Your analogy is correct, although I suspect a lot of youngsters here do not know what this “CB thing” us old folks talk about.
One way to make it easier for the younger set in this crowd to understand is: “Geocities begets MySpace, MySpace begets Facebook, Facebook begets Twitter, and on and on.” In other words, it’s more about fad than anything else.
Human psychology dictates that most of us are fearful of going to a social function and sounding ignorant when the “hippest” topic of the day is brought up. Today, the hippest conversation starter is no doubt Twitter.
A couple of years back, I remember being directed to “The Official MySpace Page” of Martin Scorsese (it was “Official” because there were quite a few fakes). On it, Martin Scorsese, the legendary movie director, put up a video of himself speaking to his fans. Right off the bat, he said, “I don’t know anything about MySpace, but my agent said I MUST have a page here…”
If Scorsese “must”, then the rest of us must also, just to be with the “in crowd”. With apology to Yogi Berra, now it’s more like “Nobody goes to MySpace no more, cos it’s getting too crowded.”
CB radio was before my time, but i agree Geocities begat Myspace begat Facebook begat twitter…. Geocities is now dead. those who forget the past are dooomed to repeat it…..
First sentence, your book.
Stopped there.
According to the comments, it was a good call on my part.
Join my twitter @Future4Tomorrow
F$^k off. We don’t Twitter. We don’t need you.
Please stop this crime. Why are so many articles about twitter?
Are there no other subjects?
I can understand that it is cool and it is a trend, but I start to ask myselft why so much talk about twitter.
I think every 2 days there is something new (article) about twitter.
Is this some king of free publicity?
+1
I’m getting sick of hearing bout Twitter also!
I use it, but for professional reasons and only follow in context professionals in my biz.
But come on people (you complainers), if you don’t like the message, turn the dam radio!
I think the complaint is Twitter is on every station so to speak
I’ll pay $1000 to the first person at TechCrunch that writes a really solid article about something other than Twitter.
Sorry Sarah, I really like your articles, but I am so sick of hearing about Twitter — possibly more than hearing about the economy and Obama.
I guess I am asking for it now as the next TechCrunch article will almost certainly be about Obama Twittering about the economy. BARF!!!
Doh said…
I’ll pay $1000 to the first person at TechCrunch that writes a really solid article about something other than Twitter.
In fact, I can send Sarah heads-up in perhaps once or twice a week (which includes both past and current research publications, possible technology commercial implementations, etc,…) about some interesting computing topics for her to further investigate and write about. In this way, she would be able to bring something very interesting to TC readerships and I believe that it would appeal to entrepreneurs, both techies and non-techies, etc…
I believe Sarah has the writing skills , its just that perhaps she needs to widen (diverse) her topics a little bit to appeal to a wider audience. It is synonymous to how investors invest in the market. An investor who optimally diversifies his/her investments is less susceptible to market movements compared to one who doesn’t. So, wider topics = more interesting.
Although Facebook and MySpace may have downsides, Twitter is by far not a perfect product in itself either. It’s funny how this article mentions “…20-somethings getting fired because of college keg party pictures on Facebook.” Because as I recall about a month ago, a new-hire at Cisco got fired right after he posted a message regarding his acceptance into the company (http://www.msnb...om/id/29796962/). The thing to remember about Facebook and MySpace is that you’re working on a public domain and everything you say or show is archived and searchable, and Twitter is absolutely no exception. Someone can easily get fired from their job based on what they post up on Twitter. There are eyes and ears everywhere; everyone is liable for what they contribute on the web.
Also, Twitter is no different from Facebook and MySpace in that your relationships with people on those sites are simply virtual. You would have to meet these people face-to-face in order for these online relationships to be translated into real-world friendships. But because you are constantly interacting with people on Twitter, it would make your face-to-face encounter a whole lot easier and less nerve-racking.
One thing that I feel Twitter has a definite edge over Facebook and MySpace is that statistically (http://arstechn...aged-online.ars), Twitter users are more mobile and new media-savvy, so Twitter brings in the new wave of how we consume media versus the traditional way, which is through newcasts. With Twitter, news can reach the masses a lot faster than newscasters can.
why all the hate on this board with sara? i’m a female in the high tech industry for over a decade and some of these venomous replies are really sad. does it make you feel better to attack a female in this way? so what if she plugs her book or talks about what’s going on in the mass media. i too have been watching the view, oprah, etc. and if you guys don’t get it yet…that’s where the consumers are = the bottom line.
A bit touchy about gender issues are you? It’s got nothing to do with her gender, and everything to do with her sleazy affiliate links to her own products (double dipping) in every single article she writes. I’m guessing it’s not possible to criticise a woman without being a “misogynist”, right?
so andrew, if she took out the affiliate links would that still satisfy you? or is it her writing style? her content? her opinion? just her? something easily annoys many folks about her and i’m not sure what that is but i find some of the responses (in the past as well) pretty immature and vile. and yes, as a woman, we do wonder if there’s a bit of sexism there.
This is the Internet.
Nobody gives a flying ass about her being a woman.
And regarding you list :
” if she took out the affiliate links would that still satisfy you? or is it her writing style? her content? her opinion? just her?”
It is the affiliate links, the content, the opinion, and her.
And this has nothing to do with her being a woman, just like a person that doesn’t like me would rarely say that the reason is for me being a man.
“so andrew, if she took out the affiliate links would that still satisfy you? ”
You hit the nail squarely on the head. Yes, it would satisfy me. And as Anderson mentions, this is the internet. People care about your words and motives here. To offer a counter-question to you Lola : Do you not care that she is linking sleazily out to her products, with affiliate URL tags no less?
No one here said anything about the sex of the author. You did. Try looking beyond the sex of the person and practice treating men and women equal. It will change your world. Love & peace.
“When I was awesomely writing my awesome book I was thinking to write an article about awesome nothing using awesome words I do not really understand, awesome async me …” Oh my …
Best comment ever.
This is absolutely ridiculous. Why is she still working here. I have never seen anyone so incredibly unprofessional.
Get a life Sarah, go on your own and leave Techcrunch alone since you’re so damn awesome.
So much for recession. http://iamned.com/blog/ the crisis is over no more problems with the US economy
————————–
irty-laundry-airing videos on YouTube and 20-somethings getting fired because of college keg party pictures on Facebook. The message to housewives was loud and clear: DO NOT LET YOUR KIDS USE THESE HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE SITES!
—————–
Wow. This article may have some problems, but you think she should be fired?
Yes, the article could be edited better, but she’s not a bad writer. You’d never say that to her face. Our online identity is decreasingly anonymous, keep that in mind.
One of the worst pieces i’ve read on techcrunch in ages. Tacky, self promoting, badly written, rambling, too long, and devoid of any actual insight, besides a couple of banal observations about a fad. Terrible.
If you think Twitter is safe, you’re using it wrong.
Maybe I should create an exact Twitter clone with the exact same features by next week. Twitter is so easy to create. Twitter is an empty promise. It is good for users, but for investors because it doesn’t make a cent. It doesn’t have technological advantage and that is huge competitive disadvantage.
Sarah,
Don’t let a few bad apples spoil the bunch…I’m sure the vast majority of people who read your post here and your previous works enjoy your writing…Please don’t think twice about an obnoxious minority. Besides, anyone with any intelligence wouldn’t attack you personally…
Sarah – please, regale us with more stories of your adventures in the upper echelons of the literary universe. Did you rub elbows with Jonathan Lethem or Philip Roth? You are like the JCO of Web 2.0 – we are all honored to be in your presence.
I hear your next book will be published by Knopf – well done.
Btw – feel free to use “The JCO of Web 2.0″ as a blurb on your next work. i think it has a nice ring to it.
TechCrunch,
no real news about twitter for a day? Make some! Even if it’s totally irrelevant & boring. Get back to your better days of reporting, TC!
Sarah, didn’t you write just a week ago “Let’s Band Together and Stop the Hype Cycle”?
twitter is already pretty scary with how many MLM types and SEO “gurus” it’s spawned
Man, you guys are always giving Sarah hell. Even more than the Aussie everyone was calling gay the whole time. Sarah’s got hottness and hottness goes a long way.
O’ Techy TechCrunch getting lazy today, now that the xXx $ gUaP $ xXx is coming in lovely online, and only 3 posts today. Don’t get too lazy on da jobby job, SON!
LOl
Sorry Andrew, but I question if Sarah wasn’t a woman if she’d still get slammed the way she gets. I’ve seen PLENTY of male reporters talk about their own books etc. What exactly do you not like about her and why is it so easy to rag on her? If she were a guy, would there be the same response – not sure. Is it the content she writes, her writing style, her topics or just her? Either way, the way I see it is she does get hated upon a lot and I do think part of it is because she’s a female.
No it doesnt.
As per my earlier reply
” if she took out the affiliate links would that still satisfy you? or is it her writing style? her content? her opinion? just her?”
It is the affiliate links, the content, the opinion, and her.
There are plenty of men that are flamed and hated, and people actually -spit- on Mr. Arrington.
People are loved and hated for what they are, and nobody cares about her being a woman.
well, ok it believe it when you guys say it has nothing to do with her being a female that annoys you. so it seems that you guys just have a problem with her personally? then maybe don’t read her posts. there’s plenty of room on TC for many writers and you have the freedom to just not read her stuff. In the same regard, I think the folks who have spit on Michael A. or given him death threats are seriously total losers and cowards…and should get some psych help. It makes me mad that so many people here are taking her posts (or whoever’s) so personally. It’s just her opinion and there are plenty of folks that might gain something from it. Personally, I don’t care if she links to her book (I can’t tell if it’s affiliate or not and I don’t really care). People have to make money somehow and if it’s her perogative to post the link to her book, it’s my perogative to click it or not. Everyone needs to make money here and there. I re-read the article, and everything she has written is true – I hear about twitter everywhere now and so what…good for them. Love evan w. for what he has accomplished. Good for the average consumer who is hearing about it for the first time, most of them who do not live in the valley where things move really fast.
I must say it seems that Sarah is treated no differently than any of the male writers. As pointed out Michael has been spat on and received death threats. Surely you’re not suggesting that female writers be exempt from the same criticism that male writers regularly get, are you?
Well I’ve replied above to your earlier comment Lola, but it seems you are willfully overlooking Sarah’s blatant abuse of TC’s high traffic by inserting an affiliate link into her article. Self-promotion by linking to your own site is bad enough, but affiliate links are too much. Are you defending such practises? I have not seen another TC writer do this before, EVER. If there has been such an occasion before, maybe someone can point me to the article. I’ve been a regular reader here for 3 years.
If you feel this is OK, then how about TC becomes full of meaningless articles where the only purpose of publishing them is the affiliate links contained within them. Watch TC crash and burn if that happens.
On the flipside Lola, don’t defend someone just because of their sex. That’s as bad as attacking them because of their sex (which I am not, I am attacking her sleazy behaviour).
i think you’re making a lion out of a kitty. see my reply above. cheers.
Some of us hope journalists adhere to certain standards. As it stands, Sarah Lacy is no journalist – she’s just a spammer. Enjoy your spam, Lola.
Irrespective of the issue here I think you shouldn’t have played the sex card.
thanks andrew. i love spam…wrapped with in nori and rice. delicious. you’re so sweet.
There is definitely a gender-based disconnect going on between the author and the audience. The predominantly male tech blog audience doesn’t really care what Sara thinks, when she thinks it, what she was doing when she thought it, or how it made her feel when she thought it. In other words, stop writing in the first person. You are not news.
Men and women think differently. If you want to connect with the men, don’t tell us what you are thinking… give us some real insight. Tell us why we should care.
Oh… and stop writing about Twitter. I think we’ve heard about it enough in the past week.
+1
seriously? you know, a lot of women read this site too and are in the industry. she doesn’t have to try and write to “connect to males”. give me a break.
women read this site too
” We tend to think we’re more interesting than we really are.”
Between that thesis and your other, that the “The View” is a barometer for how technology will be accepted by the masses, which struck you while working on your fitness and zoning out, one has 13 paragraphs of evidence backing it up.
+1
Well it’s not really scary. it’s funny!
well, mainstream … this is i guess, with all the good and bad sides to the success
May I suggest using a link cloaker next time you use an affiliate link?
There’s some truth in the article, but I think there’s a simpler way to say it.
Twitter appeals to adults. (People over 30)
For one thing, the average Twitter user has good enough judgement not to Tweet about their adventures with alcohol. Secondly, an older, more responsible audience (including people who make decisions about how things are presented in the media) is going to have more sympathy for people that they perceive as somewhat like themselves.
While I completely agree it is tacky to have a shameless self promotion link, and an affiliate link in the first sentence, TC is a free blog in all sense of the word. So, if it bothers you so much, execute you’re free will to not click on the link or read further. Also, you’re free to point it out to others, but to exercise one’s freedom to bitch and whine about it too only makes that person look like a spoiled brat whining cause they aren’t getting their free goodies the exact way they want.
TC and their bloggers need to monetize and put bread on their tables too, and apparently this was one way they felt okay with monetizing through. After this backlash they might reconsider in the future, but think of the damage each time enough people complain about their attempts to monetize does. Something more then just advertising needs to support the TC blogger ecosystem. And unless you allow TC and its bloggers to prosper as well, this ecosystem like any other ecosystem without enough sustenance, will inevitably crumble.
I’m glad there’s a massive backlash here, because now TC know they will need to disclose info on affiliate links, or remove them altogether, or suffer a similar backlash.
unleash open-source e-markets enable world-class mindshare integrate e-business niches strategize front-end systems envisioneer customized paradigms remix user-contributed APIs brand synergistic e-business.
When TechCrunch will stop writing about Twitter? Lets ask Wolfram Alpha hype machine:
http://cyber.la...ns/WolframAlpha
One note of clarification please: in your first sentence, when you say ‘writing my last book’, do you mean that in the sense of ‘last book you will ever write’?
I JUST BOUGHT THE BOOK!
I have this horrible feeling that Twitter is going to turn into something awful. That I’m going to wake up one day and it’s going to suck.