Wednesday News: The Washington Post’s new CEO, Disney v Deadmau5, pseudonymity enhances commenting, and red “warps the mind” (?)
Jeff Bezos Ends Washington Post Publishing Dynasty With Politico Alum – So after a year of owning The Washington Post, Jeff Bezos is replacing Publisher and CEO Katharine Graham Weymouth with Frederick J. Ryan, Jr., a former member of Ronald Reagan’s presidential administration and co-founder of Politico. Weymouth will be staying on for a year to smooth Ryan’s transition into power, but the new appointment is definitely raising questions — and some eyebrows:
Bezos declined to comment, but in a letter to the staff Weymouth said it was time to “explore new opportunities” and that “it is time for new leadership.” Ryan has experience at one of the leading digital politics sites, but as The Post notes Ryan, who was a top presidential aide, is “certain to raise questions about the direction of The Post’s editorial page.” –The Wire
TRADEMARK: Disney Makes Good on Deadmau5 Extermination Threat Read more: TRADEMARK: Disney Makes Good on Deadmau5 Extermination Threat – So Disney is now going after Deadmau5, who has filed for trademark of a logo also makes use of cartoonish mouse ears. Citing consumer confusion in their 171-page oppositional filing, Disney is either protecting its trademark (which is a necessary duty of trademark holders) or exercising predatory behavior, depending on your perspective. Deadmau5’s trademark filing can be accessed here, and according to a comment on Twitter seems undeterred by Disney’s action.
Disney lays claims to the representation going back to ‘at least 1928? (the year Steamboat Willie and Mickey Mouse were introduced to the world) and goes on to demonstrate the use of said mouse ears in several commercial uses, but also relies heavily on the fame of Mickey Mouse himself, citing the popularity of the 1950?s television series, ‘The Mickey Mouse Club,’ and states that mouse ears have been a core element of Disney’s consumer products ‘at least as early as 1955.’ –Stich Kingdom
Research shows that if you remove anonymity, you won’t hear from most of your readers – Honestly, I’m amazed this is a debate at all, but then I’ve been working with speech issues for more than a decade now, and have absolutely no trouble believing that the study cited in this Gigaom article and additional research by Disqus demonstrate that forcing people to comment under their real names disincentivizes engagement on the part of some of the most ardent and consistent site users/readers.
What that means in practice is that if a site like The Huffington Post or ESPN requires their users to login with Facebook or provide a “real” identity in some other way, they are likely shutting out as many as 80 percent of their readers. While at least some of these may be trolls or bad actors of some kind, it’s reasonable to assume that a significant number are loyal members of that site’s community, who may have something important or worthwhile to contribute. As David Williams, community manager for CNN Digital, said in an interview with Managing Communities:
Anonymous commenting isn’t the problem. The problem is when commenters feel anonymous. It is really important to let your community know that you’re listening and that you value what they have to say… If you don’t pay attention, people will misbehave until you are forced to pay attention. –Gigaom and Disqus
How the colour red warps the mind – So color psychology looks at the effect of colors on mood, perception, and behavior. Red, long perceived as a power color (which may explain why boys, and not girls, used to be associated with pink, as screwed up as the whole blue/pink dichotomy is), is now being studied for its potential effects on any number of behaviors, from athletic matches (who wins) to romantic gestures. As usual, I’m skeptical of the overlap between social conditioning and physiological effect.
Perhaps the most studied effect concerns the shade’s association with desire, seduction, and sin – a link that can be seen in everything from the Scarlet Whore of Babylon to Chris de Burgh’s Lady in Red. A string of experiments, by Elliot and other colleagues, have all confirmed that men and women are both rated as being more attractive when wearing red compared to other shades. Although many of the studies were conducted in the laboratory, with subjects passively rating static photos, it also seems to translate to real-world behaviour; waitresses in red also tend to get bigger tips from male customers, for instance; wearing a red t-shirt can also increase female hitchhikers’ chances of getting a ride. –BBC Future
Disney, always knowing how to turn a fan.
I was an active participant on HuffPo with a lot of followers before the change that required you to link to FaceBook (and not just to link to FB, but to have a verified FB account that included your phone number). Now, I’m not on FB as “me”. I’m only there as an author. And I will NEVER give FB my phone number. NEVER EVER EVER. I’m sure HuffPo lost a TON of their regulars when they made that new rule. But I have also noted that not being able to even see the comments now has made my daily rage quotient so much more manageable.
For me, what matters is control of who sees what I say and a pseudonym does that. In contrast, Facebook wants to blare every single thing I do to as wide a public as possible, with no tact or nuance. Do I want every comment I ever made in a romance-reading community to be available for future employers to read?
I can’t post comments at any site that requires Facebook validation because I’ve never had a Facebook account, and I hope I never have to. I understand why websites would choose such a requirement, but it does seem like they’re cutting off a substantial number of good actors in order to weed out the trolls.
I’m still waiting for the Facebook-killer to arrive. As crappy as it is, and the no matter how bad Zuckerberg et al treat our data and privacy…what’s been offered as an alternative?
Sigh. Perhaps i’ll just go read some romances.
There’s anonymity and then there’s pseudonymity. I’ve been online since Usenet, both as RealName and “hapax”, and the two are… well, they’re different people. RealName is my official, professional persona, and hapax is my private opinionated persona.
Both are “really me”, and the character and reputation of both are very important to me. I’ve made dear friends online as both (not the same person as both — that would be pretty weird) and have accumulated a few, shall we say, NotFriends as well (for very different reasons. While they aren’t in opposition to each other, both personas have very much their own interests, areas of activity, and voice.
It wouldn’t take a genius hacker to link the two identities. Heckopete, I’m pretty sure that there are people reading this right now who know my RealName (not that they care). But it’s important to me to keep them distinct; I think it would kill both of them as far as online interaction goes to be forced to do so.