A VC - Latest Comments in Living In Public Doesn't Have To Be Destructive

Re: Living In Public Doesn't Have To Be Destructive

dcanarick — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 12:04:05 -0000

Such an important issue. Thanks for the brain-jog.

Re: Living In Public Doesn't Have To Be Destructive

Ross Cohen — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 17:08:12 -0000

I could not agree more with the idea that "... we are slowly building real accountability into the commenting process" as well as "...there is still a ton of opportunity out there to provide services in and around what Facebook and others are doing." In fact we started BeenVerified on that exact principle.

DISCUS does a great job of adding a layer of credibility and increased accountability within the blogoshpere. However, without knowing the actual identity of the person's DISCUS profile, commentors can still hide behind the safety of anonymity. Fred, I have been reading your blog for quit some time and while your posts are not as "outspoken" as say Jason Calcanis for example, there are still the occasional outlier comments that need the validation of knowing who the person actually is.

What if we gave commentors the option to have their actual identities verified by a trusted third party within the DISCUS platform? And then also give bloggers the option to accept only "verified comments" on a post-by-post basis. For example, Michael Arrington occasionally shuts off the ability to comment on certain posts. I would bet that if he had the ability to turn on "verified comments" only, he would surely keep the discussion flowing.

Fred, keep in mind the word "option," as we strongly believe verifications should always remain "Opt-In." There are certain conversations that call for identity verification and certain conversations that do not. This should be decided by the blogger (or community) on a case-by-case basis.

Verifying actual human identities in commenting systems like DISCUS will take accountability one step further as we slowly make our way toward a better social web. For example if the discussion was based around education and a commentator claimed they're a teacher, she could have a profile attached to her DISQUS account that proved her bachelors in education and her employment with an elementary school. Further down the road we believe that with the adoption of verified profiles, a commenter could now have the ability to keep their identity anonymous, but still share their University of Harvard verification. Now we are getting somewhere!

Re: Living In Public Doesn't Have To Be Destructive

donny — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 17:32:37 -0000

you're a fuckhead.

Re: Living In Public Doesn't Have To Be Destructive

Druce — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 07:18:11 -0000

Seems Jason is disparaging his audience, and demonstrating the qualities he ascribes to others. As you write and demonstrate on a daily basis, the golden rule of blogging is to engage your community in a positive way. If you're a rock star, pointing out to your audience that they're basement-dwelling losers isn't a good audience-building strategy. Might as well just plant subliminal messages telling them to kill themselves.

Can you think of any great writer, tackling things that matter, challenging people to think outside their comfort zone, who didn't generate haters? If getting people riled up is a problem, thought leadership may not be your style.

The biggest problems I have with blogging as a medium...it gravitates more toward NY Post than The New Yorker... short items that generate heat but little light, like -ahem- drama-queen pronouncements. (ummh, maybe that's what Jason was driving at, and illustrating)

The blog medium actually increases herd behavior. Readers of a given blog will have a smaller sphere of acceptable discussion than a newspaper. The more a group of people talks, the more they think and act alike. Even the writer of the blog ends up having trouble writing something that might alienate the community that has coalesced around that blog. Kudos to Jason for not falling into that particular trap.

Re: Living In Public Doesn't Have To Be Destructive

Guest — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 18:09:22 -0000

I'll take your word for it, Fred, don't have the time to go back. Your blog is very stimulating, to the point that it is starting to take too much of my time...
I also have a lot to say about your post on the VC IRRs, but will pass at this juncture (no time for it). I just hope that you didn't unleash that rant against Ms. Claire for not putting you on the Midas List:))) She has nothing to do with it since moving to NYT. And say what will about this Duncan guy, but he is right that her article about you was a bit "fluffy" and extra-complimentary...

(Seriously, I'd feel bad if my bringing up this Midas BS made you dog her. She seems very nice and I trust you're better than that...)

Re: Living In Public Doesn't Have To Be Destructive

@silverton — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 15:53:02 -0000

Living in Public as Digital Natives

Re: Living In Public Doesn't Have To Be Destructive

fredwilson — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 15:09:01 -0000

Good for you and your health but bad for our entertainment value

Re: Living In Public Doesn't Have To Be Destructive

Rob Long — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 14:20:28 -0000

Well, you'll have to wait for that. I've been doing a lot of yoga
lately and it's kind of ruined my ability to go off on a really
unhinged rant.

Re: Living In Public Doesn't Have To Be Destructive

ceonyc — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 12:33:06 -0000

Agreed. Analog Jason is much more pleasant than digital Jason.

Re: Living In Public Doesn't Have To Be Destructive

fredwilson — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 12:11:00 -0000

I also think this is his view of the facts and if you go back and read all the posts, you may come to a different conclusion than he did

Re: Living In Public Doesn't Have To Be Destructive

fredwilson — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 12:10:41 -0000

He still hates me for it

Re: Living In Public Doesn't Have To Be Destructive

Guest — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 07:21:46 -0000

OK, never mind. I saw now your response under:

"you got it right Duncan, we are not angels or gods and we do not walk on water. we make a lot of mistakes and i apparently made one back in that comscore episode. i will go pretty far to defend the companies we invest in when mis-impressions are being spread. maybe i went too far that time. sorry about that. i bet we've both done that a few times."

I guess that falls under Glenn Kelman's corollary, then...

Re: Living In Public Doesn't Have To Be Destructive

Guest — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 07:14:09 -0000

He's a wolf in sheep clothing... That's what people are saying, anyway:

"However, Wilson came gunning. On his person blog at the time he wrote an attack post that targeted me personally, including (if memory serves me right) calling me a liar. He was however caught out, because originally he didn’t disclose a vital fact, one I wasn’t aware of initially when he wrote that post, that he was on the board of comScore. He subsequently updated the post. What struck me about the man was that he was a hard arse, a man who went for the jugular in defending his financial interests, and certainly no benevolent fluffy bunny that we see in the New York Times today."

Fred, what is this about? Misrepresentation? "youthful indiscretion"? Certainly doesn't jive with your "points"...

Re: Living In Public Doesn't Have To Be Destructive

fredwilson — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 07:06:12 -0000

Corrupt is a very strong word and I doubt it applies to most people in business no matter what their profession

Re: Living In Public Doesn't Have To Be Destructive

fredwilson — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 07:05:08 -0000

He's a lot of fun to hang with

Re: Living In Public Doesn't Have To Be Destructive

Guest — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 07:02:24 -0000

I didn't get this one... Were you wrong that they were corrupt? Because, then, you know, you should have apologized not because you were tired, but because you had to.

On the other hand, if you were right that they were corrupt, I think it was very wrong to apologize. What's the point of apologizing to corrupt people for calling them out? Of course they would be gracious, you were becoming one of them and they were feeling safer. What happened to the "idealists" and "pragmatists" business?

Re: Living In Public Doesn't Have To Be Destructive

fredwilson — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 06:48:12 -0000

Great comment as usual rob, but now can you bring the 'totally unhinged' comment???

Re: Living In Public Doesn't Have To Be Destructive

fredwilson — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 06:35:12 -0000

I am not kidding with this post. People need to be nicer and have better manners online

Re: Living In Public Doesn't Have To Be Destructive

fredwilson — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 06:34:10 -0000

I don't know enough about the kathy story to talk about that one

But mike should be more careful with what he says and how he says it

That's my whole point

Be Nice!!!!!

Re: Living In Public Doesn't Have To Be Destructive

fredwilson — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 06:31:11 -0000

The WSJ has a good story today on the role of online games and online communities in the lives of the unemployed

I'd drop a link but I'm on my mobile

Re: Living In Public Doesn't Have To Be Destructive

fredwilson — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 06:29:06 -0000

I'm trying!

Re: Living In Public Doesn't Have To Be Destructive

fredwilson — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 06:27:09 -0000

Great story about the value of an aplology

Sorry works really well when you mean it

Re: Living In Public Doesn't Have To Be Destructive

fredwilson — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 06:23:13 -0000

I don't moderate the comments on this blog and I think "troll" is in the eye of the beholder. Plus I think their bad behavior should be witnessed by everyone

Re: Living In Public Doesn't Have To Be Destructive

fredwilson — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 06:23:10 -0000

Great approach. Thanks for sharing it

Re: Living In Public Doesn't Have To Be Destructive

fredwilson — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 06:13:10 -0000

I wish I could find the photo because it would tell most of the story by itself

Before I sarted using my avatar on the upper left of this blog, I used to put a photo of me or me and my family there

And I'd rotate the photo every few months

While I was on vacation something like four years ago, one of my kids took a photo of me lounging in a chair by the pool with a grin on my face

I put it on that upper left slot of the blog and started getting flamed for it right away

It was sending all the wrong messages and I just didn't see that

I took it down and everyone chilled out.

Lesson learned