Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't know if this is the appropriate forum for my discussion. I trust the C-D moderator will move it if necessary. But I thought people on the Politics thread would be most knowledgeable about the news aggregating website Huffington Post.
When I read Huffington Post this morning, I got a message saying I could not comment to an article until I had "verified my account." But when I tried to do that, I was given instructions to "link" my HuffPost activity to my Facebook account and no further instructions. HuffPost commenters have been able to link their accounts to Facebook for years. That's how people get the designation that they have 1,000 or 2,000 followers. These aren't people who have chosen to "fan" a comment one made on HuffPost — HuffPost just counts all of one's Facebook account "friends" as "fans" of the person making comments. It's silly but irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.
I have been a registered commenter on HuffPost since a few months after it launched in 2005. My comments seem to be well-received by other readers, judging by the "faves" and "fans" (their terms) I get. HuffPost has always moderated comments and my comments have always been posted.
But I do not have a Facebook account. I am not going to get one. I consider that to be a political statement. I object to the way Mr. Zuckerberg does business. I think there are already too many ways for the corporations of America and the government to spy on my spending and messaging and to keep track of my political views. I understand that I cannot escape most of the spying, but I have no desire to submit to willingly aid the process.
I understand Zuckerberg is offering a free product and if he chooses to sell information about his members in exchange for giving them the right to use his "invention," that's fine. I just don't want to be a part of that. To me, it's akin to muting the commercials when I watch TV. I have to accept the concept of advertising, but I don't have to be a slave to it. And please don't tell me about how I can use "privacy tools" on Facebook. They don't make me private to Mr. Zuckerberg.
I'm not criticizing people who choose to participate in Facebook. Some members of my family have practically ceased to communicate with me because I am not on Facebook, so I get that it's popular. If I have to pay a price for my choice, so be it. I'm quite sure these people will remember how to make a phone call or send an E-mail the next time they need something and if they choose to call me "out of touch" or "a control freak" in the meantime, I disagree but I can live with their judgment.
But back to HuffPost. If you are person who leaves comments to HuffPost articles, are you disturbed by this demand that they now insist they must track you through Facebook? Do you find is especially ironic that their editorial people criticize the government for NSA spying, yet they themselves no longer allow free speech on their own website? I can easily see their need to moderate speech. HuffPost is popular, so it is inundated with crude trolls and people posting ads. Yet they seem to ignore the easy way to correct that. They should stop allowing people to post who are just registered and have no fans. To my way of thinking, if they say they are moderating comments, why don't they moderate every new member's first ten or more post. If a new "member" violates their rules, reject them.
I'm rather frustrated because I can't even find a way to communicate my opinion about this new policy to HuffPost. They used to have an E-mail address that connected members to the moderators, but that was removed ages ago. So the only way to complain is to make a comment ... and obviously I can't do that. I guess I am going to have to part ways with Ms. Huffington for the same reasons I don't interact with Mr. Zuckerberg. But I honestly feel my contributions to that website, especially early on when there were not many members, would make me a valued customer in some way. Why isn't it enough that my eyeballs have to fall on hundreds of ads as I read the articles? Why do I have to be tracked, too, when I have such a history there? I guess Arianna Huffington is a capitalist first and a political progressive second.
I don't know if this is the appropriate forum for my discussion. I trust the C-D moderator will move it if necessary. But I thought people on the Politics thread would be most knowledgeable about the news aggregating website Huffington Post.
When I read Huffington Post this morning, I got a message saying I could not comment to an article until I had "verified my account." But when I tried to do that, I was given instructions to "link" my HuffPost activity to my Facebook account and no further instructions. HuffPost commenters have been able to link their accounts to Facebook for years. That's how people get the designation that they have 1,000 or 2,000 followers. These aren't people who have chosen to "fan" a comment one made on HuffPost — HuffPost just counts all of one's Facebook account "friends" as "fans" of the person making comments. It's silly but irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.
I have been a registered commenter on HuffPost since a few months after it launched in 2005. My comments seem to be well-received by other readers, judging by the "faves" and "fans" (their terms) I get. HuffPost has always moderated comments and my comments have always been posted.
But I do not have a Facebook account. I am not going to get one. I consider that to be a political statement. I object to the way Mr. Zuckerberg does business. I think there are already too many ways for the corporations of America and the government to spy on my spending and messaging and to keep track of my political views. I understand that I cannot escape most of the spying, but I have no desire to submit to willingly aid the process.
I understand Zuckerberg is offering a free product and if he chooses to sell information about his members in exchange for giving them the right to use his "invention," that's fine. I just don't want to be a part of that. To me, it's akin to muting the commercials when I watch TV. I have to accept the concept of advertising, but I don't have to be a slave to it. And please don't tell me about how I can use "privacy tools" on Facebook. They don't make me private to Mr. Zuckerberg.
I'm not criticizing people who choose to participate in Facebook. Some members of my family have practically ceased to communicate with me because I am not on Facebook, so I get that it's popular. If I have to pay a price for my choice, so be it. I'm quite sure these people will remember how to make a phone call or send an E-mail the next time they need something and if they choose to call me "out of touch" or "a control freak" in the meantime, I disagree but I can live with their judgment.
But back to HuffPost. If you are person who leaves comments to HuffPost articles, are you disturbed by this demand that they now insist they must track you through Facebook? Do you find is especially ironic that their editorial people criticize the government for NSA spying, yet they themselves no longer allow free speech on their own website? I can easily see their need to moderate speech. HuffPost is popular, so it is inundated with crude trolls and people posting ads. Yet they seem to ignore the easy way to correct that. They should stop allowing people to post who are just registered and have no fans. To my way of thinking, if they say they are moderating comments, why don't they moderate every new member's first ten or more post. If a new "member" violates their rules, reject them.
I'm rather frustrated because I can't even find a way to communicate my opinion about this new policy to HuffPost. They used to have an E-mail address that connected members to the moderators, but that was removed ages ago. So the only way to complain is to make a comment ... and obviously I can't do that. I guess I am going to have to part ways with Ms. Huffington for the same reasons I don't interact with Mr. Zuckerberg. But I honestly feel my contributions to that website, especially early on when there were not many members, would make me a valued customer in some way. Why isn't it enough that my eyeballs have to fall on hundreds of ads as I read the articles? Why do I have to be tracked, too, when I have such a history there? I guess Arianna Huffington is a capitalist first and a political progressive second.
Anyone else have an opinion on this?
I guess they are pretending to be obamacare website
Face book and Twitter both are entering into partnerships with websites that require you to use either to log into their sites. I won't do it... that way I can spend more time here with all the lovely people on CD.
Looking at the intersection between content and conversation, she found two drivers — its custom-built CMS, and the way it trains its newsroom to be social — as an opportunity to help brands not only become publishers but to become “newsrooms.” Brands need to keep pace with Twitter, and as brands contemplate branded content, they have to disrupt their thinking. It’s not just about creating content but having volume — and velocity — to connect to the social landscape.
This isn’t just about a content solution or tech solution but a holistic view of content, audience and technology,” Balis said. “There are plenty of people embracing the idea of organic ad placements and intelligent advertorial strategies, but we’re focused on producing content, and connecting to social landscape and be analytical about science that can inform how to make these stories bigger.”
ad placement, $$$$$ same old story. Another decent site ruined. I stopped writing there when they started with the badges/fakebook plug ins.
Okay let's paint the picture here. Look at what has been reported for years with all the alphabets investing and extracting data, then let's look at FB IPO. Then let's notice all the recent consolidation of login accounts available everywhere now. Can't forget the govt investment funds in these publicly traded companies either. FB alone is 61% institutional ownership. Same old players. Pretty obvious.
The local newpaper online did that some time ago as well. Their reasoning was the the anonymity was allowing people to post inappropriately and they were tired of having to deal with it. Maybe that is what's going on. Who is next? C-D? I don't follow HuffPost but guess that it is frequented by a lot of political crazies like C-D. I certainly would not want my mug shot or name published on any politics site.
Looking at the intersection between content and conversation, she found two drivers — its custom-built CMS, and the way it trains its newsroom to be social — as an opportunity to help brands not only become publishers but to become “newsrooms.” Brands need to keep pace with Twitter, and as brands contemplate branded content, they have to disrupt their thinking. It’s not just about creating content but having volume — and velocity — to connect to the social landscape.
This isn’t just about a content solution or tech solution but a holistic view of content, audience and technology,” Balis said. “There are plenty of people embracing the idea of organic ad placements and intelligent advertorial strategies, but we’re focused on producing content, and connecting to social landscape and be analytical about science that can inform how to make these stories bigger.”
ad placement, $$$$$ same old story. Another decent site ruined. I stopped writing there when they started with the badges/fakebook plug ins.
This isn’t just about a content solution or tech solution but a holistic view of content, audience and technology,” Balis said. “There are plenty of people embracing the idea of organic ad placements and intelligent advertorial strategies, but we’re focused on producing content, and connecting to social landscape and be analytical about science that can inform how to make these stories bigger.”
HP has morphed into just another crappy and sensational media money making organization.
When the new of the day was "so and so rocks a bikini" I began to lose interest. It's sort of a dressed up faux intellectual National inquirer. I'm just about to erase it from my favorites bar.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
