Is Murdoch's Move Against Google Really About Twitter And Facebook?

from the no,-not-even-close dept

I'm a big believer in the idea that "earned media" or "earned links" are increasingly important online. That's the idea that growing numbers of people are relying on news links that are being passed to them via friends on social networks like Twitter and Facebook. It's about recognizing that more and more often news stories "find people" rather than the other way around. That is, people are increasingly getting links from friends, acquaintances and colleagues, rather than going searching for the news. And those "earned" links or "passed links" are quite valuable because friends are more likely to trust and pay attention to what is personally sent to them, rather than what's just on the front page of a news site.

However, even given all of that, I'm not sure I buy Mark Cuban's explanation for Rupert Murdoch and his plan to stop Google from indexing his sites. Cuban says that it's all about this recognition that such earned links are becoming so important these days, and Murdoch realizes that links from Twitter and Facebook are growing in value, whereas links from Google have little value. To be honest, I'd be surprised if Murdoch had thought through it that carefully, but more to the point, I'm not sure I believe the full premise. Yes, those links are valuable, but they need to start somewhere, and one of the ways they start is from news junkies using aggregators like Google News to find the news and start passing them around. Blocking that starting process makes little sense. On top of that, even when I'm passed a link, I'll often use Google News or other sites to dig deeper. Taking News Corp. sites out of the picture doesn't help at all. And, finally, while I keep hearing about sites getting so much more traffic from such passed links these days, I can say with authority that on Techdirt, they're still a tiny fraction of the traffic we get from Google.

So, yes, directly passed links from friends or colleagues are valuable and important, but it's a part of a wider ecosystem of news sharing that Google News and other aggregators are most certainly a large part of. Saying that blocking Google News makes sense because of things like Twitter and Facebook ignores how Google News plays into those links even being on Twitter and Facebook.

41 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Levi Johnston's Lawyers Threaten Twitter, Despite No Legal Basis

from the the-law?-what's-that? dept

Last week, Conan O'Brien had William Shatner stop by and read what was believed (at the time) to be twitter messages by Levi Johnston, the former boyfriend to Sarah Palin's daughter Bristol (and father of Bristol's child). O'Brien has done this before, having Shatner read out Sarah Palin's twitter messages, as spoken word poetry. It's an amusing gimmick. The only problem this time around was that the tweets weren't actually by Johnston, but an impostor. O'Brien quickly apologized. Fair enough.

However, what caught my attention was that Johnston's lawyers didn't just threaten O'Brien, but they threatened Twitter itself:

"My client, Levi Johnston, is being impersonated on your media (Twitter) and this is leading to libel and slanderous statements being attributed to him. ... We want you to put an immediate end to this illegal activity. ... You are being used as a medium to promote this illegality and we want immediate action. ... You are now on notice and must take steps to put an end to what is clearly against the law and against your policy. ... We want to know what steps you will be taking to correct what is clearly a problem which is escalating."

Now, you can understand why they were upset, and Twitter is usually pretty good at responding to such requests and disabling the accounts (sometimes even going too far). However, the claim that Twitter is now "on notice and must take steps" to end the account is simply not true. Twitter, as the service provider, is protected against such claims and has no specific obligation under the law to change things, no matter how much "notice" his lawyers give. You would think that Johnston's lawyers would understand that -- and that they would be aware of earlier attempts, like the one by Tony La Russa to blame Twitter for an impostor, in which La Russa was forced to learn why Twitter is not liable.

18 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Twitter Banning Satirical 'Fake' Versions Of Politicians?

from the that-would-be-unfortunate dept

It's certainly become popular on blogs and on Twitter to create "fake" satirical versions of various famous people. These are usually humorous (or they try to be) over-the-top representations of these celebrities. Usually, they are quite obvious, even to the point of saying that they are "the fake so-and-so" or clearly stating in the bio that this is fake. There should be no confusion around such things. However, a journalist in India who created a "fake" satirical Twitter profile for Indian politician Shashi Tharoor has found herself banned from Twitter without any explanation or chance to appeal. Now, obviously it is Twitter's right to decide whether or not to shut down certain accounts, but you would think with such an obviously fake profile that the company might be a bit more careful and, at the very least, communicate with the account holder about the issues with the account before just shutting it down.

28 Comments | Leave a Comment..

NFL Star Ochocinco Sets Up His Own Twitter-Based News Network

from the good-luck-NFL dept

Earlier this year, in talking about the changing nature of sports reporting, one of the things we mentioned was that you shouldn't count out players themselves as a part of that ecosystem, since they could now go direct to fans themselves, without having to talk through a reporter. Of course, sports leagues are scared to death of this concept, and we also noted that the NFL, among others, was seeking to limit how players were interacting with fans, with some teams even punishing players for being honest with fans.

However, with all those rules and guidelines, it seems the NFL didn't count on outspoken Bengals player Chad Ochocinco from taking things even further. Reader DEF was the first to alert us that Ochocinco has decided to set up his own Twitter-based reporting operation on goings on within the NFL, believing that via other players, he'll be able to get the real scoop and post the information faster and more accurately than any traditional "reporter." He says he's "knocking out the middleman."

And this is exactly the point we were making about how the media landscape is changing. People want relevant news and information in a format they find most useful. They don't care if it comes from a reporter, an athlete or the guy down the block. Yes, there are different levels of trust with who delivers the news, but reporters need to realize that they're not the only gatekeepers any more -- no matter how much they wish they were.

16 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Creative Web Destruction: Sites Go Away

from the remember-that dept

As we await the official shutdown of Geocities at the end of the month, Ivor Tossell is reminding everyone that today's internet hotspot -- Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, etc. -- may be completely gone in a decade's time. And, while it's good that sites come and go as the next big thing comes along, it does raise questions for those who are relying on these sites as some sort of archive of a life lived online. It's a good reminder of the importance of either being able to back up certain information -- or control it directly yourself.

28 Comments | Leave a Comment..

What's Illegal About Using Twitter To Organize Protests?

from the someone-please-explain dept

A bunch of folks have been sending in various versions of the story of a guy (described as an "anarchist") who was allegedly arrested for using social media tools like Twitter to organize protesters at the recent G20 Summit in Pittsburgh. The specific charges are for "hindering prosecution," but it seems like there must be some details missing. All around, the whole thing sounds pretty extreme. What's illegal about organizing protesters?

57 Comments | Leave a Comment..

UK High Court Allows Injunction To Be Delivered Via Twitter

from the you've-been-tweetserved? dept

Last year, we wrote about how a judge in Australia allowed someone to "serve" documents in a legal dispute via Facebook, after other methods proved unworkable. Now, over in the UK, the High Court has allowed an injunction against a Twitter user to be delivered via Twitter itself. It's the typical story. Someone set up a fake Twitter account, and the real person wants it shut down. Of course, Twitter has a process for handling such things, and you'd think they'd just do that -- but apparently the guy was upset that it was a "potentially lengthy process." Yes, how dare Twitter actually make sure it wasn't violating its own users' rights first. Of course, given that the Twitter user is anonymous, it makes you wonder if he or she will even care (or notice).

6 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Pointless Babble Is In The Eye Of The Beholder

from the yer-doing-it-wrong dept

A bunch of folks have been submitting some silly study claiming that 40% of Twitter messages are "pointless babble," confirming the standard critique from non-Twitter users of the uselessness of Twitter as a whole. Of course, there are all sorts of problems with this that have been raised by a bunch of people, starting with the methodology, but a bigger point is that the only really "pointless babble" is in trying to determine how much of Twitter is pointless babble. That's because Twitter doesn't work as a broadcast mechanism, whereby you have to pay attention to all of it. It's based on who you follow. If there's too much "pointless babble," there's a simple solution: follow other people. As Sean Garrett sarcastically notes, "62% of all phone conversations deemed "useless babble" say researchers."

But the real issue is that "pointless babble" is very much in the eye of the beholder. What these researchers consider to be pointless babble (things like someone tweeting that they were going out to eat) can actually be quite useful and valuable. I still tell the story of how just such a "pointless babble" of a Tweet resulted in me getting a chance to meet someone I'd wanted to meet for a while, and I've had many other "pointless babble" tweets come in handy in doing business deals or meeting other people as well. What's "pointless babble" to some can be incredibly useful to others.

32 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Content Is Advertising: Twitter On Broadway

from the tweet-the-play dept

We've talked a lot about how content is advertising, and we still get pushback from people who seem to think that we mean underhanded marketing or "product placement" is what we're talking about. But that's not it at all. We're talking about how good content is almost always advertising for something, and it need not be explicit at all. A great example of this is this NY Times article looking at how the Broadway play Next to Normal successfully used Twitter to promote itself. Rather than just setting up a feed to hype up the play, or to announce discounts, they actually had the playwright adapt the play for Twitter. And, from there, they ran the adapted version on Twitter, which built up a huge following, while specifically choosing not to go with a hard sell.

But it appears to have worked. The number of Twitter followers has ballooned, and there's been a nice correlation in ticket sales (admittedly, there may have been other factors as well, but there appears to be a lot of evidence that many attendees were drawn to it via the Twitter campaign). None of this was surreptitious. None of it involved "tricking" people. None of it involved "product placement." All it involved was making good use of good content to draw more attention -- and from there, people figured out what they wanted to buy. That's the point of content as advertising, and it's great to see it put to use so creatively.

17 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Cyberattack That Brought Down Twitter & Facebook Only Highlighted The Guy It Hoped To Silence

from the whoops dept

Ajit Jaokar alerts us to the fact that last week's "cyberattack" seems to have given a much greater voice to a guy the attacks were designed to silence. If you haven't been paying attention, late last week, there were huge denial of service attacks on Twitter and Facebook, which knocked out both sites for a period of time. Apparently, the attacks were an attempt to silence an economics professor in the republic of Georgia, who online has gone by the name cyxymu. Jaokar noticed that cyxymu had very few followers on his Twitter account, but since the news has come out that he was the target of the attack, thousands of new followers have started paying attention to him. So whoever ran the attacks (cyxymu blames the KGB), which sought to first discredit cyxymu and then take him offline, seems to have only done the opposite. They've suddenly given him the world's attention.

13 Comments | Leave a Comment..

And Of Course: Twitter Sued For Patent Infringement In Texas

from the where-else? dept

This should hardly be a surprise, but with Twitter being so popular lately, it was only a matter of time until it was targeted in patent infringement lawsuits. At the very least, the company suing them appears to (a) actually be based in Texas and (b) have a product on the market. But... that doesn't make TechRadium's lawsuit against Twitter any more reasonable or sensible. Take a look at the patents in question:

• 7,130,389: Digital notification and response system
• 7,496,183: Method for providing digital notification
• 7,519,165: Method for providing digital notification and receiving responses

Read through the claims on each of these patents and try not to gag on the obviousness of all three. If you picked any competent programmer (or, should we say, one who is "skilled in the art") and discussed messaging systems, this is pretty much what any of them would develop. There's nothing particularly unique or special in what's described in these patents. And, now, unfortunately, Twitter needs to waste time and money defending itself for doing something (ahem) obvious.

33 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Twitter, WordPress, Ning & GoDaddy All Sued In Mistargeted Lawsuit Over Defamation

from the someone-please-learn-section-230 dept

Last week, a lawsuit involving an allegedly defamatory Twitter message about a landlord made the news. This week, we've got another defamation suit involving another Twitter message and a condo building, but the situation here is quite different. First, if the alleged facts are true, it does sound like it could be defamation. It involves some condo owners, and who used Twitter, blogs and other websites to apparently accuse the condo board president of a variety of things including "murder, bribery, extortion, illicit payoffs, and corruption." Assuming those things are untrue, it would appear that the guy targeted by all this, Daniel Neiditch, has a decent defamation claim.

However, rather than just sue those folks responsible for the message, Neiditch's lawyers appear to have sued pretty much every company that these messages could loosely be associated with, including Twitter, WordPress, Ning, and GoDaddy. As Sam Bayard notes in the link, it appears that Neiditch's lawyers appear not to know about Section 230 of the CDA. That's a pretty big one for your lawyers to miss when filing a lawsuit like this. Ultimately, all four of those companies should have the case easily dismissed under Section 230, but it will be a waste of time and money in the meantime.

Of course, even if they were totally unaware of Section 230, basic common sense should tell you that these sites, hosting the content (or the domain, in the case of GoDaddy) should never be responsible for what was written on those sites. Going after them as a part of the lawsuit appears to be a blatant money grab, by trying to tie any company to the lawsuit, no matter how ridiculous the connection is between the actual action and the company. There really ought to be sanctions against lawyers who do such things, because it happens way too often.

19 Comments | Leave a Comment..

What Would Happen If Social Networking Sites Charged

from the a-thought-experiment dept

JohnForDummies alerts us to a suggestion from Dan Lyons over at Newsweek, saying that sites like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube should just start charging for their basic service. He brushes off those who think it's a bad idea as "the prevailing wisdom in Silicon Valley today is that everything on the Internet must be free." Except, that's not true. No one (NO ONE) is saying "everything on the internet must be free." This is just a silly strawman put forth by folks with little understanding of the business models people are actually discussing. Lyons also fails in recognizing that his "example" isn't even a very good one. He talks about PalTalk, who has built a business by offering premium features at a fee. That's the typical "freemium" model, but that's not what he then suggests for Facebook and Twitter, who he says should just start charging. Amazingly, he suggests that Facebook would only lose 50% of its users if it started charging (in fact, he seems to suggest that this is a conservative estimate: "Even if half of Facebook's members were to leave rather than pay...")

Well, there's a problem with both Lyons' math and his crystal ball. In cases where companies have gone from free to charging, the numbers I've seen (and, yes, it does range slightly, depending on the service) the rate of uptake is usually somewhere between 0 and 1% at best. Even if we grant Facebook some credit as being a "necessity" for students, I'd be shocked if they could get 5% of people to pay up to use the service -- and they'd find that number dwindle really fast. With only 5% of people using the service, it certainly becomes a lot less useful. Rather than communicating with all your friends, you can now only communicate with the 5% who ponied up. Or, you jump ship to someone else that doesn't charge.

And that's the real issue. The second that Facebook even hinted at charging users for basic service is the second users would start moving en masse to another (very, very happy competitors would be quick to offer themselves as an alternative). I recognize that it was still back in the days when Dan Lyons hated social media and thought social networking and blogs were evil, but he might want to familiarize himself with the history of Friendster. For a while, there were all sorts of rumors that Friendster was about to start charging, and MySpace kicked off a very well coordinated "grassroots" rumor campaign about how Friendster was about to charge, and everyone should switch to MySpace before Friendster put up a paywall.

In other words, not only will a lot less than 50% of people sign up for a pure fee-based Facebook, but everyone will move elsewhere, making that the place to be (for free). That's not to say that Facebook couldn't come up with some additional offerings of value that it could charge for, but the idea of charging for the basic service is really short-sighted and easily debunked if you think through it.

46 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Sued Over Twitter Message? Can You Defame Someone In 140 Characters Or Less?

from the sue-first,-ask-questions-later dept

Tom writes in to alert us that a woman in Chicago has been sued for defamation by the company that manages her apartment over a Twitter message. The message she put on Twitter read:

"Who said sleeping in a moldy apartment was bad for you? Horizon realty thinks it's okay."

And, rather than address a concern of one of their residents, the company brought out the lawyers, and sued for over $50,000. A little investigation reveals that the woman had all of 20 followers, which makes you question just how much actual damage was done by this message.

Still, for my money, the best single paragraph/statement about Horizon Group Management has to be the following one, in the Chicago Sun-Times, quoting Jeffrey Michael, speaking for Horizon Group (and a member of the family that runs it):

"We're a sue first, ask questions later kind of an organization," he said, noting that the company manages 1,500 apartments in Chicago and has a good reputation it wants to preserve.

I'm curious as to how being a "sue first, ask questions later kind of organization" meshes with having "a good reputation it wants to preserve." I'd argue that (1) suing a tenant of a meaningless tweet (and drawing much more attention to the complaint) and (2) claiming that you're a "sue first, ask questions later kind of organization" in the national media are going to do a hell of a lot more damage to any "good reputation" (if it existed in the first place) than some random woman with 20 followers bitching about mold in her apartment.

59 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Michigan Supreme Court Issues New Stop Twittering Rule For Juries

from the stop-that-twittering dept

There have been a few recent stories about jury members using Twitter, and courts have been trying to figure out how to deal with it. Well, over in Michigan, the Supreme Court has issued new rules for judges to tell jurors concerning their use of text messaging and other communication services. While it doesn't name Twitter specifically, it seems like the new rules are pretty clearly directed at jurors who might Twitter or use some other similar communication tool to explain what's happening in the case.

8 Comments | Leave a Comment..

PR Firm Accused Of Setting Up Fake Twitter Account Of Competing Firm

from the really? dept

We've all heard about the various fake accounts on Twitter, and even Tony La Russa's misguided lawsuit over a user who put up a fake profile. However, in what appears to be a slightly more serious case of "brandjacking" on Twitter, the Citizen Media Law Project alerts us to a lawsuit involving two PR firms, with one accused of hijacking the identity of the other on Twitter. While it's a bit amusing that the PR firm who was hijacked claims its expertise is in brand management and yet didn't notice that someone else was using its brand on Twitter for two months, the fact that the IP address of whoever signed up for the account came from a competing PR firm suggests questionable intent, and certainly has the potential to be a real trademark issue.

11 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Why Does Wal-Mart Need A 3,379-Word Terms Of Use For Its Twitter Account?

from the someone-please-explain dept

Twitter only gives you 140-characters, of course, but what do you do if you're an old-school company that's been around for ages and is used to legalizing everything? Apparently, you create a 3,379-word terms of use for your Twitter account. Boing Boing points us to Wal-Mart's Twitter Terms of Use, which is really impressive if only in that if it were Twittered in 140-character increments it would take about 165 separate tweets. But, honestly, I can't figure out who this Terms of Use is directed at. It can't be those who read the various Twitter feeds from Wal-Mart employees, since most of them will never even come to this page at all (they're just following on Twitter, not on Wal-Mart's site). It's unlikely that it's for the Wal-Mart employees directly, as one assumes they don't need a public Terms of Use. So what's its purpose?

30 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Why Doesn't Amazon Allow Referrals On Passed Links?

from the keep-up-with-the-times dept

A few months ago, we were talking about the growing value of "passed links" or "earned links." These are links that to things that others passed on to you, via email or social networking services like Facebook and Twitter. As more people have been using these services, the value of such links have grown as traffic generators. And yet, some have just realized that Amazon doesn't reward affiliates for using such links. It's not difficult to understand how this came about, but it certainly seems like the type of thing that the company should reconsider. Basically, Amazon's original affiliate program was so that you could send people to Amazon from your own site. In order to become an affiliate your site had to be approved. But if you're just passing around links, then that has little or nothing to do with your site, and thus Amazon doesn't pay such referral fees. I would imagine that Amazon is also quite worried about potential fraud.

But given the growing popularity of things like Twitter and Facebook, it seems like Amazon might want to reconsider this policy, and recognize that if someone promotes a book via these services, they're equally as deserving of the affiliate referral fee than if they had simply posted the link on their own site.

9 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Tony La Russa Twitter Lawsuit Ended For Real

from the let's-try-this-again dept

Last month, we noted that baseball manager Tony La Russa had sued Twitter over an obviously fake profile pretending to be him (the profile bio even said it was fake). Even if there was any sort of claim here, it would be against the person who created the account, not Twitter itself. Oddly, a few days later, La Russa announced that Twitter had settled the case, and was donating money to La Russa's charity. That seemed like it would set a bad precedent in that it would just give others incentive to sue Twitter. Except... it turned out it wasn't true. Even though La Russa said it happened, Twitter said there was no truth at all to the settlement or the charitable donation (quick question: would that make La Russa guilty of defamation?)

However, as Michael Scott alerts us, the lawsuit has now ended for real, with La Russa dismissing the charges after a "settlement" was reached, with no money exchanging hands either way. Hopefully, others quickly realize that suing Twitter for the actions of its users is a dead end, but I get the feeling this is not the last of these sorts of lawsuits.

Leave a Comment..

Football Player Threatens To Sue Impostor On Twitter

from the at-least-he's-going-after-the-right-target dept

When Tony La Russa sued Twitter because there was a user impersonating him on the site (though, clearly labeled as being fake), we pointed out that La Russa was targeting the wrong party. At first we were afraid the same thing was happening when Digg was running a headline that Miami Dolphins' player Davone Bess was going to sue Twitter over an impostor. Fortunately, it looks like whoever wrote the Digg headline got it wrong. The original story suggests that Bess isn't going to sue Twitter, but whoever set up the fake Twitter account. Of course, even that is probably pretty pointless. Why not just alert Twitter, have the account disabled and be done with it?

9 Comments | Leave a Comment..