Archive of UserLand's first discussion group, started October 5, 1998.

It seems OK to me

Author:TQ White II
Posted:9/15/1999; 9:20:59 AM
Topic:New Third Voice version out
Msg #:11046 (In response to 11014)
Prev/Next:11045 / 11047

If I take a book, scribble notes all over the margins and copy three pages for my colleague, should that be illegal? I hope not because, of course, I've done it a million times.

How about changing the type face on my web browser to override the webmaster's decision and use a really goofy looking face that makes it look like an idiot designed the page?

What about a conference call where I sit with a few friends in voice contact, surf the net and make comments about the pages we visit...then takes notes and email them to all of our friends with the URLs?

Although I have heard of the venality of the Third Voice community before (I have no interest in using such a thing myself), I don't see the problem with the project per se. It seems to me a legitimate way of establishing a conversation about websites. Dave's brand is only being hurt to the extent that people don't like it and comment adversely. He could just as easily be helped by positive comments. The change in brand perception can only happen by concensus.

Facillitating the development of a concensus sounds like a good thing. I can easily imagine making a website that is Third Voice technology friendly. It would be like attaching a DG to a website. Instead of referring to information, it's directly attached. I think it could be a traffic builder. Presuming that people like you, they might, just as we do with these discussion groups, come specifically to participate in the conversation.

The fact that I don't control the conversation is annoying. As a marketing guy, I would always like to control the conversation but, as we have all observed many times, this is the new era. The net savvy person trusts the audience instead of controlling it. The only legitimate influence is to participate in the conversation.

Making an illegal copy of a page by editing it through a proxy server? Sounds like thin ice to me. Who would be breaking the law? Third Voice gives the software to someone and they use it. Would you bust the guy browsing your page? (There is a traffic builder. ;->) Third Voice isn't actually doing the copying. I can't picture that you can bust them for making tools you don't like, ask the MP3 guys.

I think that the angst about this is misplaced. The basic idea of processing pages on the way into your eyeballs seems to me to be a basic right. Providing tools to allow people to do so seems equally appropriate. In hundreds of ways the net is opening opportunities for individuals to control their own media content. Interference is just that, interference. On the other hand, it is a great idea to be angry at people that make stupid, negative comments, and to criticize their messages, ie, to participate in the conversation.

Making the argument that we need legislation, im my opinion, both wrong and dangerous. Sure, Userland and you and me might have righteous outrage about the things that people are saying about our sites in various ways. Remember, any crack in the rules that allows corporations to control what people do on the internet will not, in general, benefit anybody on this list. It will benefit CNN, Microsoft, and Viacom and it will do it ways that expand on today's ideas in ways that none of us can imagine except in our nightmares.

regards, tqii

There are responses to this message:

This page was archived on 6/13/2001; 4:52:37 PM.

© Copyright 1998-2001 UserLand Software, Inc.