Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News

LinuxToday Astroturfing Explained 153

Posted by CmdrTaco from the scary-look-inside dept.
cigarky sent us Paul Ferris' account (fwiw, Paul is a good guy) of the LinuxToday astroturfing that we mentioned a few weeks ago. Much more explanation about how Executive Editor Kevin Reichard was posting numerous comments under numerous aliases on the LT forums. Even more scary is the editorial war regarding linking outside content. My opinion is that LT's only value was the outside content they linked: until Dave and later Paul left, they were the best url for finding comprehensive Linux news. A real eye-opening piece about "Journalism" and Internet.com. (Note: LT and Internet.com are sorta competitors, although I never really cared much. My opinions are probably skewed somehow because of that ;))
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

LinuxToday Astroturfing Explained More

LinuxToday Astroturfing Explained

Comments Filter:
  • This is an on-line discussion board. Practically everyone, from "CmdrTaco" to "Hemos" is using a pseudonym. So what. And so what if they have multiple pseudonyms so they can get in debates with themselves. The words and the ideas are the most important thing. The name is not important at all.

    • The difference between CmdrTaco and an astroturfer is that CmdrTaco doesn't misrepresent himself (when posting as CmdrTaco). It's not his real name, but it is consistent, and it forms the basis of a real online identity.

      • If it's consistency you're after, then why is this a problem? It sounds like everything that came out under a particular name was consistent. The stuff under the editorial names said one thing and the stuff under the various pseudonyms said something else. It's not like he was using the same name to celebrate MS one day and trash it the next.
        What you're really asking for is accountability. You want everything a person does to be listed under the same name. I say this only adds to confusion and prevents people from trying on other ideas on for size.
        Let's say I want to argue MS's point, perhaps as devil's advocate. If I'm posting under this name I need to go through all of this rhetorical BS. I need to say, "I know in the past I said this, but..." It's tiresome.
        I think we should all have multiple personalities on-line. It hurts no one.
        • It's revealing your biases. If I work for a company and report about that company, it's only fair that my readers know that I might be biased by that.
          • This is a fair point, but I think it is ultimately unmanageable. Many people own MS stock but don't work there any more. Should they disclose this in each and every posting they make? What about people who own a mutual fund that invests in MS? The list goes on and on. What about people who just have MSCE standing? If MS tanks, so does their skill set. That's a significant amount of money. Should they disclose that too? What if their spouse works for a company? What if they just want to wrange a date from someone who works there? The list goes on and on and on.
            I think it's better for people to read what they see with a critical eye. Even the best news sources like the New York Times have unintentional biases. If you ask a NYT reporter, they might not think that they're coverage of the last Presidential race was biased. But if you ask the Republicans, well, you'll get a different opinion.
            There's nothing wrong with biases. Everyone has them. Just because someone doesn't work for a company doesn't mean that they don't have blind love for everything the company does. Just ask any Macintosh user.
            • Actually that is the trend in financial journalism these days. People are mentioning any minor bias they have... Owning the publication is a pretty major bias.

              Suppose there was a big rally in Washington to - say - ease up on the tobacco industry. Would there be any difference in your reaction to it, if it turned out a few months later that all of the people there were employees of Phillip Morris?
              • Actually, no. I'm a non-smoker and big opponent to second hand smoke, but I'm a big fan of the smoking community. Once the forces of good get done with the tobacco companies, they're coming after my vices: fat delivery devices like hamburgers, brain cell killing pablum like "Beverly Hills 90210", and time wasting endeavors like chatting on Slashdot.

                But let's assume that you've found some example that should send horror through my veins. Should I care? Nah. Protesting is about expressing your self-interest. If a million moms go down to DC to protest something, it's bound to be something that is hard to change. All of the easy fixes are finished.

                I think it's good when journalists disclose relationships. But I don't think message boards are journalism--they're a mixture of opinions and debate. So if the editor wants to post under a different pseudonym, more power to him.

                I wonder if CmdrTaco posts under a different name from time to time. That would be kind of cool and probably necessary. If he posted under his own name, people might think it was something close to the official opinion of Slashdot. Another name just makes sense if he wants to mouth off.
                • The smoking example wasn't supposed to be terrfying... just was the first thing I could think of where a corportation would want to hide their agenda and create a fake grassroots campaign.

                  And if CmdrTaco were posting under another nick to mock discussion sites, I think it would be an issue.

  • It is not that uncommon (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Papa Legba ( 192550 ) on Monday August 06, 2001 @10:34AM (#2109977)
    Unfortunatly the person who told the author that this happens all the time was extremly correct, and just not on internet sources.

    A story to illistrate from what I know. When I worked for a local paper they used to run what was called a "readers choice" award. The idea being that people would vote on what places around town they liked the best. categories included best place to eat, best pizza etc. I had a friend who worked for a regional pizza chain. He told me that he had been directed by the boss, along with several other employees to fill out these forms to be sent in. I , of course, reported what I had heard to the editor of that section of the paper and she said that she would look into it.

    When I spoke to her a week later she told me that yes that she had found massive evidence of ballet fraud. Random samplings of ballets with this store on them had turned up the people who had their name on the ballot had not filled them out. She said that she had personally seen over 100 ballots filled out with the same pen and handwriting. I felt vidicated. Then the awards were anounced. The number one spot was that pizza chain! I spoke to the editor and asked how this could be, she told me that it was a marketting decision from above. Basically they bought so much ad revenue they were given that spot.

    This just illistrates the porblems that any news repoting agency faces. If you moderate you are going to slant the moderation to the bias of the viewer, what I consider a troll you may consider a witty comment. The first time you remove a post for any reason the news starts to slant, even if the post was trash pure and simple. It is a slippery slope that once started down cannot be stopped.

    The same goes for advertising, you may think that they are the worst people in the world but you have to generate ad revenue and therefore accept their ads. Some ad revenue is turned away but once accepted it does flavor the news that it supports.. A final fact about this from my expereinces at the local paper. We where told that out of our 100 million dollar revenue from the previous year 11 million had come from news paper sales, the rest had come from advertising. In the four story building I worked in one third of one floor was for the news department, the rest of the building was for the advertising departments. Journalism has alwasy been subjugated to market forces. It's almost a good sign that online journalism has started to feel these effects themselves. It is a sign that online news is growing up.

    • Ballet fraud? What, people who are not really dancers dressing up and prancing about?

      Sounds terrible...

    • Indeed, market forces are real, and it's not a bad thing that web sites are not immune to this. "Immune to market forces" usually means "communism", "fascism", or any of a nyumber of other "-isms".

      But that is not to say that dishonesty is warranted. If you are a commercial organisation, admit it. If you do "advertorials", then call them advertorials. At least most journalists try to be honest, and pointing out where they are not is a good thing, I think. Michael

    • Journalism has alwasy been subjugated to market forces. It's almost a good sign that online journalism has started to feel these effects themselves. It is a sign that online news is growing up.

      No one who actually believes in telling the truth would stand for shit like this. It's extremely sad that someone would think that this shows "growing up". I see it as the indicator that the Internet is becoming just as fucked up as "meatspace". And I was hoping it was above that, that the Net could make things better. Oh well...

    • When I spoke to her a week later she told me that yes that she had found massive evidence of ballet fraud.

      ballet fraud? yeah, i never thought much of barishnikov's abilities either...

      -john

  • Where's the harsh Criticism? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Win-Developer ( 316016 ) on Monday August 06, 2001 @10:15AM (#2110116)
    Although this still is /. , I find it odd that there isn't more harsh criticism for this apparent black eye for Linux journalism.

    If this was say "Windows Today" magazine, we'd have a 1,000 post article of how magazine's based on closed-source stuff is evil. Rah! Rah! Linux journalism isn't like this, we don't have to be...we're superior! Yet no one seems to care about this and is willing to sweep it under the proverbial rug.

    People flaunt their ethics("I would never use a M$ OS or work for a company that does) and morals(I refuse to write anything but open-source code), but I wonder, what was wrong with this guy that he just didn't leave. Doing something unethical as this should qualify as a comprimization of ethics. If things were as bad as he said they were, then to me it's time to cash out my options and jump ship.
    • but I wonder, what was wrong with this guy that he just didn't leave.

      Well, he tried a couple times to fix the problem, because he wanted to see it set right. I got the impression he had alot of "love" invested in the site, and would rather see it set straight than just walk out. But he was already looking for another job when they fired him.

      It's tough to just get up and leave one day - everyone has bills and this guy had a family. I think he handled it well, and I know it took a lot of courage to blow the whistle initially - and then a second time.

      So if you want to talk about morals, I think this guy has quite a bit.

      • Astroturfing bothered him
      • He tried to help set things right
      • He didn't forget about the welfare of his family and just walk out one day.
      So, Win-Developer, did you read the whole article? Are you trolling? Or do you just have some twisted little morality you'd like to share with us?
    • I would imagine no Linux House is nearly as monolithic as MS. If 'Windows Today' was being astroturfed by MS, it would implicate a much larger entity at work. LinuxToday's incident would simply register as a bump on the fabric of the Linux World. It's landscape has a few peaks spread over a wide area as opposed to MS whose terrain is shallow and dominated by a tall spire.

      E.K.

    • "then to me it's time to cash out my options and jump ship"

      And what purpose would that serve? As another sub-poster mentioned, this guy had a great deal of morals to attempt to fix the problem. It certainly wasn't on its way to solving itself if he had merely left it alone. Now it's out, at the least, among other things, and we're here discussing it no /., in addition to the fact that he made attempts to fix the problem himself. It's going to happen again, because there will always be people somewhere who can't stand to just let something lie alone for unbiased consumption. But the more we talk about it, maybe the more someone will do more the next time it happens, as I realize that talk is cheap and won't solve the problem on it's own. Then again, it's hard also to keep something completely unbiased, but there would have been more so if the editor hadn't posted as he did.

      anyway, enough rambling...
    • then to me it's time to cash out my options and jump ship.

      maybe not [marketwatch.com].

  • *sigh* (Score:2, Interesting)

    by LordNite ( 65590 )
    /. and LT have been two of my favorite sites since I started reading them in '97. I have never really put much stock in the talkbacks. They are sometimes fun to read, but more often they are just frustrating. It doesn't really surprise me that something like this would happen. I would expect more integrity from people like Reichard, though. I find this behavior to be extremely childish and sad. But I don't read the site for talkbacks.

    The things that really burn my buttons are his insitence that there is no Linux community and his stance on linking "external content".

    First, I give proof that there is a Linux community. My proof is the kernel source. Every one of the kernel developers runs some version of Linux. They are provably part of the Linux community by their use and development of Linux. Then there are the users and the distributon makers. Not so provable, but they obviously exist. If Reichard believes that there is no Linux Community, then he should just shutdown LT right now, since the site obviously caters to non-existant readers.

    Second, LT is a portal. It is all about external content. I understand wanting to keep people on their sites, but don't take it too far. They should worry about providing worthwhile news stories, not their distribution channel. If they provide quality news, they will boost readership. If there are more readers, there will be more talkbacks. Obviously, if there are more talkbacks there must be more people in the "channel". LT can not be incestuous and just link to content on sister sites and still expcet to be a vital news source and keep their readership. Reichard is being a dink with this attitude.

    I wonder at their silence. Do they just not care what their readers think? Do they think that we who read and support the site are just a bunch of mindless cattle to be shuffled here and there at their whim? That we will just take what they give us slurp it up and ask for more? Do they actually think that they are better than their readership? That they can throw integrity out the window and not have to own up to it?

    Do they not realize that it is the readers that make them who they are, and that by hurting their readers they are hurting themselves.

    It really saddens me that someone in our community would stoop as low as they have in mindless worship to the gods Page View and Almighty Buck.

    Is there anyone left in this failing democracy called the United States that isn't compltetly self-serving?

  • Journalistic integrity pays (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Animats ( 122034 ) on Monday August 06, 2001 @10:33AM (#2113988) Homepage
    There are only two journalistic sites on the web that charge a fee and make money - The Wall Street Journal [wsj.com] and Consumer Reports. [consumerreports.org] Both are generally considered to have high journalistic standards. Both avoid publishing press releases. Both make money. This should tell you something.
    • Hmm. This is the same WSJ which has editorials that are in direct conflict with news reported on page 1?

      I guess as far as journalism goes it is an example of ethics. But not as far as editorials go.

      Although the editor in chief recently retired, so perhaps things will improve.
      • Since when does an editorial count as a news story? Since when does someone's opinion count as something that must necessarily be impartial for a news company to be considered a bastion of journalistic integrity?

        Editorials are, quite simply, the opinions of someone at a given newspaper. They can do anything from tow the news corporation line to come in direct conflict with the stated goals of the paper. That's why every newspaper I've ever read includes a disclaimer stating that "...the opinions of [someone who wrote an editorial] are not the opinions of [news corporation]"

        Editorials were designed to provide a means for editors of papers to voice opinions that dissent from those of the paper and its advertisers. Advertisers pay papers, and threaten to pull advertising monies when the paper blasts them. If a rouge editor writes and editorial, however, it's not the paper's fault...

        Applying journalistic integrity rules to editorials is like trying to apply the rules of boxing to a street fight. They're completely different things, and should be taken as such.

        • An editorial *is* the position of the paper. An oped piece, or other opinion piece, is not. This is a simple matter of definititions. If it itsn't the paper's position, it is not an editorial . . .


          hawk

      • Seems like there could hardly be a better example of journalistic integrity then news and editorial columns on the opposite side of an issue - unless of course it's an article or editorial that trashes an advertiser. And then of course you have Consumer Reports, no advertising at all. Seems like it would be hard to beat that level of integrity. With the paucity of advertising revenue you would think there might be a market on the web for a "high standards" user supported ($$$) news site - maybe even for Linux.

        Slashdot subscriptions anyone?

        Just kidding about high standards though...

        • Of course, a couple years ago Consumers Union had a bit of a problem where their Director of Purchasing was found, and prosecuted for, taking kickbacks from vendors. This is exactly the sort of corporate governence and conflict of interest problem that "Consumer Reports" claims should be fully reported, and which CR blasts corporations for regularly.

          So - where did we read about this little embaressment? In the Wall Street Journal, of course. To this day not a single word has been published about it in CR.

          Integrity is a great concept - for the other guy.

          sPh
    • Both the Economist and Salon charge for "premium content" as well. In the case of the Economist, if one wishes to read archived content they must obtain a subscription. For Salon, certain articles are branded "premium content" and access to those are restricted to only those who sign up. Not being members of either (though I regularly read both) I can't say if it's worth the money. Just wanted to add to the list.

      --Maynard
  • anyone remember that weird cnet article about 6 months ago that spoke of massive corruption and media manipulation by Linux companies? I found it particularly amusing when the article charged that Mandrake was giving reviewers free copies of it's operating system... in fact, the article's only charge against linux companies was that they were giving reviewers free software... (the irony of this article being on CNet should not be lost on the reader...)

    Now this seems to flip it around a bit... but can anyone explain something to me... WHY?

    sorry... at this point, this makes as much sense to me as SONY's marketing team inventing a reviewer to rave about the last Rob Schneider movie does...
  • The most interesting part of the article for me was this:
    I did respond to Reichard after he demanded proof that the Linux community existed. Proof, that is, after saying more or less that he hated to be the one to say there was no Santa, but there was no Linux community. I ended up saying that if he chose not to believe in the community that was his prerogative. Either we were serving our readers or we weren't. As for me convincing him of the fact, I compared proving that the community existed to proving that God existed.

    That seems very curious. I don't believe in God, because there's no evidence of its existence. God is some far-off transcendental entity about whom no reliable information can be gathered. But a community here on earth is a different matter. It leaves traces, it walks around; it can be photographed. Why would demonstrating its existence be anything like proving the existence of God?

    I'm not sure how to take this, exactly. Is Paul Ferris just bad at documenting the evidence of his senses? Why would it be so hard for people professionally engaged with the "Linux community" to even muster evidence that the community exists? If there isn't something better than a religious assertion to fall back on, then it seems reasonable to say that it does not exist.

    One piece of evidence is the source code for the kernel. That seems to be the work of less than a thousand people, spread out all over the world. That would be a tiny community by anyone's standards, but it does seem to exist. If it's just a few people on a mailing list, though, it may stretch the term "community" to the breaking point. There's no question that people contribute software to Linux, but is there a community of any significant size? What's the evidence? I ask this in all sincerity.

    Tim

    • Responding to myself in an old thread, but I wanted to add a data point.

      Thinking this over, I realizes that no one would ask whether there was a Mac community because you can just go to MacWorld and see, touch, hear, smell and photograph it. So couldn't you do the same with the Linux community?

      (Well, maybe you wouldn't want to do the smell part, but you know what I mean.)

      So I asked a friendly O'Reilly representative how many people registered at their 2001 Open Source Convention. The answer, including attendees, speakers, press, exhibitors and expo only, was 1800. That's small compared to, say, attendees of MacWorld or the World Science Fiction Convention, but it's a respectable number. It also seems reasonable to conflate Linux and Open Source for this purpose.

      Given this, it does not require reference to St. Anselm or the Primum Mobile to verify that the Linux community exists. That someone would prefer a religious argument to an empirical one in this context is interesting, but further deponent sayeth not.

      Tim

  • I was once astroturfed by LinuxGram.

    http://www.slashdot.org/articles/01/05/01/1936218. shtml [slashdot.org]

    I was saying that LinuxGram sometimes posts a lot of Crap. Specifically an interview with Volker Wiegand by Maureen OGara where she took everything he said out of context and misquoted him in several places. I cant find the story on their site [linuxgram.com] right now. But here is a summary from fairfax it.
    http://it.mycareer.com.au/breaking/20010208/A20552 -2001Feb8.html [mycareer.com.au]

    Here is a link with Volker Wiegands responce where he says that Maureen OGara deliberately misquoted him. http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-02 -08-002-20-NW-SS [linuxtoday.com]

    When I posted the comment [slashdot.org] on Slashdot, two people created new Slashdot logins and replied. One was called SuSE_Rulez and the other was called ingenuity7. You can tell they were knew logins because they hadnt posted before [google.com] or since [google.com]. And Slashdot gives the UID numbers out consecutively and I checked to see what slashdot UID I would get on that day and it came right after theirs. Also look how ingenuity7 refers to LinuxGram as CSN which is its less well known parent company. To me he seems to know a lot more than normal people do about LinuxGram.

    Of course, when I was astroturfed by LinuxGram I was hardly surprised but this story about LinuxToday is disapointing. Other journalists have replied to my face if I disagreed with them and thats the way it should be done.

  • So the Time has Come (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jasonrfink ( 193522 ) on Monday August 06, 2001 @11:13AM (#2116854) Homepage

    For me to get out and add a bit to this story. I worked as a freelance writer for internet.com over a period of a few months. I stuck to simple administrivial details and the occasional story about programming. For the most part my articles were not that great but they were of technical nature.

    I worked for Kevin directly. I also submitted invoices to him directly as well.

    As time went on, communications between Kevin and I diminished slowly. I did not mind because that was during the summer of 2000 and a lot was happening. I wrote it off as he was busy.

    Finally, towards the end of last summer, I was beginning to get worried, I had submitted 2 rather large articles which they had in their possession but had done nothing with. It worried me since technically the material was mine until they decided to print it and (for some reason) I feared they were never going to do anything with it.

    As time went on, I tried to make contact again and again (a few times I used some choice words I probably should not have). Finally I contacted Kevin's boss about the issue after waiting almost 2 months.

    I was fired the next day. Interestingly, I was only ever harsh with Kevin, so I sort of did not understand why I was fired since I had been pretty professional in the email to his boss. Needless to say my confidence dropped thru the floor and I sort of walked away from the whole issue - citing myself as being a luser.

    It was shortly after that I was offered work in books with a well respected publisher (whom I still work for every now and again). I began to feel a little better about my writing, but was still confused as to why I had been let go from internet.com.

    Around that time I also noticed that the internet.com kludge was getting worse, external sites were not being linked to, forums were obviously being heavily edited/censored - basically it was going down the crapper. Also many internet.com stories were changing from technical to more inflamatory (go figure).

    In the end, a little bird told me my firing had been arranged. I no longer fit the content model of internet.com. Most likely my contract would have been discontinued anyway whether I had lobbed a few balls at internet.com or not.

    I had asked Kevin not too speak of what happened, I also asked if he would be a reference for me, which he never responded to. I wanted not to have it come up again because my charachter/credibility could possibly come under fire. In retrospect after working on several books and writing for other sites I think it is quite possible that I was not the one with the credibility/professionalism issues.

    I still do not speak to Kevin and frankly I do not ever want to see/hear anything about him again unless it concerns his resignation from internet.com and perhaps the field in general.

    I would like to say there are still many good editors and writers at internet.com, I do not know how deep seeded this problem is within their management, but I suspect it starts and ends with Kevin.

    Thought folks might like that little addition.

    ---

    • Kevin is the thing you fear most: an educated black man!
  • Has anyone seen upnp.org ?
  • After some prodding, I received a message back that was something like "This is common practice in the industry." I'm still ashamed that I didn't ask the obvious question: "By whom?".

    Microsoft has admitted to doing this a few years ago.

    • Sorry, forgot to include the link

      Eric S. Raymond: Remember Astroturfing? Now, Microsoft wraps itself in the flag [linuxtoday.com]

      Funny thing is, that article is on Linux Today...

      • Re:This DOES happen in the industry (Score:1, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Did you really forget or is a subtle karma boost the reason???
      • Actually, your posted article is just a commentary which mentions the actual events in passing. Here's two better links:

        First, a Seattle Times story [nwsource.com] from 1998 about how Microsoft tried to fake a grass roots campaign to lobby against the DOJ action.

        (Ahhh... blatant media manipulation. Kinda makes you feel warm and fuzzy now that Microsoft is invested in news agencies like MSNBC and working on partnerships with Rupert Murdoch and Fox.)

        Second, an AP story [salon.com] from last year about how former Christian Coalition head Ralph Reed was lobbying citizens to write to Bush on behalf of Microsoft. Not a media effort, per se, but it does show a pattern of drumming up fake support and not changing its company policies.

        • This is really quite common in the world. It's called 'lobbying'.

          Various special interests send out form letters with stamped envelopes even that people are supposed to sign and send to their congresscritters, newspaper editors, etc.

          The Christian Coalition is certainly one of the heaviest users of this tactic, so it is not surprising that Ralph Reed is familiar with the tactic, but it's hardly contained to just right-wing groups.

          Another common one is when a media outlet runs a call in poll, or a web poll and special interests will send out announcements encouraging people to enter their opinion.

          It comes in all shapes and sizes.

          I'll bet if you looked into it, you'd find a lot of anti-MS letters written by employees of Netscape, AOL, Oracle, Sun, etc. You certainly see opinion articles written by their CEOs. Is this acceptable, or isn't it the same thing?

  • Internet.com (Score:5, Informative)

    by isa-kuruption ( 317695 ) <kuruption AT kuruption DOT net> on Monday August 06, 2001 @10:57AM (#2121025) Homepage
    I've worked with the people from Internet.com (I worked at the datacenter they used to host their servers). They are the most obnoxious and overall CRAPPY people you could ever meet. Not only do they think they are the God's of the Internet, they also feel that rules don't apply to them. (This symptom seemed to be company wide, from the pions up to the CTO/VP).

    I cannot count the number of times in which they would try to break the rules and claim they weren't informed of these rules. Nothing applied to them. They would walk into the monitoring room (which customers aren't allowed) and act like they lived there, picking up phones and making long distance calls. They were asked EVERYDAY to not do that and when we had site security escort them out, they called one of our VP's and threatened to not buy their $1 million worth of Sun boxes this month.

    It was completely ridiculous. They are not "upright business people." They are downright scum. This article only confirms my belief in their ethical practices as a business and as a news agency.
    • My experience with most datacenters is that they hire idiots and/or contractors in order to avoid paying reasonable salaries, and therefore the face presented to the customer is one of "duh...". While barging into the NOC and making long distance calls on someone else's phones (!) is obviously way out of line, there are procedures and processes at Exodus and Above.net which just plain don't work.

      FGC (now part of Exodus) required customers to sign a contract that stated no customer UPS units were allowed. Then FGC's "failover" UPS system did not fail over and customers in several of their datacenters had entire sites go down when there was a power outage. It is not unreasonable to be unhappy with the shitty service offered by most datacenters. In fact, it's something of a running joke.

      FWIW, the company I work at now has built our own goddamn datacenter and its uptime is far, far better than the nearest Exodus (Herndon). We've been pulling machines from Exodus for a while now, not because Exodus is particularly bad, but because if they go under or have to keep firing their best people, we won't have to notice ;-).

      Nonetheless, there's something to be said for civility, and apparently internet.com hasn't figured that out yet. (Even when dealing with FGC I always tried to be professional, as did everyone else I worked with... they ARE people.)
    • (This symptom seemed to be company wide, from the pions up to the CTO/VP).

      When that kind of attitude goes clear down to the subatomic level, that's pretty bad.

  • i have always.. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by xtermz ( 234073 ) on Monday August 06, 2001 @10:13AM (#2126426) Homepage Journal
    been suspicious of these so called 'message boards' on news web sites. Seems simple enough, post a news article that doesn't push the particular publishers 'agenda', and then influence public opinion by letting the 'common people' speak out about it.

    I also have to wonder about the validity of these emails and message board posts that show up on shows like CNN's 'talkback live' or 'news site'. Not trying to sound like a conspiracy nut, but we know the media massages news to their liking, how are we to know that they dont try to portray joe six-pack as being in favor or against said subject?
    this is why it sends shivers up my spine when people talk about 'your one source for news' etc etc...

    • What you didn't know (until now) is that everyone in the world is an alien except you. That's why we all act so... peculiar.
    • er... um... *cough*

      excluding Slashdot of course

      • Slashdot is different because it is both user moderated, and it is possible to go back and see the moderated posts.

        IMO the only places where Slashdot has real problems are where the user moderation isn't implemented. In the posting of articles for instance, or in the relatively rare cases where the slash authors get involved in moderating posts themselves.

        Anyway, I've hardly ever read the talkbacks on LinuxToday articles. Whenever I submitted a correction to some difference of opinion with an editorial, my submission was never posted. When I agreed it was. I figured out pretty quickly that the dice were loaded at LinuxToday, although they are still an excellent source of news headlines.

    • Sure it happens. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Christopher Thomas ( 11717 ) on Monday August 06, 2001 @11:18AM (#2147822)
      I also have to wonder about the validity of these emails and message board posts that show up on shows like CNN's 'talkback live' or 'news site'. Not trying to sound like a conspiracy nut, but we know the media massages news to their liking, how are we to know that they dont try to portray joe six-pack as being in favor or against said subject?

      This happens in dead-tree publications on a routine basis, so I'd be surprised *not* to see it in online publications that let the admins - as opposed to the users - choose which replies have prominence.

      [User-moderated boards have their own problems, as we all know.]

      In the publications around here (Toronto, Canada), papers will typically print "letters to the editor" that either a) continue an existing argument amongst readers, or b) provoke a flood of replies. Note that sanity and accuracy are not listed as requirements; they're an incidental side effect. Sometimes.

      The purpose of the letters section is the same as any other section of the newspaper (other than ads) - to get people reading and keep people reading. Not to be accurate for accuracy's own sake.

      Astroturfing and other message forgery is still illegal, but selective filtering is standard practice.

  • Not that great of a site anyhow (Score:3, Interesting)

    by vondo ( 303621 ) on Monday August 06, 2001 @10:30AM (#2128523)
    The thing I really dislike about Linux Today is that it takes two clicks to get to the story I want to read with the intermediate link being used for these talk-backs and (I presume) tracking purposes. They don't really add much in the way of new content and the talk-backs are so poorly organized and such low volume that they are essentially worthless.

    I much prefer Linux Weekly New's Daily Page [lwn.net] for finding out what's going on in the linux world and their weekly summaries for commentary.

    If I want to hear what people are saying about a story, Slashdot is much more useful.

    I still check LinuxToday every other day or so to see what stories fell through the cracks at LWN.

    • The two click system is to keep you on their site for a bit longer, so that their ads will get more face time. This is related to the concern on Reichard's part, mentioned in the article, about promoting material that would be hosted on their site rather than going elsewhere.

      Of course, I know I tend to go to a LinuxToday story, click through to the external resource, and then come back to LinuxToday for another link to another site.

      For me, LinuxToday's greatest value was always the sheer number of links they posted. If I was bored and looking for distraction, I could always hit LinuxToday and read a few interesting links and/or talkback discussions. They have noticeably reduced the number of stories they link to, recently, presumably due to their staff cutbacks.

      • Sometimes the talkbacks are OK, but I actually think they're less worthwhile since they're moderated. The one time I cared enough about something to post there, there was no immediate way to tell if my comment would be accepted, or when. As a result, I feel less a part of the LT community and am less motivated to post there, even if I have what would be a good point on a story there. I much prefer the /. system where your comment goes up immediately, and then if it's crap it's moderated into the floor immediately :)

        I'll still be keeping my LT slashbox, though, if for no other reason than they tend to post the Kernel Times and Kernel Cousin stories when they come out, and their slashbox is usually fairly up-to-date with some other stories as well.



  • The linux community was really exciting in the years past....New software, big advancments, corporate acceptance on the fringe, break neck development cycles, etc...etc.. Now it seems that everyone has dug foxholes, climbed in --- and now they are throwing grenades. I can't remember the last time I saw something that really made me go -- "Wow, this is neat...." -- now it is just talking about failed business plans, companies going bellly up, stock prices, amd backstabbing....Kindly like some mariages after the honeymoon period is over.
    • Linux thrived before corporations like internet.com and VALinux came along, and it will continue to thrive even if they all die. There's more happening in the Linux world than ever right now, what with embedded applications, supercomputers, etc.

      But if you're just a consumer waiting around for some company to convince you that something is neat, then you may be out of luck during the current corporate contraction. If you want excitement and new stuff, get involved for real - subscribe to some mailing lists related to packages you're interested in, contribute, and help build the next exciting thing. If you can't program, try testing, documenting, or compiling faqs.

  • "I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf."
    -Tug McGraw, asked whether he preferred grass or Astroturf
  • Hello,

    LinuxToday did have some value, outside of all of this. It's not terribly well known, but they did help to sponsor and keep me updating the "Wonderful World of Linux" summaries, even when my job and my financial situation made it increasingly hard to do so. Admittably, they were repayed in click-throughs, but they were always very supportive of my writing (and Paul's, too)

    Oh well. I don't know whether I should find someplace new to post to, or not...

    Joe

  • No response from LinuxToday? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by wass ( 72082 ) on Monday August 06, 2001 @10:15AM (#2136662)
    The thing that bothers me about this whole story is that as far as I've noticed, it was never mentioned on LinuxToday. (Someone please give a link if I've missed it).

    I was a big fan of LinuxToday for a few years now, because it was a smaller weblog with far less trolls than our beloved /. (even with their astroturfing) They do moderate the posts, though, which may help account for that. But it always struck me as strange that a bunch of blatantly anti-Linux seemingly blindly-in-love-with-MS posts would consistently make it through.

    Since Slashdot first reported on the astroturfing, and especially because I haven't noticed a response from LinuxToday admitting to this, I have lost a good deal of respect for them. It's a shame that Linuxtoday had to resort to posting flames in order to get more visitors to come to their site. It's the same tactic that's often attributed to eWeek and others. If they would at least publically admit on their site that they were astroturfing, then maybe I can respect them again...

    Other than these philosophical issues, it is a decent news site if you're interested in some of the noteworthy linux headlines.

    • Re:No response from LinuxToday? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Myddrin ( 54596 ) on Monday August 06, 2001 @10:36AM (#2114055) Homepage
      I'm a regular poster on LT.

      There is a petition going around. The idea is to try and put some pressure on the LT staff to put out some answers. To date it's had little effect. We've had a very hard time getting the normal outlets to take notice of us.

      Many of them feel that this story should die.

      Other think that it's not really a story, that it's not important.

      And still others seem to think that the community needs to be "protected."

      It's linked at the bottom of Paul's article, but I'll include it here too.

      LT Petition [varlinux.org]

      • I'll sign no petition. I'm voting with my feet. Bookmark deleted.
      • I was a regular reader of LT (20-30 times "refresh" a day).
        I just deleted my bookmark and I think that is what all people should do (YMMV). When there comes a reaction to that petition, I'll see what to do.
        But untill then, no more hits from me.

        Good by LT.
        • lwn.net/daily should be a good replacement. they carry fewer links, but very well chosen.
        • This will serve to determine who is really in charge - if anyone - of the so-called 'Linux Community'. Remember, you are the ones who are in charge of the information flow. It's been freed by your internet.

          Inasmuch as the GPL linux model is a refutation of standard corporate practices, isn't it fitting that you all take a stand against an obviously heinous one, that of astroturfing?

          By doing this you will send a message that - in the GPL/Gnu-Linux world, quality and integrity ARE synonymous with success, and traitors to that notion shall pay the penalty.

          The penalty is as old as human recorded history: transgressors of the code will be shunned by the community and ostracized for their misdeeds.

          One must believe that such lofty notions as free and responsible speech can prevail in the face of bottom-line control-freak adversaries; and one must have the courage to pick up the gauntlet when it is clear that the challenge has been put to them.

          Never mind that this will or will not be newsworthy; hell, if Sklyarov wasn't newsworthy, what could possibly rate on the evening news. Oh, that's right: Chandra Levy gets 10 minutes every night. Never mind if anyone notices but you, the Linux loyal, but have this event serve to bring you closer to the center of your philosophy and not factionalize you. There should not be a philosophical wedge, here. No sane proponent of the GPL, aware of the evils inherent in the current alternative, would ever believe that astroturfing has its place in a free and responsible society.

      • And on LT today: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by EdlinUser ( 50699 )
        All the posts are from mhall and there is a sharp dropoff in the number of talk backs. hhmmm? I just signed the petition and saw that most of the regular posters to LT were there. I remember when LT was acquired by internet.com and there was a lively discussion with a lot of posters expressing misgivings about internet.com. Sad to see that those feelings were justified.

    • Well put. What I've been wondering is whether this astroturfing constitutes fraud...

  • Nothing surprises me any more (Score:3, Interesting)

    by thebitninja ( 512627 ) on Monday August 06, 2001 @10:26AM (#2139606) Homepage
    What really bites is that the whole system just ignores things like this. One decent guy goes, whoa this is wrong, I'll tell the people in charge, I'm sure they'll do something about it. Haha life ain't like that. The guys in charge probably put him up for it. Do you have to take a ethical zombie test to make it into management these days? I've seen many people take genuine grievences up the corporate ladder, only to get thrown off and swept under the carpet. But one day, one day (and it looks like it's happening now for these guys) the genuine grievence comes back and bites the whole corporation on the a%*e. =)
  • Is how long these LT changes have been going on without anyone noticing or speaking up.

    Personally, I've noticed huge changes in LT editorial policies and implementation. It sucks how Linux news coverage has shrunk in quality and quantity over at LT these days. It's practically dead, subsisting on random flamebait and karma whoring from time to time. The manner of censorship of the talkback forums have also often quite bothered me.

    I have had friendly exchanges with the editors in the past, but that was about it unfortunately. I'm glad someone is finally shedding light on all this. Finally, we know what happened to Marty Pitts (I never got an answer about that from anyone over there). Thanks, Paul.

    -N.
    • Still going strong. The rest has always been flashy imitations gussied up in fluff and hype.
    • There's been a gradual decline, but it's hard to say exactly when or where it happened. At the same time, there's now so much news that it's hard to keep track of it all. And it's not all as important as it was a few years ago, so I don't feel the need to keep up with EVERYTHING in Linux any more. There's more I just don't care about on LT than there used to be. And there's stuff I'm interested in that doesn't get covered. (Slashdot has the same problem.) So what's a reader to do?

      Personally, I've added a few more sites to check in on regularly, and I've subscribed to a couple of mailing lists.

      Paul did write some informative and amusing articles (and rants!). I'm glad he's found a new "home." Wonder if LT can get over their attitude long enough to link to varlinux?
  • I can't say I've ever been particularly impressed with either Reichard or Joe Barr. Barr has been around a long time as a kook, he was a known antangonist in the OS/2 community.(I wouldn't be surprised to learn he owned an Amiga)

    But if you want to express outrage, the best thing to do is plain stop visiting Linuxtoday.com.

    Anything else will just increase the hits on their advertising. As they say any publicity is good publicity, even if it is negative.
  • IANAP (I am not a pshycologist), but based on this story, and another posted by a freelancer, it sounds like this Kevin guy has some clinical mental problems. The way he became less and less available, probably not showing up for work, slowly losing touch with employees, it sounds verymuch like a psychosis in development. He was losing touch with reality.

    The scary part though, is that when he was found out, he did not have a breakdown. Most people have a certain level of shame. When they do something really bad and are found out, they run away or break down to confess. They can also go into denial. But unless they're far gne, they'll not do the same thing again, either out of fear of being exposed again, or ot of genuine shame.

    Now this guy, every time he is exposed, he manages to get his whistleblowers fired. Only psychopaths can pull that sort of thing off. Only psychopaths have that kind of superiority, and no fear of being caught. That he had the pull to get these people fired probably only has fuelled the runaway ego of this Kevin guy.

    The article writer can count himself lucky that he is out of it. There's no telling what a guy like Kevin could do if pushed into a corner.

  • A few points on this story (Score:3, Informative)

    by dinotrac ( 18304 ) on Monday August 06, 2001 @02:33PM (#2163788) Journal
    This story has almost spawned a second story: The reactions of the Linux Press and the Linux Community and the ways in which they differ.

    Since Rob Knapp and I put up our petition asking LT to come clean, I've heard from members of the LT community and members of the Linux press.

    The journalistic responses I got were mostly disheartening. Most didn't want to "attack" a comrade in arms. Some said that nobody cares what goes on in talkbacks, anyway. One of the original naysayers, to his credit, did go back and check his own biases by asking what other people thought.

    What this journalist found is what many members of the LT community expressed to me: Sure, we take talkbacks with a grain of salt. However, when the forum posts a policy and says that it will be fair, we expect the forum itself to play by its own rules. The people who run a moderated forum have a fair amount of power with regard to the contents of that forum. It is wrong to exercise that power cynically.

    This is especially true of a site like LT, that built, and, I fear, is squandering, a valuable and positive reputation among its community members.

    I would like to end with a word about Michael Hall, the current LT editor.

    Michael is in a nearly impossible position. The Linux Today staff is mostly gone. So far as I can tell, the only free-lance writer still being published is Dennis Powell.

    Michael is doing yeoman's work trying to keep LT useful to its community. That's a tall order for one person. I ask people not to take their frustrations with LT out on Michael personally.

    As always, I speak for no one but myself.

    Dean Pannell
    (a.k.a. dinotrac)

  • One small suggestion (Score:2, Informative)

    by dinotrac ( 18304 )
    In addition to signing the petition, if you haven't already done so -- send an e-mail to LTpetition@netscape.net --

    You can also send a note to the editors at editors@linuxtoday.com explaining why this behavior is intolerable.

    Thanks,

    Dean Pannell
    (a.k.a. dinotrac)

Slashdot Top Deals

"Confound these ancestors.... They've stolen our best ideas!" - Ben Jonson

Close