Boing Boing / Violet Blue notes
Regarding speculations about what Violet Blue did to be, well, dewonderfuled, note she was still considered properly Boingy as late as 2007-07-27, in a now "unpublished" post about "Short link amuse bouches for Friday". Her offense must have been after that date.
The only thing that seems to fit the timeline is the trademark case she brought against a porn star using the name "Violet Blue", which was filed in October 2007. But there still seems to be something missing, given the very intense personal feelings on display. I don't put much stock in the lovers-spat theory _per se_, that's just attention-seeking by tabloid blogs.
Again, I am so disappointed. For all the argument-Olympics of hairsplitting over rights, it all comes down to power, to might-makes-right. Boing Boing is not notable for extending charity and understanding to those they accuse of having committed ethical transgressions against openness and transparency. Being A-list means being able to set the terms of discussion (to a good approximation). Nothing more for me to say here, it wouldn't do any good.
And it makes me very, very, wary of Boing Boing as any sort of attention-source supporting anything I do. Yet another sad argument (if any were needed) for the ultimate wisdom of giving up.
My previous blog post was in the top ten Google results for searches on [Violet Blue Boing Boing]. It got around 210 hits from Google on 7/1 and 40 hits on 7/2. Whoopee.
By Seth Finkelstein | posted in bogosphere | on July 02, 2008 11:59 PM (Infothought permalink)
Which of the following two actions is the more reprehensible and should be subject to the greater opprobrium, and which, if any, should risk 5 year jail terms and a king's ransom in fines?
a) Exhibit a considerable lack of integrity by deletion of a commenter's previously acceptable posts without good cause.
b) Infringe the commercial privilege of a publisher's reproduction monopoly by promiscuously sharing a published CD in one's private possession without the copyright holder's authorisation.
Depending on your answer, either the law is an ass or you are. ;-)
I'd bet it's for $$$ reasons - either they've been advised to de-link her (perhaps some SEO suggested it to increase their page rank or avoid a drop by Google for some searches) or they are trying to get big name/big payout advertisers onboard who objected to that kind of content and made they remove it before paying.
Now that I think about it, for the past six months there's been far less "adult" content/links on there?
"dewonderfuled" "boingy"
Hee hee, love it.
I think the BoingBoing writers have discovered that they're being held accountable, and it shocked the hell out of all of them. They had themselves God, but found themselves pigeons.
Crosibe: law and ethics aren't the same thing.
ck: No, that doesn't seem to be a factor. Everything indicates it's something "personal".
Shelley: There does seem to be an aspect of exactly that, though more at big fish in a small pond finding they were unused to dealing with anything other than plankton.