NPR ran a little story on this yesterday in which they reported that NPR has already sent a cease and desist letter to Cooks Source. I would be very surprised if other organizations (i.e., Disney) haven’t done the same. That crappy little non-apology isn’t going to get them very far.
It was an honest question about Facebook culture. I don’t think I really deserved that snark.
It was an idiotic question. You totally deserved the snark.
To further explain, I wouldn’t say it was particularly reflective of a Facebook culture. If anything, it’s a bit more chan–that kind of fill-in-the-blank joke (I call it template humor) is endemic on chan forums.
I’m not sure I could identify a Facebook culture, actually. There are too many of them for me to think of them as constituting a single culture.
Again, why? Although I threw out three options, I was mainly wondering if they might be gaming the search engines. It wasn’t something easily Googled, and I don’t do Facebook so I didn’t know if it was a specific cultural thing there. I am interested in Net Culture, memes, etc. even though I don’t get around as much as I used to. I don’t know why asking the question was so upsetting to folks.
I am starting to think she suffers from Chronic Lack of a Clue.
You seriously asked a question in the Pit about people posting a bunch of mocking shit to some company’s FB wall and you expected people not to snark at you even the tiniest bit for not realizing that it was, in fact, a bunch of mocking shit? Really? C’mon, Una, I know you’re much smarter than that.
My question was very specific - I knew it was frivolous behaviour but I wanted to know what the root cause was. Trolling, search engine loading, or just randomness. If you read my post you’d see I had clearly limited it. In any event, what was the purpose for re-opening a dead issue to attack me over this, or attacking a causal question in the first place? I’m having a shitty day of shit at work and at home and healthwise, and even though everything sucks ass…you know what, enough.
The apology starts with this. I think it’s amusing that they’re complaining about their content being used without their knowledge or consent, since that’s exactly what they’ve done, dozens of times.
FWIW, Una, I believe you know what humor is.
(I still chortle over some comment you made years ago about going into restaurants and demanding a pinot noir or you’ll start questioning the stability of that load-bearing beam in the ceiling or some such.)
Cooks Source is so dead. It is to laugh.
This is confusing. Are they actually complaining that people are linking to the ORIGINAL articles that Cooks Source STOLE in the first place?
Or what?
This (non) apology comes across as clueless about how a webpage works (the “apology” appears on the very website that they say was "cancelled), and clueless about how facebook works (hint - people posting on your wall are not “hacking”)
And what the hell does this mean:
Are they implying that the writers they have used in the past are not reputable? That would be the writers whose work they stole from NPR, Disney, etc. etc.? How about the pictures on their website and in their magazine which have been shown to come from other sources?
Sounds like they are trying to shift the blame, and doing a piss poor job of it. (much like the piss poor job they did of seeking permission to publish articles)
Aw come on, Euph. Delusional people can be fun! Just be sure and keep some distance between, eh.
I remember it now; thank you for the laugh. Better days.
I’m so making that schadenfreude pie for Krismas dinner!
As for the “apology,” it is fairly incoherent, but I think they mean to say that they’re only guilty of slight negligence (which is totally excusable because they’re a scrappy little local mag with a tiny staff, working their fingers to the bone [cue violins]), because writers X, Y, and Z, who said they were writing original articles for CS, actually stole the content and passed it off as their work, and CS accepted it on face value.
Of course the fact that CS’s editor talked about lifting things off the internet all the time, and opined that anything online is public domain, kind of detracts from that “horrors, we were innocent dupes!” defense.
The apooogy is esepcially braindead in the sense that most of the outrage had little to do with lifting the article I (ok, a lot of the outrage has to do with that), but is more directed at the response about the internets being public domain and how the original author should pay Griggs.
Una, I’m sorry you were having a shitty day. Maybe when you’re having a shitty day, you shouldn’t read threads in forums where people are going to make fun of you when you say something stupid. Because it was really, really stupid to ask what people are doing when they’re posting to someone’s FB page to say hyperbolically ridiculous things about how terrible they are after that organization did something stupid. Anyone who’s been anywhere on the internet should be familiar with this behavior.
Ask a silly question, get a silly answer. And, you’ll note, I *did *answer your question–I just *also *poked fun at you for not realizing it yourself.
No clue what you mean by “re-opening a dead issue”–I responded to four posts when I found the thread, including yours, and I did it in an active thread. Because, shockingly, I don’t jump into a thread having only glanced at the OP, which means I like to respond to other parts of the discussion that caught my eye.
If it makes you feel any better, apparently the general social consensus now is that anyone who isn’t on Friendface* is some sort of antisocial weirdo with no friends. It gets tiring trying to refute it, too.
*[del]shamelessly[/del] lovingly taken from The IT Crowd as a generic name for “The Social Networking Site Du Jour”
Looks like we’re seen strong evidence of that right here in this thread.
Meh. I’m not on any social media websites, either.
Maybe we can start up a No Social Media Websites social media website. You can join that thing only if you never join those things.
Sounds good to me. Never join a group that will have you.