So, what does Muck Rack do to verify journos who don't have Twitter?

 I have a Muck Rack account. And, the Twitter account currently associated it was permabanned, i.e. "suspended," back in the Ice Balls Jack Dorsey days.

Well, what was my primary Twitter account until a month ago was originally locked until I delete six tweets in the Elmo Musk vs Ken Klippenstein world.

Ain't doing that, and two tertiary accounts of mine may just whither on the vine, since TweetDeck is no longer free.

Elmo's minions eventually unlocked my Twitter again, but the idea still stands?

So, that's more than just rhetorical. And, doesn't it show how behind the times Muck Rack is?

Some sensible Section 230 reforms vs a 'disruptor' troll (and other noobs on Twitter)

Reforming Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act has given companies on the Internet and content providers both a variety of very solid protections against content lawsuits.

But, in recent years, on both left and right, there's been fears that social media behemoths have been stretching these protections too far.

At Nieman Lab, two co-authors have an excellent piece on both WHY Section 230 needs some reforms and WHAT they should be.

The troll? This guy on Twitter. I'm not a Twitter expert to know if he has some way of hiding his post-2014 tweets or if he actually does only replies. The fact that he lists ZERO followers means that he's a pontificator type, IMO.

As for his trollery? It's the claim that social media are "disruptors." As in one of those Silicon Valley/New Media BSers.

He claimed that FB/Twitter were just distributors. He repeatedly refused to engage with the idea that between making editorial decisions (that's essentially what they are), whether between the use of algorithms on who gets to see what AND on the human tweakings of said algorithms, or the use of human content moderation panels, etc, especially when combined with monetarization decisions off this, MIGHT not just move them beyond distributors.

At one point, he cited an old federal civil case about bookstores. I said it was a crappy analogy, because the case didn't involve a bookstore either adding pages to, or deleting pages from, the books that had been sold to it, then still selling them. (I didn't think to add, re the algorithm issue, that the bookstore case also didn't involve a bookstore placing limits on certain parts of the store and who could visit.) 

(Update: A Twitter account called "Section 230," whose best part about it is using a sign for NM Highway 230 as its icon, and which admits to "lots of canned responses," has refused to engage with my bookstore analogy, instead citing a variant of the troll's analogy. I eventually told him "where to go" and muted the conversation. Said account has also refused to engage with the monetization issue and whether that doesn't make them "publishers.")

He also repeatedly claimed that the authors of the Nieman Lab piece, a journalism prof and an adjunct law prof, didn't know what they were talking about. (Update: Multiple people on Twitter have made similar claims.)

I told him that I thought he was not only engaging in handwaving with his disruptor claims, but was engaging in "Section 230 originalism" that I found no more compelling than constitutional law originalism. As for analogies? I said that social media didn't exist in 1996. And, full-blown versions of algorithms and content moderation panels took years to develop after FB and Twitter launches.

I finally went Godwin's Law on him and told him Hitler was also a disruptor then muted the conversation.

As for the original claims? The HOW is probably not the final word. But the THAT, in some sense of building on FOSTA/SESTA ideas in 2018, is solid. The one argument against the authors might be the same that EFF raised against FOSTA/SESTA, that "Fair Housing Council" ruling meant that websites willingly abetting sex trafficking were already outside of Section 230.

Per the authors, though, the monetization factor of the issues they raise with social media could be seen as playing out the same — they're no longer Good Samaritans. However, what they're getting at is "triggers" for when they're outside that zone. Re FOSTA/SESTA, at least some groups in original opposition dropped their opposition after a number of its terms were better defined.

==

UPDATES, April 2, 2026

First, content issues are entirely separate from age and age verification issues. Anybody who raises that as a cost issue for smaller social media is going down the red herring route.

Second, social media, or a certain type of social media in particular, and one company above all, ARE held responsible for content in a certain way. Specifically, I'm talking about copyright, and the issue of music video, and of course, the top company being YouTube. If we can have YouTube held liable for copyright violations if they don't accept takedown notices, there's no reason we can't call social media the digital equivalent of publishers on liability for libel.

Facebook group pretending to be newspaper: Been there, done that

 I remember a Facebook group in Marlin running rumor as fact, but NOTHING like what is reportedly happening in Beaver Falls and Beaver Township, Pennsylvania.

I had a pair of regular weekly papers in a county of less than 25,000 that did a reasonable job of actual news reporting. It's a shame that the paper there, in a county of 170K, was sold to Craphouse.

The rest of the story is totally unsurprising, even though the paper says it's hiring two new staff.

When in Marlin and Falls County, I probably ran three or four op-ed columns that shot down the worst of the rumors. Problem is that, there's sometimes solid info on such a site. The real problem is that when the actual newspaper reports a story and a fair chunk of the populace doesn't want to accept it, and then spins new rumors. Like police in Chippewa Township, I've been accused of being part of a conspiracy.

That then said, we had plenty of bad cops in Marlin. But, the conspiracy thinking on the Facebook group wasn't just about policing matters.

Gnu Media, political writing, 1st Amendment and Monty Python

Trust me. As usual, mainly where I blog elsewhere, everything in that header will come together.

"Strange women lying in ponds distributing social media accounts is no way to establish a media company. Just because some watery tart in a lake handed you a YouTube channel, that doesn't make you a publishing or media company." —
Monty Python, The Holy Grail and the Gnu Media (2019)



True, the free speech clause says you can call yourself whatever you want. Per Monty, you could call yourself the "Arthur, King of the Britons Publishing House." And, the freedom the press clause, also following the "no law," means that the government cannot define what a media or publishing company is or is not.

In other words, especially on judges ruling whether a blogger or whomever is a media company? Even there, there has to be a certain amount of actions. That said, judges can't rule on whether the falsity of reporting, rather than its truth, disqualifies someone from being a media company.

But, the general public, including yours truly, can proffer exactly such definitions.

Critical reporting (at least on occasion), not using leading questions to fuel conspiracy theories, and other things, can be used as reasonable "tags."

So, if you're a winger (and on some issues, per "horseshoe theory," it doesn't matter WHICH wing, you're just a winger) thrusting a mike in front of minor party political candidates, or interviewing each other?

You're not a media company.

Update, Nov. 18: Maybe some of this is related to journalists (fairly small sample size, but all digital or digital first) being less morally developed than 13 years ago?

Social media, or social overkill?

My newspaper company (privately owned, one just-acquired small daily, and a couple of dozen or so nondailies) recently held a day-and-a-half seminar on social media and related website issues.

Other than the question of why it was more than one day in length, with lodging costs for staff from papers not close to the headquarters, as well as just the time length, I did learn some things about some of the "newer" social media, like Pinterest and Instagram. However, it was probably a fair amount of "bleah," and, it was bloated. Beyond larger issues, I know other reasons the timespan was bloated and don't need to comment more.

Here's, tentatively, the rest of my observations.

First, it’s “interesting” at least, but ironic at most, that a seminar about social media in particular and best Internet practices in general, is loaded with dead trees handouts.

Second, it’s also “interesting” that, as part of the seminar is about how all of us are getting busier, a lot of the presentation was about all of us doing “more” for our papers on social media. Related to that was the irony that other people are “ingesting” more and more social media how? By either becoming more addicted, or compulsive, about use, or else by “goofing off” on the job more even as “content provider” employees are expected to spend more time not goofing off and feeding that beast.

Third, as papers continue to age in readers, it’s “interesting” to have a presenter talk about some social media having users who are so young that “they’re not yet readers” of our newspapers or papers in general.

Fourth, the ways of getting around the worst of the social media world, or the worst of the commercialized online world, were not discussed. AdBlock Plus wasn’t discussed. A search-history free, and Google-free in general, search engine like Ixquick or DuckDuck Go, wasn’t discussed. Ghostery to block tracking cookies wasn’t discussed.

Fifth, the presenter noted that Instagram, Vine and Snapchat don’t support links. So, that makes them worse. However, doesn’t that challenge the blogging-era prime’s claim that “it’s all about the links”? Is this true or not? Should it be true or not?

Sixth, it seems that a small to medium-small media company with small-sized individual outlets should recognize that economies of scale would involve headquarters expanding its IT/web staff, for less commonly used social media, like Pinterest, setting up newspaper accounts and adding to them from stories on each paper’s website.

Seventh, none of the discussion covered the narcissism angle of some social media, especially ones that “trend” younger in user demographics. I mean, we all have some degree of selfishness, but selfishness is not the same as narcissism.

Eighth, is blogging social media or not?

Above and beyond all of this, is there a "narcissism bubble" in the world of social media that will burst someday? After all, a medium is a mode of interaction. Traditional media's interaction was weighted fairly in one direction, as in "Here's what we've decided you'll see/read/hear." Things like selfies/geeky videos seem to have the same mentality, even if coming from individuals, not companies.

This narcissism bubble has nothing to do with newspapers  in particular or media in general, of course. However, it does relate to their current and future decisions as to what to do with the world of social media.

A day and a half to discuss social media? Uh, sure

Picture a small newspaper company. About 2 dozen papers. All non-daily community papers.

Having a day and a half seminar on social media use and "tactics." Yes.

Uh, yes.

Right. That's what I thought, too.

I'll remember to bring my laptop, so I can pretend to take notes. Maybe there will be some free or non-secure wireless I can pick up.

Beyond the day and a half being overkill on time, it's a waste of money.

At a group of small community papers worried about money wasting money, monitoring individual newspapers' spending, and now blowing spending on overnight lodging, too, or else a second day of travel costs for closer newspapers. And, it's the brainchild of a higher-up person, who expressed surprise two months ago at Facebook's increased "choke" on corporate page posts' reach.

Here's my partial starter list of the seminar:

1 p.m. Thursday -- get to know other participants purely by looking for their personal Facebook pages. (Since almost all my info is hidden to anyone but friends, that will make it harder for them.)

1:45 p.m. Thursday -- send friend requests. (I send none, refuse to accept those sent to me.)

2 p.m. Thursday -- "share" about our experiences. (I keep my mouth shut.)

New media fluffers profit from dissing old media?

Just wow .... Columbia Journalism Review takes Clay Shirky, Jay Rosen, Jeff Jarvis, et al, to the cleaners. And, the article is very good overall, not just in the claim that these and other new media fluffer leaders, through consulting fees, teaching at public universities, etc., profit, and perhaps hypocritically, by being old media dissers.

And, it's one thing to disagree on what the future of media should be. It's another to profit off of saying what the media SHOULD be, while pretending to be disinterested. And, it's yet another to ignore "concentration" in social media, ethics issues at some social media, and other factors.


Item No. 2 in the paragraph above is why I largely not just mistrust but actually dislike new media fluffers, at least the new media fluffing part of their personalities. Hey, I'm not denying the right to make a buck. BUT, be honest that your new media fluffing is anything but disinterested.


Anway, let's take a look at CJR.


I'm going to run a string of a few quotes, then start commenting;

The establishment is gloomy and old; the (Future Of Newspapers) consensus is hopeful and young (or purports to represent youth). The establishment has no plan. The FON consensus says no plan is the plan. The establishment drones on about rules and standards; the FON thinkers talk about freedom and informality. FON says “cheap” and “free”; the establishment asks for your credit card number. FON talks about “networks,” “communities,” and “love”; the establishment mutters about “institutions,” like The New York Times or mental hospitals....

The problem is that journalism’s true value-creating work, the keystone of American journalism, the principle around which it is organized, is public-interest reporting; the kind that is usually expensive, risky, stressful, and time-consuming. ...


Not only does the FON consensus have little to say about public-service journalism, it is in many ways antithetical to it. For one thing, its anti-institutionalism would disempower journalism. Jarvis and Shirky in particular have reveled in the role of intellectual undertakers/grief counselors to the newspaper industry, which, for all its many failings, has traditionally carried the public-service load.

So far, I'm in total agreement. The FON crowd largely ignores costs and overheads, as do many of their fellow travelers. And, by over-touting social media, etc., can trivialize news. (See below.)

And, is there a solution? Solutions?

Many of Shirky’s prescriptions for the economics of journalism are commonsensical and even wise. A point I find inarguable is that while some news models have been found to work in some contexts-—The Wall Street Journal’s pay wall, ProPublica’s fund-raising model (basically, one big donor), Talking Points Memo’s online ad-based system—nothing to date is scalable. There is no news business “model” at all. And who can argue with his call for constant experimentation?

I would tend to agree. And, that's why I'm not always as hard on this aspect of Shirky's thought as on Rosen's or Jarvis'.


Meanwhile, is the FON crowd counter-cultural? The story suggests so:

If some aspects of peer-production theory and its FON offshoot sound familiar—anti-institutionalism; communitarianism laced with libertarianism; a millennial, Age-of-Aquarius vibe; a certain militancy—some scholars have traced its roots to 1960s counterculture.

I'd say look to today, instead; Shirky, et al, sound like the utopian wing of Occupy Wall Street.

Meanwhile, CJR gets to "throwing under the bus" time, saying Jarvis, as example, and most the FON crowd are ... hypocritical leeches:

Like other FON thinkers, he lives the contradiction of extolling peer production and volunteerism from the security of an institution. It is doubly jarring in Jarvis’s case; an opponent of publicly funded journalism, his journalistic entrepreneurialism is, in fact, publicly subsidized. The “C” in CUNY stands for “City.”

CJR then raises a related issue: the claim that news is a commodity. Of course, the FON crowd starts with one half of Steward Brand's famous quote:

Information wants to be free. Information also wants to be expensive. Information wants to be free because it has become so cheap to distribute, copy, and recombine - too cheap to meter. It wants to be expensive because it can be immeasurably valuable to the recipient. That tension will not go away. It leads to endless wrenching debate about price, copyright, 'intellectual property', the moral rightness of casual distribution, because each round of new devices makes the tension worse, not better.

And, of course, the FON crowd is coming down emphatically, and simplistically, IMO, on the "free" side. That's why they fight paywalls, diss micropayments and other things.  But, as the CJR story notes, paywalls are working, and getting adopted by more and more dailies.

Meanwhile, here's more of that intellectual dishonesty:

I would note that there’s a point at which predicting institutional decline blurs into rooting for it, and then morphs into hastening it along, as the anti-pay wall debate shows. ... “We need the new news environment to be chaotic” to facilitate experimentation, Shirky writes. In fact, though, only consultants “need” the news environment to be chaotic.

CJN's Starkman goes on to say he expects some "media establishment" to remain in place for quite some time.

I’m going to make a bold leap and predict—eenie meenie chili beanie—that for a long time the Future of News is going to look unnervingly like the Present of News: hobbled news organizations, limping along, supplemented by swarms of new media outlets doing their best. It’s not sexy, but that’s journalism for you. 

And, here's why he's at least halfway comfortable with that statement:

It pays to remember that the most triumphalist FON works were written in 2008 and 2009, during journalism’s time of maximum panic. But now, panic time is over.

It is ... and as he says, "muddling" time continues. And, that is no thanks to the FON crowd:

The cruel truth of the emerging networked news environment is that reporters are as disempowered as they have ever been, writing more often, under more pressure, with less autonomy, about more trivial things than under the previous monopolistic regime. Indeed, if one were looking for ways to undermine reporters in their work, FON ideas would be a good place to start.

Indeed, especially about the trivialization. Working at a newspaper that thinks Facebook and Twitter posting will magically fix things seems to illustrate that. When everything is news, nothing is.

Finally, Starkman says that what he calls "Neo-institutional journalism" can be rebuilt, but that it will take work.

Shirky responds, but, IMO, as a kinder, gentler Jarvis more than anything else.

Beyond that, the new media fluffers fail to address how social media, Internet 2.0, etc. threaten us all, not just journalists, with being crushed beneath the wheel, whether like in Hesse's novel of that name or some other way.

#Facebook ain't salvation for newspapers

Unfortunately, from blindly buying into Facebook-based commenting systems rather than internally controlling commenting as part of a paywall, to thinking that "socializing" every editorial employee if not every employee of the newspaper with a corporate-backwalled Facebook account, it seems like too many newspapers are still looking for and buying into easy fixes.


The reality, though, is different.


First of all, some newspapers continue the same stupidity that got them into trouble in the first place.


For instance, if you, like many nondaily and smaller daily newspapers, have finally gotten your website paywelled, but undercut it by posting updates about breaking news stories on a regular basis to your free Facebook site, don't be surprised if a lot of people don't sign up for online newspaper subscriptions. Why should they? I wouldn't. Twitter's not quite so bad, if you keep your updates generic and link to a continually-developing version of the story on your website, behind your paywall.


The same holds true for blogging, to some degree. If you're a smaller daily, and your website isn't set up to do an internal, paywalled blog, don't set up a linked, free Blogger or Wordpress blog.


Second, if you don't have a paywalled website, Facebook isn't offering you its comment moderation services on your website out of the goodness of its heart. Rather, it's looking to:
1. Increase its demographic information about its members by seeing what they're reading, and targeting ads that way;
2. Increase its information about what ads on your website may interest them, and targeting its ads that way.


Third, Facebook appeals as much to the casual glancer as the in-depth reader. It may send a few more eyeballs to your website, but, whether that website has any sort of paywall or not, they're not likely to be very "sticky" eyeballs.