Eye on Winer

One of Dave’s oft-used canards is that he’s an Independent, not a Democrat. He claims this whenever it’s convenient — basically when he thinks it makes him more credible on a particular issue. After all, a Democrat might skew or exaggerate, but he’s an independent, right?

Yeah, right. Nobody really buys it, except maybe Dave himself. He clamors for respectful debate, but that seems to only apply to people who aren’t Republicans, which should really tell you everything you need to know about his alleged independence, but today’s post about McCain’s potential Vice-presidential pick really does away with any pretense (emphasis supplied):

I hope he chooses Lieberman — I think he’d be the easiest to run against. I don’t see too many Republicans going for him, and no one wants a traitor a heartbeat from the Presidency . . .

A traitor to whom, exactly? A true independent welcomes the idea of politicians who make their decisions based on ideas and ideals rather than party affiliation. I think both Democrats and Republicans can agree that there’s not a huge gap, practically speaking, between McCain and Lieberman… so, really, who’s being betrayed?

Simple: partisan Democrats and nobody else. No wonder Dave feels the way he does.

WE’RE HAPPY, DAMNIT! Who’s he trying to convince, us or himself? Actually, because Dave projects his every emotion onto the world, all this really means is that he’s happy and at the DNC. There could be fist-fights in the street and he’d still be saying everyone is happy.

In other news, via anonymous tip, Dave claims, in the comments to this post to have donated $1,000 to Obama’s campaign but neither OpenSecrets nor the FEC has heard of him. The reporting minimum is $200 in aggregate (2 U.S.C. 434), so even though Dave claims to have made ten $100 donations, he should still be showing up on these lists.

That is, if he’s actually donated anything. It would be a silly thing to lie about, but what’s the reasonable explanation?

Dave Winer today:

I wrote the first howto for demoers at DEMO in 1991.

And unlike some people’s howtos, this one is still on the web.

Yeah, a lot of the ideas that people claim as theirs now were in this piece, written 17 years ago.

The massive ego was too much for commenter Barry Kelly, who responded:

Dave, *incredibly* few ideas are original. You *really* need to get over your paranoia and arrogance in this respect — it’s becoming really, really wearing; it seems that I can’t hear you on a podcast or read more than 5 posts from you without you claiming ownership on this or that idea.

It’s truly surprising: Dave wants more people to pay attention to him. He says he wants to see more “respect, listening, or teamwork.” Of course, we all know that what he really wants is more respect (for him), listening (to him), and by teamwork he means “help me do what I want to do.”

Much more interesting than that old news, though, is this little piece of douche-baggery:

Back when Scoble worked at UserLand, when I wanted to ship a product, I made everyone at the company listen to Al Pacino’s fantastic speech in Any Given Sunday.

Seriously? He ground the company to a halt to make them watch a movie clip every time he wanted to ship a product? What a self-absorbed little animal he is. Just ship your product and shut your mouth. Geez. Some people.

Dave’s about 25% right in his post today about our progress in Iraq. He writes:

There is no such thing as winning an occupation. You either continue to occupy or withdraw. It’s semantic nonsense to apply the verb “win” to the noun “occupation.”

Winning in war or sport is not vague or ill-defined. When the clock runs out in football the team that’s ahead wins. When two runners are in a race the first to cross the finish line wins. When you fight a war, when you take the other guys’ capital and disband their government and army, that’s winning.

The words are correct, but they don’t mean what he thinks they mean. Just because you can’t “win” an occupation doesn’t mean that there’s no difference between withdrawing now or withdrawing later. There are plenty of differences. All other things being equal, for example, you’d rather withdraw now than later. I’m sure Dave would agree with that.

The problem, though, is that all other things aren’t equal. You can even talk about what those things might be without having to debate time-tables. For example, when deciding whether to stay or go, you’d want to know whether the current government is viable. Will it sink or will it swim? Does it matter to us one way or another?

You might be careful to consider who is going to fill any power-vacuums that might arise when the most potent military in the world heads back home. Not just on the national scale, but in that region of the world as well as the various provinces and cities within that country.

When people talk about “winning” in Iraq, they’re being lazy with their English, but the sentiment is not as bizarre as the words are. There are places along the time-line at which withdrawal would be disastrous. The debate isn’t how soon we want to come home — this isn’t vacation — the debate is about when would be the optimal time to withdraw.

Dave seems to be implying, as many on the left are wont to do, that we should get out right now, no questions asked. It’s a debate for another time and place, but one there’s one thing that’s indisputable: that you can’t “win” an occupation does not mean that one time to leave is as good as any other.

Dave Winer killed a blog post last night related to his feud with Loren Feldman, creator of a Winer puppet that mocks the shit out of him:

Shel got a reprieve

Saturday, June 28, 2008 by Dave Winer.

Well, it worked.

They let Shel Israel off the hook. He gets his name back, the puppet is retired. The mock trial they were planning for the TechCrunch summer party, that I learned of this morning, is cancelled. I don’t know what Heather and Mike were thinking, or if they were even in the loop, but people need to be a lot more careful with each others’ reputations, if we ever want to get anywhere.

Maybe after a breathing period we can resume some of our friendships.

Lately Winer has been complaining about the treatment of Israel, another butt of Feldman’s jokes who has been turned into a puppet. Winer’s comments on FriendFeed show why:

Do you think they would be doing this if Shel’s name was Kathy Sierra? Why is it funny to destroy a middle-aged Jewish guy?

It amazes me the people who just stand by and do and say nothing.

I don’t just think his Jewishness has anything to do with it, I’m sure of it.

Israel is, of course, a stand-in for Winer’s own beef with Feldman — the poor middle-aged Jewish tech blogger that the Nazi puppetmaster and his anti-Semitic thugs wants to destroy. First they came for the A listers, but I did not complain, for I was a B-lister …

The notion that anti-Semitism is at play here is deranged. As J. Michael Arrington pointed out on that FriendFeed discussion, Winer praised the puppets (including the Israel one) as recently as June 28 — Twitter messages he has since deleted.

In a discussion on Feldman’s site, Winer pleaded with Feldman to “cancel the vendetta against me”:

I just heard today what you think I said to or about your girlfriend. Loren, listen to this carefully — it never happened. Think about it. What if you got this wrong. How the fuck are you ever going to make it up.

Accusing a man of abusing women is the worst thing you can say about him. You really have fucked up here big time. And if you feel like a mensch, you should apologize, cause you really wronged me. Swear to god.

PS: I heard about it from a woman friend who knows your girlfriend. I asked her to let her know that what you said about me is absolutely untrue.

Winer has so little self-knowledge that he can’t understand how his actions might make him a rich target for mockery. In his head, the only reason Feldman could possibly be going after him is some personal slight involving Feldman’s girlfriend.

Feldman, who has to be loving Winer’s overwrought hysterics, has big plans for Puppet Dave:

Im preparing a documentary with puppets of course about Dave Winer. Please email me all Winer Incidents, all replies in strict confidence.

Dave raises a good point with respect to Twitter starting to wall things off now that they’re popular:

Also feels a bit screwy that we helped them build their network, for free (isn’t it funny people only look at how they give stuff away) — only to find that now they want to take back what was open about it.

It’s like using people to test your blogging platform by offering them a “free” service, only to turn it off when you’re done with them and then only return their data if they kiss your ass. It’s kinda slimy.

…he’s still 100% wrong about the AP, though, and still hasn’t disclosed the obvious conflict of interest.

Apparently two days is all it takes for Facebook to ferret-out highly publicized fake users and exterminate them from their network. My sources with Facebook accounts tell me that searches for “Newsjunk” and “John Newsjunk” are returning no results, while before they were returning one account with a picture of Teddy Roosevelt. More confirmation always welcome, facebookers.

What’s interesting is that this has yet to be mentioned on the NewsJunk Blog or Scripting News… both still prominently advertising the fake account.

Got an email from a sharp reader this afternoon, who pointed out the issue better than I could, so here it is:

Winer couldn’t figure out the Facebook API (probably because it’s not in XML-RPC or backed by Frontier), so to allow people to follow News Junk (which really is junk, I can’t imagine anyone wanting to follow it), he created a fake person:

http://newsjunk.wordpress.com/2008/06/18/how…

“It’s easy — we created a person for you to befriend, someone named John Newsjunk, who magically says exactly the same things that NewsJunk.com says through Twitter.”

Which is against the rules for Facebook (you have to be a real person). They made apps for exactly this reason, but Winer–king of give me an API dammit–refused to follow the rules. How many days before John Newsjunk gets deleted and Winer will go on a rampage?

Interestingly, Nicco Mele (Dave’s partner) seems to think this is a good idea:

We made it a person so that the status updates show up in your Newsfeed, like twitter. It was the easiest way to do that - I don’t think Fan pages talk to the Newsfeed like that and the API limits what you can do with an application. Individuals control the privacy settings and what shows up in the Newsfeed, but the defaults favor friends for inclusion in the Newsfeed. But if I’m wrong, let me know…! And thanks, we’ll make the profile public right now.

Which is a long way of saying “We didn’t like the rules, so we ignored them.”

There’s no other way to see it. When the chips are down, the only principle Dave really has is one of selfishness. Today’s write-up on the AP’s legal bullying is a prime example.

He starts, right off the bat, by giving the AP an excuse, saying that because they’re large, they can’t possibly be of “one mind” about this. It’s a cop-out. There might be some internal disagreement, but the legal strategy is unmistakable.

There’s a bizarre comment about the AP being “a not-for-profit cooperative”, conveniently ignoring that while the AP itself is not-for-profit, the entities composing the AP are decidedly for profit. To explore that a bit further, consider one of the suggested reasons for the decline in revenue for many news outlets: bloggers. Consider that the AP is a cooperative of for-profit news entities. The AP is going after bloggers. No connection here? Really?

Dave’s typical attitude towards lawyers is strangely absent, with him insisting that we should try to hear the AP’s side of the story. Why are they sending ludicrous DMCA take-down notices? There must be a reason aside from intimidation, right?

By now, if you’re like me, you’re boggling at how or why Dave is taking the side of an organization that is attempting to lay claim to the news, stop the free flow of information, and is using a bunch of lawyers to try to force it through. What gives?

…

I want to testify on behalf of the AP. I did a deal with them at the end of last year, a quiet one, that the tech community mostly ignored.

FlickrFan. The bloated piece of crap-ware that Dave laments so few people took notice of. More accurately, everyone and their brother downloaded it, realized it was essentially worthless (aside from the AP feeds) and promptly uninstalled it. The AP scratched Dave’s back, and now he’s going to scratch theirs — reprehensible, anti-social legal tactics be damned.

The rest is classic. A massive organization flush with lawyers and cash is sending threatening letters to individuals, many of whom wouldn’t have the money to defend themselves against a traffic citation, let alone a massive IP civil suit… and this is no big deal? NetFlix doesn’t give Dave an easy way to export his movie ratings and he throws a fit, but an organization trying to control who reports the news is just a big joke?

Give me a break.

Dave is a sell-out. He’s probably worried that if he comes out too strongly against the AP they’ll end his sweetheart FlickrFan deal and make the app officially pointless. I would say that was smart business if FlickrFan actually stood to make any money, but it’s really more cowardice than anything.

Speaking of which, why no overt disclosure about the nature of the relationship between himself and the AP? We know that one exists, but we have no idea what the terms are.

What the AP is doing is dangerous. They’re trying to control the news, and they’re starting by pushing people around who they don’t think can defend themselves against it. They’re trying to centralize FACTS to lock everyone in their giant trunk… but I guess as long as Dave and the AP are in bed together, we can count on him to be their Yes-Man.