Many sights with important political information have cut comments to keep the masses from correcting the true state of the nation and letting others know that the story is erroneous.

It has become my belief that many people no longer know what the 1st amendment is of the US constitution that we feel everyone, right or wrong is entitled to.

If you as me, sidewiki is near patriotic for free speech.

Not here, but who wants to sign up to post just to receive spam or be moderated by a scum bag who doesn’t believe your valid point matter. If you have a negative agenda, I see your point.
If you are for the 1st ammendment, please keep your comments open and support sidewiki. Just ask for them to not start censoring it.

PS, this is a double post (sidewiki)

1) Disclosure – I’m founding a startup that operates in this space currently.

2) Jeff probably won’t like this, but WWGD was something that I actually saw as validation of many of the concepts and functionalities enabled by this kind of approach. Perhaps I picked up the wrong end of the stick, but I found a lot of what was discussed slotted neatly into a vision of a more literal interpretation of a ‘web edited by your peers’.

I think Jeff’s POV that ‘this is my site, and you can’t wiki it up!’ actually harks back to the kind of possessiveness you used to see on sites prior to comment systems and user participation becoming en-vogue.

Let me draw you an analogy – with a newspaper, you had pretty much a one-way broadcast of information, with a very limited scope for user feedback via a letters page.

The internet today is a lot like a newspaper that allows limited user interaction albeit on a larger scale – you can say this here or here or here, and that’s it. If you want full control, go to your own space (e.g. ‘write your own newspaper’). A lot of people do the latter…but a lot end up drawing a blank when they’re put in their own context (blank-piece-of-paper creative paralysis).

The internet going forward, IMO, will be about empowering THE USER and giving control to THE USER to say what they want, where they want. To enhance the web, to personalise it, and to share with their friends directly. And to ‘tune in’ to friends they select (and only them, to keep out spam). To do this privately if they wish – to not necessarily share with the owner of the ‘host context’ (the site). To do this in any context around the web – any site. All in one neat universal system.

This gives ultimate control to the user – something Jeff encourages companies to do. Those who give control, win (?)

You also have to remember, this isn’t ‘your’ site…so to speak. Where I’m typing right now…this is a rendering local to my browser. This is a copy I view. To draw another analogy, it’s like a copy of a newspaper or book or magazine. I am free to take a pen and scribble all over it if I choose. I am free to pass that paper on to someone else, pass my ‘personalised’ copy of that material on. I would defend the right of the user to personalise their view, their rendering of the web. To invite their friends and peers in to enhance/personalise their web.

Am I sensing some greybeard discomfort with the next level of user control?

Now, sidewiki isn’t necessarily the best manifestation of this concept. It’s a very ’safe’ modern-day copy of things that were done previously (e.g. third voice etc.). But the core concept of prioritising the user and user-to-user connections over user-to-site-to-user connections is a powerful one, and can solve so many problems with how people engage (or don’t engage) with the web. Engagement with the web today has so many areas ripe for improvement from a user POV – non consistent interfaces/systems/identities, unideal accomodation of spontaneous contribution, ’sea of strangers’ problems etc. We can make this much better.

- Pete

Comment on Fox News right at the site! Democratic Websites, Republican Websites, Libertarian, etc… they won’t be able to keep up a one-sided discussion, and it’s going to make their lives hell! LOL!

The question, of course, if I comment accurately and respectfully at an “opponent’s” site by way of sidewiki, and they report me en masse just because I’m on the other team, is Google going to shut me out forever? Heck, I could be posting a comment on a site that completely supports my POV, but can’t a band of opponents target me and report me for abuse?

In other words, the main thrust of the discussion above this has to do with site owners controlling their content. But to me, what if I do post something on sidewiki, and so open myself up to attack by some hostile group for WHATEVER reason. Am I putting my Google identity at great risk just by posting, even in I’m not being a troll at all?

Hmm, we need to know more about the moderation scheme, I think.

One one side, it “bifurcates” (great word) the conversation and takes it away from the source – adding value to Google by essentially “stealing” it from individual blogs. It also opens the floodgates for fabricated “reviews,” companies posting or paying others to post positive comments about themselves and negative comments about competitors. You see this happening right now with product reviews on Amazon, etc. Companies will create fake reviews and if called out they will justify them by saying that a customer unfairly gave them a bad review so they need to counteract it. I see the same thing bleeding over to SideWiki quite easily. Big implications there.

On the other side of the sword, it gives internet users the ability to make comments about a site without the approval of the site owner. I would love nothing more than to see these scammy “landing page only” sites including the fake “testimonial” comments at the bottom be put completely out of business. I can’t count the number of times I’ve gone to a site like this, OBVIOUSLY a scam (“post links on Google” and “get ripped in 4 weeks” come to mind) and wished that I could comment someplace to point out to others how scammy the site is. People obviously need these comments, because these scams are ridiculously successful as evidenced by their prevalence and longevity.

Lots of implications. This is probably going to be a topic of discussion for quite some time.

No one cares about the “hundreds of dollars” (wow, you’re really Too Big To Fail, aren’t you?) that you, or anyone else, spends promoting their site(s). Google’s doing NOTHING wrong. You have no legal case. You are just one of many people who once spent some money to promote a web site, despite having absolutely no clue about how the web works, or how browsers work, or that users are going to necessarily be free to view your site’s content any way they like. I can open a sidebar, or open two browser windows side by side, or use custom stylesheets, or use Greasemonkey scripts, or any/all of the above. Why, I could even wear TINTED GLASSES while viewing you site, and be looking at it in a completely UNAPPROVED COLOR SCHEME!!! What if your competitors start handing out tinted glasses, for people to wear while they look at your site?!?! How will you stop them?? What will you do??? Better call your lawyer right away – I’m sure the two of you will be able to put a swift stop to this anarchy!!

Wait! I have an idea. From now on, people should only be allowed to look at web sites in ways permitted by the site owner. Here’s the new web site EULA:

By accessing the site’s content, you agree to the following: This site will only be viewed on a flat-screen LCD monitor of an approved make and model and size, calibrated just so, at a specified distance from the viewer’s eyes. Corrective lenses of any kind must be approved in writing by the web site owner. Blind and visually impaired users are forbidden. The viewer may not look at any other web site or web content, nor listen to any music, nor touch themselves anywhere at all, while viewing this site. Both hands must be kept on the keyboard at ALL TIMES. Users without two hands, and/or a keyboard, are forbidden. Users are not permitted to think about competing web sites while viewing our site – such thoughts are forbidden. Conversing with others about our web site is forbidden. Blinking is permitted, but no more often than once every 15 seconds, with each blink lasting less than 0.25 seconds. Both eyes must blink in unison – blinking only one eye (aka “winking”) is STRICTLY FORBIDDEN.

See, I just saved you a $500 bill from your lawyer! That’s probably twice what you’ve spent promoting your sites!! You should be all set now – just include that EULA in your site’s page footers from now on. Good Luck!