Sean Bonner asks the question, who let PayPerPost into 2.0? We’re having the O’Reilly Web 2.0 conference in SF right now — the same O’Reilly who wrote the so-called civility standards enforcing ‘code of conduct’ many of us made fun of because it made little sense to actual bloggers. Well, now it’s starting to make sense — as Sean points out,
Someone who knows nothing about blogs coming across this booth might assume PayPerPost has the O’Reilly seal of approval. Of course there is no mention that much of the blogosphere has actually taken a strong stance against PayPerPost, bloggers found to be involved with PayPerPost are often shunned by their peers, or that search engines like Google actually devalue blogs found to be associated with them.
Link.
PayPerPost makes bloggers into spammers, period. It’s interesting to see these gated community 2.0 “a-listers” feel free to set forth blogger ethics in Blogistan (and MSM) and then let sleazebags like PPP set up their shell-game within the holy confines of their conference. And if you pay the $100-$1500 to attend (I couldn’t afford it and was too sick to figure out how to sneak in), you would think PPP has O’Reilly’s endorsement. Seems to me this sort of unspoken endorsement thing requires… some kind of code of conduct.
* Side note: speaking of spammers, I got an email this morning from a huge spam company offering me a couple hundred K for techyum (likely more if I stayed on to provide my original content). A real email, from a real person that I know (but didn’t know worked for this spam behemoth). This is all very weird.
