To be perfectly honest, I’ve been quite intrigued by the whole scenario. I honestly did not know of Daniel before this (though I probably should have), so it was interesting. To see another young blogger do something like this, and the reactions that its received.

Personally, I think what Daniel has done is indefensible. A group of us bloggers in Singapore recently had a meetup where we were just talking about the up-and-coming culture of bloggers asking to be paid. And I’m personally hugely against it. So, that’s where I stand on the whole issue. Daniel was wrong, and deserved to be fired.

The main two things that catch my attention, though, are these.

Firstly, Daniel’s statement. He doesn’t quite admit to anything on this. He says “a line was crossed that should have never been”, but that he “[does] not want to go into details”. He also seems to make excuses, claiming his youth. He then makes a request for privacy. You know what the statement reminds me of? Tiger Woods’ statement after his accident at the end of last year. It feels like a crafted statement, to reveal as little as possible, and try to sweep everything under the rug as quickly as he can.

Dewey Hammond put it perfectly well when he tweeted the following:

Ppl praising @danielbru ask yourself this: After getting caught red-handed what other choice did he have but to apologize?

And that’s what it strikes me as. An apology (not even an apology, but a statement), for the sake of it because he was already busted. Of course, I could be wrong, but personally, reading that, it didn’t seem particularly sincere or remorseful. I’d like for him to come out and be straight about it, and say “I did this. It was wrong, there was no excuse for it.”

Secondly, and more importantly, I think is the fact that lots of people are saying that people should cut him some slack because he is a kid. Yes, he is a kid, but kids can and do take on responsibilities too. (And for what it’s worth, from the way his statement itself is crafted, it seems to me that he’s more than smart enough to have known what he was doing.)

Granted, I’m a couple of years older than him (and am not quite anywhere near his level of fame), but speaking as a kid, I don’t think he should be excused on those grounds. Us “kids” are always asking to be treated and respected as adults, and well, to quote Spiderman, “with great power comes great responsibility”. You can’t have it both ways – you can’t ask to be respected as an adult, but hide behind the image of being a kid if you make a mistake.

If you want to hide behind the label of a kid, stay in the playground. Once you choose to step out, you need to face the responsibilities of being an adult – and own up to your mistakes. It may sound harsh, but that’s my 2 cents.

My point is, the hammer is just a tool. It’s how you use it that could get you fired (or not). It’s the same for these social networking tools, such as Facebook and Twitter. There’s lots of press lately about how using these tools could ruin your reputation, or get you fired. The latest example being this article on MediaPost.

And yes, what they write is completely valid. Companies are still not fully adjusted to this new world of social media, and if you overstep the bounds that they set, you could get fired. So yes, you probably do have to be careful, to a certain extent.

At the end of the day, though, it’s not about the tool. Twitter, Facebook – these are just tools. How you use it could get you fired, true. But that’s the same of any tool.

I finally got around to watching Avatar today, the 3-D, IMAX version of it. It was an interesting show, the plot definitely has a bit too many similarities to Pocohantas for my liking (as many have pointed out). I liked the mini-satirical messages in it, though.

That’s not what I want to write about, though. What struck me the most about Avatar was the 3-D. And it struck me the most actually because it didn’t stand out. In most 3-D movies, the fact that it’s 3-D is extremely noticeable. In most 3-D movies, the 3-D doesn’t really seem natural or real, to the point of even causing giddiness at times. Or maybe the giddiness is just me. Either way, the 3-D is normally too noticeable, in a bad way.

Avatar was different, though. The 3-D effects were natural. It almost didn’t feel like I was watching a 3-D movie, until I specifically paid attention to the depth and all. It was done so well, it seemed completely natural, and it just immersed you into the world.

I think this is important. That the effects (and at the end of the day, 3-D is just an effect) don’t take away from the movie. The effects have to blend in, seem natural, and enhance the movie, not stand out so much that it detracts from the overall experience.

And I think it’s true for any product we build as well. It’s easy to get distracted by features and enhancements. It’s easy to think add more an more things, in an attempt to make the product more impressive. But we have to remember that, at the end of the day, it’s about the overall experience, not about features.

It’s also something we need to consider when building our personal brands. We need to remember the main overall message we want to send out. It’s easy to get distracted by other things. I know I’ve suffered from this. For this blog, for example. It’s so easy, and I’ve done this too, to come across a new plugin and think “I need to have that”. But I think we need to really consider how each additional “feature” we add will affect the overall experience, and as such our overall brands.

We need to stay focused, and remember that it’s about the whole experience, not about special effects. Special effects should only be there to enhance the experience.

I think there’s an opportunity here, though. Take a leaf out of Willy’s book. Do something like that for your city. Or do one specifically for online/virtual/telecommute jobs. Or one specifically for design jobs.

Lots of ways to spin that angle, that could be just as successful. Just thought I’d throw the idea out there.

I know this is going to spark some huge disagreement, but I can’t say I completely disagree with him. But that’s besides the point. What I want to bring attention to is how everyone seems to be protesting vehemently and insisting on their privacy.

Yes, I do understand where they are coming from, but the fact of the matter is this. Privacy as we know it is a thing of the past, and that trend is not likely to stop. These people insisting on their privacy sound very much to me like Tiger Woods’ request last month for “some privacy” after his accident.

It may seem like a reasonable request, but like it or not, it was never going to happen. We all know how that turned out for him, and how he’s suffering from it now. The basic fact is, as a celebrity, people are always going to be “intrusive”, and having privacy is almost impossible. He can’t have it both ways – he can’t be in the limelight and make millions while he’s doing well, and ask to slink into the shadows when things don’t go his way.

And neither can we. We can’t say we want the benefits of micro-celebrity and the value of social interactions that come with the web, but refuse the intrusion of privacy that comes with it. It’s tough, but that’s the way it is.

So what can you do? You are left with one of two choices, in my opinion.

1. Refuse anything that comes with branding yourself/getting known on the web, and get your privacy with it. This means minimal or no Facebook or social networking, no blogs, etc. You lose the huge opportunity the web gives you to stand out, but you gain your privacy. Some people are perfectly happy with this option, like my mother, and manage it quite well.
2. Embrace the social web, and everything that comes with it. Make use of it to develop your personal brand and build connections. Try to be as authentic as you can, and with nothing to hide, of course. But be prepared that if you have secrets (and face it, we all do), they might easily come back to haunt you. And learn to manage that scenario accordingly.

I think it’s obvious that I’m in camp number 2. What about you? Are you ready to accept that you have little (or no) privacy, as a trade-off to the benefits of the social web? Or do you think there’s a middle ground?

Photo by stevendepolo

I think this speaks greatly about the nature of relationships nowadays, and how they’re moving online, but that’s not what I want to highlight here. What I do want to highlight is the opportunity here for other companies. Imagine if Amazon implemented something like that. They already have an option to ship an object as a gift to someone else, why not allow the shopper to send the gift to a virtual recipient in the same process that TigerBow does? Shouldn’t take too long, and shouldn’t be too hard for them to implement.

Or what about other startups? Why hasn’t someone built a system like that, but allowing the user to choose any object from Amazon? In my mind, it could be as simple as a 3 page process. On the first page, let the user input his name, the recipients name, and the Amazon product url. On the second, let the user select a delivery method, and optional wrapping/card, etc. And the third page would be for checkout. The system then sends a message to the recipient, like Tigerbow does, and if the recipient wants to receive it, he inputs his mailing address. The system can then place an order on Amazon for the object, ship it to the startup’s office, where it can be wrapped and all, and then send it out to the recipient. If the startup’s office is in America, the shipping costs wouldn’t increase too much, I think (it’d just be one additional local shipment to America).

It’d take some manual effort, but I definitely think it’s feasible. What do you think? Anyone up for trying it?

I think it’s an interesting measurement, but there are issues with it. He mentions the biggest one, saying

clipped from trustedadvisor.com

The biggest problem comes not in the measurement, but in the subject matter. So it is with trust. In the TweetLevel tool, trust is largely a function of how many people cite you. That’s perfectly reasonable. People definitely hang on Perez Hilton’s words a lot more than on mine.

But it does beg a huge trust question: trust Perez Hilton to do what? To say what? To behave how? What is it that we trust about John Mayer–and is it the same thing as for which we’re trusting Oprah?

That speaks for itself, I think. Nothing more to add there.

My biggest worry, however, is the possible effects this measurement may have. As much as I see the value of measuring something, a measurement like this brings a lot of false promises. Most importantly, trust is a very personal thing. What matters is how much each individual trusts you, it’s not a question of broad statistics, in my opinion.

The issue of a trust metric like that is this. Once you put a number to something, people tend to strive for higher numbers. It’s the nature of human competitiveness, kind of. And I fear that the more we put a number to trust, the more people will try to game the system just to get higher numbers, making more retweetable tweets, etc. And that could easily lead to even less personal interaction.

TweetLevel measures how often you’re cited, and that’s certainly valuable. But we need to not confuse this too much with trust. Yes, it’s probably a reflection that people trust what you say, and think you have valuable input. But do they really trust you? And I think that’s the main question. You can be having personal conversations on Twitter, things that others don’t retweet. Your trust metric won’t go up, but because your conversations are personal, the person on the receiving end gets to build a relationship with you more and gets to trust you. Is this any worse than being retweeted often? I’d say not.

A while ago, Chris Brogan wrote this:

clipped from www.chrisbrogan.com

I’d go to Savvy Auntie because Melanie Notkin will give me advice that would help me buy for kids, where Amazon’s just too big to feel helpful in that regard.

I’d go to Wine Library because Gary Vaynerchuk will take the fear factor out of buying something I’m not educated about.

I’d go to Glynne’s Soaps because I appreciate Gayle and Jennifer’s efforts via social media, so it’s like buying from a friend.

And I think that’s more important. What you do with the “trust” that you have. It’s all well and good having high numbers, with people retweeting you all the time.

But you need to remember to ask two things. Firstly, what are they retweeting? And secondly, how are you relating to those who are retweeting you? It’s not all just about retweets. There’s also huge value (perhaps more) in a personal relation, that cannot be captured from that.

I’ve just installed AideRSS into my Google Reader a few days ago. It’s an interesting plugin, but using it raised a couple of questions for me – that of staying above the noise.

In today’s world of the web, authority tends to be measured based on how many people link to something. Your Google ranking or Technorati authority is essentially based on the number of people who link to your website. I’m not sure how the AideRSS rankings work, but I assume it’s based on how many people read a post and things like that?

While I understand the need for an authorty system, and I understand why it’s done this way, it’s not a perfect system. As people start using these systems as filters, the higher you rank, the more likely your rank will increase. It’s sort of like an issue of “the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer”.

And this makes it even easier to get trapped in the fishbowl – to get trapped just reading what everyone else is reading. In doing so, it gets easier to get trapped writing similar things to everyone else – to get stuck on the same topics, similar viewpoints, etc.

Here’s my question. I understand why a filtering system is needed, there’s just too much noise and all to manage everything.

So how do you manage the filtering system while not getting trapped in the fishbowl?

How do you filter the information you read without getting stuck in reading and writing the same topics as everyone else?

How do you filter what you read – and still maintain originality and come up with something new?

Photo via cjhoffmann

It matters because it has the potential to redefine what a browser is. It has already ignited so many comments on the idea of a browser as an OS.

John Siracusa from Arstechnica said it best:

My enthusiasm at this point is not so much about the product as it is about the methodology. Google didn’t set out to merely improve upon existing web browsers. Instead, it attempted to rebuild the web browser from first principles.

You can start a blog, or create a Squidoo lens, for example. You can edit Wikipedia. You can Twitter, or comment on blogs. It’s now so easy to make a contribution and have your voice heard online.

Now, thanks to a Help A Reporter (a free service by Peter Shankman), that ability to have your voice heard is stretching to print

The playing field is being leveled, and we’re all being given more and more opportunities to show our expertise, and let our voice be heard.

The platforms are there – and increasing. Are you making use of them?

Thanks to Seth Godin for pointing out the service.