PORN is Early Rich Media Adopter.
Pornotube is according to Alexa among the 250 most popular sites online.

Yesterday Techcrunch did it once more. After Marshall Kirkpatrick’s entry on Smutvibes some months ago it was MA himself who created the bang : Eroshare, user generated porn.
Porn 2.0.

After the controversy around the Smutvibes entry, Michael Arrington surely knew what would happen in the comments and even participated actively. With some brilliant pieces of commentary

Chill out on the evangelism stuff. God needs to focus on ending war, poverty and disease. Then we can talk about the evil of pictures of 20 year old European girls making out with each other.

He was assisted by no one else than podtecher Robert Scoble, who defined Porn 2.0 better than anyone ever could do.

participant generated

I strongly suggest you go to read the entry and comments at TC, because I had a good laugh.

And I’d rather see pictures of European girls making out online, than the video of a hanging.
But I am European and I have lived in the Netherlands.

I think Mr. Bloggy needs some crunhporn.

This month has proven how easily bloggers become the victim of the tactics of old media.
While trying to be informative and critical it is very easy to grab all the nice pieces of bait the old media use. There have been several examples of journalists playing with the blogosphere.
Surely there were the more positive ones such as TIME Magazine’s Person of the Year, NY Times embracing social bookmarking and more recently the John Edwards Youtube case. But more traditional media have not hesitated to hit either. The WSJ attack on blogs was the most recently hyped anti-blog story.

And there was quite some truth in it.
More →

Many bloggers have celebrated the election to Person of The Year 2006, each in their own style. But does it really matter? Has the Digital Information highway really changed? Forget it!

This was nothing more than a brilliant piece of marketing by TIME Magazine. ProBlogger Darren Rowse called it linkbaiting, but there is more behind this.

More →

I’m preparing to embark on a hell of a journey. For reasons I’ll keep to myself, I and my dearest friends are driving from one side of the United States to the other. We’re starting in Boston because it’s convenient. We’ll wind up in California, because it’s a nice place to wind up.

On the way, I’ll be sharing with you my experiences on one of Bloggy Network‘s other blogs- Travelogger.net. So please do join me there!

Have you been to New York, Washington, Atlanta, Houston, Las Vegas, Los Angeles? Or Tijuana?

If you’ll let me know what you want to know, I’ll do my best to help you out.

A journey like this is more than a tour through different parts of a country/continent. It’s a journey through many very different cultures. The atmosphere in south Texas is different from that in east Texas – let alone Boston! The Gullahs of South Carolina and the Cajuns of Louisiana speak a virtual different language, a creole developed back when my historical heroes still roamed their regions.

And I’ll be able to see that mighty city, New Orleans, for myself. The holes in New York City – and the collective hearts of America and much of the world – for myself. The majestic vistas of the American West. Two oceans and a gulf. A hundred different types of sand.

I’ll also get an honest idea of what the United States is like in places I’ve never visited, or at least as much of an idea as you can reasonably get in a day or two. Travel, they say, broadens the mind. I hope to wind up with at least a superhighway.

Arrr, a pirate loves travel. I’m excited about this voyage. I’ll try to resist pillaging along the way, sore though I may be tempted. Well, maybe a little. . .

I swore I would not get political. I think I may have to get a little political, just this once. I hate terrorism and think that we should fight it anywhere, any way, any how.

There. That’s my political statement.

But when I first said this, torture hadn’t even crossed my mind. Is it okay to waterboard someone to find out where they put the bomb in Times Square? Is it acceptable to use electric shock to get a proven terrorist to give up his companions, who may be planning attacks right at that moment?

My gut said no. Pirate or not, I can’t stomach torture. It’s wrong in a way I can’t define. People who torture lose something of their humanity. Data produced is questionable at best. And, well, it’s just wrong to profit on a person’s misery like that.

I even tried to imagine: were I in a position where those I love were going to be killed if the torture didn’t happen, would I sanction it?

I had to admit to myself that I still could not.

But that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t happen.

It’s a decision I could never make. But the men and women in our collective governments who are in charge of keeping us all safe may one day be in a position to make that decision. I could not forgive them, either, if they did not do everything possible to keep their employers – the public – safe. Including torture.

This puts them in a terrible position. My solution: hire men and women who have the guts to take personal responsibility – and credit – for the good and evil they do. Instead of making torture legal – and therefore an easy choice – make it illegal. Those who choose to torture, despite the consequences to them, are making the choice to suffer themselves as well.

It sucks. It really does. It’s also a lot to ask of these people. But we ask our soldiers on the front lines to lay down their lives – and we ask the same of Coast Guard, police, firefighters, and all the other men and women who keep us safe and secure. Asking those who are in the business of extracting information from very bad people to be willing to risk prison for what they believe is right – that is asking no more courage and integrity from them than we ask from our other protectors.

And in the decision to torture or not, I think we need courage and integrity more than in any other fight in this war on terror.

I told you I’d keep up with this one, and I have. Interesting to see what’s happened.

The New Orleans Truth website is authored today primarily by Easton Ellsworth, the editor of Know More Media, the company that’s sponsoring the website. He has been wise enough to not only write some very good blogs about what people in New Orleans have written or have told him personally, but also to cross-link with lots of the NOLA bloggers as well, giving them the press that I was griping about their needing. There is no sight of Chartreuse, Loren Feldman, or Team New Orleans here on the site. Also no explanation of this, though I think I can guess.

Chartreuse, 1938 Media, et al finally, a month or so after they had planned, made it down to New Orleans – I think. Anyway, Chartreuse is posting New Orleans entries on his own blog. Moreover, he’s been wise enough to invite several NOLA folks into his private space. Kudos for that. This is the way it should have been done to begin with.

The NOLA bloggers aren’t getting much more attention than they were at first, as far as I can tell. And Team New Orleans seems to be just Chartreuse and 1938, which is what I thought would happen.

So did my point get across? I think it did. At least the New Orleans folks are being treated as people, not as victims who don’t have a voice. I wish the blogosphere would pay more attention to the NOLA bloggers down there; they’re great, talented people. And it’s certain the media, with its Certain Attitude about bloggers, will not.

I guess the best thing we can do is not forget. I’m going to do the little bit I can, by writing about it and donating and raising awareness in my area and by volunteering for a day when I travel down there (all I can spare, alas). I’m not going to forget that bloggers live by different rules from the media, either. While the ideal for reporting is to remain objective and separate from the news, a blogger often IS the news. Bloggers are allowed to get passionate, lose objectivity, and even pitch in when things need to be done.

All in all, I like blogging better than I like reporting.

I’ve got to stop watching the news. It’s terrible. Another bunch of U.S., British, Italian troops killed. Another bunch of Iraqis, Lebanese, Israelis, fill-in-the-blank murdered by suicide bombers. People ticked at the Pope because he exercises freedom of speech. People exercising freedom of speech to protest others’ freedom of speech (and doesn’t that make sense?)

It’s gotten to where I can’t quit looking at it. I can’t tell what’s true and what’s not. I find it all depressing. And then, there’s the stuff that just isn’t true at all – some of which I know from my own bloody sources and resources.

How can we have a free society when the news is so dependent upon the capitalistic system that they have to sell to the least common denominator to satisfy their shareholders? Or when the news is beholden to government officials? Or when the news is a tool of the government? In these situations, no wonder the news agencies protest like murder when they’re accused of inaccuracies, spins, or flat-out lies.

So I make this pledge: to cut down on the news I get directly from the local papers, or Reuters, or the New York Times. Instead, I will read a lot of blogs. These guys bring a sanity to an otherwise nuts media world. They – we – are getting a bad rap from the mainstream media. But then, we are direct competitors to their bottom lines. Bloggers can make decent money doing what they do if they’re good and subscribe to a network. And because today they are attacking the single most important asset of a news agency – their perceived integrity – the news agencies are not terribly happy with them.

I say nuts. I don’t much care about their opinions. I do care about the news stories I dig up myself. Or read about from dedicated bloggers who still understand what investigative journalism is. To be honest, I think bloggers may just save the world.

But then, I may be a trifle biased.

Remember William Hung? He was the contestant on American Idol in the second or third year who was so bad he became famous for it. His incredibly atrocious karaoke was juggled into an album – that subsequently sold more CDs than almost any Idol contestant outside of the top two finalists – 195,000 copies. He’s made a movie, done talk shows, and become a real celebrity. For singing badly.

This, folks, is like lightning. It hits once in about a hundred years. For most people, celebrity is something they’re born into, have enough talent and work ethic to gain, or work their butts off to get.

There’s a surprisingly large contingent, however, who think that their paths to celebrity should be along the lines of William Hung. No offense to Mr. Hung, who seems like a nice guy, but it seems that they are so self-centered as to believe everyone is fascinated by their latest navel-gazing, whether it’s on world events or how to succeed they wish to opine upon.

A recent example that has ticked me off: the NewOrleansTruth debacle. Associated Press’s desperate attempts to convince the world that their photos are complete and unbiased truth (I Photoshop, too, and recognize fakery pretty quickly).

I think what’s going on is people are somehow getting the idea that the written word is gold – that their optimization talents or the love that their friends and mothers have for their writing is going to catapult them into Pulitzerdom – that somehow, they too can be Truman Capote and hang out with rich celebrity women.

It’s nonsense. Except for truly anomalous cases like William Hung, celebrity does not happen – it is earned. Your hard work and genuine talent will gain your fame, not your untried insights into how to make a fortune. Don’t invest in fools gold – instead, work hard and learn everything you can about everything you can. And learn how to market online. That’s going to be your key to success.

Call me ideological and foolish, but I genuinely believe that blogosphere holds one of the keys, and one of the few chances, to peace in this turbulent world. Who would you trust to look after our best interests when it comes to world politics, the environment and the fate of humanity? Politicians? They are by their very definition (always have been, always will be…) corrupt. They have to be, on some level, just to have got to where they are. Too many favors owed, too much ego, too much brainwashing. They cannot deal with the issues squarely and fairly- as if they did, the short-term pain involved for their voters would be unbearable and they’d soon be shown the door.

Any honest economist will tell you that capitalism and the free market economy is finite in what it can achieve. It certainly is not a sustainable model that can be spread worldwide, long-term. Apples for oranges, there just aren’t the resources for everyone in China to have a TV and fridge. That’s a fact you can take home to the bank. And when economies falter, that’s when you usually get war. America is the no.1 superpower in the world right now, but give it 20 years or so and this will change with the Sleeping Dragon in the East pulling its might.

The best hope, the best solution to all problems is surely honest, open and unfettered communication- between the people whom inhabit these nations and not their elected leaders. And what better way is there than blogging? True, Google somewhat capitulated to the Chinese government in its desperation to get access to that golden market- but it has opened a window that is unlikely to ever be shut and one will find increasing openness as time goes by.

Right now, I can get an uncensored, live update from an Iraqi blogging inside Iraq. I may not agree with everything this blogger says in terms of his politics, opinions, traditions and values. But we can have a straightforward, open discussion and put water on fire with win-win ideas, finding the similiarities, rather than shooting bullets or throwing bombs at each other. The same can be said all over the world. When there are starving people in Africa, why we throw away food to retain trade advantages? Why we don’t sign the Kyoto Treaty while being the no.1 polluter in the globe. And so on…..

What this means, in the age of blogosphere and immediate information/communication, is that a man like Goebbels could never orchestrate a successful campaign of mass propaganda as he did in Germany during the 1930s. Or how the KGB did during the Cold War. In the modern world, even in North Korea or Iran, it’s simply not possible. And this is our best chance for world peace.

As Benjamin Franklin said-:

I hope…that mankind will at length, as they call themselves reasonable creatures, have reason and sense enough to settle their differences without cutting throats; for in my opinion there never was a good war, or a bad peace..

Another of our bloggers recently wrote an article about her father shooting himself in the foot. I just had to know the whole story about this — and she was kind enough to oblige. Seems that this gentleman foolishly chose to use a loaded gun to learn gunslinger quickdraw methods, with one in the chamber. Not the best plan!

But how many of us go around like this? That’s where the term “half-cocked” came from. It means acting precipitously, without being certain of the facts, and referred to a practice by inexperienced or careless hunters who would half-cock their muskets, making them prone to going off easily.

I did this a few days ago, when I didn’t adequately check every single fact. Fortunately, the hole that resulted was only in my ego. How often do we all do this, and what impact does it have on the world around us? All the time, and sometimes a serious one. This can damage your most valuable online asset — your reputation. Or, in real life, it can make you look like a fool.

I do have a point, and I’m getting to it. I’m irked because not many people learn to question arguments — and it’s getting worse. I don’t know what’s going on in schools today, but I do know people are starting to listen to more emotional arguments instead of the facts. They’re also being inexcusably lazy; we have a vast repository of knowledge at our fingertips, and can look up just about anything with just a quick, well-constructed Google. But we don’t. If someone prints a claimed “fact,” we believe it.

This has recently blown up in our faces. We’ve seen faked photographs make it into Reuters and AP — fake photographs that may have affected worldwide perception of the Lebanon-Israel conflict. But it’s worse than that. You know those “factual” percentages and numbers from nonprofit organizations? A frighteningly large number of them are just made up. Plucked from the air.

For example FAIR — Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting, a self-proclaimed media watchdog — disseminated a statistic in 1993 that wife beating increases by 40% on Super Bowl Sunday. Not so, say any experts not quoting from FAIR’s own press release. FAiR’s primary source? Not a study — an unsourced caption in a book of photoessays.

Or NOW, the National Organization of Women, put forth a widely-quoted statistic that there are 150,000 deaths from anorexia nervosa per year. That statistic, tracked down, comes from the American Anorexia and Bulimia Association. They say it’s a misquote, and that they estimate that many people, mostly women and girls, suffer from the disease. The real number — less than a hundred deaths from these eating disorders per year. But the larger number has been disseminated in magazines and newspapers, by authors Naomi Wolf and Gloria Steinem (who was probably the origin of the misquote), and even, repeatedly, by Anne Landers.

Even if your facts are straight, your argument may not be. Argumentum ad hominem — attacking the man making an argument instead of the argument — is growing more common today, possibly because students aren’t learning proper logic. All arguments are becoming more emotional, and less logical. This is a very bad thing for intelligent debate.

Question everything. Learn how to pick apart logic. And don’t trust any secondary source for accuracy in statistics. As Mark Twain said, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Oops, not quite! Twain attributed this to Benjamin Disraeli, but most researchers think it was coined by Leonard H. Courtney, president of the Royal Statistical Society in 1895. No source, apparently, is safe.