Germany (no, the EU) has introduced a really simple system, maybe with some good sides. There is a stamp on each egg (every egg sold in the EU), consisting of a leading number and a producer code. The leading number can be

0: 24 hours organic freerunning, no antibiotics

1: freerunning, 4 m² / chicken

2: indoor, but not cages

3: cages

So, buying good eggs is really simple: only buy eggs that start with 0. Or, if they are not available/to expensive, eggs stamped with a 1. And never a 3-egg.

http://www.gruene-jugend.de/nachrichten/67696.html

Maybe I don't get it, or I'm not bibliophil enough, but ~ $30 per month for a collection of cover scans of old SF is not really what I would call an interesting deal.

Won't work. People don't travel in units of one only (not only family or parent with kids, but also school classes, collegues, lovers, whatever). So you need at least different sized compartments. Won't work also because the whole idea of selling overprized stuff in trains doesn't fit in that hole. What I could see as possible are extra-single-(or double)-person-compartments (not like here, but inside the train), first class. Like they exist in some slepper trains today. Or rather, tonight.

I don't use GMail, and the photos I store at Flickr are duplicates (would be a mess if lost, but no drama). The one critical app of the net computing world is Google Calendar -- and until now I haven't found a really well working synch programme for that (there is a possiblity to sync with the calendar extension for Thunderbird, but this one is realllly slow; I do not want to use Outlook; and the app for synch between Symbian OS mobile phones and google calendar is still alpha).

Must have missed looking into bOINGbOING at July 18th, maybe to much of real-world or something like that. Anyways, the next thing I want to see coming out from this 2000-comments-thread is The Annotated, Illustrated & Evolved Personal-Blog-Turned-Big-Thing Guide of Writing, Posting & Unpublishing Etiquette For Dummies. CC, of course. And with medieval illustrations.

@hagbard (#1586) -- don't worry, it's a fine thing to have an agenda, even people like Lincoln and Franklin had one, I guess. Or Cory, for what it is worth. Maybe even a moleskin one.

.

.

.

.

;-)

"... might start to think that the participants have agendas" -- don't you have one?

@Archeaopteryx: what exactly is the reason you know what VB knows?

@Michael Brutsch: Uh, interesting link. Especially that comment there:

When I saw the listing of removed posts on violetbluevioletblue.com and saw your site mentioned, I did think that the deletions had dragged all sorts of other people into the argument. There were plenty of interesting posts that were binned even though they had nothing to do with Violet. Even if we assume it was somehow OK to wipe her from the blog like that (and it’s not), it’s pretty rude to wipe everyone else in the process. (source)

((I would have commented many other things like 1337, but nothing was really new, only a repetition of things like the "unpublish=delete from public view" argument or applaud for Ambrose's (1417) explanation why vague feelings may matter here. Hope others on both sides of the argumentative fence also post only when there is something new ...))

((... and it has been questioned at least equally often))

@Greg: In fact, I was only quoting you (and didn't aim for 1337), but anyways, here's the recipe.

"Nothing should be deleted, ever. Everything ever written should always be available." Yepp!

@holtt: which fo the four do you mean?

@PooPYHEAD: good idea, will do so (i.e. stop posting after leet), if and only if the BB team promises a follow up post.

@1312 Oh hi. Did I mention that I liked cake?

You don't like cake anymore?

@Johne Cook: unpublish means "delete from public view". Straigth enough?

1337 is the landing spot -- only 60 posts to a solution.

@Paul: Together with Nina's story (and the LAT interview), I actually find I can understand why Xeni did what she did. I still think it was wrong, and I still think, replacing posts with disclaimers, unlinking etc. would be a way better move than "unpublishing" things from the public, but I guess there really is a human side to this. So I hope BB finds a way to get out of the storm and into clear view again.

That said, there are still two or three things I find somewhat strange about Xeni's behavior and reasoning:

1. The one post with the list that seems to come from VB and was only posted via Xeni, not her work.

2. Claiming that there is a difference between "unpublishing" and "deleting"; in the consequences for the wider web, there is no difference.

3. I also think BB has developed into something more than a personal blog, and I'm not sure if Xeni actually sees this change & the responsibility that comes with that. (Or the difficult small line between corporate hell and an corporate entity with lots of personals quirks).

4. Defending the so-called moderators, and describing their role as "cops" (they act like cops, but moderators shouldn't be cops).

5. Not seeing the problems with silence in deletion.

Finally, I still think this discussion has two levels: the actual happenings (and the reasons for or against removing post referencing VB), and the larger implications for web content services with a strong community aspect and "net culture values".

Nice to see the update on the post itself.

About long threads and community-driven conflicts in web 2.0 environments: did I say this all reminds me very much about the Yahoo-Flickr-SafeSearch-disasters (see here, for example). Very long thread, polarisation between two groups ("us" and "them"), long-time silence by the staff, very very long thread, a lot of guessing and explaining, rude mods, not so rude but essentially silent staff members ... maybe "internet drama" is really a new genre of interactive entertainment (or more seriously, of trying to handle conflicts in an interactive, relatively anonymous environment where the participants have high moral/emotional stakes and low/none monetary involvements).

Or to put it another way: for "real-world" conflict resolutions society invented lots of rules and institutions. For "internet drama", this process of invention is still on-going.

@GregLondon: As I said -- I don't think it is understandable if you don't view a lowered trust as something harmful. (And to make this point clear: I do not say BB intended to harm anyone -- they just did something with consequences they have to live with, and a somewhat bad handling of this consequences, further decreasing trust). I'm quite sure Apple, to take only that example, doesn't want to be unhelpful, but has other good reasons for unpublishing critical comments about products. Intention and consequences are two things.

But maybe we should be good commenters and enforce Joels EOT voluntarily -- at least those of us wanting to get some sleep on this side of the Earth.

@GregLondon: "Yeah, tell me what harm BB did to you by deleting its posts about VB?"

Simple: I trust BoingBoing to be a trustworthy resource that fights for transparency and empowerment of internet users, and find them doing something I perceive as going against their own ethics, so this lowers my expectations and my trust into BoingBoing. That is something I don't like, so it's "emotional harm" -- and I really don't want to feel "cheated" (to big a word) by a blog I link to frequently because I have high opinions about it.

I'm not sure if this simple explanation (and I read many others as feeling a similar harm) is understandable if you don't share the same assumptions about how social networks, blogs, trust, reputation and attention works.

@Will: the one part BoingBoing has indeed a bit reputation in is the topic "loss of civil liberties", i.e., how governments and companies should behave (on the internet, or elsewhere). At least that's my impression. Otherwise, you are right ;-)

@GregLondon: What's so funny about long-time lurkers starting to post comments exactly at the moment something seems to go wrong? I'm more or less one of them, too. Poorimojo did explain the reasoning behind that really well. Not every person posting for the first time, and with fury, in this thread, is a troll.

@all: Is there a graceful way to say "you just don't get it?". If so, some of the last comments would surely demand this. (And I'm also sure that "you" -- that are not "us" -- must have the exact mirrored feeling for quite some time).

To understand "moderator" as "position of authority" (and not as something akin to community service, as faciliator) may be one of the reasons why many people here are disappointed by the moderator's practices.

@Joel et al.: Thanks for listening constructively. Your comments help to refuel my trust in BB a bit.

@Antinous: You do understand that from the point of view of a mere reader/commenter, there is no difference between "deleting" and "unpublishing" a comment? I see that there is a difference in the back-end of MT, but from here, the disappearance is just the same.

@dros: funny thing is the end of your repeat-rant: "As an side, i found violet blue to be one of the most inane contributors on this blog [...]" (emphasis mine). One of the points of dissent is that BoingBoing is holding to the position that she never contributed, but that everything were article by the BBs themself. Which is technically true, but seems to be borderline in at least one case. So, why do you identify VB as a BoingBoing contributor?

@antinous (somewhere around 600): After skimming 550-775 after breakfast I have to agree that there is much repetition. In fact, the usual scheme is A-B-A-B-A-B...-A-B, with A (or B) one of the post of the suspects you named stating and repeating the reasons why this is something we did not expect from BoingBoing, and the other one is by someone like GregLondon, Talia or even the Moderator telling us that we are wrong and there is nothing to see here. Either one triggers the others to restate their position. I demand ;-) a official name-calling of the B-group for repetitive positing, and are happy to have found some C and D opinions in my morning reading. And I'm still waiting for the official Z posting setting things straight, finally.

@Hagbard: in regard to the transatlantic time-lag, and the length of the thread, I won't go into the specifics of Creative Common etc.

@Hagbard (546) -- the one about "What Satan is really saying is that as readers we have a right to expect that bloggers will do what we expect and will give us what we want. [...]" (535). And maybe "Social networking and blogging 101" is the wrong course, "Attention economy 101" would be better.

@Hagbard: Seriously, for me BoingBoing is not only part of the "copyleft" movement, but they also stand for something like net transparency, for "the good side".

Someone posted this link somewhere above, and it is a good example what BoingBoing is saying about other companies ...

(I also get the feeling that you have a very narrow definition of CopyLeft, or miss out on the -SA part of CC licences etc.)

@Hagbard: No. Re-read "Social Networking and Blogging 101".

@Tubman: it's the same difference as the difference between "painting words black" and "censoring". Or, for all consequences, between "removing content from public view" and "deleting content".

@Faustus:

"I luv boingboing, but you(1) shouldn't do this"

(1) by you I mean bOINGbOING, not Faustus.

@Faustus: but I want to say "I luv boingboing, but you shouldn't do this" -- may I?

#440, Subterrene: what I wanted to communicate is: In a way a blog is only useful if there are readers. If the same people read a blog regularly, they develop a feeling of community, and a sense of things they expect from the blog or not. They have -- of course -- no right to expect these things, but they do so, anyways (as they do if the regularly use, for example, Starbucks or McDonalds). As intelligent readers in a blog with a comment facility, they voice their ideas, feelings and notions, only strengthening the (false) sense of community.

In the end, the social web is born, and if there are differences between consumables like McDonalds meals and "web 2.0", user interaction and even user generated content is one. Or shortly: BoingBoing as a web 2.0 product, a high-level blog, functions only via readers attention; even on the level of advertsing revenue. This gives me, the reader, a bit more responsibility -- and more urge for voicing my option if I feel something went terrible wrong or unBoingBoingish.

I'm not sure but some people here don't get the difference between critique (I, the reader, am disappointed and say so) and managerial or editorial dictums (I, the shareholder, am disappointed and say so). In the first case, my influence is only in the option in voice (and to a lower degree, in the shallow threat of taking away my attention), in the second case, there is real influence. To say "If you were an editor/poster here, you could decide what gets posted, archived, etc. You aren't. So it feels "UnBoingBoingish"... so what?" makes clear that you don't get that difference.

I'm neither editor, poster nor manager, but I'm still a reader, this is an attention based commerce, this is social web, and if BoingBoing wishes to ignore the feelings of it's community, it still can be a wonderful mass media outlet, but it cannot be a trusted blog anymore.

If I didn't had better things to do now, I'll want to start a flame war with some of the fanboys. And girls.

@Christopher (#344): I don't think the net traffic to BoingBoing is affected either way; what will change is the image of BoingBoing and the feeling while reading it.

@Subterrene: following your argumentation, I do not see why, for example, net neutrality (bandwidth is just some service some telcos are selling, why shouldn't they sell premium access for more money) is something one should debate. And so on. I agree with lots of posters that this feels very unBoingBoingish. And that a blog, or even (#326) something like a "web community", is a bit more than just a private entity, like it or not.

@Talia: I don't buy into the google juice story -- at least I don't remember that BngBng only links to the wonderful side, and punishes the not so wonderful side of the world by articles with no links whatever.

@ACB: No, as Joel Johnson said somewhere above, "unpublishing" refers to making the material private, not longer link-able from the public web (but not deleting it from the CMS database).

I applaud Gracchus.

The difference between the institutions "big blog (with fanzine background), operated by a small company, earning (part of) the living" and "mass media" is not sharply drawn, I guess.

To say "we have a reason, but we wont talk about it" is not something I was expecting from BB; even if it is better than saying nothing at all.

Not being able to speak about some fact, possible for legal reasons, creates the feeling of a corporate entity, and not a personal blog (and that post and discussion here reminds me about flickrs infamous "we can't say anything about it" safefilter disaster) . As do the rules you introduced some weeks ago. Being viewed as a corporate entity and not as bunch of cool people changes what seems resonable behavior -- we all agree that corporate entities should not delete arbitrary posts, start censorship and so on, if they want to be remembered as "do no evil" corporate entities.

So I guess the secret deletion of posts you don't like any more is a bit more than an editorial decision, or at least, a bad one. Even replacing these posts with [insert explanation] would have been better than doing it in the dark of the night.

"They have the right to do so", but they have to life with the consequences, especially a damaged reputation for their freedom of speech agenda.

RAW, isn't it?

#25: I like the innovative and very creative Stephenson of Snow Crash and Diamond Age. I gave the Cryptonomicon a try, but found it oversoaked in show-of-geekness and more or less 50 % too long for a story that boils down essentiality to a standard thriller. And Zeitgeist and especially Zenith Angle go a bit too much in that direction for my liking. (Maybe if I get Spooks Country/i> by Gibson, I will be disappointed in a similar way).

Wow, great to find this discussion here. Distraction is really a cool book - especially because of the politics, and I didn't believe it as I read Cory stating that it is already 10 years old.

About the other Sterling books: most (including the non-fiction ones) are really great, the recent thrillers are positioned too high on the Stephensons-Cryptonomicon-slippery-slope-into-boredom-scale for my liking. But I aggree with Stefan Jones that he really should bring his next novel together.

About Schismatrix -- Swanwick's Vacuum Flowers is a bit similar, or if one takes something more recent, Stross' Singularity Sky -- epic tales of a universe populated by scheming post-human variants. What I remember best about it is some post-human swarm intelligence, terraforming olympics and great descriptions of barock clothing styles. The nearest to this of Sterling's near-future books is Holy Fire.