These 2 Things were absolute garbage this Christmas...

OK....

Christmas is over, on to the dirty business of who did it badly.

My 2 top picks for crappiest Holiday observations are a tie  between Google's Holiday Doodle and TWIT's holiday (or lack thereof) spirit.

Let's start with the the Google Holiday Doodle...

In previous years We saw everything from adorable polar bears to a toymaker's workshop.

This year we got this....

(Cllick on the image to see it full size)


WTF Google?  

At least last year showed SOME creativity.  This year's collection of noncommittal  imagery not only was limited to just 3 days instead of the full week we used to get, but was so bland and uninspired that it could have represented any day of the year.  

The Holiday doodles evoked no Holiday spirit of ANY Holiday.  The only variance you got was whether you were in the Northern or Southern Hemisphere and even then the words, "Holiday" or "Christmas" were nowhere to be seen.  

Now I get why some overheated Politically Correct busybody may get his panties in a bunch over the whole "Christmas" thing but all we got was a hover text that said, "Tis the Season."

Tis the Season for what?  Boring doodles that inspire absolutely nothing.  No warmth, no spirit, no soul.  I've seen Heimlich Maneuver posters with more feeling.

Even Muslim and Jewish folks can appreciate the largely secular traditions of the Holidays and let's not forget that Google has done Easter, Kwanzaa and Hanukkah doodles in the past.

Are we so afraid of offending some jerk with a Google+ page that we have to screw it up for everyone else?

Who's going to sue over a picture on a search page?  Besides, you're Google, you don't fear courts...

You know, I'm not especially religious but I do embrace the Holiday season. 

I'd someday like to visit New York at Christmas time to see Rockefeller Center and the Cathedral of St. John the Divine.  I'm not looking for some religious epiphany.  These are just places that most American's would find as iconic to the Holiday as Time's Square is to New Year's eve.  It's a cultural thing and Google is getting lazy about it.

We already know that Google can serve up regional doodles for different parts of the world so the whole excuse about offending non-Christian nations is BS anyway.  Last I checked, we were living in the 21st century not the 12th. 

Regardless of what some radical groups may profess, I firmly believe the world to be far more sophisticated than flying into an uproar over the image of a Christmas wreath.

It's not about disliking the design, it's about the vanilla, shareholder friendly dogma behind it.

I won't belabor the point any more other than to say,  Google, bad form dude...

Now on to my second pick for worst example of Holiday spirit.

It's our old Friend TWIT!

What more can we say about the newly "downsized" TWIT operation.  We should have known there'd be no holiday spirit this year after the mass takedown of TWIT related videos on YouTube IN VIOLATION OF THEIR OWN CREATIVE COMMONS LICENSE that damaged more than one YouTube content creator, myself included.

This year we get virtually nothing but a crappy panel show recorded December 1st with the few remaining hosts at the round ( err... make that oblong) table.  All of which suckle at the breast of the dying bovine that is TWIT.

Somebody puts on a Santa hat and calls it Christmas....

What?  No TWIT Holiday special with all of Leo's famous "friends?"  In fact no special Holiday programming at all.  Just a bunch of boring "Best of's" Which is a pretty tall order for a network so short on talent and now apparently ambition.

It's a glaring statement of disinterest.  

For proof look no further than the December 21'st Windows Weekly and you'll be hard pressed to see anything on set that would indicate we were mere days from the Holiday.  

Windows Weekly and Security Now are done from Leo's office.  A spot much more secluded and private than the Brickhouse.  Now more lair than set, if you're looking for the real Leo, look at that set. 

If it aint there he don't care. 

There isn't even a holiday bug on the edited shows!  (that translucent icon thing in the lower right corner.) For a guy so concerned with copyright you'd think that bug would be everywhere!

A heartfelt, "Meh" not only from viewers but the network itself.

If anything ever boosted ratings it was the Holidays.  Do something, anything special at the Holidays and you'll get eyeballs even if they're attached to a face that doesn't necessarily hold you in high regard.

But good old Leo can't be bothered even to feed the sycophantic TWIT fanboys ( yes, I stole that from Totaldrama ) 

Not even a  New Year's Eve special.  

Yes, I'll say it.  It was the one show that TWIT produced, aside from the Holiday Specials with John Hodgman and Jonathan Coulton that was actually worth watching.

Even if you hated Leo, watching it would at least give you the same sense of kinship with fellow geeks that normal people get from watching the Ball Drop in the aforementioned Time's Square

But we're not doing that.  We're sticking a Candy Cane on the set, putting a Santa Hat on the Channel Bug and calling it done.

Bad on Ya!

Neither Google nor TWIT has enough respect for their audiences to make anything but the most pitiful of efforts at the Holidays.

My rating for TWIT and Google's Holiday doodle's this year.

5 Heaping banks of Yellow snow....

TWIT hypocrisy part 2? ----- The TWIT Live Special of the Microsoft Surface Event

I'll keep this short....

We all know that TWIT appears to regularly violate other people's copyrights with its "Live Specials."  In the same breath they'll bully users of it's own content even when compliant with their purported "Creative Content" licensing.

So today we had yet another "questionable" example of wanton abuse of someone else's copyright in the form of a "TWIT Live Event" covering the Microsoft Surface announcement.

Now to be completely honest,  Microsoft isn't as explicit about rebroadcasting of it's live events as Apple but I did find a general statement of use of the company's Intellectual Property (or IP) that extends to online content.

As such, I managed to dig up a few sections where TWIT could be in violation of their Terms of Use for Copyrighted Content.

Specifically:  (from the Microsoft website)

"Offensive Use"

"Your use may not be obscene or pornographic, and you may not be disparaging, defamatory, or libelous to Microsoft, any of its products, or any other person or entity."

Laporte and Paul Thurrott repeatedly offered commentary during the "Live Event" that could be considered disparaging of the presenters especially Panos Panay.

AND...

"Link Methods"

"You may link to Microsoft content by using either a plain text link with words such as "This way to Microsoft.com" or by participating in an applicable Link Logo program. No other images may be used as a link to a Microsoft site."

Everybody else provided a hyperlink to the event.  TWIT decided to embed it in their own content and context.  If it were an Apple event there'd be no question how big a NO NO that is.

As for the actual event..

Surface tablets and a big all-in-one called "Surface Studio" that folds down into a desk with a big knob you can put on the screen...

Rah...

Who cares...this article is about hypocrisy not another boring product launch from a company desperate to be relevant.  

BTW, I'm referring to Microsoft but the observation could apply equally to TWIT...

At the end Leo wrapped up the "coverage" in his trademark style with a live read of a "Blue Apron" ad.

Nice of Microsoft to provide content for Leo's "reaction video" and Blue Apron to pay for it with an ad read.  

Maybe the term "reaction video" is incorrect.  Reaction videos usually don't violate commercial copyrights of whatever's being "reacted" to.

Here's the proof straight from the horse's ass...err mouth...

https://twit.tv/shows/twit-live-specials/episodes/309

Hypocrisy.

TWIT & YouTube: The Hypocrisy Engine and Why it Works (against you)

I told you I'd be watching and I'm keeping my promise.  This time it's proof positive of the double standard TWIT employs when it comes to copyrighted material.

TWIT had a "Live Special" that was nothing more than a live reaction video to Apple's September 7th event.  That's bad enough but TWIT was also rebroadcasting the event which is in direct violation of the Apple Copyright and Terms of Use of their website.

So why do I care?

As you know, My Digital Dynamic channel received a copyright strike due to a takedown of an UNEDITED vidcap of the broadcast of TWIT's move to the East Side studios.  Even though I conformed to the strictest interpretation of the Creative Commons license I still received a copyright violation that removed monetization for all videos on that channel most of which had no TWIT content.

OK, so TWIT's on my list but what about YouTube?  What do they have to do with it?

Everything..  There's a double standard at play here.

One that for me began years ago with the #microstopped mass takedown that yanked a Windows 8 HowTo video and continues with the recent TWIT takedowns of the past month.  YouTube provides the heavy hand to enforce what is often unfair and unsubstantiated copyright claims.

The fact of the matter is this.  YouTube is not your friend when it comes to copyright law and free speech.  YouTube is in the business of selling ads not political activism.  To that end they protect their Safe Harbor provisions and their advertising revenue at your expense.

It's a business not a public park.  They get to make the rules and however unfair or unevenly applied you have to operate within them if you want to put your content on their service.

BUT...

When they enforce the rules on one party and not another that sets up a double standard.  This is why I include them in my "hypocrisy engine."

Here's the companion video.   Much more fun than all these...words...

TWIT: Kicking puppies again ( on YouTube )

See that screen capture above?  That's the rule I went by for TWIT videos.  Guess what?  It doesn't matter.  

Newton's 3rd Law

\

For Every Action There Is An Equal And Opposite Reaction

Let me tell you a story....

TWIT: The Gloves are off....

I promised almost 2 years ago that barring people being led away in handcuffs I was going to stop covering TWIT and for the most part I did.

The continuing lewdness, misogyny and a tendency to circle the wagons at the slightest hint of detractors has hardly been  newsworthy.  As such, I was content to just passively watch them die in an implosion of their own making.

To that end I've never done anything to them that they didn't first do to themselves.  In fact, everything I've  written was meant more as a sanity check than attack.  

Believe me, I could have written so much more.  I could have documented the minutia of every misstep, every cruel word, every thoughtless act.

But I left such things to Totaldrama.   I wasn't interested in baldfaced attacks, name calling or sensationalism.  

TWIT does a fine job of that all on its own.

Well....guess what....

The gloves are off BITCH...

They came off because of the latest round of wagon circling.  It seems my video capture of TWIT's big move to the Eastside studios was a violation of copyright.  

At least according to the takedown notice I received today.

Unless something has changed that I don't know about, all TWIT broadcasts are licensed under a Creative Commons license.  As such, so long as you give full attribution of the source and don't try to make any money off of the content you can freely distribute whatever you capture.  

Even the most restrictive of Creative Commons Licenses allows what I've done all along that being...

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 

CC BY-NC-ND

This license is the most restrictive of our six main licenses, only allowing others to download your works and share them with others as long as they credit you, but they can’t change them in any way or use them commercially. 

from the official Creative Commons site...

Which is what I've always done with all my TWIT video captures even going so far as to never edit or cut out material that may change the context of the programming in the slightest way.  In fact, the most editing I've ever done with a TWIT video capture was to edit out the paid advertising reads.

There's no reason that I should give free advertising to a TWIT sponsor nor do I want any hassles with YouTube over it. So it just never happened.  

There are less restrictive licenses under Creative Commons.  In fact most of them allow remixing, parodies, just about anything you want so long as you attribute the original work.  Some even allow for commercial use.

I've always chosen the most restrictive interpretation making no substantive changes to the content or monetizing them in any way.

Even the rather damning videos creatively edited by those less than kind to TWIT were covered under versions of Creative Commons.

Which is the root of my newfound crusade.

You see, my innocuous little YouTube channel consisting primarily of videos of monsoon storms with it's 16 whole subscribers is somehow a threat to TWIT.

So much so that I've earned a copyright strike that puts my channel and my reputation in jeopardy.   The infraction is for a video capture of the TWIT move to the Eastside studio.  A video offered without editing, commentary and free of charge. 

For the unfamiliar, A YouTube copyright strike is a virtually indefensible charge of copyright infringement which in an Internet context is akin to grand theft.

The only recourse, a YouTube form to "Request" the retraction of the charge that demands full contact information. 

Just the thing for a copyright troll to pursue a frivolous lawsuit.  Or to bully a detractor into silence.

I won't be bulled but I'm also not stupid. 

Rack up too many copyright claims and you can find your channel shut down.  As such I've removed similar videos from the channel to prevent from being bullied into oblivion.  Unless you plan on asserting a claim on raindrops and lightning strikes you got nothin'....

So what's the game TWIT?  Are you attempting to rewrite your own questionable history?  Then stop making so much of it!  

Surprising that such a staunch liberal as Leo Laporte would chose a tactic favored by the Texas school board.  You know, that Conservative body that wants our children to at least "consider" that humans were running around underfoot of dinosaurs.  In which case the Flintstones could be considered a documentary series...

..Intelligent design indeed.

What's the threat of presenting content that's already been freely shared for those who care to watch?  

Are we trying to put the genie back into the bottle? Do we want to ensure that the free and uninhibited nature of TWIT is a premise without foundation?  Is anything not directly controlled by TWIT a threat regardless of the intent?

Then you better be damned sure that your edits happen well before the broadcast.  Perhaps the appointment of a propaganda minster would be in order.  Someone with the power over even the Fuhrer...

Josef Goebbels isn't available but I hear Roger Ailes is looking for a gig...

TWIT proudly professes to be more than just another podcast network.  They claim to be community driven but lately it seems like they're more of a cult.  

Communities are made up of like minded people with a common purpose.  OK, so far the same goes for a cult.  The difference is a community is made up of individuals some with controversial ideas.  Ideas that allow the community to learn, grow and persist.  

Cults usually end up with a lot of dead people and a weird website.

We've already got the weird website...

So what's next?  Well, I'm not putting my thunderstorm videos at risk over TWIT.  But I will keep writing.  I will keep watching and I will expose that which is offered freely be it good or bad.

You made a mistake Leo and Lisa.  I was content to be passive even sharing your content on occasion.  Always without spin.  

I'm not content anymore and it's because of you.  I don't have a hell of a lot to look forward to these days but you...you just gave me a new purpose.

I won't be bullied and you can expect greater scrutiny. 

None of which you can do anything about because what I produce will be backed up with irrefutable evidence.  

Meaning, unless you want it splashed all over the Internet, you'd better clean up your act.  I don't need to make shit up, you provide plenty of content and nobody has to guess at the context.

Tit for Tat.

I'm watching...