Unlinking from LinkedIn

I find zero value in LinkedIn...

The concept isn't even original.  It's been called a glorified Facebook for business professionals and LinkedIn doesn't deny it.

As I poke around my own profile I'm inundated with prompts to "upgrade" my membership to enjoy all those "premium" features like being able to actually get useful search results (instead of "professional at xyz") or send a colleague an "in-mail" message on the site.  

Screw it, I'll just text them...

But you have to ask yourself, Why? 

Why would I pay a subscription fee to get even more email from people I don't know?  What most people consider spam, Linkedin considers a "feature."

I know, I know, these are supposed "business contacts" and "networking opportunities" not Viagra ads but that's rarely the case.  For example, I've gotten more requests to "join someone's network" from cold calling "staffing specialists"  (resume stackers)  than anyone I've ever had an actual professional relationship with.

In other words, you'd get less spam from a Monster.com account than from an active LinkedIn profile.  In fact, Monster.com is more useful which is something I never thought I would say.  Yeah, they want a paid subscription too but at least the search function works!

LinkedIn has been having an identity crisis for at least the past 5 years with most looking at it as a job search site while others look at it as an expanded CV while still others bought into that whole Facebook thing.

I sincerely hope nobody is pinning all their hopes on the job listings.  Most of them are out of date and/or list jobs that have little to nothing to do with your own skills.

If you do find something, expect to run into the service's many roadblocks including blocking the ability to share the position with anyone who doesn't happen to use the service.  Worse, many ISP's consider email messages from LinkedIn as ACTUAL Spam so your friend probably wouldn't get them anyway...

If you think it works for you chances are you already had a deep contact list without LinkedIn's help.

Meaning that those at the top of the heap likely get deluged with "connection" requests from complete strangers unless they choose to block such communication.

Which kind of defeats the purpose...

I admit, I do check in now and again just to see who got fired.  If you have enough information you can piece together just how flaky any given corporation's management is by watching how often different names show up under the same job title. 

So I guess it's good for something but not for what it professes to be. 

If you think LinkedIn is doing great things for your career you're just not giving yourself enough credit.

Is anybody out there?

What do I have to do?

I don't get it...

Or at least I think I don't get it...

I'm not the social media butterfly that many are but you will find active accounts in places like Facebook, Twitter, Google plus and even about.me among others.  All are maintained and updated frequently.

I've got 4 active YouTube channels and accounts on two game streaming services (TWITCH and HITBOX).  I've been published online over 100 times on (former) news sites like Technorati and Kupeesh! and even had an article or two mentioned on Leo Laporte's TWIT.

I've branded my work in hopes that the brand will follow the creator.  I've taken great pains to try to  provide quality content in easily digestible and searchable formats.  I've torn down a YouTube channel only to reconstitute the content into separate more focused channels because someone told me viewers like it better that way.  

I'm still waiting for proof of that.  I've gone from being able to at least make a few bucks a year to virtually nothing since the change.

Which has led me to the realization that contrary to YouTube's advice, I don't believe most people who use YouTube could give a damn about the channel organization.

Hey, you do a Google search and Boom!  Content is served up regardless of the portal it resides on.  That's both the beauty and the Achilles heel of services like YouTube. 

Even being owned by a search giant can't guarantee visibility of your content.  

So I've done all of that stuff I'm supposed to do and still I'm lucky to make pennies a day.  

So how bad is it?  

It's been almost a year since I've had an adsense payment and never received a dime from my Amazon "partnership." 

BTW The threshold for a payout from Google Adsense is $100.

So I guess I just suck then? 

Content not interesting enough? 

I've seen much worse do far better so I don't think that's it.

Perhaps it has more to do with those who do well online being at the right place at the right time for their niche. 

I think it's far more likely, however, that online success is simply a byproduct of success elsewhere. 

Silky smooth radio voice or not would Leo Laporte have ever gotten TWIT off the ground without a stint in television and a long career in radio?  I doubt it.  I've heard better content elsewhere that struggles to match a fraction of the revenue.  

Want more evidence?  Simply look who's consistently hitting the top 20 in online media.  Personalities  like Adam Carolla and Marc Maron, News organizations like NPR and the Huffington Post not to mention tabloid TV like TMZ with the balance consisting of celebrity and fluff sites.   In short, we knew about them (or at least some incarnation of them) long before the Internet.*

It  doesn't mean their content is any better.  They're just leveraging a traditional media presence online.

So how fair is that?

For me it seems an online presence is less the great equalizer and more just adding to the noise.

I admit, being a bit older than most online dwellers there may be a generational bias that I'm at least in part struggling to overcome.

For example, when I write about gaming I'm not going to be anyone's fanboy.  Nobody's paying me to talk them up and if they did you could be sure I'd let you know about it.  

I wouldn't promote anything I didn't like so no worries there.

Still, I've been critical of the antics of the publishers like EA, Activision and Ubisoft.  I could care less about gussied up game trailers and technical demos.  I'll put it to you this way.  Battlefield 4's demo was awesome, the final product...notsomuch.  There's a lot of people who agree with that but I'm not seeing them around here.

Thing is, just like everything else those that pander to the hype seem to get the lion's share of views.

I don't just write about gaming either (obviously...) I'll tackle current events, politics and anything else that sparks a point of view. In fact that's what this particular blog is for.  That's why it's tagline is:

"Uncategorized reading for the randomized mind"

Perhaps that's the problem.  Nobody can identify with me.

I've been called overly negative, a troll not to mention any number of profanities.  I dunno, I just call 'em like I see 'em but it seems that if you don't buy into the prevailing online fads you're somehow a deviant.

Which to me signals the final evolution of online culture.  It's become as commercial and shallow as anything Hollywood could come up with.  It seems online success comes only to those either willing to put aside critical thinking or who've already made their mark elsewhere.  

Now before anyone runs off claiming my problem stems from being an arrogant a-hole with an overactive troll complex I'll simply give you this statistic.

I've written close to 500 articles in 4.5 years on a variety of topics.  Of those approximately 12 of them have proven the most popular with over 5K views each. 

All of them were critical of TWIT.  Meaning what people seem to like the most is a more critical point of view.  

Which implies that....
If you write an article about Leo's penis pics you can guarantee 5K views.  Write about a good book you read and you see 12.

Yeah, so take that you...you...troll!   

But seriously, the most popular stuff I ever wrote I never really wanted to write.  That being, the downfall and slow disintegration of someone I once held up as role model.

So I guess negativity isn't the problem. If I was as big an ass as some have made me out to be I'd have a lot larger  readership from the numbers I see.  

So the real question is, what kind of posts do you really want to see?

What do you think folks?   Glass half full or half empty?

I'll publish your answers in an upcoming article.

...Of which there will be none if I don't get any.

Up to you. <drops microphone>

*sources
http://www.ebizmba.com/articles/blogs
http://podbay.fm/browse/top

If you're paying a subscription you're not buying "Art"

A guy's gotta eat right?

I've noticed an annoying trend over the past few years.  It seems like everywhere I turn on the Internet there's a hand out.   I get that somebody's got to pay for all this stuff but when it comes to online, we're paying too much.

Either you've got a pay wall in your face when you try to consume content or you're constantly getting pitched an "upgrade."

If I go to the online version of a local newspaper more often than not I'm greeted with a demand to purchase a subscription to see their content.  Yeah, I know, newspapers have it rough these days what with all those tablets and smartphones floating around.  At some point, however, I start to question their value when they want me to pay for the same dubious content I can find in the average blog post.  (of course I exclude myself...tee hee hee)  

For example, my local paper's online extension AZCentral.com now requires a paid subscription to access more than a few articles on the web.

In the old days I could just pick up a paper when I wanted it or suffer a few ads to read the same content online.  I didn't have to take out a subscription to get today's hot news story or have a pile of wasted newsprint lying around in the corner of my house. 

Now I have to pay not only for that story but the digital equivalent of the clutter than comes with it.  You just know that the minute you sign up your inbox is going to be flooded with pointless garbage until you turn it off in your subscriber "Profile."

So why did all this happen?  Why does it seem that every digital highway now has a toll booth? 

The claim is that the ad-supported media model has failed with the rise of the Internet.  Advertisers have too many choices for their ad dollars these days and have to spread it around to get their pitch across.  That means declining revenue for traditional media sources or so they claim. 

It's the justification behind the rise of "premium" services like Hulu, Pandora and even TWITCH.TV some of which still show ads even with a paid subscription.  Yes there are free levels of these services but they're usually a shadow of their premium counterparts and cluttered with intrusive ads.

The latest entry into the subscription model is Jay-Z's new "premium" music service, Tidal.  It's claiming CD quality audio over the Internet and exclusive artist tracks to subscribers.   There's no pretense here.  The service unabashedly demands a minimum of $9.99 per month for access to a glorified Internet radio station.  The argument being, " We're not for everybody."  Meaning people who pay are somehow of a different caliber than all of those poor people. 

Classic marketing trick.  Buy your way into the "in crowd." 

The simple premise of the service (minus the marketing fluff) is that starving recording artists (like Jay-Z and Madonna) can make more money and subscribers can get an exclusive experience with premium-only content. 

Hmmm, The last I checked Madonna wasn't eating out of garbage cans and Jay-Z could use $100 bills to wipe his ass with reckless abandon.

Ok, here's where this crap has to stop...

At what point do we just admit that the whole "artist" thing has gone off the rails.  Hey, I firmly believe that you have a right to make a living off of doing what you're best at.   You do not, however, have a right to fleece me to pay for a new coat of paint on your private jet by offering me the artistic equivalent of post-it notes.

And what about all those "little" people like the engineers, producers and song writers?  You can bet Madonna and Jay-Z aren't hammering out hits in their back bedroom with an IPad and some old amp.  C'mon now, someone has to make those middle-aged fading vocals sound passable.  

One thing is for sure.  The people that make these "artists" sound good aren't flying First Class.

But we must protect those poor, suffering "artists." 

In a country where the top 20% of the population controls 85% of the money, you can't sell me on how my $10 a month to Tidal is helping Main Street. It is, however, keeping Easy Street paved with gold.

The problem with the current definition of "Artist" is that it's intermingled with the "business" of art.  It's all about the money and somehow having one hit song on ITunes entitles you to a lifetime of privileged status.

When art becomes business then the result of all those "artistic" efforts is nothing more than a "product."  Mass produced, packaged and disposable.

Art was never meant to be a commodity.  It was meant to be an expression with its primary reward being the appreciation of the work itself.  The great societies of Greece and Rome recognized this and while they may have "commissioned" great works of art, they were never meant for resale.  Rather the intent was meant to enrich a culture and advance a society. 

I can guarantee Krewella will never do either of those things...

In the context of what Jay-Z considers to be "Art" (aka: products)  the great works of a Michelangelo or Beethoven would be held in the same light as a toddler banging on pots while scribbling on the wall with a crayon.  All of which would be behind a pay wall.

In that light, today's popular "artists" are frauds.  They produce commodities for no purpose but their own gain regardless of claims to the contrary.

Art is meant to be shared freely and has no intrinsic value in a vacuum or behind a toll booth.  Which means what Jay-Z and ITunes sell is not art, it's a product and products don't deserve such exalted status.

Real art is only sold once in awhile with its value dependent on a market's interest in that unique article.  Copies, on the other hand, are sold in the millions and their value reflects their status. (aka: fake)

When you pay for streaming content or a newspaper article online with anything but a few seconds to watch an ad you're attributing excess value to fake product.

Would you pay millions for a Van Gogh knockoff? 

Then why would you pay full price for access to the online equivalent of a Redbox rental?   Does anything available on Tidal really rise to the level of being art?  How exclusive can a work be if it's distributed like a magazine subscription?

I'll answer that, it's not.  Art is given freely, products are sold.

So if popularity isn't enough to bring adequate compensation for your (product) efforts then maybe it's time to look at who's got their hand in your pocket.  That or you just suck...

I know, for example, that for all the ads that run on my YouTube videos I make the princely sum of .001 per view on average. 

But then I create content, not "Art" and the market (and YouTube) decides the worth of my "product."

Google: In Memoriam

Momofuku Ando 2015 doodle- Ramen Noodles inventor

Instant Ramen Noodles...

That's what the Thursday March 5th Goodle Doodle was all about...

Momofuku Ando, the inventor of instant ramen noodles would have been 105 that day.  He was the man that brought the world that sodium rich staple of frat boys, frugal office lunchtimes and the culinary challenged everywhere.

To celebrate such inventions in the same light as the Polio vaccine and the light bulb is a stretch to say the least.  Google may be scraping the bottom of the barrel for the subject of their doodles. 

Is Momfuku Ando as relevant as Madame Curie or Einstein? Probably not but he does share one trait that appears to be noteworthy at least as Google Doodles go.

He's dead...

So is Jane Austen who would have been 240 this upcoming December 10th.  Laura Ingalls Wilder would have been 148 on February 7th and Leonardo da Vinci who would have been 563 on April 14th.

Einsteins Birthday Doodle 2003

They all had their birthday's celebrated in a Google Doodle too.

I can't remember the last time, if ever, that a doodle celebrated someone that was still breathing.  A friend offered up a possible explanation.  In short, the dead are not likely to do anything embarrassing.

I mean, consider if Google had done a doodle for Bill Cosby.  Regardless of his guilt or innocence it would have certainly put them in an uncomfortable place.  Just think of how those poor folks over at the Golden Globes or the Bob Hope Humanitarian awards are feeling right now.

Pfft, stupid awards, serves them right... but I digress.

So they stick to holidays, socially responsible observations like International Women's day, significant events like invention of the barcode and the first episode of Sesame Street.

Wait, the Barcode?  I guess that explains the ramen noodles thing...

You probably already knew this but if you sign up for Google services they'll honor you with your own doodle on the Google search page on your birthday. 

I don't' know if I like that.  After all, it puts me in the company of a bunch of dead people and I don't party with corpses.

How to get more visitors to your blog, e-commerce site, YouTube channel...blah blah blah

I know why you're here...

I got lucky and somehow Google determined I had just the right metadata to put me higher in the list of search results. 

Yup, I'm right up there with all the sites that promise Internet millions and no-down real estate deals.

Well, at least that's my hope but with Google selling AdWords to drive traffic and sponsored links chances are this article wasn't in the mix.

I've been blogging for around 4 years and been running a YouTube channel (now 4) for 3.  In that time I've never managed to get more than 150 subs on Youtube or more than 50K visitors to any of my blogs. 

In other words, I'm just like you. 

The little bit of information you'll get from the "experts" out there will  try to pound it into your head that the key to success is comprised of a few key tenets.  Most of the time they'll bury them in a bunch of vague marketing speak designed to get you to ante up the plastic to get the "secrets."

I'll save you a few bucks and spell them out minus the long-winded sales pitch.

1. Have interesting content!
2. Be consistent and post/upload on a regular basis
3. Collaborate with others
4. Use social media and cross promote

Great, now you know exactly what you need to do right? 

Of course not.  It's all ambiguous and misleading as hell.  

What you need to realize is all those sure-fire strategies are nothing but link-bait.  None of it is any more useful than a late-night infomercial.  They're selling a fantasy and making money with every duped visitor to their page.

So what's wrong with the "Tenets?"

Let's go by the numbers...

   Have interesting content!  -- Ok, define "interesting"  some people think knitting is interesting others think Pewdiepie is a phenom.  What does that make you?  The cold truth is that most of the popular people on the web were already popular somewhere else.  There's very little "organic" fame to be had meaning you might be the next Spielberg or Hemingway but nobody is going to know who you are unless you find popularity somewhere else.

   Be consistent and post/upload on a regular basis -- This one annoys me the most.  How many mindless blog posts or boring cat videos have you seen just because somebody followed this advice?  If you have something to share then by all means share it but don't put crap up just to fill space.  Nothing turns off an audience faster than having to sift through a bunch of half-hearted crap.   

   Collaborate with others -- It's nice to share but to be honest I can't stand 90% of the content creators on the Internet so why the hell would I want to collaborate with them?  Really now, If  I'm just going through the motions then why am i bothering at all?  Hey, if you've got a friend with similar interests great but otherwise leave it alone.  Nobody collaborates out of the goodness of their heart, they're looking for more traffic just like you and if you don't have anything to offer you're not going to get many opportunities.  It's kind of a catch-22 in that you need exposure but nobody is going to help you unless you already have it.

   Use social media and cross promote  -- This one kind of goes with #3.  Everybody thinks they're going to get on Twitter or FaceBook and suddenly have 100's of followers.  Except that most social media is siloed meaning you're going to spend most of your time communicating with people you already know.  Spamming other peoples pages with "Come see my stuff" posts will get you the opposite result.  Social media really isn't that social and unless you're already famous nobody is going to come looking for you.

So is all lost?  Am I just a Debbie Downer to your Internet dreams?

I sure hope so but not because I want you to fail, I just want you to get real. 

Look, it's really simple.  There's no such thing as get rich quick in the real or online world.  If you're just doing it to turn a buck then I hope you do fail.  I mean that.  Not because I'm some vicious troll but rather because I'm tired of content for content's sake. 

It clutters up the Internet with the online equivalent of junk mail and infomercials. 

Put up all the content you want but do it because you want to not because you're following some formula you read about from a Google search.   Blogs are great for creating a body of work.  Take it seriously and it may even spawn a career.  YouTube can be a great outlet for budding filmmakers, educators and new media content. Social Media can be a powerful tool if used wisely.

I've been creating content for awhile now and I can say with conviction that I never have nor would put up anything I didn't believe in.  Even if it never got a single view.  I can stand being unpopular, I can't stand adding to the cruft.

I may not be a "success" story but at least I'm genuine.  Forget the Leo Laporte's and Pewdiepie's of the online world.  Hell, even old Leo is getting a hard dose of reality these days and once Pewdiepie hits 30 he's over with.

So keep this in mind.

Do what you do but make sure it's really coming from you.

...consider the soapbox put away.

TWIT: NSFW 218 becomes night of 1000 redactions!

Talk about circling the wagons!

This will be short but it seems I and others may have touched a nerve at TWIT as it appears that all evidence of the final NSFW show #218 has been removed from popular media outlets.  That apparently includes me as the link to the final NSFW broadcast now only offers up "This video is Private" when the embedded video link on my February post is activated...

I know I've had to change the source link 3 times since publishing the article on NSFW's final broadcast on TWIT and now the show is nowhere to be found.

On Sunday October 5th's This Week In Tech there was some discussion concerning the possible "banning" of NSFW hosts Justin Robert young and Brian Brushwood from the network but little more was said.

Now it appears that copies of the final NSFW broadcast have been withdrawn leaving viewers with only Pre and Post show video captures.  

I've recently been informed that this move wasn't an isolated event as archives of past TWIT shows featuring departed TWIT hosts have reportedly been removed from public view.

The move seems retaliatory which is unfortunate.  Considering NSFW 218 was nothing but conciliatory and praising of Laporte it makes no sense to withdraw it from public view.

But then, this is the "new" TWIT.

Stitcher still has an active link to the audio MP3.  

You can find it below, at least until someone yanks it down too....

Lord of Ultima and the slow death of Free to Play

Originally published on Kupeesh!

Darkness has fallen on Caledonia and once powerful empires have met their oblivion by no fault of their own.

Lord of Ultima is dead, killed by a revenue model incompatible with its keeper.

Those looking for someone to blame need look no further than Electronic Arts (EA.) 

It appears that EA sees no value in what has been described as "niche" gaming.  "Niche" in this case applies to gaming titles that weren't designed to leverage the online cash cow that premium memberships and endless DLC offer in more recent titles.

Lord of Ultima's shutdown is just another casualty of the ongoing implosion of online gaming. 

It's a growing trend following on the heels of a bomb dropped by Gamespy in April when they announced that their longtime gaming services would cease on May 31st.  Even if you've never heard of them before, chances are you've used their services at one point.  Gamespy provided the online middleware for games on platforms from PC to Android.

More recently, EA announced it was dropping online support for many popular older games on June 30th.  A few notable examples include Crysis 2, Battlefield Vietnam and Need For Speed hot Pursuit 2. 

Yes, most of the games getting the cut are a bit long in the tooth but a pattern's been developing .  It wasn't so long ago that online gaming was a choice not a requirement.  Multiplayer games only needed to involve as many people as you could gather at a LAN party and it didn't matter if your Internet connection was down.

As game development has moved from a few hotly anticipated titles to annual installments of varying quality it seems it's less about the game than the franchise it spawns.

Producing a sub-par game is irrelevant if you can prime the hype pump with the promise of a seemingly never-ending stream of content. 

For a price...

With that has come "always-on" requirements for single player games, frequent server outages, half-baked triple-A titles and increasing prices to cover "development costs" even as publishers shut down their development studios by the dozens.

I guess all that bandwidth is expensive...

It's a model incompatible with games that are truly "Free to Play" and in its wake has come an avalanche of titles that may start out to be free to play but are almost always "Pay to Win."

Lord of Ultima was somewhere in the middle.  There were ever more intrusive opportunities to purchase upgrades and buffs to improve the experience but if you were willing to suffer a little more inconvenience than your well heeled competition you could  still do well.

That option runs contrary to a model dependent on the cash value of players.  After all, they're a discerning bunch and won't tolerate banner ads and endless spam flooding the email accounts they registered with.

They say nothing in life is free and it's a fair enough cliche'.  Servers and bandwidth aren't free and the "Free to Play" model is built on the assumption that dedicated players will gladly loosen the purse strings every once in awhile to improve their experience. 

But "once in awhile" isn't good enough anymore and more often than not "Free to Play" isn't free at all.

The model has been perverted.  The experience has become more about the store page than the game itself leading to a score of me-too clones and one-offs looking to cash in.  Some are even blatant about it but they're the exception not the rule.

The practice of "Pay to Win" frequently hides behind the mask of "Free to Play" which  is nothing less than "Bait and Switch" and it's killing the gaming industry.  It's bad faith and that's not a sustainable business model.

Spend a little time reading the Wall Street Journal and you'll find out that companies often receive a valuation based more on their "good will" than the products they produce. 

In that kind of scenario, EA's value is heading over a cliff...

Cord Cutting or A La' Carte, in the End it's All the Same

Article first published as Cord Cutting or A La' Carte, in the End it's All the Same on Technorati.

Last week Senator John McCain (R-AZ) took to the Senate floor with a proposal that seeks to lower your cable TV bill.   His proposal is to allow anyone who has cable or satellite television service to do something previously unheard of in the industry.  That is, only pay for what they want to watch.

A belief shared by McCain's colleague across the aisle, Senator Jay Rocefeller (D- VA)

"...rather than being able to pick smaller packages or choose the channels they want, consumers are still forced to purchase larger and larger packages of channels no matter how few they actually watch. This says to me that the market isn't working."

The Senate Commerce committee is scheduled to take up McCain's bill in a hearing on Tuesday (5-14.)

McCain's assertion is based on a solid premise.  Look at any cable or satellite TV provider and you find that all their programming is bundled into packages or tiers.  The only a la' carte options you have are for the so-called premium stations like HBO or Showtime which by themselves can cost an additional $10 a month or more and in some cases also come as part of a bundle.

Gone are the days of $20/mo basic cable.  A subscriber can easily find a bill of $50 or more per month with no premium channels.   Add HBO and a few HD channels and that bill is closer to $125.

In the end you ultimately end up subsidizing channels you don't watch.  That's because providers negotiate not with HBO or AMC but rather their parent companies like Viacom and Time Warner.  It's an all or nothing deal that can cause a disagreement over licensing fees on one channel to affect a dozen others.  That's why a tiff between a service like DirectTV and Viacom leaves subscribers with multiple blank channels instead of content. 

Cable industry lobbyists are against McCain's proposal claiming it's a "lose-lose" for both customers and providers as evidenced in an official statement from the National Cable and Telecommunications Association.

"As countless studies have demonstrated, subscription bundles offer a wider array of viewing options, increased programming diversity and better value than per channel options,"

Of course that assumes that the "wider array" is something you actually care to watch.  Even if you don't,  you're going to pay for it anyway and that's the logic of their claimed "win-win."

This is the rationale that's led to cord cutters who've turned primarily to online media sources like NetFlix and Hulu.  Unfortunately, legitimate online sources still can only offer a fraction of the content enjoyed by the traditional delivery model.  Unless you've got an HBO subscription, for example, you're not going to see "Game of Thrones" on the same day it airs unless you turn to illegitimate sources.

That's due to a reluctance of channel owners like Viacom to embrace online options that would lead to greater consumer choice but a less predictable revenue model.    It's flawed logic, however.

If you're a cord cutter it's probably not of any great consequence to you  about what happens to pay TV subscription rates but you're going to be affected all the same.   

With online bellwethers like YouTube launching paid channels it may seem like online TV options are poised to offer what traditional pay TV won't.    If the industry is forced into the a la' carte model, however, online TV will soon end up looking like it's broadcast predecessor.

You may be able to pick and choose from a few sources but likely run headlong into the same bundling schemes as traditional pay TV.  That's because the channels don't own the content, their parent company does and it's up to them to decide how it gets distributed. 

Add in the more targeted paid online options and soon you'll be paying as much if not more than if you'd never cut that cable.  Lest we forget data caps imposed by most Internet providers that could result in a nasty surprise in that bill if you enjoy HD content.

In short, the old guard of broadcast television has nothing to fear as one way or another we'll still end up paying more no matter how we choose to view their content.

Your Anonymity is showing

There is no anonymity, at least not on the Internet.  Or at least that's how Google and Facebook want it.  It's likely that just like me you have multiple Google accounts and now the parent company of anything that matters on the Internet wants to you to come clean.

Log into YouTube and you're constantly prodded to use your real name on your YouTube channel.  Want to log in using your channel alias?  Forget it, they want the email address you used to sign up with.  Just like Facebook, Google Plus doesn't allow aliases either.  In fact they want more information than I provided the bank to finance my car. 

Want to start a Facebook page for your business?  Be prepared to provide everything short of your articles of incorporation and 5 years of tax returns to do it. 

Contingent on using any of these services is the requirement to reveal more information about yourself than anyone should be comfortable with.  Thing is, for most, it's no big deal.  For the generations that came after mine it's nothing to "Broadcast Yourself" for all the world to see.  As some have found, to their own peril when that party video posted to your Facebook page gets in front of a potential employer.

It's gotten so easy to lay ourselves bare (in some cases literally) that many don't even think about the consequences of our cavalier attitude toward online privacy.   That is, until something happens that makes you regret clicking "I Agree" to the 10000 word terms of service.

It's not simply a question of privacy, for the most part that's gone if you leave your house.  It's a question of giving away the power of your own predestination.  I have no doubt that being a private investigator is no longer as lucrative as it once was.  What used to take them weeks is offered up freely under the guise of being "social"

Just ask the unfaithful spouse who found out just how much power they'd given away when their Facebook exploits were admitted as evidence in the legal proceedings that followed.

You may feel that it's a good thing that it's harder for those with something to hide to retreat behind anonymity.  Well Mr. Public Parts, we all have something to hide even if we haven't broken any laws.  Nobody should demand we reveal it just to be online.

What happens, for example,  when an author can no longer write under a pen name?  What about the  corporate whistle blower exposed by a change in some online service's privacy policy?  Should they have to sacrifice a career because an entire industry can now blackball them for it?

If you're Jeff Jarvis I suppose everything's a Public Part so it shouldn't matter what gets revealed.  In the real world where people can't afford to have their every action judged it becomes a problem.  I'm not in favor of the merging of private and public and stay off of services like Facebook and increasingly Google because of it.

Now, I may be running contrary to the Internet punditry proclaiming the glories of the new social construct that's arisen out of our constant connectivity in what I'm about to say. 

In short, I think it's Bull. 

I'd rather not be sitting in a job interview at 40 years of age having to explain something stupid I did in my teens to a potential employer.  It'd be nice if the world was populated only by the open minded with no personal agendas but that's just not how it works.  Experience has taught me the better parts of human nature rarely come into play in a job interview.

Think about the now common practice of job applicants having to submit to a credit check at the application stage.  I usually give them the "I'll show you mine if you show me yours" response in which I agree to allow the check only if I can have the same information from every member of the executive staff and the board. 

People usually just think I'm being a wiseacre and look at me as though I should be wearing a straightjacket when they find out I'm being serious.  Funny, I feel the same about them.

I think more people need to do that, actually.  In fact, I suggest it be the basis of a new movement.  A friend of mine is fond of saying corporations will keep pushing the boundaries until someone pushes back.  This can be where it starts.  After all, nobody has any right to know how timely I pay my debts unless they're loaning me money or I'm in charge of the keys to the bank vault.

It's exactly because of how the world works that we need to retain control of our own personas.  Making your new job contingent on a good credit score is just one symptom of the problem.

Look at it this way.  Do I really want to find out that my trusted mechanic of decades is a cross dresser on the weekends? 

Now I can care less if he is or not but some people might which could have consequences to his livelihood. 

The reality is that it's not critical information to know if he's just fixing my car.  If you think it is you're just being nosy and bigoted.    

That's what I mean by public and private.  I don't want to know any more about you than I need to know and what I need to know has limits. 

Say my mechanic is going to get married soon, I'd fully expect his potential bride (or groom) may want to know about such things but I don't.  If he's installing a supercharger on my Mustang, I could care less about his fashion adventures.

He shouldn't be required to expose that information and I shouldn't have the opportunity to pass any judgment on anything not directly related to him fixing my car.

That also means he should have the freedom to indulge in a private online existence apart from his public one.   Being online shouldn't have to mean that you abdicate your right to withhold information people don't need to know about you. 

In fact, knowing too much about a person can lead to even more discrimination simply because it becomes easier to apply our own personal biases based on irrelevant information.   Even if what we find has nothing to do with why we were interested in the first place the damage is done and our world grows a little colder.

We're all so concerned about safety these days and it's sure to come up whenever someone's abdicating the requirement to vomit up even more private information.  

Someone will always bring up the child molester, terrorist or bank robber that might have been stopped if we just had more information about them earlier.  Perhaps so but is it worth the whole of humanity living under a microscope to prevent it?  At what point does civilized society fall victim to Orwell's "thoughtcrime" ?

 The question you have to ask is if everyone's going to eventually be required to lay themselves bare online then who's qualified to sit in ultimate judgment of your actions?  You're tried, convicted and sentenced before you even realize you've done something wrong.

That sounds a bit "Minority Report" to me.