Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Stealing the Webby News Award

By gampid in Internet
Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 08:44:45 AM EST
Tags: Politics (all tags)
Politics

The Webby Awards are a celebration of corporate domination over the internet. The whole purpose is to take a popularly created participatory and democratic medium and laude the work of people who squeeze profit out of it. Sure there are some categories such as activism, the arts, and weird, but the focus, in their rhetoric and during the ceremonies, are the profit hungry dot com's.

I stole the webby award in the news category to protest the corporate domination over the news media both in the traditional and online mediums.


When I got up to the stage I placed a copy of Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent on the podium, grabbed the news award, and yelled "Fuck the corporate media!" in to the microphone. Unfortunately they had already turned off the podium microphone speakers and only the online audience heard my message. With the award in hand I ran back down the stage and tried to leave the opera house. One of the webby security guards grabbed the award out of my hands as I pushed through the doors. He said something like "oh no you don't" and I didn't feel like fighting over, and breaking, the spring so I gave it back to him. He ran it back down the hall and gave it to winning news corporado.

Let me say that it wasn't an official 'stunt' and the webby people really didn't like my action. They apparently do like my website, protest.net, as it's been nominated for the activism award both times they've had the category.

Some other higher up in the webby hierarchy came over to chew me out for "messing up their well planned event" and that they'd had to get the inside.com guy to fly out at the last minute from New York. After hanging out in the back of the theater for a while, not thinking it wise to walk back up to my third row seat, the security guards found me and tried to kick me out. They said "that was not cool, not cool." I wanted to see more of the ceremony, maybe get people's reactions to my action, so I pled that I was a nominee and that worked, they let me stay. They said something about how if I'd be ANYTHING other than a nominee they'd kick me out. I highly doubt that if I'd been a corporate sponsor they'd even threaten to kick me out, but that's what he said.

I ran in to one of the judges in the hall, who I'd been talking to before. He again went off about how hard they worked to pull of this highly scripted event and I was messing it up for everybody. When I quipped that Webbies even have a tradition of disruption and I hadn't even thrown the webby at the audience like jodi.org had, he said "well that was a long time ago." Implying that things had changed, now at the webbies. Jodi.org had called them "greedy corporate bastards" back in 1999, and they still are greedy corporate bastards. Only now they're whining about the dot bomb deflating their portfolios.

The webby awards have celebrated sites that pioneer the breaking down the wall between advertisers and news content such as amazon, inside.com, cnn, beliefnet, babycenter and many others. This is the wrong direction to take our collective technological development. We have a choice, either we can use this amazing new medium to become a truly popular mass medium where everybody has a voice or we can use it to drive hyper consumerism and friction free capitalism. For example, the technical achievement award went to Microsoft Windows Update and not projects that have been both major technical achievements and fulfill the internet's potential as a libratory medium. I see such projects as FreeNet, Ogg Vorbis, Gnutella, Apache, *BSD, and Linux itself as all being much more important technical achievements. MWU is a clever way for Microsoft to send you bug fixes! Bugs they created and bugs that are a result of their top heavy corporate development model.

When the television, radio, and cable were introduced there was a struggle between people who wanted to use the medium for the common good and people who wanted to use the medium for profit and to reproduce the conditions of inequality and domination. The question was, do we use this new technology to reduce social, economic, and information inequality, or do we use it to create a new class of wealthy. This struggle has played out across the world. In the US we have the most corporate and profit driven society and our media systems have been shaped to reflect and reproduce those values. Quickly we saw the rhetoric of the 'information superhighway' be replace with the ecommerce gold rush. The internet is a creation our society, like all communications mediums it is communal property. We must not let the internet go the way of the newspaper, radio, television, and cable. The communications commons must not be partitioned and sold for private profit.

Perhaps this collapse of the hyper inflated internet stocks will help us take the internet back from the VC's, dot commers, marketing spin miesters, and ecommerce biz dev stiff's. This is a medium that can allow us to radically change the balance of information power. Foucault said "Power is not possessed, rather is exercised." We must exercise our power as creators of technology, consumers of news and culture, people who are willing to think critically about the world to fight for the liberation of our internet.

DotCom's Burn: The Internet Lives Free!

Kuro5hin was also nominated for a webby award but didn't win. Maybe next year. I doubt that protest.net will get a third nomination. :) There is an article about and photo of the action on the sf.indymedia.org.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
What do you think of the webbies?
o Oscars of the internet 5%
o self important dot com love fest 33%
o boring non-event 44%
o kuro5hin should have won 15%

Votes: 69
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o Kuro5hin
o sf.indymed ia.org
o Also by gampid


Display: Sort:
Stealing the Webby News Award | 60 comments (41 topical, 19 editorial, 0 hidden)
A lot of nerve (3.86 / 15) (#2)
by onyxruby on Thu Jul 19, 2001 at 05:09:54 PM EST

You have a lot of nerve I must say. After saying "Fuck the corporate media!" in to the microphone, attempting to ruin the show and trying to steal an award that wasn't yours you then complain when they try to kick you out (never mind you had just tried to get out on your own). Even after this stunt, you were allowed to stay in as a nominee. The fact that you were allowed to stay at all show that the organizers have a lot of class.

For Pete's sake, if you earn the Webby, than it's your to do with what you want, but you didn't and now your throwing a temper tantrum over the fact. If you want to earn a webby over the likes of CNN, than do a better job than CNN. This reminds me of Linux users complaining when Linux got beaten by W2K in some PC World tests a while back. There were two types of respondents to this. The first whined about things, the second decided to fix the problems that were encountered.


The moon is covered with the results of astronomical odds.

The sore loser argument (3.16 / 6) (#5)
by gampid on Thu Jul 19, 2001 at 05:30:29 PM EST

Actually i thought about this. The sore loser argument is probally the best one i thought of against stealing the award. I agree, if i really wanted the award i should make a better website. But that isn't why i stole it. I took it to make a point and a statement against the corporate media and corporate domination of the internet.

My solution to the sore loser issue was to make my decision about the action before i knew the results of the activism category. Sure, i knew i wasn't the winner when i stole the news award, but i had my a personal commitment to do it regardless of whether or not i won.

Protest.Net: Seizing the means of communication!
[ Parent ]

I understand... (1.91 / 12) (#7)
by cypherpunks on Thu Jul 19, 2001 at 05:38:47 PM EST

...you were planning on being a stupid asshole either way. At least you're consistent.

[ Parent ]
Thanks (4.66 / 6) (#16)
by rusty on Thu Jul 19, 2001 at 08:33:52 PM EST

Thank you for providing the only interesting moment in that hideous snooze-fest. I have to say, I admire your guts. No, not for stealing the award, but for actually staying when they offered you a "get out of hell free" card. I think if someone had tried to kick me out, I wouldn't have argued with them.

By the way, nice choice of winner to disrupt. Inside.com sucks. Though since you were around anyway, why didn't you come back for an encore, and kick the guy from Plastic in the nuts? I think the rest of the audience took care of the Microsoftie for you. ;-)

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

Oh my, inside.com (4.00 / 2) (#22)
by gampid on Thu Jul 19, 2001 at 09:16:02 PM EST

I wish i'd seen this post before i talked to Rafat at inside.com. He sent me an email: If you already got my earlier e-mail at rabble@protest.net, I apologize. I would love to speak to you: I also read your earlier story on your site AnarchoGeek.com, and do understand your views on corporate media. Plase do call me at at 212-332-6347, and we can talk. Below is the earlier message. Rafat

I am a reporter with Inside.com, and you have probably guessed why I'm contacting you. I just read your story on Indymedia and appreciate your effort to explain things. I was wondering if I could talk to you about it. Nothing very official, we may not even do a story on it, but would love to hear more of your thoughts on the corporatization of webbys. By the way, I loved the fact that you left "Manufacturing Consent" on the podium.

So i offered to talk to him provided he pay for the phone bill. He asked a few questions, i explained why i'd stolen the award and what my critique of the corporate media is. He asked asked a little about my background. I co-founded a dot com a few years ago, metaevents.com, it wasn't hugely sucessful, but we did manage to sell out for some stock and after a series of transactions i found myself working for plam. I'm sure given your description of his article, he's going to make it sound like i'm a rich hypocritie or some sour dot commer. Oh well.

Protest.Net: Seizing the means of communication!
[ Parent ]

Whee (none / 0) (#29)
by rusty on Thu Jul 19, 2001 at 09:59:14 PM EST

Let me know if/when that gets written. Based on the Slashdot article, and the bit about K5, I'm tentatively classing him as a hack. But I'm always willing to give everyone an opportunity to redeem themselves.

He seems so nice on the phone, doesn't he?

It sucks that the mic was off. I didn't realize you said anything, and I was in the second row. No one in the audience heard it, I'm sure.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

inside.com article and the mic (none / 0) (#31)
by gampid on Thu Jul 19, 2001 at 10:14:11 PM EST

I was in the third row, i guess we were actually sitting near eachother. To bad, you're about ten thousand times more interesting to talk to than most of the people at the party.

Apparently it was loud and clear on the webcast. I yelled it, but i had the bandana covering my mouth. I briefly thought about trying to use the MC's mic but that seemed a little to confrontational. I didn't want to be seen as assulting anybody.

I'll post the article link here if it comes out and i find it and cc it to you.

Protest.Net: Seizing the means of communication!
[ Parent ]

More anti-corporate drivel (3.00 / 13) (#3)
by weirdling on Thu Jul 19, 2001 at 05:24:18 PM EST

The internet isn't a free society that shouldn't ever have anyone making money, and the companies that make money off of the internet aren't money-grubbing anymore than anyone else in this world. To those who are on the net that have a problem with the growing amount of profit generated by the net: get a life. It will happen whether you like it or not because someone has to pay the electric bill, if nothing else. The internet cannot be both free and useful. Sorry.

I'm not doing this again; last time no one believed it.
Make your own award show (4.00 / 10) (#6)
by Anatta on Thu Jul 19, 2001 at 05:37:16 PM EST

You showed them!

Perhaps you should simply protest by making your own awards show.

I can't think of anything less interesting than an awards show, and anything less profound than award show protesters, so you probably won't see me in your audience. But in any case, maybe by creating your own awards program and show, you will actually accomplish something useful rather than simply whining about the fucking corporate media...

It sounds like your protest.net is a good site... I don't see why you couldn't leverage that into creating your protest.awards show. Best of luck.
My Music

Please... (3.50 / 8) (#8)
by sombragris on Thu Jul 19, 2001 at 06:48:57 PM EST

Well, all you did was making yourself known as a fool to everybody. If you really did not like that award, then you should have stayed away from it. And perhaps run your own profanity-ridden (Jerky?) award.

Good job (3.57 / 7) (#10)
by Wah on Thu Jul 19, 2001 at 07:20:59 PM EST

A little shock never hurt anyone and awards shows should be a time when people do crazy stuff. I don't have much of an opinion on the webbys, except they sound a bit uptight and snotty. After looking at and reading a bit about the founders, I can see why.

Anyway, I'm all with you. The Internet is ours, all of the arguments that have constrained the usefullness of TV and radio in exchange for profits can be avoided here. There just isn't that kind of scarcity here. So you think /. sucks? Make your own. Tough to do that against NBC. Anyway, good job and anybody who goes through life without getting physically thrown out of a place for stating what they believe is pretty boring, IMHO.
--
Some things, bandwidth can't buy. For everything else, there's Real Life | SSP

What did the GCBs ever do to you? (4.62 / 8) (#11)
by garbanzo on Thu Jul 19, 2001 at 07:22:43 PM EST

Not sure if you noticed this, but the internet is still pretty much free.

Okay, not totally free. But damn close in comparison to other media.

You can reach a global audience (minus those whose dictatorial govs practice dangerous-thought interdiction). You can do it on cheap hardware and free software (linux, apache, php, mysql, etc.). You can do hosting or colo for less than US$2000 per year. You can put your personal pages up for less (e.g. free if you don't mind tripod's or geocities' crap running on top). Try publishing in print or running a tv station or a radio station on a global scope for that little.

So why does anyone in the noncommercial web community care about the Greedy Corporate Bastards? The net is not like a bookstore shelf--unless that shelf was never ending, searchable, etc. It is not like any kind of store space. Amazon.com's existence has had zero impact on my ability to go to k5 or any other non-commercial site.

So except for the joy of protesting (and, hey, if you were serious, you would have streaked:)) what is the big fat hairy deal?



sure, it's all fun and games--until someone puts an eye out

About the Greedy Corporate Bastards (4.33 / 6) (#17)
by gampid on Thu Jul 19, 2001 at 08:41:55 PM EST

You're right, i can and do use the internet in ways that would be impossible in any other medium. What they GCB's do is try and control the internet. You all know that both MSN and AOL didn't want to offer access to the web, they wanted their users to stay in the safe controled space that they provided. Look at the fight over IM where AOL tried to block other people, including fellow giant microsoft, from interoperating with their system. That's a propietary system, that's what makes profit, the internet we use has mostly open technology, but that doesn't mean it'll stay that way without a fight.

If you read the history of how other mediums emerged you'll know that they also were free at one point. They didn't become controled by a fluke of nature, it was a deliberate attempt by emerging corporations, very much like or current day dot coms. (is that the right way to pluralize the term?) The telecommunications act of 1996 was a step in the direction of allowing more consolidation and control over the net. You've seen it with the regulations about how web radio stations can play music. I know several stations that used to be online that aren't any more because of those pro-music industry regulations.

So, you say the internet is still a free medium. Yes for the most part it is. That's great, but let's not sit back and assume it'll stay free. Most importiant is working on projects that ensure we will retain a free and powerfully democratic net. This action was a small thing i did to try and raise awareness about the issues. It isn't the be all end all of actions, just an attempt to expose a few more people to the issues behind the corporate media's domination over our society and the net.

Protest.Net: Seizing the means of communication!
[ Parent ]

The positive role of the business internet... (5.00 / 1) (#49)
by garbanzo on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 03:07:43 PM EST

... is that it will prevent exactly the thing you fear: the division of the net into proprietary networks. The whole point of putting business on the internet is ACCESS! Access to people's eyeballs looking at banner ads. Access to your business by interested customers. How successful would a new telephone network be if users could not dial out of the network to other numbers? Not very.

No business would allow the kind of lock-in that a proprietary network would cause. Even businesses that started on AOL or CompuServe moved to the internet, once they believed their was a business reason (i.e. customers) there. And what brings customers to the internet is content: something to see, something to do. How much more do you think AOL has grown simply by allowing its customers to go out on to the internet? How much would it shrink if they withdrew that option? Where would people get their porno? They'd have to go buy it on paper for cryin' out loud.

About the only way to get people to go to a non-internet service provider these days would be to make it free, at least in the sense of price.

By the way, when were print publications, radio, and television ever free media? Not that it is important, but every bit of the history I've seen shows opposite evidence. If "free" means that an elite group of hobbyists and researchers controlled it, then yeah, they started free, but they did not stay that way long. Content providers (political causes excepted) don't typically work on spec for very long.



sure, it's all fun and games--until someone puts an eye out

[ Parent ]
Free Media (5.00 / 3) (#51)
by rusty on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 05:45:04 PM EST

Virtually all media have been significantly free at their inception, and later burdened with either regulation, or simply become unable to live up to their original promise. The "Free Press" that the US Constitution refers to was vastly different from the Washington Post or CNN. They were quite a lot more like K5 or Indymedia, in fact. They typically had a fairly strong viewpoint, and were the product of a small number of activists who could write and had influential friends. See William Safire's excellent book "Scandalmongers" for a really good portrait of the state of news printing in the early American colonies.

Of course, this small-operation news was eventually overwhelmed by the sheer size of the audience, and had to become a lot less personal and local to effectively grow. Also, the Sedition Act put a significant damper of the effective freedom of the press, by essentially making it a crime for a while to criticize the government.

Radio is another medium which was very freewheeling at the outset, and was almost immediately burdened with legislation (The Communications Act of 1934) which turned it into a scarce resource, regulated by the FCC. It is my understanding that the technology necessary to open up the FM spectrum to a nearly infinite number of stations has been around for decades, but since the FCC is in charge of allocating airspace, there's no incentive to actually implement it. I'm not a radio buff, and I don't remember where I heard that, so if it's not true, I apologize in advance.

The point being, that the history of new media is littered with the story of "once upon a time anyone could get into it..." I don't want to see that happen to the net either, obviously. I think you have a point that business can help keep access open, not wanting to close themselves off from part of their audience. But the flip side of that coin is the risk of creating a small number of giants (AOL/TW, MSNBC...) that can effectively ensure that small operators will just never be noticed.

I'm glad to see that the net so far seems to be doing pretty well for itself, in keeping actual human voices dominant, and I hope most of all the the media hype about the "dot-com crash!!!" will keep people who are only in it for money away. Keep telling them that it's a hard dollar on the net, and maybe they'll give it up as unprofitable. ;-)

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

Content Vs. Access (none / 0) (#54)
by garbanzo on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 12:00:54 PM EST

Good points. I think the web may be different from the historical media models for a couple of reasons

First is the barriers to entry. Print publication takes infrastructure, materials, distribution. Radio takes permitting and infrastructure. You also accept content restrictions as part of the permitting process (ref: Carlin's 7 words). TV is similar enough to radio (cable makes a slight difference but not enough). In short, to get your content (protests, sales brochures, whatever) you need to invest a lot of money.

My IT dept. just sent someone to tour a facility that will set you up with office space, fiber to the backbone, racks, power, etc. for $US4500 per month. Slap some servers and netapps in there and you have the basic infrastructure to run a MASSIVE website worldwide. I was particularly impressed by the inclusion of real-estate (office and server racks) into the deal. Okay, there's a huge oversupply of communications services and this is a firesale price and I live in a major US city and location becomes important for that level of service, but my point is that the barriers to entry at the high-end are still insanely low by comparison to other media. At the low end, you can put pages on a free site and get your access from a web cafe or public library and pay nothing out of pocket.

The second thing that makes it different I think is that although there are businesses that would benefit from a more closed net, they are mainly on the content side: the AOLs and MSNs of the world. They must be careful about restricting the access of their users to the rest of the world, but if, say, protest.com went tango-uniform, that would probably be no skin of their potato.

They are not the only businesses in the stew, however. There are ISPs, colos and hosts, and phone companies that are just dying to sell you some infrastructure. The phone companies, in particular, are probably going to push this more and more aggressively. Possibly in concert with the b2c sector (woo! jargon alert!). In other words, phone companies will try to sell you a wired household where your 21st century fridge can ask you to confirm a beer delivery when the supply gets low. Maybe.

That's a little too far OT, but I wanted to get this thought down.

What would concern me is:

  • More or stricter content censorship laws in us/ca/eu. This is where AOL/TW execs get all serious looking and tell a bunch of congressmen about the danger the net poses to Our Children. Hopefully, the First Amendment lives and trumps this bullshit.
  • Corporate marriage between the wire stringers and the content providers--effectively trading the access business in for a piece of the content monopoly pie. In a way, the very mass of the players makes it tough for this to happen--how would the EU or USFTC respond to an AOL/TW merger with, say SBC Communications?

So far, those things don't seem to be happening



sure, it's all fun and games--until someone puts an eye out

[ Parent ]
Barriers to entry (5.00 / 1) (#55)
by rusty on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 02:55:43 PM EST

You're right that the net presents a significantly lower barrier to entry, right now. But actually, radio doesn't have so much of a barrier to entry itself, other than the regulatory barrier. Obviously, you can't set up an FM station to broadcast all around the world, no one can. But to create one that can broadcast to as wide an area as your standard commercial station does today is not an outrageous amount of money. For a fairly small area, it's only a couple thousand dollars worth of gear. But without the regulated medium itself, the spectrum, it ain't worth nothin.

Of course, the US government seems to truly want to be in the content censorship business. The CDA and CDA2 were both attempts to get a hold on internet content similar to the hold they have on radio, television, and print. Both have so far failed, but you bet your ass they'll try again. And how would your smart politician do that? Taxes and regulation of course! Imagine the internet corrolary to the Communications Act of 1934, the "Bandwidth Act of 200X". This bill would specify that broadband transmission capacity be taxed at a certain rate per byte/second (or Kb/s or Mb/s). Perhaps there could be lower rates for carriers who maintained certain "standards of decency", which would be overseen by the FCC.

So, go ahead and move your sites offshore, but Americans who want to see them will still have to pay the bandwidth tax. Suddenly, we've just regulated the internet.

It's a scary thought, and I hope like hell nothing like that happens. But it has been the history of every medium so far, and I imagine we haven't yet seen the real fight over this one. Business just wants what's good for the bottom line. So far, open access is. But that relies totally on an unrestricted regulatory landscape. That assumption could be changed.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

Controlling things (5.00 / 1) (#53)
by John Miles on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 09:13:05 PM EST

What they GCB's do is try and control the internet

Oh, I see, as opposed to what you are doing when you steal peoples' trinkets and disrupt their freedoms of speech and assembly.

Thanks for clearing that up, I was a little confused.

For so long as men do as they are told, there will be war.
[ Parent ]

Moron (3.00 / 11) (#12)
by jamesarcher on Thu Jul 19, 2001 at 07:23:08 PM EST

Internet media is not dominated by corporations. That's a myth perpetuated by zit-faced 14-year-old cyberpunk "rebels" who have nothing else in their lives to claim as oppression.

The reason people go to corporate news outlets is that the content is simply better: It's more accurate, held to higher standards, and there's more of it.

Hehe (3.25 / 4) (#24)
by Wah on Thu Jul 19, 2001 at 09:23:09 PM EST

The reason people go to corporate news outlets is that the content is simply better.

You're a troll unless you can give good examples of each of your "simply better" criteria. How's this and this for starters.
--
Some things, bandwidth can't buy. For everything else, there's Real Life | SSP
[ Parent ]

Grow up. (3.42 / 7) (#20)
by harb on Thu Jul 19, 2001 at 09:06:21 PM EST

See subject.

Not only are you ignoring how the Internet itself works (who owns what, who runs what, and more or less, who designed what), you acted like a fourteen year old cyberpunk rebel (see comment below).

If you're going to protest something, do it in an effective and productive manner. Have a real reason for doing it, rather than spamming a bunch of cliche'd circular logic nonsense.

Being an asshole, contrary to popular belief, does not make you a rebel of any sort.

It just makes you an asshole.

bda.

I'm 14 and angry! Whee! (3.81 / 11) (#21)
by kitten on Thu Jul 19, 2001 at 09:13:21 PM EST

Tell me, dear gampid, what have you accomplished with this little stunt?

Absolutely nothing, other than to arouse my suspicion that you really, really like Rage Against The Machine.

If you're going to make an ass of yourself and call it an act of rebellion, you'd better make damn sure you've got a coherent messege ("fuck that" doesn't cut it), that your messege is heard by people who give a damn, that you're fighting for a worthy cause, and most importantly, that you know wtf you're talking about.

Since you fail in all the above criteria, I'm going to have to declare that your stunt was not an act of rebellion, it was an immature act of juvenile stupidity.

Congratulations.
mirrorshades radio - darkwave, synthpop, industrial, futurepop.
Rage Against The Machine and rebellion (3.33 / 3) (#25)
by gampid on Thu Jul 19, 2001 at 09:29:30 PM EST

I do like rage, they aren't my favorate band, i prefer chumbawamba or a good folkie like Greg Brown, but i do have a couple rage albums. I've also worked on part of rage's site, rage.protest.net is a syndicated, branded if you will, version of protest.net. I was hoping to get people who do listen to rage introduced to some more real actions they could take instead of just looking cool and listening to more music.

Regarding acts of rebellion. This was a small act which will hopefully bring more attention to the issues of corporate control over the media and the internet. Mostly i spend my time building websites like protest.net and indymedia.org and setting up public media labs so more people can get access to this technology. No it isn't sexy and it doesn't seem rebellious, but it is the bread and butter of creating radical change. Once in a while i like to step back from that and do something that gets a little more attention like steal the webby and denounce the corporate media.

Regardless of what you think of Chomsky, i did leave that book on the podium to make a statement. I couldn't explain all the problems with the corporate media in the 10 seconds i was on stage, but Manufacturing Consent does a pretty good job of it. That's why i made sure to include it in my action.

Protest.Net: Seizing the means of communication!
[ Parent ]

What you say !! (3.85 / 7) (#30)
by kitten on Thu Jul 19, 2001 at 10:14:05 PM EST

I do like rage, they aren't my favorate band, i prefer chumbawamba or a good folkie like Greg Brown, but i do have a couple rage albums. I've also worked on part of rage's site, rage.protest.net is a syndicated, branded if you will, version of protest.net.

Blah blah blah, speaking out against capitaliism has turned Rage into multimillionaries, blah blah blah, they each own homes in LA valued at over 2.1 million dollars, blah blah, they preach to the one target audience that can't do anything about political situations even if they cared which they don't, blah blah.
I'm not impressed.

Regarding acts of rebellion. This was a small act which will hopefully bring more attention to the issues of corporate control over the media and the internet.

Really. It may interest you to know that "attention" is not the same thing as "getting things done". Acting like a febrile ten-year-old sure got you "attention", but you accomplished nothing.

. No it isn't sexy and it doesn't seem rebellious, but it is the bread and butter of creating radical change.

Okay there, Martin Luther King. You're going to have to do a hell of a lot more than say "fuck the system" if you want to bring any meaningful change about. A good place to begin is to pick a cause that actually matters, and from there you may want to do something instead of just patting yourself on the back for your "grassroots" nonsense.

Once in a while i like to step back from that and do something that gets a little more attention like steal the webby and denounce the corporate media.

Oh boy, you sure put them in their place.

Regardless of what you think of Chomsky...

I think he's a fucking idiot.

...i did leave that book on the podium to make a statement.

What statement would that be? "I'm a moron who leaves things behind?"
Despite all your rhetoric about "statements" and "radical change", you must face the simple truth: You accomplished nothing whatsoever. And you only made more of an ass of yourself by begging them to not kick your sorry ass out. If I were like you, I'd call you a boot-licking corporate-fearing coward now.. but I'm not, so I won't.

I couldn't explain all the problems with the corporate media in the 10 seconds i was on stage,

So you opted for "Fuck this". That's very contemplative of you.

but Manufacturing Consent does a pretty good job of it. That's why i made sure to include it in my action.

So it's safe to assume that after you left, everyone present read Chomsky's book and saw the error of their ways, is that it?
If not, then you failed.


mirrorshades radio - darkwave, synthpop, industrial, futurepop.
[ Parent ]
Hello, gentlemen (5.00 / 3) (#35)
by slaytanic killer on Thu Jul 19, 2001 at 10:49:29 PM EST

Acting like a febrile ten-year-old sure got you "attention", but you accomplished nothing.
Don't be too sure about that. After all, why did you have such a visceral reaction?

Really. There are generally two stereotyped reactions to this article: Agreement that this guy done good, and condemnation for his childish actions. When you have one of these reactions, ask yourself why. If the answer comes out too quickly, it would be useful to ask yourself again.

[ Parent ]
You know what you doing. (3.50 / 2) (#39)
by kitten on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 02:43:13 AM EST

Really. There are generally two stereotyped reactions to this article: Agreement that this guy done good, and condemnation for his childish actions. When you have one of these reactions, ask yourself why. If the answer comes out too quickly, it would be useful to ask yourself again.

I'm sorry, are you implying that the reason I think his actions were idiotic and immature is because on some level I approve or condone or am even jealous?

Spare me.

The answer came quickly, alright: His juvenile little stunt is something I'd expect from a fifth-grader who is angry at his teacher for assigning too much homework.

As I've stated, he accomplished nothing with his action. When I say this, I do not mean "nothing" in the literal sense - certainly he has stirred an emotion in me, for example: irritation.

No, here I use "nothing" as in, "nothing productive", or "not what he intended".

The fifth-grader who steals his teacher's gradebook as an act of defiance and gets caught, certainly did accomplish something: He demonstrated his poor reasoning and got his ass landed in detention or whatever.. but he accomplished little else.
By the same token, this, ah, gentleman, certainly did accomplish something: He demonstrated that he is immature, incapable of reasoning his actions before executing them, and then tried to justify his stupidity with mindless hot air and rhetoric that goes exactly nowhere.
What he did not accomplish is what he set out to do (presumably): Provoke thought and cause people to question what they were doing.

So, in conclusion: He can congratulate himself all day long for having made people annoyed with his stupidity, but that is not, in and of itself, a monumental acheivement.
mirrorshades radio - darkwave, synthpop, industrial, futurepop.
[ Parent ]
For great justice. (5.00 / 2) (#46)
by slaytanic killer on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 10:06:59 AM EST

I'm sorry, are you implying that the reason I think his actions were idiotic and immature is because on some level I approve or condone or am even jealous?

Spare me.
You're right in thinking that you can reply to any comment I make, but wrong in thinking that you should've replied to that one. You answered way too quickly.

The thing is, you are the enemy. Not my enemy, but probably humanity's enemy. You show me rhetorical questions and scenarios as if I should prima facie agree with them:
The fifth-grader who steals his teacher's gradebook...
When in reality people who do things like this are the Socrates and Galileos and Caesars of the world who did a bit too many childish things, took control of their lives, and met bad fates because of it. They take control of the systems they live under, and do something so appalling, they must be put to death: Changing things.

The child who steals the teacher's gradebook for assigning homework is the reason for Lab and Montessori schools which don't make childhood a grueling and humiliating experience. If the teacher can't deal with her gradebook being temporarily stolen in a moment of protest, then there is a great deal she can not deal with. Could've been a learning experience she could have used, but so many people miss these moments and later whine that they hadn't found any opportunities in life.

And BTW, what I don't like is people coming here and dismissing him insultingly in three sentences, because that certainly is the opposite of intellectualism. Whatever immaturity happened at the Webbies, does not get brought into here. What you miss is that this article is a continuation of that quick act at the Webbies, an ongoing attempt to have people understand his motivations. It is still going on, and you are part of the audience. And like that audience, many people here will not be able to grasp for one instant what went through his mind as he commited his rash act.

[ Parent ]
Someone set up us the stupidity. (3.50 / 2) (#47)
by kitten on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 12:05:22 PM EST

The thing is, you are the enemy. Not my enemy, but probably humanity's enemy. You show me rhetorical questions and scenarios as if I should prima facie agree with them: [insert my scenario of a fifth-grader stealing his teacher's gradebook]

If we can just cut through the Latin and get down to business, that'd be great. My example was perfectly reasonable and relevant. The author's actions were no different than that of a third-grader crumpling up his homework or a fifth-grader stealing his teacher's gradebook. He got pissed off at something which has little relevance to the workaday world anyway, threw a tantrum, and when all was said and done, did not change anything for the better.

When in reality people who do things like this are the Socrates and Galileos and Caesars of the world who did a bit too many childish things, took control of their lives, and met bad fates because of it.

Er.
I'm sorry, I'm not buying this at all. Gampid's juvenile stunt was nothing more than a shameless cry for attention, and that's all it netted him. Off the top of my head I can think of several different ways to protest a show - including boycotts, countershows, etc - each of which would be much more productive and effective ways of communicating his "messege".
And here you are patting him on the back for a job well done, when in fact all he did was jump up on a stage and scream an obscenity and then got caught for it. Woo hoo. There aren't twenty million other angst-ridden teenagers out there who think "the system sucks, man".
You try to group him in the same intellentsia group as Galileo and Socrates, I've got news: Galileo and Socrates did a hell of a lot more than say "fuck that, fuck this". And they had more important things to say as well. The comparison is not valid.

The child who steals the teacher's gradebook for assigning homework is the reason for Lab and Montessori schools which don't make childhood a grueling and humiliating experience.

When I was in fifth grade I stole my teacher's gradebook because I didn't think it was fair that she assigned a whole page of spelling homework. It was stupid, I got nothing accomplished other than a conference with my parents.
I'd hardly call a bit of homework a "humiliating and grueling experience".

If the teacher can't deal with her gradebook being temporarily stolen in a moment of protest, then there is a great deal she can not deal with.

O! the irony.
If this gampid can't deal with a fucking awards show that he thinks is stupid, there is a great deal he cannot deal with.
I think awards shows are stupid as well. Therefore I don't watch them. I'm reminded of the old joke: "Doctor, it hurts when I do this." "Then don't do that."

Could've been a learning experience she could have used, but so many people miss these moments and later whine that they hadn't found any opportunities in life.

Perhaps gampid should learn that acting like an asshole in public and annoying people for trivial reasons should have been a learning experience, but apparently it wasn't, as he's now here gloating about it like a prepubescent gym-class bully who just beat up the class nerd.
And since the Webbys are certain to continue next year as well, he can whine all he want that his flagrant display of immaturity didn't get him what he wanted.

And BTW, what I don't like is people coming here and dismissing him insultingly in three sentences, because that certainly is the opposite of intellectualism.

I see. And jumping up on a stage to yell "fuck this, this sucks" is the height of intellectualism, is it?

Whatever immaturity happened at the Webbies, does not get brought into here.

Wasn't that the whole point of the article?
And I'm glad you now admit that it was, in fact, immature.

What you miss is that this article is a continuation of that quick act at the Webbies, an ongoing attempt to have people understand his motivations.

Please dispel all those illustrious and grandiose motivations to us now, we're dying to know. Because all I see is some punk-ass teenager who wanted to feel "cool" for ten seconds by making an ass of himself in public.
Despite all his rhetoric and high-sounding talk, he accomplished nothing whatsoever with his stunt. He can justify his stupidity all he wants with mindless hot air, circular logic, and demonstrably incorrect facts, but in the end, he's got nothing to say except "fuck that".
I'm not impressed.

And like that audience, many people here will not be able to grasp for one instant what went through his mind as he commited his rash act.

Probably something like "Woo hoo, I'll show them!"

He sure showed them, alright. Yeah, he really layed the smack down on them. I'm certain everyone sees the error of their ways now. The Webbys are no more, the dot coms will burn in Hell, and corporations will hand the power back to the people where it belongs. I hope everyone at the Webbys brought their bookbags because gampid really took them to school.

Or something.

After this article is phased out of the section, the only mention of this nonsense that will occur in the future is "Hey, remember two years ago when some idiot ran on the stage?" "Oh yeah, what a moron. Ha ha."


mirrorshades radio - darkwave, synthpop, industrial, futurepop.
[ Parent ]
Sigh, you believe it sooo much (5.00 / 2) (#48)
by slaytanic killer on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 01:36:40 PM EST

BTW, I really am just needing to get the flames out of me. You seem the best candidate, since you're not above calling others names for things you don't understand. So don't take it personally, it's my fault and I am actually ruining K5 by doing this.
If we can just cut through the Latin and get down to business, that'd be great...
Aight, jest let me roll up dem sleeves...
He got pissed off at something which has little relevance to the workaday world anyway, threw a tantrum, and when all was said and done, did not change anything for the better.
I am part of the "workaday world," and I find it good that people are doing things that don't involve killing/maiming people. It was harmless and an opportunity for the Webby guys to garner more press for their awards ceremony. But they won't capitalize on it, since they're such tyros.

"Tyros" is kinda from latin, but you'll forgive me.
I'm sorry, I'm not buying this at all. Gampid's juvenile stunt was nothing more than a shameless cry for attention, and that's all it netted him.
No, it netted him a great deal of interest on some weblogs. Name one, and you get a kewpie doll.
Galileo and Socrates did a hell of a lot more than say "fuck that, fuck this". And they had more important things to say as well. The comparison is not valid.
That's why our esteemed protester isn't dead right now. Hopefully he will martyr himself, like Martin Luther King did. He's still young; he's learning. Malcolm X was called "Satan" for his rage, before he became upstanding and was assasinated. People like you laughed at Galileo during his time. It is only a recent phenomenon that he was elevated to a wise man. Our protester isn't there yet, and maybe he never will be, but he is further along than some.
If this gampid can't deal with a fucking awards show that he thinks is stupid, there is a great deal he cannot deal with.
Ah, but he DID deal with it.
Wasn't that the whole point of the article? And I'm glad you now admit that it was, in fact, immature.
I was talking about the immature people who were ANGRY at him for doing what he did. What are you talking about..?
I see. And jumping up on a stage to yell "fuck this, this sucks" is the height of intellectualism, is it?
You've said "fuck this, this sucks" at least twice so far in this one message. Did you not notice the thing with Noam Chomsky's book, or do you also enjoy lying and misrepresentations as well? Don't get me wrong; that is likely the nature of the corporate world you defend. (And those within it just love it when people swallow their PR enough to defend it. While I may seem rabid, it's only people like you who polarize me to get away from revulsion.)

Now to get away from these flames, I don't really think you're all that wrong. I just see that the protester made a move with very chaotic consequences, in a scientific sense -- the results disrupted a bit of order, and different individuals found different things in his action. Some "for", some "against." Even those words are meaningless, since it is sometimes good to polarize people against you if it cracks open the window of opportunity to make them think. It doesn't matter if they agree. But they must have some opinion, even if it's like yours. This practice is called Social Violence, and it sometimes is successful.

[ Parent ]
Give me a fucking break. (3.00 / 1) (#56)
by kitten on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 04:17:43 PM EST

You seem the best candidate, since you're not above calling others names for things you don't understand.

Let me apologize for not having the vast intellectual capacity that you do; it is obvious that my inferior brainpower is the reason I don't understand the complexity and refined nuances that is gampid's antics. Truly, you have brought shame to me and my house by making this public knowledge.

I am part of the "workaday world," and I find it good that people are doing things that don't involve killing/maiming people.

Who said anything about killing and maiming?
Interesting that you don't find stealing to be wrong, however.

It was harmless and an opportunity for the Webby guys to garner more press for their awards ceremony.

By providing free publicity, gampid brought the exact opposite result of the one he wanted.

That's why our esteemed protester isn't dead right now. Hopefully he will martyr himself, like Martin Luther King did.

He's already trying to become some sort of holier-than-thou wizard looking down upon the rest of us squalid midgets from atop his high and mighty mountain of Wisdom.
I would call gampid many things and "esteemed" is not one of them. The fact that he disrupted an organized and privately funded event, stole someone else's property, begged for forgiveness like a snivelling weasel, and had the unmitigated gall to gloat about it afterwards as though he'd accomplished something of import, and did all of the above for idiotic reasons based on faulty presmises and incorrect information does not impress me.. nor did it make any sort of impression on the people his action was directed against, except perhaps "What the fuck is that jackass doing?"
If this gampid can't deal with a fucking awards show that he thinks is stupid, there is a great deal he cannot deal with.
Ah, but he DID deal with it.


No, he didn't. He pulled what amounts to little more than a practical joke and got nailed for it, lied his way out of getting thrown out (nevermind the fact that he was on his way out anyway.. go figure), and his action impacted absolutely nothing, provoked no thought in the target audience, and only served to make him look like the immature child he is.

You've said "fuck this, this sucks" at least twice so far in this one message. Did you not notice the thing with Noam Chomsky's book, or do you also enjoy lying and misrepresentations as well?

I'm sorry, but let's review what actually happened, according to gampid:
1. He disrupted a privately funded event.
2. He yelled a cliched catchphrase ("fuck this" or something equally as mindless) into a microphone that wasn't even turned on.
3. He stole property that did not belong to him.
4. He left a cliched book on the podium, a book which serves little purpose other than to make teenagers angry about how unfair the world is (a difficult challenge, I'm sure). Said book was utterly ignored by the intended target audience, and had gampid not made a big deal out of it in this article, nobody would even have known about the book - it was not mentioned in the other article.
5. He tried to run out the building and was caught.
6. After being caught, he begged to stay and not face penalties.
Woo hoo. He sure showed them.

the results disrupted a bit of order, and different individuals found different things in his action. Some "for", some "against." Even those words are meaningless, since it is sometimes good to polarize people against you if it cracks open the window of opportunity to make them think.

Excuse me, but what thought did he provoke? What did they think now that this "window of opportunity" was "opened" for them by his lame little stunt, other than "What a moron, someone get his ass off the goddamn stage"?

I'm still not buying any of your high-sounding rhetoric which goes absolutely nowhere, nor your feeble attempts at defending a juvenile action that was clearly unjustified and demonstrably misinformed. You can sit and moralize all you want about it, but his actions are no different than the kids at my high school who stole the varsity football trophy out of the gym because they were pissed off at the principal. Woo hoo.

And I'll say it once more: He did not accomplish anything productive. He made an ass of himself in public for a few seconds, and that's it. His target audience totally ignored his messege ("fuck the corporate media, yee-haw"), as well they should have: It's the brainless blithering of a pissed-off teenager who has nothing else in his life to claim as oppression.

mirrorshades radio - darkwave, synthpop, industrial, futurepop.
[ Parent ]
show (none / 0) (#57)
by anonymous cowerd on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 10:21:30 PM EST

And I'll say it once more: He did not accomplish anything productive.

What productive thing can anyone do at a web awards ceremony?

Let's exclude serving drinks, both useful and deeply appreciated, from this discussion, and assume for now that you are not part of the wait staff.

The whole thing was a show and nothing but a show. I wasn't there but it's not too unlikely that our author put on the most vivid performance of the entire occasion. He's to be congratulated. Maybe they should have a new category at next year's event.

Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net

America is false to the past,
false to the present,
and solemnly binds herself
to be false to the future.
- Frederick Douglas

[ Parent ]

haha (1.00 / 1) (#58)
by kitten on Sun Jul 22, 2001 at 10:28:40 PM EST

What productive thing can anyone do at a web awards ceremony?

That was part of my point in my original post: Attacking an awards ceremony is not an effective means to communicate a messege.

The whole thing was a show and nothing but a show

Yes, exactly: These things are just shows, and nobody really pays much attention to them. Sometimes they're a bit of fun, but really, they're not taken all that seriously by anyone in the field (be it film, music, or in this case, the Web).
gampid's "anger" at the way the Web works (even though he really has no idea how it works) is not going to be heard at a bloody awards ceremony, especially since the ceremony is full of Web supporters anyway.

Now we've come back to what I said to begin with. In my original messege, I said something like "your messege must be heard by people who give a damn", and guess what? An awards ceremony doesn't provide that.

So, once again: gampid utterly failed. His actions were ignored by the public, the audience for his stunt was disinterested in his "messege", his actions were dictated by demonstrably flawed premises and incorrect information about corporate structure and the way the Web operates, and he did nothing but make an ass of himself.

At an awards show.

Which nobody cares about anyway.

Rock on with your bad self there, gampid. You're really going to change the world that way. "Fight the power," "The System sucks," "Damn the Man", and whatever else you angry teenagers like to say when you're feeling oppressed.

. I wasn't there but it's not too unlikely that our author put on the most vivid performance of the entire occasion.

So gampid is the court jester of a stupid show. That's really impressive, let me tell you.

Maybe they should have a new category at next year's event.

"And the award for the most wannabe angry teenager goes to.."

mirrorshades radio - darkwave, synthpop, industrial, futurepop.
[ Parent ]
I admire your commitment to the cause (5.00 / 1) (#59)
by streetlawyer on Mon Jul 23, 2001 at 06:53:16 AM EST

Surprising, I'd thought from the rest of your part in this discussion that you were an apathetic, limp sack of shit. Then I come across this:

That was part of my point in my original post: Attacking an awards ceremony is not an effective means to communicate a messege

My apologies. This would only make sense if you were already devoting every minute 24/7 to your cause, and had no spare time to do more, so you had to use every minute as effectively as possible. Otherwise, it would be pretty damn hypocritical of you to criticise someone for getting his message across in the way he chose.

Again, my apologies.

--
Just because things have been nonergodic so far, doesn't mean that they'll be nonergodic forever
[ Parent ]

awards in general (4.33 / 3) (#34)
by THoliC on Thu Jul 19, 2001 at 10:30:27 PM EST

Oscars, MTV, BAFTAs, BRITs, "Pipesmoker of the year".....

NOBODY (sensible) looks to these things to provide perceptive and knowledgeable judgement with regard to the fields of study they claim to be 'adjudicating'. Expecting them to do so is like expecting the sun to rise in the west. By your actions you are, in essence, giving respect to, and vindicating, the self-perceived worth of the corporations and award ceremonies you claim to wish to criticise. If they don't speak for you then don't LET them speak for you by acknowledging their worth in your world. This doesn't mean that you shouldn't do everything you can to work against them, if this is your wish: It simply means that you should take coherent and effective action where it will work - and NOT inflate the exposure and importance of that which you wish to destroy/amend.

"Don't get caught up in that phoney, bullshit argument: Take one look, say 'piece of shit', and walk away...."</Hicks>

It's like people complaining about the lack of quality programs on television: Either don't watch, OR set out to make better ones (or both) - but don't watch the shit anyway knowing its lack of worth - that just gives them an excuse to make more shit.

Still - am going to +1 you - should be a good debate.


"Wanderlust,
has got us both,
looking for a bed today..."

Award Show Rant... (3.66 / 3) (#36)
by Elkor on Thu Jul 19, 2001 at 10:59:19 PM EST

Please see the following link for a rant on award shows.

I enjoy the intermissions they sponsor, and it is nice when they actually recognize a significant improvement/advancement/production from their field, but I feel that in most cases popularity wins out over quality.

Regards,
Elkor



Justification? (off topic) (none / 0) (#37)
by THoliC on Thu Jul 19, 2001 at 11:23:52 PM EST

Aye - was trying to avoid touching on any of the specifics but I have to say that I nearly made an exception and mentioned 'Gladiator' myself - was gratifying to hear the sentiments expressed elsewhere.

Can you justify this, though?

"Elkor (Winner: Most Lecherous Boyfriend 2000) echoes the sentiment for the character of "The Keeper". He wishes that Darien would do us the favor of making her clothes invisible, from time to time."

Hmmmmmmm! Does this count as self-spam??
;) Cheers


"Wanderlust,
has got us both,
looking for a bed today..."

[ Parent ]
Oops. :) (none / 0) (#50)
by Elkor on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 05:08:28 PM EST

I forgot that she had that comment in there.

I saw the topic and thought of her column as being an addition to the discussion.

Sure I can justify it, I am the only boyfriend she had in 2000. :) Therefor I am the most lecherous.

I can also provide references, if necessary. :)

Regards,
Elkor


"I won't tell you how to love God if you don't tell me how to love myself."
-Margo Eve
[ Parent ]
poll redundancy (4.60 / 5) (#38)
by Delirium on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 01:59:47 AM EST

Your first three poll answers are all essentially the same thing. The Webbys are the Oscars of the internet, which means that they are unimportant corporate crap. Only for some reason I actually know who won some Webbys (probably since kuro5hin was nominated it's been reported here a lot), while I have no clue who won any Oscars.

How to Get Rid of the Webby Awards [instructional] (4.20 / 5) (#43)
by Maniac_Dervish on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 03:44:27 AM EST

1) Ignore them.

2) Convince other people to ignore them.

3) Don't take them seriously.

4) Avoid acting like a rebellious juvenile. If you're going to do something 'radical' you need to at LEAST get arrested. If you can't manage that, you probably don't want to be throwing stones at people who might decide to get violent with you. Your action wasn't even remotely radical, but it was extremely lame.

dervish.

This "choice" thing exists only in your (4.66 / 3) (#52)
by John Miles on Fri Jul 20, 2001 at 09:10:26 PM EST

We have a choice, either we can use this amazing new medium to become a truly popular mass medium where everybody has a voice or we can use it to drive hyper consumerism and friction free capitalism.

Hey, Mr. Chomsky, in case you haven't noticed, the Internet is a packet-switched network. Nobody's monopolizing circuits; nobody's monopolizing frequencies. We can have both commerce and conversation.... at least, we can, as long as you wannabe-Cultural Revolutionaries don't get your way.

It's ironic that whenever I read about someone using force to protest or suppress Internet activity, it's as likely to be a 14-year-old "hacktivist" who's read just enough of the Anarchist Cookbook to be dangerous, as an Evil Global Corporation(tm) or overbearing government agency.

In short, get a life. Failing that, at least go down to Half-Price Books and trade your dog-eared copy of Fight Club for a set of Richard Stevens's books on TCP/IP, so you can understand the nature of the medium you're supposedly "defending." The Internet works for everybody, whether you like it or not.

For so long as men do as they are told, there will be war.

Hrm. (5.00 / 1) (#60)
by kitten on Thu Aug 02, 2001 at 05:35:36 PM EST

Not that anybody is actually reading this anymore, but this thought occured to me today, for no reason:

How do we even know gampid is the person who "stole" the Webby?

All photos I've seen of the event show the perp to be wearing a mask - his face is not visible. All articles I've read (there aren't many - the only ones I've found are on "hacktivist" sites like the ones gampid croons about) do not mention a name; they merely say the person was "anonymous".

The only proof we have that gampid is responsible is this article claiming credit for it.

I'm giving serious consideration now to the notion that gampid had absolutely nothing to do with this stunt in the first place - his idle ramblings and anti-Establishment propaganda may very well be nothing more than the whiny blitherings of an angst-ridden teenager who only wishes he'd done something like that because he doesn't realize how incredibly lame it was.

gampid, it's time to grow up, get a job, and if you still wish to pursue this idiocy, then educate yourself on the issue before you attack it. The Internet isn't controlled by corporations, and your bitching about The Man and The System reminds me of a line from a certain movie:

"Help help, I'm being repressed!"
mirrorshades radio - darkwave, synthpop, industrial, futurepop.
Stealing the Webby News Award | 60 comments (41 topical, 19 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!