"I pledge the allegiance to Citizen DeafRead." Now, sign on the dotted line. And I'll need a urine sample from you.UPDATE:
My email to one of the DeafRead editors:
Please remove my Kokonut Pundits link from the DeafRead aggregator list. This includes remove my blogsite name from the "Inactive Blogs" page as well. Also, remove "Deaf Strongman" and "Deaf Aikido" from DeafRead's "Inactive Blogs" page. I will not have my blogsite's name be affiliated with and used by DeafRead as part of their marketing efforts (ie. "Inactive Blogs" page). Tayler has overstepped his boundaries by pre-emptively removing Rachel's Cochlear Implant Online blogsite without any due process based on faulty reasonings and assumptions. The editors, including you Jared, are all complicit in this since Tayler is speaking on behalf of all of you. This single episode is utlimately responsible on fracturing the deaf, Deaf, and hard of hearing community even further. Yet, egos by editors seem to say that they stay the ground, not apologize or not retract what was said. Everybody knows this. Why do you think so many have requested, including Deaf, non-CI users, that their links be removed from DeafRead? Your policy is unsound, arbitrary and with no clear definitions or outline to help define your guidelines. An example can be seen in Joey Baer’s page where he promotes a Sprint Product. He is sponsored by Sprint. Hypocrisy is too mild of a word to describe DeafRead's policy/guidelines. Of all the blogs DeafRead had to pick to be forceably removed on a supposed "violation" you guys had to choose Rachel's blog which is one of the most popular cochlear implant blog around. Even I wouldn't be that stupid to use trumped up charges to remove her blog and without due process.UPDATE II:
Again, remove all of my blogsite names from the "Blogs at DeafRead" page, including the "Inactive Blogs" section.
Have a nice day.
Mike McConnell
You know what? Both Rachel and Paotie’s blog names are still listed on the “Inactive blogs” page. Paotie, didn’t you request DeafRead to remove your blog link? What about telling them to remove the name “Paotie’s Green Couch” on the “Inactive Blogs”?
Since DR removed Rachel's they still have her blogsite name on the "Inactive Blogs" section but mislead readers with this statement:
“Inactive Blogs (230)Those blogs are marked as “inactive” because they have not written anything in a few months. Blogs either “die” or go on haitus. If you have written something to your blog and wish to re-activate it, it’s as easy as e-mailing us!”I’d say that’d be seen as deceptive practices right there. Rachel’s site was removed and not because of “inactive” status or “died” but forceably removed. If DeafRead removed any blogs due to violation of their “guidelines” they should not have the names of these blogsites around. Plus, when blog owners request DeafRead to remove their links, it would also be in good faith that DeafRead remove their blogsite names from any list, including the “Inactive Blogs” list.
Seems like they keep the names for posterity sake or a “resume” sort of thing. I also see few others like Anonymous Deaf Law Student who recently requested DeafRead to have his/her link removed.
Why should bloggers lend their blogsite name to be used by DeafRead if they officially requested to have it’s link removed? Shouldn’t common sense say that if there is such a request DR should also be obligated to remove the name as well?
CONTINUE MAIN PAGE OF BLOG ENTRY.....
I’m writing this blog piece as probably a one time opportunity in support of Rachel only because I feel very strongly about this whole situation regarding Rachel’s blogsite. I have concluded, unamiously so, that the editors of Deafread have overstepped their boundaries using outrageous claims and the moving of the goal post.
Looking back with my contributions to the blogosphere I concede to the fact that many do see me as a “leader” of sort in the deaf and hard of hearing world and that I have something well worth contributing to those who need an anchor of some sort to help see the world for what it is which is why I’m writing this blog entry. It’s undeniable that this is not a friendly world when you have people who reject you on the basis of your hearing loss and/or cultural status. That's a simple but sad reality. And that there are people who thrive on paranoia thinking it serves as their logic in the real world.
Now, when it blows, it really blows. And when that happens then you know something is seriously wrong and you look to the source of why it went off. And this is perhaps turning out to be one of the biggest uproar in deaf/hh blogging history on the internet where bloggers who are Deaf, deaf, hard of hearing and hearing are in support of Rachel’s case in overwhelming numbers. More bloggers have asked Deafread to remove their blog link from their aggregator list at anytime than before. This is about a case where Rachel’s blogsite was summarily banned by the editors of Deafread on the basis of two things that were, of course, based on a lot of assumptions but were never checked upon or verified.
But before I go further there is this one undeniable and simple fact in all of this. All of the editors, including Tayler, FAILED to contact Rachel in the effort to allow her the opportunity to explain before them against their so called claims about the lack of notification of Rachel’s “affiliations,” “professional relationships” and the “commercialization” aspect of her blogsite concerning her cochlear implants and the company or organization that support cochlear implantation.
That’s an undeterred and undeniable fact. Face it. It cannot be shooed away with vacillating, defensive comments. It happened. That's the black eye.
Rachel was never given the opportunity for due process. Deafread editors’ own assumptions made them judge, jury and executioner without fully exploring and determining what the correct facts are in all facets of this case. This whole thing reeks of paranoia and self-righteousness. And the ironic thing is that Tayler discussed at length about “good faith” from bloggers in his recent blog comments when in fact he showed none towards Rachel in giving her the opportunity to reciprocate in her own defense. Instead her blogsite was banned from Deafread without a shred of proof based on circumstantial evidence and assumptions saying that she was there to deceive readers and (the horrors!) Deafread editors, too.
SHAME ON YOU, RACHEL!!
So, here we go.
Here are some, if not all, of the sound bites that came forth from Tayler, one of the editors, and Deafread’s site that just makes you go…”Hmmmmm.” But the first lob and accusation came from one of the DeafRead’s editors:
THE ACCUSATION!
6) Commerical Sites. We do not link to commerical sites for the purpose of generating profit, other than our own (we have expenses to cover!).
Sources:
http://www.deafread.com/guidelines/
http://cochlearimplantonline.com/blog/?p=195
THE LOBS!
“Blogs disclosing professional relationships earns trust” - yet never once bothered to describe what those “professional relationships” are supposed to be. Platonic or the quid pro quo type of stuff where financial rewards result? Again, nothing was clarified about those things in Deafread’s guidelines. NONE!
Claimed that she did not reveal her “professional affiliation” with a cochlear implant organization or company in her blog - (Fact: it has never been the requirement of Deafread to demand from bloggers to reveal any “professional affiliation” before a blogsite can be accepted. Furthermore, Rachel blogged about her being a Cochlear Awareness Network (C.A.N.) member back on April 12, 2008, almost two months ago. And again on April 20. But compare to the Ambler Rambler, she made her “affiliation” known on February 11, 2008 about C.A.N. five posts later after joining DeafRead’s aggregator list. Ambler Rambler is still around. Might as well get her blog out, too. All in all, things were made up along the way here.
http://cochlearimplantonline.com/blog/?p=122
http://cochlearimplantonline.com/blog/?p=112
http://robyncarter.blogspot.com/2008/02/political-bureaucracy-and-cochlear.html
“we publish their posts in good faith just as we did Rachel’s. If evidence surfaces that they are abusive of DeafRead Guidelines, appropriate action will be taken as we did Rachel’s.” - In other words they claim to have “evidence” that Rachel was “abusive” of DeafRead’s guidelines. They have yet presented any “evidence” to the contrary.
“It's DeafRead's job to ensure the blogs are not influenced by corporate ties.” - But I couldn’t help but noticed what Tayler remarked in Rachel’s blog comment, “It’s when they promote those products in entries that we cannot allow. This is written in our agreement with our sponsor.” – post #22. That sponsor would be Sprint. In short, Sprint is dictating to Tayler (i.e. DeafRead) on what is allowed and not. Fear of competition, I suppose. Fear of losing a sponsor, I suppose. Judgement gets clouded or influenced in this case, I suppose.
Tayler makes the statement in his blog concerning DeafRead Guidelines saying that “published entries should not promote or market a product by a blogger affiliated with the product’s provider.” - Should not? Should not!? But I then ask the question, why the hell not? Editors can simply not select that blog entry for link publication on DeafRead.
“One must reveal any commercial affiliation..” -Any? Just any? And why the hell should they? Even a little ol' volunteer work affiliation kind of thing? Is Sprint afraid of something or what? This is one person's conflict of interest telling others not exhibit any conflict of interest. Smart move, Tayler.
“DeafRead has humans who use judgment in deciding which posts are published at DeafRead.” – Does that judgement includes banishment of a website without proof and without contacting the blog owner giving him/her the opportunity for due process? Besides, what editors do is called “discrimination at work.” That is their job. If a blogger blogs about a product he or she is pushing in a blog entry then the editors would then have the power on whether to accept the new blog entry based on Deafread’s own “simple” and “direct” guidelines or not. Besides, this gets a bit weirder and cumbersome later on seeing the excuses for their justification to ban Rachel’s blogsite.
“lack of transparency also violates the trust of DeafRead viewers” - Uh, like not revealing that you have volunteered for an organization very early on in a blog, most notably the ones that support cochlear implants? What’s next, sign a loyalty oath to Deafread’s owner and editors or what? Sounds ominously very Orwellian-like.
“..published entries should not promote or market a product by a blogger affiliated with the product’s provider.” - “Should not"...? Well, if a blogger is doing that then make sure the editors don’t link to that blog entry!
“ …product promotion of any type cannot exist in the entry itself.” - Sigh, again, listen carefully editors, simply do not link to that blog entry. But your answer is to ban a whole blogsite instead? Isn’t that a bit too…um, reactionary?
“Recently a blog was discovered to carry undisclosed ties to a major commercial industry.” - And they make it sound like Rachel committed a criminal fraud here. She a friggin volunteer! Not a paid one. Does not get any commissions or compensations. No quid pro quo stuff, either. She’s returning her thanks by helping increase awareness about people who wear cochlear implants, namely herself.
“Blogs are based on the concept that people can write openly and freely about their thoughts and opinions.” - Though they’ve gotten a bit Orwellian lately.
“ …misled DeafReaders and as a result has destroyed trust in the blog as an independent source.” -Destroyed trust? If there’s ever an exaggeration, this is it folks. Hyperbole at its best. See Exhibit A. Rachel is now painted as a big, ole meanie set out to purposely destroy people’s trust. Outright defamatory, I’d say. Tayler, please provide proof that Rachel’s action has single-handidly “destroyed trust” of readers in her blog. Nobody was misled here except for those who insist with that fantasy in mind.
“Bloggers can mention or review products as long as they are not affiliated with the company.” - OK. Editors can, again, simply not accept that blog entry by not linking to it in DeafRead. IT’S THAT SIMPLE!!!! Editors? You are reading this? Is Tayler looking over your shoulders or what?)
And then Tayler was really grasping straws by espousing a conspiracy-theory-in-the-works about Rachel and her blog.
“This blog is part of a network whose purpose is to bring awareness about a company’s product; furthermore, the blog content fits into the network’s mission statement. Consequently it has been disqualified.” - Interesting. Tayler offered no link to Cochlear Awareness Network (CAN) website. Nor a link to what their mission statement is about. Let me help you, Tayler.
Q - What is the Cochlear Awareness Network?
A - The Cochlear Awareness Network is a group of volunteers each of whom have lived deaf but have had their hearing returned through technology. They have chosen to be members of the Network to tell their stories, proactively raising awareness for the wonderful changes in their lives.
Q - What do Advocates do?
A - Basically Advocates tell their own story. They do this by making presentations to community and interest groups or clubs or one-on-one to potential recipients. They may also seek publication of their personal story in local newspapers. They may also help out at trade shows and talk to people referred by their local Cochlear Implant Clinic.
Now, I see no mentioning about the requirement to bring awareness about a company’s product. Their mission statement does not even imply this. This whole thing by the editors (note: Taylor are speaking on behalf of the editors') are nothing more than a non-sequitur thing. Even if a volunteer does discuss a particular product, so what? Really, Tayler is grasping straws here it’s literally comical. Instead of a thousand paper cuts, it’s a thousand eggs on one’s face.
Rachel wasn’t pushing an cochlear implant product on her blogsite. They made it sound like it was some criminal enterprise on what Rachel was doing by going around constantly deceiving the readers and DeafRead editors! But if talking about her cochlear implants and her experiences while growing up and into adulthood to those who are interested on hearing her even with specifics on a company brand of her cochlear implants (or even about other people’s CIs) and call that deceptive “promoting” or “marketing” then I need to sit back and have a good laugh over that one. One phrase come to mind, “making a mountain out of a molehill.” Clearly aimed at cochlear implants all the while getting into an apoplectic fit.
The short of it:
1) They claim that she failed to announce her affiliation (ie. Rachel’s volunteer awareness work) with an organization such as Cochlear Awareness Network (C.A.N.) and was justified in their decision to ban her blog link from their aggregator site based on faulty reasonings and assumptions.
2) They claim that her site is a commercial site that benefits a cochlear implant company.
The long of it?
Ongoing BSing continues with amazing feats of dodging and weaving, and the latest buzz phrases.
Time to stop this nonsense, Tayler (editors, too), and do the correct and ethical thing by apologizing to Rachel and retract what you have said in your blog. And perhaps do some serious revamping of DeafRead's policy regarding acceptable and non-acceptable blogsites and blog entries.
But first I want to direct your attention to what “Deaf Anonymous Law Student” said about this whole farce:
Goodbye to DeafRead - June 5, 2008
It pains me to say this, but I am leaving DeafRead. I orginially joined Deafread hoping that I could present an unique point of view and encourage aspiring d/Deaf law students. However, these hopes become moot when DeafRead espouses a discriminatory and Deaf-centric policy by banning a certain blog.
I have posted about our need to UNITE in order to succeed (professionally, at least) and I cannot participate in an aggregator that thwarts this sentiment.
So, if you like this blog, please do bookmark me and say hi sometimes. I welcome everyone of all stripes, deaf, Deaf, Deaf-Blind, and many more. Hopefully there is enough supporters out there to make writing this blog worthwhile.
And that's coming from a law student! That is, a deaf law student who could one day become the first d/Deaf judge.
Indeed, the espousal of a discriminatory and Deaf-centric policy. Deaf Anonymous Law Student said it very well. The person decided to leave, perhaps for good. And I'm sure other deaf/hh law students who are a part of that network group are thinking negatively about the whole DeafRead thing, too.
Lastly, I make this challenge to the rest of the editors of DeafRead that they need to step forward and make their own personal statement, uncoerced and without any undue influence. I cannot on my good conscious accept Tayler’s words on what he has said in his defense on behalf of the editors. It is quite curious that these editors are silent on this issue which may be damning in its own right. I hope there is a King sized bed with enough room for all of the editors to lie in the mess they just made...on behalf of Tayler.
In a bubble world paranoia would be the people’s own worst enemy thinking the very worse when it has never been the case.
Now, let me end this blog entry by saying….
“My plan is working flawlessly!” *rubbing hands* Heh, heh!
More later…maybe…or should I turn off the lights now?
0 comments:
Post a Comment