Mike's Thoughts

2006-06-28T05:53:00.000-07:00

Wakko-Yako's Posts on Dr. Rosts Significantly Inconsistent.

Here are Yako's comments on other HuffPo bloggers. Notice the first 6, and notice that "hillarious" is spelled incorrectly each time. These simply do not read as coming from a thoughtful intelligent progressive - as Jonah Peretti claims. In fact, they stink of being "plants". Comments designed for a purpose - to boost interest in the site one way or the other.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-orton/loving-the-softer-side-of_b_20162.html

Josh Orton is a talented web-blogger.

By: yacomink on May 01, 2006 at 03:06pm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-mamet/position-open_b_20190.html

This is a hillarious political cartoon.

By: yacomink on May 02, 2006 at 05:51pm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-mamet/casual-dress-day_b_20232.html

Oh man, this is a great political cartoon.

By: yacomink on May 03, 2006 at 10:50am

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-mamet/read-their-lips-no-draft_b_20390.html

This is a hillarious political cartoon.

By: yacomink on May 05, 2006 at 10:20am

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-mamet/strategy-meeting-dnc_b_20431.html

This is a hillarious political cartoon.

By: yacomink on May 06, 2006 at 12:17pm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aaron-freeman-and-sharon-rosenzweig/english-only_b_21303.html

this is a very moving political cartoon.

By: yacomink on May 19, 2006 at 04:05pm

Now look at some more - Jonah Peretti cannot claim that he was not fully aware that Yako was placing comments on blogs. If he knew it why did he claim it was a "minor faux pas" - clearly the policy was that he was allowed to post whatever he wanted. It is not a "faux pas" to do what you are allowed to do.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonah-peretti/vote-for-your-favorite-co_b_18121.html

How do you feel about Andy Card's resignation?

By: yacomink on March 29, 2006 at 04:41pm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/the-censored-comments-the_b_14482.html

I would hazard a guess that the comments which qualified as "hate speech" were take off the site, and thus no longer appear in the archives.

By: yacomink on January 26, 2006 at 10:01am

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carson-meyer/physical-education_b_15313.html

You are wise beyond your years.

By: yacomink on February 08, 2006 at 06:35pm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/02/10/northeast-blizzard-watch_n_15427.html

Oh. My. God.

By: yacomink on February 10, 2006 at 03:46pm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2005/09/24/spin-doctors-trying-to-ma_n_7825.html

This band is hillarious.

By: yacomink on September 25, 2005 at 10:44am

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/colin-sterling/what-do-you-do-when-the-r_b_20784.html

first!

By: yacomink on May 11, 2006 at 01:39pm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2005/11/23/where-was-the-media-betwe_n_11118.html

Nice first piece for the observer.

By: yacomink on November 23, 2005 at 10:01am

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/patricia-zohn/woman-overboard_b_21873.html

It's never a good idea to leave your house in Berkeley for a cruise ship.

By: yacomink on May 30, 2006 at 01:46pm

The final point is that none of these comment are anywhere near as abrasive as the ones he sent Dr. Rost. Of all the dozens (hundreds?) of Bloggers on HuffPo, with the wide range of political views and the wide range of topics - how could it be that Dr. Rost, and ONLY Dr. Rost prompted him to go on a regular campaign of vitriolic, non-informative, immature comments? I know "snarky" computer geeks. They were my best friends at College. Heck, I am one. "Snarky" 25 year olds do not have a single beef - they have many. Why concentrate on one and only one? "Target" is the correct word here.

Mike

2006-06-26T06:02:00.000-07:00

My Final Post to HuffPo

Sent this today - not really optimistic.

Update: I got a reply from Mr. Shearer, and I'd like to thank him for the direct reply. He sent it to me so I will not quote it here. The gist of it was that what happens in comments of posts is of little interest to him, only what is happening in New Orleans. In fact this is his only interest in HuffPo at this time.

That's fine but I am very disappointed he did not offer to pass it on to any other member of "Eat the Press". Apparently they are not willing to eat themselves.

So I guess we'll have to eat them ourselves.

Here is what I sent:
-----------------------------------------
Mr. Shearer,

This is a personal apology to you, so please feel free not to post this comment. My post requesting an investigation into the Yako-Mink issue at HuffPo absolutely _was_ off-topic. But Mr. Shearer there was a reason for that - which I thought would have been obvious from the text of the request - I apologize if it was not. There is a reason why intelligent fully grown adults (they read your post so this is a reasonable assumption) who can clearly see that this issue is off-topic still insist on posting it. That reason is simple: desperation. You see Mr. Shearer, there is _nowhere_ where the issue is on-topic. It has become abundantly clear to myself, and a great many other intelligent fully grown adults that there is no open, uncesored discussion on this issue. HuffPo has closed the door on the discussion. There is no way to contact you directly either - there is no e-mail at your bio and I'm not going searching beyond HuffPo for direct contact information - I think that would be unethical. Also, please note, myself and a number of other have not been able to illicit any direct contact from HuffPo on this issue from the "Contact Us" link. You see, these links go directly through the ones we suspect of causing the problem in the first place - hence our desperation.

We thought that the people at "Eat the Press" would have been those most capable of noticing the symptoms of a cover up. If the words "we find it offensive that someone should demand an investigation" does not send up red flags within the community of journalists whose job it is to do un-cover ups, who then can take it seriously?

I thought I was respectful in my comment - I apologize if I was not. I even tried to inject humor into it and indicate (without appearing as a "rabid fan") that I am an admirer of your work. But you didn't think it worth a reply? Not even a single one-liner: "I have passed this on to the appropriate people, please don't post here about it again". You told us to "Take your fight somewhere else, on this site or beyond". Take our fight to save Huffington Post away from Huffington Post? To where?

Mr. Shearer, I am not interested in "Saving Dr. Rost" - he does not need saving from anyone. But I am intersted in "Saving Huffington Post's Principles". You see I was here from the very beginning of HuffPo. Hence my mistake in calling you the "head" of "Eat the Press". I guess like Sean Connery will always be Bond to many, you, to me have always been the true face of "Eat the Press".

HuffPo taught myself and a lot of others these principles: Take nothing at face value; don't fall for spin; learn to detect the signs of a cover up; suspect all those who refuse to quote facts but only quote mis-information and opinions. We learned that and we were proud to have learned it from HuffPo. Remember the George Clooney "snafu" (how I hate that word)? I was so proud when Arianna apologized and corrected herself on that issue. "Take that MSM!" I said. "That's how it's done. You see - it is possible to have ethics and stick to them, even if it means admitting you made a mistake!".

I was happy as pappy and I was learning how to detect when I'm being lied to. Then I read the very first post by Dr. Rost on this issue and my jaw dropped to the floor, for many reasons. One was that, as an IT professional at nearly 40 years old I was amazed at how technically savvy Dr. Rost was and the precision he used in his investigation. I was amazed at the words Mr. Yaco-Mink used in his comments to Dr. Rost - a 25 year old calling a highly-educated well respected professional and Doctor "insane". But the most amazing thing was the discovery that Mr. Yaco-Mink was the Tech. Manager at HuffPo. I could not believe that the Tech Manager at HuffPo, of all places, would be so assinine as to think it was appropriate in his capacity to make those comments, with or without disclosure (he never did disclose who he was).

I did not think it was possible, but my jaw dropped even further when I read what has been posted by HuffPo staff on the issue. I could not believe it - I still can't believe it. Dr. Rost says "I am not accusing anyone of anything, I could be totally wrong". Then three members of HuffPo staff, including Arianna herself said Dr. Rost "made accusations". I don't know the words in the English language to convey the fact that someone is _not_ making an accusation other than "I am not accusing anyone of anything". And this is just one of the, literally, dozens of inaccuracies I have seen from HuffPo on this issue. You see, I read HuffPo - so I _can_ read.

I read that Mr. Peretti said that Yaco-Minks actions (which were repeated many times) were a "minor faux pas". Mr. Shearer - if the Tech Manager at HuffPo called you "insane" and said your writing is akin to that of a child and did so without revealing that he was the one with the most control over what posts and comments actually get to you, would _you_ think that this was a "minor faux pas"?

What do you think the MSM will make of this? What about Keith Ob. or Bill O' R. or the others in MSM chomping at the bit to take down HuffPo? Do you think they'll portray this as a "minor faux pas"? Do you think they will have difficulty finding other Tech Managers to say what I have read many have already written: "this is a major ethical breach, if I had done that in my job, I would have been fired!". I have not read from one IT professional, other than those in HuffPo, the opinion: "I am a Tech Manager, and what Mr. Yaco-Mink did was A-OK, or at worst, a minor faux pas".

So you see Mr. Shearer, we are not a group of petulent children who's daddy got into trouble. We are a group of fully grown intelligent adults who see the possibility for one of our cherished institutions to go down in flames and we would prefer that it did not. Arianna _continously_ noted that Judith Miller's own paper were repeatedly scooped on news about what was going on in their own paper, particular when it came to Ms. Miller. I would have thought HuffPo would have looked to avoid that themselves.

I don't expect this to be posted. But if you wish to contact me directly - HuffPo will have my e-mail on file. I have tried to be as respectful as I can. One human being communicating openly, rationally and honestly with another. Please respond. Even if you tell me which lake to jump into, or whose vomit to choke on.

Mike

2006-06-26T03:08:00.000-07:00

Harry Shearer, He Say No.

Below is a comment made on Harry Shearer's page - very soon after mine. Note what he wrote at the bottom.
------------------------------------------------------
SAVE DR. ROST!!!!

Dr. Rost is a godsend in our world full of misinformation and unethical behavior in the medical world.

Bloggers on the Huffington Post are to have an honest, intelligent conversation with eachother and be able to be heard above the loud noise of the unethical.

This is our time to be heard!

You go Dr. Rost!

Please keep up the fight. Our future depends on it.

DEFINITION OF A TROLL:

a newsgroup post that is deliberately incorrect, intended to provoke readers; or a person who makes such a post.
HARRY INTERPOSES: This will be the last of these posted here. In case you folks haven't noticed, this entire line of commentary is seriously off-topic. I allowed it in just to prove that I don't censor comments. But enough is enough. Take your fight somewhere else, on this site or beyond.
------------------------------------

Yes Harry, it was off-topic, but there was a reason for that - there is nowhere on HuffPo where this issue is on-topic. HuffPo has shut down any attempt at discussion of this issue, no matter how respectully it is requested. There is now no avenue open at HuffPo for any kind of discussion on this issue, and there is no way to contact you directly or indirectly via "Contact Us" (this method too has been blocked on this issue). So we did not know what to do and were desperate.

So Harry, if nobody in HuffPo is interested in this, my final question is: which lake should I jump in?

Mike

2006-06-25T05:54:00.000-07:00

An Appeal to Harry Shearer

Update: My comment has appeared on HuffPo, after a delay of only an hour or so! Please feel free to add to the appeal if you think it is worth it.

I've just posted a comment to Harry Shearer of "Eat the Press" at HuffPo asking him to open an investigation into the issue between Dr. Rost and HuffPo. Here is what I've asked:
-----------------------------------
Harry,

As head of the excellent "Eat the Press" I have a favor to ask. I truly hope this appeal is not censored by HuffPo - this seems to be happening far too frequently recently.

I'm asking if "Eat the Press" is willing to eat itself - so to speak - and do an investigation into the conflict between Dr. Rost and HuffPo. I won't go into the details of it here, you are more than capable of doing your own investigations. I would also feel happy if you did not read any of my previous posts on the matter (since I'm the one asking for an investigation and am not directly involved, my own opinions are irrelevant). Since none of those posts actually made it to light on HuffPo there's little danger of that. All I would like to see is some genuine disinterested investigation that deal with verifiable facts on both sides, not opinions, feelings and wishes. If it would not be too much I'd also like to see the following yes/no questions answered. I believe them to be fair and I swear they are not rhetorical.

1. Does HuffPo believe that the Tech Manager posting comments on blogs without any disclosure is appropriate behavior?

2. Does HuffPo believe that it is appropriate for a member of their staff to comment on a blogger asking him rhetorically and sarcastically if he is insane?(Mr. Peretti of HuffPo confirms the comments as being sarcastic)

3. Does HuffPo believe that repeating verifiable, publicly posted facts constitutes a "personal attack"?

4. Does HuffPo believe that their tech manager is _not_ able to beat the system he/she administrates?

And two open-ended questions (I'm pushing my luck)

5. If saying: "Let me emphasize again that I am not accusing anyone of anything," is interpreted (many times) as an accusation, what _is_ the correct way to report verifiable, publicly available facts without making accusations?

6. If Dr. Rost in "A Troll inside Huffington Post" personally attacked yacomink - can they please quote the sentences that make the attack? Or please quote the "offensive" words in the post? Or please quote the "accusations"? Or please quote the "revealed" information that would otherwise have been private?

Again, I am asking honestly - this is not rhetorical, I would like to see the quotes because I can't find them and I'm doubting my own sanity.

The great majority of HuffPo readers detest any kind of cover up - it's why we read here every day, many times a day. I'm sad to say I'm seeing all the symptoms right here on this issue and I'd like to be proved wrong. I need something to trust.

Thanks for considering this. I'm not sure why, but I feel I can trust you - and no, it's not because of the Simpsons gig (it's the Spinal Tap gig).

Mike
----------------------------------------------------

I can only wait and see what happens,

Mike

2006-06-25T04:15:00.000-07:00

HuffPo Digs Themselves Deeper

Well another one of my comments on HuffPo has been beamed to nowhere. I tried once more as a last ditch effort - but it failed to show up as I thought it would. It was in response to Jonah Peretti's post, which was not in any way, as Dr. Rost seems to suggest, an apology.

So, since they won't show my comment, I'll put up instead a dissection of Peretti's pathetic post in the same way that Dr. Rost did with Arianna's equally pathetic post. Paragraph by paragraph. My comments will be in italics.

-------------------------------------------------

Peter Rost was a frequent contributor to the Huffington Post who recently made public accusations about our Technology Manager, Andy Yaco-Mink. I considered responding immediately because Andy reports to me, but I decided to ignore Rost's accusations because they were trivial, uninteresting to most HuffPost readers, and not accurate. I only decided to respond once Rost decided to take on the HuffPost and Andy as a personal crusade - sending out press releases and mass emails, posting frenetically to his own blog, calling Arianna a liar, publicly posting personal emails and the home phone number of a HuffPost employee, and referring to himself as a whistle blower.

So much crap in one paragraph. Firstly Dr. Rost made no accusations. If these words: "Let me emphasize again that I am not accusing anyone of anything," are not clear enough for Mr. Peretti, what words would he suggest that Dr. Rost use when reporting the fact that someone inside of HuffPo is making frequent sarcastic and insulting comments and the fact that there were anomolies in the Best of Comment voting system?

Secondly, who is Peretti to determine that these were "trivial, uninteresting to most HuffPost readers, and not accurate" last I looked I had my own brain, and it found this not trivial and very interesting. And "most" readers? Did you do a poll? If so, please publish the results. Check Dr. Rost's posts and you'll find - oh my gosh! - the results of a poll! Where's yours Peretti? "Not accurate?" - by all means, please list the sentences/paragraphs that contain in accurate information and demonstrate how they are inaccurate. The statement alone is not enough. Again see Dr. Rost's posts for lessons on how to show when someone is inaccurate and/or just plain lied.

"publicly posting personal emails and the home phone number of a HuffPost employee" those were not personal e-mails, they were no different to those between an employee and employer, especially when the employer is in the process of shafting the employee. There was nothing personal in there. The home phone numbers, according to Dr. Rost, were already previously linked to by HuffPo - can you show that he was the first to expose them?

"a personal crusade"? Well some of us just don't roll over and die because we've been screwed over by those who feel they have power over us. I though a HuffPo employee would know that.

"referring to himself as a whistle blower." If exposing underhanded covert dealings within an organization is not whistle blowing, then please supply the correct definition.

First of all, let me say that I am a big fan of Andy Yaco-Mink.

Oh dude! Stop - stop now! You have just thrown out the window everything you say from this point. What does this have to do with anything apart from proving that you are starting your position from a biased standpoint. Do you think that's an appropriate starting point?

He is a smart, young, thoughtful technologist who manages to balance his progressive ideals with a snarky cynicism. Rost picked an unlikely target when he labled Andy a "troll," a "mole," and suggested that Andy may have manipulated the comment rankings. Rost was best known as a critic of a giant pharmaceutical company, so it was surprising to see this former medical doctor and former corporate executive taking on a 25-year-old progressive geek.

He is clearly not as smart as Dr. Rost. But the most offensive line in this is: "Rost picked an unlikely target". Peretti - Dr. Rost did not pick the "target". The "target" targeted Dr. Rost - or had you forgotten how this whole thing began. "taking on a 25-year-old progressive geek" - again, Dr. Rost took on an anonymous poster (anonymous to him, how could he or any other reader ever know without investigation that he worked for HuffPo?) and investigated verifyable strange goings-on in the posting/commenting system. Those led directly to Yaco-Mink. Should he have, at the point of possible (he continuously said he could not say for sure who yacomink was) discovery of the person said to himself "Oh, he's a sweet little 25 year old progressive, who obviously manages to balance his progressive ideals with a snarky cynicism - I shouldn't say anything, since I'm a big time famous doctor."

In the course of his day, Andy spends considerable time moving content around the site, fixing problems, and helping our editors. That means he is very familiar with the writing of all the contributors at HuffPost. For whatever reason, Andy found Rost's writing incredibly annoying. On a few occasions, he would vent his frustration with Rost's writing by posting a sarcastic or critical comment. He always posted these comments under his own name - yacomink - and never attempted to post anonymously as Rost claimed. He was not a "troll" - just a reader expressing criticism of Rost's writing in the form of a sarcastic comment.

I have to admit - it's getting very difficult continuing. There is so much crap to wade through. I'll make it short. He did not disclose that he was the HuffPo employee who had the maximum control over posting/comments (he was sysadmin) therefore he was anonymous. Secondly: "He was not a "troll" - just a reader expressing criticism of Rost's writing in the form of a sarcastic comment." Many sarcastically insulting (which is different to sarcastically disagreeing) comments. Peretti - this is the definition of a troll.

That being said, I contacted Andy to express concern the moment I heard he was commenting on Rost's posts. Critical comments are fine for a reader of HuffPost but the tech staff's primary responsibility is to support our contributors and critical comments send the wrong message. Before I could even express these thoughts to Andy, he offered a heartfelt apology. He realized that he was acting like a reader when he posted the comments, but as a HuffPost staffer he should have shown more restraint expressing his personal opinions in the comments.

Ahem - an apology given only after you've been found doing something wrong is not a "heartfelt" one - it is a "please don't fire me" one. The rest of the paragraph and especially "He realized that he was acting like a reader when he posted the comments, but as a HuffPost staffer he should have shown more restraint expressing his personal opinions in the comments." is getting close to our point. The only difference is you flip it off as being something trivial - but to the posters and the readers it is not trivial - it undermines the credibility of your site completely.

This would have been a minor faux pas but Rost decided to publicly challenge Andy and the HuffPost instead of speaking to us directly about his concerns. He suggested Andy manipulated the comment ranking and even presented "facts" to support this claim. As someone who designed the comment voting system, I can tell you that Rost's claims do not explain why Andy's comment was promoted. Andy did not manipulate the comments and the fact that Rost is demanding an investigation or a denial is offensive. Why would a contributor writing for the site assume that there is a "mole" trying to sabotage him? Isn't the most logical conclusion that a few HuffPost readers appreciated Andy's sarcastic response and voted his comment up?

"This would have been a minor faux pas" Thank you! You have finally answered questions 1 and 2.

1. Does HuffPo believe that the Tech Manager posting comments on blogs without any disclosure is appropriate behavior?

Answer: only mildly inappropriate - a minor faux pas.

2. Does HuffPo believe that it is appropriate for a member of their staff to comment on a blogger asking him (rhetorically and sarcastically) if he is insane?

Answer: only mildly inappropriate - a minor faux pas.

"As someone who designed the comment voting system, I can tell you that Rost's claims do not explain why Andy's comment was promoted." Dr. Rost made no claims, only reported the verifiable facts and questions the verifiably unusual comment promotions. "Andy did not manipulate the comments". Thank God! Just show us the proof and demonstrate how the sysadmin could never have manipulated them and we'll be on our way. "and the fact that Rost is demanding an investigation or a denial is offensive." Welcome to the Bush administration Peretti! You've successfully completed your first initiation - be offended when anyone even suggests that there may have been something fishy going on and consider it offensive to suggest an open investigation. Even better, indicate clearly that the person suggesting the investigation is in fact the problem.

Now everyone knows the real problem inside HuffPo. It is you sir.

In the end, I think it is clear that a site like the Huffington Post needs mutual respect and trust between the contributors and the staff that works to make sure our bloggers are heard by as wide an audience as possible. When the reciprocity breaks down, for whatever reason, there is really no point in continuing. I assume Rost does not want to continue posting here when he thinks Andy is a "mole," Arianna is a "lying liar," and he is a "whistleblower." But I think everyone can agree that it is clearly a good time for the HuffPost and Rost to go our separate ways.

HuffPo did everything it could early on to let Dr. Rost know that his painstaking, verifiable and technically savvy investigation was worth less than nothing and was offensive. You confirm this many times over in this post and then have the audacity to say: "the Huffington Post needs mutual respect and trust between the contributors and the staff". That is both sad and pathetic.

And, by the way. It is not up to you to say we are "in the end".
---------------------------------------------------------

Sorry if my comments seem too agressive or "snarky" - but I believe this was the most offensive post at all. That's more than three posts I've seen from HuffPo, not one with a single verifiable fact. Each one demonstrating exactly what Dr. Rost said. All organizations, when they decide to close ranks and lock-step to protect their own, act exactly the same.

Below is the comment I posted to HuffPo that, again, vanished into thin Internet. I apologize. It was not well written (although in general I can't claim that I does write good) or edited. I was in a hurry and was convinced that it would never show up, so I didn't spend too much time on it.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Peretti, I beg of you - please answer these yes or no questions. These are not trick questions, they are not rhetorical questions, they are fair questions. They are yes or no questions:

1. Does HuffPo believe that the Tech Manager posting comments on blogs without any disclosure is appropriate behavior?

2. Does HuffPo believe that it is appropriate for a member of their staff to comment on a blogger asking him (rhetorically and sarcastically) if he is insane?

3. Does HuffPo believe that repeating verifiable, publicly posted facts constitutes a "personal attack"?

4. Does HuffPo believe that when a highly educated man says: "Let me emphasize again that I am not accusing anyone of anything," this actually means "I am making accusations".

5. Does HuffPo believe that their tech manager is _not_ able to beat the system he/she administrates.

I have one open-ended question for you and it relates to the _constant_ claims being made of a personal attack on yacomink.

6. If Dr. Rost in "A Troll inside Huffington Post" personally attacked yacomink - can you please quote those attacks? Please quote the "offensive" words. Please quote the "accusations". Please quote the "revealed" information that would otherwise have been private. Please, please, please - put one single solitare accurate _fact_ in your posts.

The policies taken by HuffPo is unnervingly similar to the ones the majority of HuffPo readers and contributers detest. When faced with a friend who has done something wrong (and if he has not then why did he apologize?) instead of dealing with facts you talk about all the good points of the person. What a hard worker they are and how much you admire or like them. But sir my question is this: where are your _facts_? Read all Dr. Rost's posts on this. They are chock full of verifiable fact after fact. Logs of IP addresses, e-mails, dates, times. Neither you nor Arianna have a single verifyable fact, and the statements you do make _directly contradict_ what I can read with my own eyes. It's been said he revealed private information. I could not find any. He has made accusations. I could not find any. He has personally attacked. I could not find an attack.

Please - facts, facts, facts.
-------------------------------------------------

Until the next time,

Mike

2006-06-23T09:39:00.000-07:00

Dr. Rost, Wakko-Yako and a Huffy Post

System.out.println("Hello World!");

The events that have transpired between Huffington Post and Dr. Rost regarding a certain "inside" commenter (who I'll just call "yako" for security reasons) have prompted me to sign-up for and start my own blog. Partly because my comments on the issue at HuffPo keep disappearing down some not-so-mysterious tech drain-hole, and partly because I'd like an easily accessible permanent record of those comments.

If you are reading this post then you probably know the gist of the events, if not then see Dr. Rost's own blog here at blogger.com.

Firstly just a sample of two comments made by yako - as re-posted by Dr. Rost:

"Wow. I can't beleive all these people are spying on your weblog. It should be illegal for people to read things you post on the internet. It's a huge invasion of your privacy. Do you have lengthy articles on any of your other readers you'd care to share with us?"

"Are you insane? This is a public website. If there are people you don't want reading your blog posts, don't put them on a public website."

These are not respectful comments from one professional to another. These are sarcastic comments meant to convey that Dr. Rost is not just wrong, but also a fool. Now while I have a problem with the fact that the comments are disrespectful and inaccurate (Dr. Rost never said he didn't want these people/entities reading his comments, his point was that it was very telling that they were reading his posts - something the commenter should have had the intelligence to figure out) - that alone does indicate an ethical problem (only, I suspect, a maturity one).

However the fact that those comments came from the Tech Manager of HuffPo and, to double the problem, the fact that the commenter never revealed that he was a member of HuffPo staff is a huge conflict of interest that simply cannot not be ignored.

The tech manager of HuffPo has the capability to perform any possible censorship and/or general manipulation of the post/comment system and completely cover his tracks afterwards. No one else in HuffPo would ever be able to figure out what really happened if he did. Now I'm not saying he did attempt to manipulate the system in any way, nor am I saying he wanted to - but I am saying that he (or anyone else in his job) could have. Any Tech Manager would have the access, skills and tools to do that (I'm an IT professional myself, btw). For that reason (no other necessary) the Tech Manager should never have been allowed to post comments on blogs. If HuffPo employees' opinions needed to be heard, it should been in a separate and fully disclosed area. Although, honestly, I personally would have simply told them to start their own blog here - the conflict of interest is simply too great to allow them to post anywhere on HuffPo.

Everything else is secondary to this point, but I still feel the need to say more...

I think it's ludicrous that HuffPo accused Dr. Rost of a "personal attack" and of "revealing" information about yako. I'll repeat yako's sarcastic comment "It should be illegal for people to read things you post on the internet." Everything Dr. Rost posted about wakko-yako came from websites yako himself posted or which was already established as public information. This was one of the main points of the post in fact. yako called him an idiot for being upset that people were reading things he put out on the web (as I pointed out, Dr. Rost wasn't upset about it at all) so there is no way that they can now accuse Dr. Rost of revealing personal data at all - yako had beat him to that years ago.

I've also read comments that Dr. Rost's posts were all over the place and did not stick to appropriate topics. Again, ridiculous. It is obvious that while most people at HuffPo do post about political and economic issues, clearly they are all given a very free hand. I've read articles about friends' deaths, dinner parties and desserts on HuffPo (all on the same post) that bored me to tears, but that's what blogging is about! If I'm not interested after the first few paragraphs I just move on - no problem. That's the beauty of the Internet! So if there is a "topic policy" at HuffPo, then either everyone sticks to set topics or no-one does - they can't apply double standards.

Again, I've read people saying Dr. Rost is "paranoid" for talking about all the persons and entities "spying" on his site and "narcissistic" for continuously talking about himself or relating all issues to himself. Firstly, given his former post and the amount of money involved in all the legal wrangling surround him the truth is probably that he's not paranoid enough. Secondly all blogs are by definition narcissistic. These aren't news feeds - these are logs of personal thoughts, feelings and interests. How about naming a web site after yourself (like, I don't know? "Huffington Post") would that be narcissistic too?

In any event - I have to say I'm deeply disappointed in HuffPo. Dr. Rost was right on the money when he e-mailed them to tell them how important it was that they handle the issue correctly. That they prided themselves on openness and, in short, not being like the other news agencies. I too, had previously thought this of them - clearly I was wrong. I'll still read HuffPo everyday, several times a day, but I won't be posting (or attempting to post I should say) anything more, except for one: I'll ask Harry Shearer (of "Eat the Press") if HuffPo would be willing to eat itself (pop did, after all) and if he could get a definite answer to the following yes or no questions:

1. Does HuffPo believe that the Tech Manager posting comments on blogs without any disclosure is appropriate behavior?

2. Does HuffPo believe that it is appropriate for a member of their staff to comment on a blogger asking him (rhetorically and sarcastically) if he is insane?

3. Does HuffPo believe that repeating verifiable, publicly posted facts constitutes a "personal attack"?

4. Does Arianna Huffington consider herself tech savvy enough such that her tech manager would simply be unable to fool her on technical issues?

Additionally I have one open-ended question for them:

1. If Dr. Rost in "A Troll inside Huffington Post" personally attacked yako - could they please quote those passages? Please quote the "offensive" words? Please quote the "revealed" information that would otherwise have been private?

Until the next time,
Mike

p.s. did you know that the spell-checker for Blogger.com considers "blog" and any word derived from it to be a mis-spelling?

System.exit(0);