Re: Google Layoffs - 10,000 Workers Affected

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Thomas Lord <lord () emf net>
Date: November 25, 2008 3:58:04 PM EST
To: dave () farber net, tim () oreilly com
Cc: ip <ip () v2 listbox com>
Subject: Re: [IP] Re:     Google Layoffs - 10,000 Workers Affected

Tim's recent defaming of Daya Baran on the IP
troubles me.  If the influential elites in
our industry reason in such ways, we have
big problems:


First, Tim's account of the brouhaha
over the conference names and Baran's
past troubles with Google is misleading
and tends, in its inaccuracies, to
defame Baran.  I've unpacked and explained
that further, at the end.

Second, even if we were to stipulate
the truth of Tim's defamation this would
tell us nothing at all about the validity
of Baran's current criticisms of Google.
His recent criticisms stand or fall on their
own.  There is no need to go searching
for any ulterior motive.   Even someone
who doesn't like you can be right about
why you are wrong.

Tim, in defaming Baran, is deflecting
attention away from what Baran said about
Google -- encouraging people to not even
give it any thought because "that's just Baran
and we all know about his bad character".

So, Tim is making an ad hominem attack
on Baran -- an attack that benefits Google.

I suppose we are to think that the appearance
of a quid pro quo between Google and O'Reilly
is just a coincidence?


I said I would explain how Tim's account of
the controversy over conference names
is misleading:

The brouhaha over the names of Baran's
conferences centers on these questions:

1. Legal claims regarding trademark.

  These claims are untested and controversial.
  Pretty good arguments against the claims
  have been put forward by many people.

2. Ethics claims that Baran's marketing was
  "deceptive".

  If that were true, surely a single
  victim of the deceit could be produced
  yet none ever has been.  Where are the
  sullen consumers?

3. Ethics claims that Google was right to
  first demand WebGuild change names and then
  withdraw sponsorship as punishment for not
  doing so.

  This is quite chilling.  Google was not
  responding to any fact in law.  Google
  was not responding to any actual deception.
  The *only* thing left that prompted Google's
  actions is the fact that O'Reilly complained.

  The conclusion is that Google used its
  power to enforce rules made up by O'Reilly
  against a third party.


4. Ethics claims that Baran attacked Tim's
  character unfairly.

  Baran reported, with *undisputed* accuracy, that the
  O'Reilly publishing and conference platform
  has been the birth-place of the public recognition
  of many alleged experts, that this group is seen
  to form a society among itself, that O'Reilly
  put out the word to pressure WebGuild within that
  society, and that WebGuild then received pressure
  from within that society and from within Google (e.g.,
  via DeWitt Clinton).   Baran did not claim that
  O'Reilly did or did not pick up the phone and ask
  directly for the help of Clinton or any other Google
  employee.   Baran reported that word of O'Reilly's
  gripe went out to that society and that pressure then
  came from members of that society who happened to
  work for Google.

http://www.webguild.org/2008/04/shame-on-you-tim-oreilly.php

  Here on the IP list Tim gives a false recounting
  of Baran's report -- a false recounting that tends
  to make Baran look like an idiot, if the false account
  is believed.   I had to go back and find Baran's
  actual words, so scandalized was I by what Tim was
  claiming.   Baran's words were angry.  Baran did do
  some deconstruction of how power flows in this industry
  and it was not a flattering picture.  But Baran didn't
  say what Tim says he said and Baran didn't make factual
  claims he couldn't back up.


It seems to me that Tim is accusing Baran of
deception, defamation, and vindictive abuse
of power.

I do see all of those sins being committed over
these issues but not by Baran...


-t







On Tue, 2008-11-25 at 08:22 -0500, David Farber wrote:
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: "Tim O'Reilly" <tim () oreilly com>
> Date: November 24, 2008 9:04:04 PM EST
> To: dave () farber net
> Cc: "ip" <ip () v2 listbox com>
> Subject: Re: [IP] Re:    Google Layoffs - 10,000 Workers Affected
>
> I should add that Daya Baran has a checkered history with Google, his
> Web Guild events having been moved off Google's campus after various
> unethical marketing schemes on his part became controversial.  (He was
> putting on conferences named after other people's successful tech
> events, such as Carson Workshops Future of Web Apps and O'Reilly's Web
> 2.0 conferences.  Google asked him to rename the events, and he
> refused, at which point they declined to sponsor them in future.)
>
> See the Techcrunch coverage from January:
>
> http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/01/01/webguild-using-questionable-tactics-to-promote-events/
>
> He then proceeded to claim (without any basis) that Google had kicked
> him out based on pressure from me, and went on to cite such
> authoritative sources as Valleywag in attacking my character.
>
> It demonstrates pretty low journalism standards to use him as a source
> for a story about Google layoffs without doing any checking about his
> history with Google.
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Tim O'Reilly, Founder & CEO O'Reilly Media
> 1005 Gravenstein Highway North, Sebastopol, CA 95472
> tim () oreilly com, http://radar.oreilly.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com






-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com