I only signed up for Twitter 2 weeks ago. I only started following Chris 2 days ago – and not because of this – I only found out because someone had linked to something in his blog. I found that he had useful info to share and so I followed him.

As for sponsored posts? I can’t be herded. Too often. I can think for myself. More often than not.

I read blogs to get different ideas, perspectives, opinions. Doesn’t mean I take any of it as gospel – no matter who who wrote it. Most people have a unique perspective, bias, and/or reason for writing what they do – just like I do!!! That is why I filter. With my brain. It’s kinda useful for that. It’s not always good at it..but still…

And, I don’t care what Twitter says but maybe that’s because I haven’t been around long enough.

And how different is a sponsored post from selling affiliate stuff? Seems to me, not much.

I’d be sad if the web turned into one big sponsored post too, but his blog, at this point, seems to be original content.

What’s the big deal? This is still a free country (I think). He’s a big boy. It’s HIS blog. He can do what he wants. I’m a big girl. I can hit the back button.

And what is this Motrin Mom’s thing? I’m a Mom. Should I be offended?? Late adopters miss all the good drama.

In the off-line world, I’ve always worked hard to let everyone’s voice be heard but not to let those who scream loudest get a disproportionate share of the attention. Online, and especially on Twitter, we haven’t yet figured out how to do this effectively. This is clearly something our community needs to figure out so that we can continue to have intelligent discourse and debate the pros and cons of a topic without having the conversation hijacked.

What I think is ridiculous is the either/or, black/white, saint/sinner standards that some people (on both sides of this argument) use to judge others. You either have integrity or you have no integrity at all, you either make full disclosure or you’re trying to fool your readers, or (in Motrin’s case) you either are offensive or you did nothing wrong at all. Life is messy and rarely are things as clear cut as portrayed by people on either side of most debates.

I remember doing a study of heresies of the early Christian church and finding, to my surprise, that the heretics actually helped the church define itself and its religious dogma. The religious leaders hadn’t taken a position on many issues/beliefs until they were confronted by a position they disagreed with. People often define themselves by what they are not, what issues or people they are against rather than what they support. So while there was something constructive in all of this–people identifying where they stood on the issue of sponsored blog posts–the debate clearly had a negative tone. Such is the way of politics and debates on ethics.

I think the problem with all of this isn’t the discussion, which I think is healthy, but its velocity. Twitter accelerates everything to the speed where facts are not checked and people don’t wait for a reply or response to a question before answering it themselves. It’s only a “mob” because it acts without thinking and I think Twitter encourages instant reaction whether it is people questioning Chris’ integrity or others defending it.

What I thought was notable about the Motrin Moms case is not that Motrin pulled the ad but the speed at which the whole thing blew up and was then resolved (maybe 72 hours?). A week later, no one was even talking about it any more. And is it just a coincidence that these eruptions seem to happen on the weekend when people usually have more leisure time to respond to Tweets, write blog entries and the like?

I imagine that this issue will match the Motrin Moms’ timeline perfectly: provocative questions raised on Saturday, discussion percolating Saturday night, gaining steam until the issue explodes on Sunday, final thoughts & resolution on Monday, forgotten by everyone but the main participants by Tuesday…except for remembering the names of the people we disagreed with!

It’s almost worth it to create a site dedicated to these uproars, so we can begin to see what trends emerge. StormingtheBastille.com is open. Wanna pitch in for it.

@scottyhendo

It’s more so hurting the SM industry as a whole. We talk about credibility – the unrealistic expectations of transparency from this bandwagon of a mob is what’s hurting the credibility of social media. I’ve mentioned the word ‘Pedestal’ several times today and these people need to get off it (same goes for those during the Motrin scene). SM heads are no better than any other industry and in the end its business and I think we need to treat it as such and stop all the talking. We need to learn the business side of things as that is what’s going to help SM grow and become more accepted. Chris/Kmart/Izea is at the least a case study now but we should have learned first off instead of mobbing against.

Beth: Of course , your post closely represented my view of the situation, thus my link.

Olivier: Oh, Olivier. Sigh. Experienced writers, and in particular strong bloggers, use metaphors to convey stories and experiences. It helps to illustrate an idea. Brian Clark, a.k.a. Copyblogger, is a master of this particular art form.

Just so we are one the same page, a metaphor can be defined as a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance, as in “A mighty fortress is our God.” Or you could say it’s something used, or regarded as being used, to represent something else; emblem; symbol. Both of these definitions are from dictionary.com.

In this case, the French Revolution was used because initially the mob arose when bread was short, or when the Estates Generale were screwing over the people. However; when Robespierre’s Committee of Public Safety — and their guillotine — took power the revolution became very bloody, and often at the behest and reactions to riots from the mob. The mob became illogical and feared, and could arise on just about any suspicion.

The metaphor here is that Brogan is good, the mob arose over suspicion, following a crazed mass mentality for blood. End of your writing lesson. And you owe me a baguette.

Noted. Though I suppose I could say that the ad targeted baby-carrying moms specifically, which does not count all the moms in the world as you suggest. But I’ll defer to Motrin. They said they got it wrong despite your opinion. Under most circumstances, I agree with you about special interest groups banning advertisements and have written as much. I’d say more, but this is not my house and not the place for it.

All my best,
Rich