4 ms·

That should be the definition of transparency, but I wrote this blog post in response to this self-righteous tone that I see a lot of social media "gurus" takin

That should be the definition of transparency, but I wrote this blog post in response to this self-righteous tone that I see a lot of social media "gurus" taking lately where they seem to believe that it's their natural right to whatever information they want about a company or individual, and when the entity in question refuses, they start whining about "transparency". A good example was the whole Tiger Woods fiasco. While it's true that he clearly had something to hide, I don't buy that because he's a brand, he's obligated to divulge everything about his personal life to the media and the public. But you should have heard the social media bloggers calling for his demise because he "owed" an explanation and they weren't getting it fast enough. Perhaps I didn't adequately explain that I'm not anti-transparency, but more anti- towards the "entitled-to-transparency" attitude many social media bloggers are starting to exhibit.

pvg 17y ago
I understand you were trying to comment on something specific, unfortunately it's hard to tease your points out of the confusion created by using a term in a way that differs from its common use in the context and then defining a new term. If you had examples (social media talking heads, Tiger Woods, particular companies, etc) writing about them concretely might make your argument clearer and invite responses more interesting that 'that makes no sense'. Perhaps a rule of thumb to consider is if you start a post with 'this is a rant and unoriginal', treat it as a draft and revise it until you can safely take that opening out. (Not that there's anything wrong with a rant but a good rant doesn't need to tell you it's a rant)
- ryanwaggoner 17y ago
  That's a fair point. I shall endeavor to improve in my future postings :)
  - grellas 17y ago
    For what it is worth, I liked many of the points in your post, in spite of its shortcomings, particularly where you remind readers that some of the most spectacularly successful tech companies are very discrete in what they reveal to the world and when. That in itself should give less mature companies pause before starting to feel sanctimonious in having adopted a business idea that sees virtue in lunging violently in the other direction. I find it jarring to hear young entrepreneurs touting their own virtues in relation to others and, if the basis upon which they do so is ultimately insupportable in a business sense, so much the better for causing them to examine themselves and their motives. I would personally elevate the tone a bit, but that is just me. In many ways, a stimulating post. Thanks.
hussong 17y ago
I think it would make a lot of sense to differentiate between: - Transparency of the government - Transparency of powerful companies - Transparency of public figures - Transparency of private individuals With celebrities like Tiger Woods, sometimes the line is blurred when they expose their private life, especially when they monetize their public image.

pvg 17y ago

I understand you were trying to comment on something specific, unfortunately it's hard to tease your points out of the confusion created by using a term in a way that differs from its common use in the context and then defining a new term. If you had examples (social media talking heads, Tiger Woods, particular companies, etc) writing about them concretely might make your argument clearer and invite responses more interesting that 'that makes no sense'. Perhaps a rule of thumb to consider is if you start a post with 'this is a rant and unoriginal', treat it as a draft and revise it until you can safely take that opening out. (Not that there's anything wrong with a rant but a good rant doesn't need to tell you it's a rant)

ryanwaggoner 17y ago
That's a fair point. I shall endeavor to improve in my future postings :)
- grellas 17y ago
  For what it is worth, I liked many of the points in your post, in spite of its shortcomings, particularly where you remind readers that some of the most spectacularly successful tech companies are very discrete in what they reveal to the world and when. That in itself should give less mature companies pause before starting to feel sanctimonious in having adopted a business idea that sees virtue in lunging violently in the other direction. I find it jarring to hear young entrepreneurs touting their own virtues in relation to others and, if the basis upon which they do so is ultimately insupportable in a business sense, so much the better for causing them to examine themselves and their motives. I would personally elevate the tone a bit, but that is just me. In many ways, a stimulating post. Thanks.

hussong 17y ago

I think it would make a lot of sense to differentiate between: - Transparency of the government - Transparency of powerful companies - Transparency of public figures - Transparency of private individuals With celebrities like Tiger Woods, sometimes the line is blurred when they expose their private life, especially when they monetize their public image.