3 ms·

That was my initial thought. Whose interest is it to run a negative PR campaign against Pinterest?

by qq66 15y ago

lux 15y ago
Theirs even? Being "the next Napster" tells a story the media will pick up, which further gets the word out for them, and isn't exactly the worst thing to be called if you want to look cool... :)
mindslight 15y ago
Somebody who's been pinned one too many times? Somebody who's not been pinned and feels left out? Somebody who's normally used to being the only one doing any kind of forceful pinning in this town? The male-dominated Silicon Valley insiders looking to repress the fledgling feminine curation site? The Paypal Mafia? !!!!!!!! STORY AT 11 !!!!!!!! My personal bet would be just the media echo chamber ("They have a story about X? We need a story about X!") combined with a persistent lawyer who's stuck in the uncanny valley of abstraction - well past common sense but still not knowing when you're suffering from Gödel's curse, but who knows.
- qq66 15y ago
  The last time I thought this, though, the stories were being planted by Facebook PR to slam Google+.
  - mindslight 15y ago
    Sorry, I wasn't really trying to strongly disagree. I just started writing and it became more of a commentary on the media and people who think they're righting the world, but are really trapped in Blub. It could actually totally could be Facebook again, especially given how the narrative is all about individual users being at risk. It seems like interaction on Pinterest would diminish a segment of mass-market Facebook usage. Spread some FUD to make people think using new 'untested' social sites could possibly subject one to liabilities, meanwhile attempt to fill the demand for Pinterest-style interaction with new features. Actually, now that I think about it more, isn't Pinterest directly monetizing what Facebook has always claimed to be able to monetize sometime in the future?

That was my initial thought. Whose interest is it to run a negative PR campaign against Pinterest?

by qq66 15y ago

That was my initial thought. Whose interest is it to run a negative PR campaign against Pinterest?

lux 15y ago

Theirs even? Being "the next Napster" tells a story the media will pick up, which further gets the word out for them, and isn't exactly the worst thing to be called if you want to look cool... :)

mindslight 15y ago

Somebody who's been pinned one too many times? Somebody who's not been pinned and feels left out? Somebody who's normally used to being the only one doing any kind of forceful pinning in this town? The male-dominated Silicon Valley insiders looking to repress the fledgling feminine curation site? The Paypal Mafia? !!!!!!!! STORY AT 11 !!!!!!!! My personal bet would be just the media echo chamber ("They have a story about X? We need a story about X!") combined with a persistent lawyer who's stuck in the uncanny valley of abstraction - well past common sense but still not knowing when you're suffering from Gödel's curse, but who knows.

qq66 15y ago
The last time I thought this, though, the stories were being planted by Facebook PR to slam Google+.
- mindslight 15y ago
  Sorry, I wasn't really trying to strongly disagree. I just started writing and it became more of a commentary on the media and people who think they're righting the world, but are really trapped in Blub. It could actually totally could be Facebook again, especially given how the narrative is all about individual users being at risk. It seems like interaction on Pinterest would diminish a segment of mass-market Facebook usage. Spread some FUD to make people think using new 'untested' social sites could possibly subject one to liabilities, meanwhile attempt to fill the demand for Pinterest-style interaction with new features. Actually, now that I think about it more, isn't Pinterest directly monetizing what Facebook has always claimed to be able to monetize sometime in the future?