6 ms·

Lay off the personal attacks. No place here. Any company is entitled to whatever they provide and it's not your place to sit as judge. People give them the inf

Lay off the personal attacks. No place here. Any company is entitled to whatever they provide and it's not your place to sit as judge. People give them the information, for free. Craigslist displays it, for free. Unless someone sues Craigslist for some sort of anti-trust regulation, the challenge for people desiring to compete in the Craigslist's market is to build something from the ground up. (Oh, and it's always a market people are after, it's not "Oh, we want to help people find apartments better because we're nice people"). The fact that it's difficult is the entrepreneur's problem, not Craigs.

badclient 14y ago
and it's not your place to sit as judge Strongly disagree. Just as a company is entitled to provide whatever they wish, consumers are entitled to form views of the company based on their actions.
- zachinglis 14y ago
  Correct. And it's our job to judge the company, not an employee of that company.
  - mike-cardwell 14y ago
    When did we stop being allowed to judge people by their actions?
  - mtoddh 14y ago
    It seems like more of the people dissatisfied with Craigslist would be directing their ire at the CEO (Jim Buckmaster), and not Craig himself. Of the two I would assume (perhaps incorrectly) that despite the "Craig" in Craiglist, it would be the CEO responsible for the decisions this company is making...
    - dredmorbius 14y ago
      That's the one fair criticism to make. Though Craig is AFAIU a or the principle shareholder in Craigslist.
  - jonny_eh 14y ago
    A company is just 1:N people trying to accomplish something (usually earn profit). I would usually agree that it's best to treat a company separate from the individuals there. But in the case of Craigslist it may be fair since Craig has full control of the company, and the companies latest actions are clearly done by either his command or with his consent. Not to mention his name is on the freaking company! Hard to separate the two when that happens. If you have a problem with Craig's List, why not complain about Craig?
  - fusiongyro 14y ago
    Craig of Craigslist isn't exactly the same as any old employee of any old company. I understand the distinction you're trying to make, but the fact that it's hard in this case is a side-effect of the context they've worked very hard to create. In other words, they're asking for it.
  - ktizo 14y ago
    The company, regardless of laws that claim individual rights for corporations, is not something that can be judged independently of the people who comprise it. If you judge a company you are by definition judging it's employees, owners, shareholders, etc. If you are not considering the people, then a company itself is almost nothing.
  - edj 14y ago
    A corporation is a legal device, but is, of course, made up of individuals. To judge a company is to judge individuals working in concert. From the OED: "company ... 2 A number of individuals assembled or associated together; a body of people combined for some common object."
- edj 14y ago
  consumers are entitled to form views of the company based on their actions. And arguably not just entitled to form views, but morally obligated to do so. In a mostly unregulated industry (like classified ads), the court of public opinion is one of the more powerful checks civil society can deploy to police corporations. Boycotts, bad press, strikes, activism, and the like can all change corporate behavior to some extent. For most people, these tools are the only way to influence corporations. Most people don't have the money to lobby Congress. "Voting with your dollars" doesn't really work with monopolies, or quasi-monopolies. And founding competing startups is a fantasy even for most entrepreneurially-minded hackers, let alone regular folk with families, mortgages, and no programming skill. If we say these methods shouldn't ever be used, we're basically saying only laws can regulate corporate behavior. That sounds like a recipe for more and worse laws, more lobbying, and worse corporate behavior.
DenisM 14y ago
"Legally rightful" is often different from "morally rightful". Craig is morally in the wrong - he seized control over classifieds market, and is now using that position to stall the progress and harm consumers. By way of analogy, saying "build your own stuff" is akin to saying "build your own popular OS and sell it to OEMs" in the face of a crushing Microsoft monopoly on the nineties. The network effect is far too strong for a free-market approach to work its magic, and as a result we all suffer. I wonder if Craig realizes he became a Microsoft-style monopoly. That should be a very uncomfortable thought to him.
- smacktoward 14y ago
  he seized control over classifieds market You say "seized control" like he showed up with a bunch of armed goons and wrested it away from its rightful owner. Craigslist dominates online classifieds because they recognized it was a market worth serving years before the incumbents in classifieds did, and served it. It's not a crime to get there first. I wonder if Craig realizes he became a Microsoft-style monopoly I must have missed the part where Craigslist used their dominant position in classified advertising to unfairly benefit other products they offer.
  - lotyrin 14y ago
    Grandparent obviously meant the entrenched-but-ultimately-mediocre sort of monopoly. What Microsoft has individually gotten hand slapped for isn't as important as the history of their character.
  - jessriedel 14y ago
    > You say "seized control" like he showed up with a bunch of armed goons and wrested it away from its rightful owner. Craigslist dominates online classifieds because they recognized it was a market worth serving years before the incumbents in classifieds did, and served it. It's not a crime to get there first. I agree that "seize" is poor word choice, but the fact that he gained a monopoly position through legal competition does not negate the fact that it's a monopoly. >I must have missed the part where Craigslist used their dominant position in classified advertising to unfairly benefit other products they offer. They use it to advance an unusual philosophy. Yes, this is different from using it to get money, but the effect for those of us who do not share their philosophy are similar. If Standard Oil used the money earned from its monopoly powers to buy teddy bears for orphans, that wouldn't have reduced arguments that it was a trust and needed to be broken up. (And given Rockefeller's philanthropy, this isn't too far from the truth.) Edit (since I can't reply): network effects keep out other competitors. I don't know what "unfair practices" are defined as, I just know that monopolies insulated from competition are bad. Somewhat analogous was Standard Oil's policy of dropping their prices below cost locally long enough for small competitors to go out of business, and then raising them afterwards. New competitors were prevented from entering because Standard Oil had a reliable threat of doing it again. This didn't require Standard Oil to apply horizontal leverage (i.e. using dominance in the market for one product to influence another).
jeremymims 14y ago
This isn't a personal attack. It's an observation. I sincerely lack a better way to characterize Craig's behavior. Since Craigslist is as small as it is and is named after the founder, it's very difficult to explain these seemingly irrational decisions without understanding the man behind them. I think at heart he's a good guy, but he's clearly not thinking correctly here.
- ericd 14y ago
  Hi Jeremy, thanks for writing about this. I actually think Craig has removed himself from the decision-making there, which probably explains the seeming conflict between his personality and the company's.
  - samstave 14y ago
    And it conveniently provides plausible deniability. Regardless, it's craigs list and he can never be removed from us outsiders mentally connecting him with what CL does.
    - ericd 14y ago
      Yeah, I guess it might take a name change to get people to stop assuming that Craig is in charge.
      - MaysonL 14y ago
        He's in charge: he owns the place.
  - jeremymims 14y ago
    That's possible. However, if that's the case, I'm surprised Craig hasn't engaged at all on this issue. It would seem an awful lot of lousy stuff is happening in his name.
    - ericd 14y ago
natrius 14y ago
I agree that it's better to ascribe the responsibilities for Craigslist's recent actions to the company, not Craig Newmark. That aside, the company's actions clearly merit calling them jerks. Their customers are trying to sell, rent and employ. Craigslist forbids them to do so via any other means. Acting against the interests of its customers makes a company a jerk.
- waterlesscloud 14y ago
  In what way is Craigslist forbidding its customers to advertise by other means? The rhetoric on this is getting ridiculous.
  - natrius 14y ago
    Craigslist now requires an exclusive license to submissions. The rhetoric is what it is because Craigslist's behavior is appalling. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/craigslist-tightens-grip-demanding-exclusive-ownership-of-ads/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/craigslist-tighte... EDIT: This article is better: http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/01/craigslist-now-wants-your-postings-under-exclusive-terms-padmapper-fallout-continues/ http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/01/craigslist-now-wants-your-p...
    - waterlesscloud 14y ago
      Craigslist isn't saying you can't post the same information elsewhere. They're saying they have exclusive license to your post on Craigslist. It's a seemingly subtle distinction, I'll give you that, but it in no way prevents the user from posting the same info elsewhere.
      - IanDrake 14y ago
        You're missing the point. If I post the same ad directly on PadMapper (let's say), how does one know if PadMapper scraped it from Craigslist or I cross posted it? The way it reads, and the only way I can imagine it could be enforced, is that you are granting Craigslist the exclusive right to advertise that item or at the very least the exact text you used to advertise that item. Either way, it's ridiculously heavy handed.
ktizo 14y ago
Anyone can sit and judge on anything they wish, you can judge someone's business, their politics, their religion, whatever. You might think it is impolite, however there isn't any hard and fast rule that says anyone has to be polite either. You are judging that other people aren't allowed to judge someone else on the service they provide. Why do you feel that you can tell them the terms of what is reasonable behaviour while in the same breath tell them that it is not their place to do the same to others?
dhyasama 14y ago
I read it as a critique of Craig's business decisions, not a personal attack.
rwallace 14y ago
Craig is morally entitled to provide or not provide whatever service he wants. He is not morally entitled to behave like an organized crime boss and shut down other people's services by threat of armed force.

badclient 14y ago

and it's not your place to sit as judge Strongly disagree. Just as a company is entitled to provide whatever they wish, consumers are entitled to form views of the company based on their actions.

zachinglis 14y ago
Correct. And it's our job to judge the company, not an employee of that company.
- mike-cardwell 14y ago
  When did we stop being allowed to judge people by their actions?
- mtoddh 14y ago
  It seems like more of the people dissatisfied with Craigslist would be directing their ire at the CEO (Jim Buckmaster), and not Craig himself. Of the two I would assume (perhaps incorrectly) that despite the "Craig" in Craiglist, it would be the CEO responsible for the decisions this company is making...
  - dredmorbius 14y ago
    That's the one fair criticism to make. Though Craig is AFAIU a or the principle shareholder in Craigslist.
- jonny_eh 14y ago
  A company is just 1:N people trying to accomplish something (usually earn profit). I would usually agree that it's best to treat a company separate from the individuals there. But in the case of Craigslist it may be fair since Craig has full control of the company, and the companies latest actions are clearly done by either his command or with his consent. Not to mention his name is on the freaking company! Hard to separate the two when that happens. If you have a problem with Craig's List, why not complain about Craig?
- fusiongyro 14y ago
  Craig of Craigslist isn't exactly the same as any old employee of any old company. I understand the distinction you're trying to make, but the fact that it's hard in this case is a side-effect of the context they've worked very hard to create. In other words, they're asking for it.
- ktizo 14y ago
  The company, regardless of laws that claim individual rights for corporations, is not something that can be judged independently of the people who comprise it. If you judge a company you are by definition judging it's employees, owners, shareholders, etc. If you are not considering the people, then a company itself is almost nothing.
- edj 14y ago
  A corporation is a legal device, but is, of course, made up of individuals. To judge a company is to judge individuals working in concert. From the OED: "company ... 2 A number of individuals assembled or associated together; a body of people combined for some common object."
edj 14y ago
consumers are entitled to form views of the company based on their actions. And arguably not just entitled to form views, but morally obligated to do so. In a mostly unregulated industry (like classified ads), the court of public opinion is one of the more powerful checks civil society can deploy to police corporations. Boycotts, bad press, strikes, activism, and the like can all change corporate behavior to some extent. For most people, these tools are the only way to influence corporations. Most people don't have the money to lobby Congress. "Voting with your dollars" doesn't really work with monopolies, or quasi-monopolies. And founding competing startups is a fantasy even for most entrepreneurially-minded hackers, let alone regular folk with families, mortgages, and no programming skill. If we say these methods shouldn't ever be used, we're basically saying only laws can regulate corporate behavior. That sounds like a recipe for more and worse laws, more lobbying, and worse corporate behavior.

DenisM 14y ago

"Legally rightful" is often different from "morally rightful". Craig is morally in the wrong - he seized control over classifieds market, and is now using that position to stall the progress and harm consumers. By way of analogy, saying "build your own stuff" is akin to saying "build your own popular OS and sell it to OEMs" in the face of a crushing Microsoft monopoly on the nineties. The network effect is far too strong for a free-market approach to work its magic, and as a result we all suffer. I wonder if Craig realizes he became a Microsoft-style monopoly. That should be a very uncomfortable thought to him.

smacktoward 14y ago
he seized control over classifieds market You say "seized control" like he showed up with a bunch of armed goons and wrested it away from its rightful owner. Craigslist dominates online classifieds because they recognized it was a market worth serving years before the incumbents in classifieds did, and served it. It's not a crime to get there first. I wonder if Craig realizes he became a Microsoft-style monopoly I must have missed the part where Craigslist used their dominant position in classified advertising to unfairly benefit other products they offer.
- lotyrin 14y ago
  Grandparent obviously meant the entrenched-but-ultimately-mediocre sort of monopoly. What Microsoft has individually gotten hand slapped for isn't as important as the history of their character.
- jessriedel 14y ago
  > You say "seized control" like he showed up with a bunch of armed goons and wrested it away from its rightful owner. Craigslist dominates online classifieds because they recognized it was a market worth serving years before the incumbents in classifieds did, and served it. It's not a crime to get there first. I agree that "seize" is poor word choice, but the fact that he gained a monopoly position through legal competition does not negate the fact that it's a monopoly. >I must have missed the part where Craigslist used their dominant position in classified advertising to unfairly benefit other products they offer. They use it to advance an unusual philosophy. Yes, this is different from using it to get money, but the effect for those of us who do not share their philosophy are similar. If Standard Oil used the money earned from its monopoly powers to buy teddy bears for orphans, that wouldn't have reduced arguments that it was a trust and needed to be broken up. (And given Rockefeller's philanthropy, this isn't too far from the truth.) Edit (since I can't reply): network effects keep out other competitors. I don't know what "unfair practices" are defined as, I just know that monopolies insulated from competition are bad. Somewhat analogous was Standard Oil's policy of dropping their prices below cost locally long enough for small competitors to go out of business, and then raising them afterwards. New competitors were prevented from entering because Standard Oil had a reliable threat of doing it again. This didn't require Standard Oil to apply horizontal leverage (i.e. using dominance in the market for one product to influence another).

jeremymims 14y ago

This isn't a personal attack. It's an observation. I sincerely lack a better way to characterize Craig's behavior. Since Craigslist is as small as it is and is named after the founder, it's very difficult to explain these seemingly irrational decisions without understanding the man behind them. I think at heart he's a good guy, but he's clearly not thinking correctly here.

ericd 14y ago
Hi Jeremy, thanks for writing about this. I actually think Craig has removed himself from the decision-making there, which probably explains the seeming conflict between his personality and the company's.
- samstave 14y ago
  And it conveniently provides plausible deniability. Regardless, it's craigs list and he can never be removed from us outsiders mentally connecting him with what CL does.
  - ericd 14y ago
    Yeah, I guess it might take a name change to get people to stop assuming that Craig is in charge.
    - MaysonL 14y ago
      He's in charge: he owns the place.
- jeremymims 14y ago
  That's possible. However, if that's the case, I'm surprised Craig hasn't engaged at all on this issue. It would seem an awful lot of lousy stuff is happening in his name.
  - ericd 14y ago

natrius 14y ago

I agree that it's better to ascribe the responsibilities for Craigslist's recent actions to the company, not Craig Newmark. That aside, the company's actions clearly merit calling them jerks. Their customers are trying to sell, rent and employ. Craigslist forbids them to do so via any other means. Acting against the interests of its customers makes a company a jerk.

waterlesscloud 14y ago
In what way is Craigslist forbidding its customers to advertise by other means? The rhetoric on this is getting ridiculous.
- natrius 14y ago
  Craigslist now requires an exclusive license to submissions. The rhetoric is what it is because Craigslist's behavior is appalling. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/craigslist-tightens-grip-demanding-exclusive-ownership-of-ads/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/craigslist-tighte... EDIT: This article is better: http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/01/craigslist-now-wants-your-postings-under-exclusive-terms-padmapper-fallout-continues/ http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/01/craigslist-now-wants-your-p...
  - waterlesscloud 14y ago
    Craigslist isn't saying you can't post the same information elsewhere. They're saying they have exclusive license to your post on Craigslist. It's a seemingly subtle distinction, I'll give you that, but it in no way prevents the user from posting the same info elsewhere.
    - IanDrake 14y ago
      You're missing the point. If I post the same ad directly on PadMapper (let's say), how does one know if PadMapper scraped it from Craigslist or I cross posted it? The way it reads, and the only way I can imagine it could be enforced, is that you are granting Craigslist the exclusive right to advertise that item or at the very least the exact text you used to advertise that item. Either way, it's ridiculously heavy handed.

ktizo 14y ago

Anyone can sit and judge on anything they wish, you can judge someone's business, their politics, their religion, whatever. You might think it is impolite, however there isn't any hard and fast rule that says anyone has to be polite either. You are judging that other people aren't allowed to judge someone else on the service they provide. Why do you feel that you can tell them the terms of what is reasonable behaviour while in the same breath tell them that it is not their place to do the same to others?

dhyasama 14y ago

I read it as a critique of Craig's business decisions, not a personal attack.

rwallace 14y ago

Craig is morally entitled to provide or not provide whatever service he wants. He is not morally entitled to behave like an organized crime boss and shut down other people's services by threat of armed force.