Comments on: Publishing Twitter’s stolen docs: the prisoner’s dilemma in action

By: Kyle Studstill

Kyle Studstill — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 15:34:11 +0000

I think game theory is fascinating. But I also think it relies a touch to heavily on human rationality for my taste. Your later analysis of Scenario 2 helps illustrate this, where the decision at hand is to decide whether or not to use information that will almost certainly cost the job of someone very close to you. Contrast this with the Twittergate blogger decisions to use information of the same nature; this certainly affects people in the same way, but breaking-news bloggers aren’t nearly as close to the people who ultimately end up as victims so the decision-making process takes different shape. Dunbar’s number clearly comes to mind. Probably more accurate is the idea that we act in our own rational self interest, but along with loads of other less-than-rational social influences.

The real dilemma, as I think you’ve alluded to, is systemic to the industry of ’breaking news.’ Particularly in an era where newspapers are going away, but not news (of the truly journalistic sort). The former is driven by being ’first,’ the latter is sustained by trust and ethical reporting. In an age where information is more and more abundant and our information filters are by necessity becoming more developed, I think we’re getting better at telling the difference.

By: DaveZatz

DaveZatz — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 10:04:15 +0000

It’s crazy. Here’s the comment I previously left on TC:

Arrington: “There is clearly an ethical line here that we don’t want to cross [...] But a few of the documents have so much news value that we think it’s appropriate to publish them.”

Zatz: Your compass is broken, man. Surprised counsel green-lighted this. And, even if legal, there’s also the uncoolness of it all. Glad my livelihood isn’t based on what or how I blog. :/

By: Why “process journalism” is neither journalism, nor process | Technovia

Fri, 17 Jul 2009 09:57:09 +0000

[...] Toeman, talking about the truly absurd “Twittergate”, sums up why process journalism fails: “But this is par for the [...]

By: Rob Bushway

Rob Bushway — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 04:00:24 +0000

jeremy – your charts are reversed, like dave says. I understand what you are trying to say though – might want to correct the charts, though.

By: Stupidscript

Stupidscript — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 22:38:27 +0000

I’m with you, Jeremy. Stolen goods are just that, and using them to generate revenue (or coolness points) is fencing. I said as much to Addington, no doubt to his amusement. My main concern is the legal precedent being reinforced … online publication of stolen internal company documents. Sounds like a business model, if Addington and his ilk aren’t punished. And attempting to assuage his guilt by “only” publishing a few of the stolen documents is like trying to feel better about “only” breaking ONE of the puppy’s legs. “It’s not like I killed ‘em, or anything. He can be fixed.”

By: dave mcclure

dave mcclure — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 22:07:01 +0000

hi Jeremy -

fyi, A & B are reversed in your upper-right & lower-left quadrants.

also, your labeling of the col/row “Blogger X endorses theft” kind of reveals your bias… not sure “publishing the docs” = “endorsing theft”, but i get your point. don’t think i agree, but yes the prisoner’s dilemma does apply.

By: todd

todd — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 17:54:42 +0000

Your dilemma is backwards