Dilbert loses newspapers, publishers, distributor, and possibly its website

[SiliconWizard]

IMO it was a bad business decision not to completely own and control the website. If he did, everything could and would have just stayed the same.

Clearly, that is odd.

[james_s]

I literally provided a link covering this exact topic. My point is literally that the definition is anything but “clear cut”.

I didn't see that link, but for the sake of discussion here can we use something along the lines of "mob pressure used to coerce others into cutting off association with somebody"? This seems pretty simple to me, if you don't want to listen to somebody speak then don't attend the speech, that's reasonable isn't it? Is it really reasonable to gang up and demand that the speech be canceled or to intimidate anyone that tries to attend it? I don't even understand that, there are lots of politicians, activists and other public figures I don't like and don't agree with, so I don't go to their events, that's really all it takes. There's no reason to try to get rid of them, or to create consequences for anyone that does decide to attend. Maybe I decide to go listen to <insert evil person here> speak out of morbid curiosity, should I be punished for that? I'm capable of listening to ideas I don't happen to agree with without them rubbing off on me.

[SiliconWizard]

Is cancel a revenge?

It's punishment for non-compliance with their "social order" for want of a better word. Those who wield it are otherwise weak and pathetic people who have discovered it's a way to gain power and control.

Yep.
Some participate in "canceling" not necessarily to get revenge over the person being canceled, but to get revenge over their own life, in which indeed they suffer from a total lack of control.

But trying to control others will never give you control over your own life. That never works like that. So it's just an illusion, and a costly one.

[EEVblog]

IMO it was a bad business decision not to completely own and control the website. If he did, everything could and would have just stayed the same.

Clearly, that is odd.

I think what happened is that he didn't want to be bother with the details a decade ago. The syndication company whom he trusted promised to set it all up, get the database and daily email system working, work out the ad monetisation and he simply got a cut of it for zero effort. Maybe all part of the "syndication" package that he got. That came back to bite him.
I'm absolutely sure if he had ownership and control that the website would have just continued.
He should have negotitated with the syndication company that they hand everything back to him and he goes quietly, or he makes them pay bg time in bad publicity.
What happened is he apparently lost the website, database, email list, ad revenue etc, and was still super nice to them publicly.

[PlainName]

negotitated with the syndication company that they hand everything back to him

Possibly couldn't be done. The probability is that it will use some CMS which is common to all the sites the syndication company hosts, so what you're actually suggesting is they give him a copy of their internal setup - code, database, etc. I suspect that's not going to happen for anything less than a buyout, and certainly not if one side gets the boot.

[EEVblog]

negotitated with the syndication company that they hand everything back to him

Possibly couldn't be done. The probability is that it will use some CMS which is common to all the sites the syndication company hosts, so what you're actually suggesting is they give him a copy of their internal setup - code, database, etc. I suspect that's not going to happen for anything less than a buyout, and certainly not if one side gets the boot.

Yeah, could be, fair enough.
EDIT: I do recall him mentioning once that the Dilbert website and a whole host of other comic websites went down because of a central issue.

[SiliconWizard]

That is likely.
But whatever the reason, it's always a big risk, and a bad idea, to heavily depend on an external structure to run your business.

Now what's possible is that (possibly up until now) he never really saw himself as a business owner, and maybe all the business side of things is not his cup of tea.
But that's the cost of independence.

[Zero999]

Unfortunately it's going off the rails again. The problem with deleting posts is that you piss people off and they can potentially leave the forum in a huff. Yet I don't want to have to say "Please keep it on topic" every page. And I don't want to lock it. So 

The problem is that as soon as you and others introduce (and keep using) the term “cancel culture” as a synonym for “censorship, vengeance, and oppression”, you’re using a partisan definition of the term, which inexorably draws politics into the mix.

See https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/08/17/how-americans-feel-about-cancel-culture-and-offensive-speech-in-6-charts/ ; I assume the results would be similar in other English speaking countries, too.

It’s frustrating — and thus tempting to respond to — to see so many conservative opinions and misrepresentations presented as fact, rather than opinion. But as soon as anyone attempts to debate the point, “it’s politics” (even though the original statements were, too…) and you tell us to stop, but then yourself go right back to reiterating the conservative claim/opinion. 

The fact that Dilbert has/had large popularity among nerds does not, IMHO, justify a special exemption to the no-politics rule, given that the entire premise is inherently political.

Those results are interesting. As a Brit, I've only ever heard of the term accountability, in relation to cancel culture in US left-leaning outlets and a minority of posters in this thread.

I suppose it's not surprising. It just proves cancel culture generally is in favour of the left and against the right. It's easy to support it and call it accountability, if it's not you who's being censored. Most Russains and Chinese government officials also support cancelling those who have expressed views contrary to those in power. They wouldn't call it censorship, but holding enemies of the people to account.

It doesn’t prove that at all. All it proves is that both sides aren’t even debating the same thing, since they don’t have a shared definition of the terminology.

The fact the left sees it as a positive thing and the right negative, should tell you all you need to know. The fact that euphemisms such as accountability are often used, rather than censor, by authoritarian governments should also elicit some level of alarm. Try going to Uganda and walking down the street wearing a rainbow T-shirt. They'll throw you in jail fairly quickly, as "spreading LGBT propaganda" is illegal over there. Of course they would tell the Swiss/USA authorities you were attempting to subvert society and promote dangerous activities, which is "their truth" of course.

A big problem is people on different parts of the political spectrum have adopted differing definitions of words to match their agenda,  which makes debate impossible. It's one of the things which is responsible for maintaining the political divide.

Whatever word you choose, the phenomenon of companies and organisations sacking/no-platforming/disassociating themselves from people, due to pressure placed on them from political activists on social media is real. It doesn't change the fact that it's true, whether you call it something nice such as accountability, or bad like censorship or cancel culture.

[EEVblog]

But whatever the reason, it's always a big risk, and a bad idea, to heavily depend on an external structure to run your business.

Or at least ensure that an export is possible. In this case of the CMS system, I'm not sure why it wouldn't be possible to say export a list of subscribers so you could start up and seed your new website.

Now what's possible is that (possibly up until now) he never really saw himself as a business owner, and maybe all the business side of things is not his cup of tea.

He has started dozens of business that has failed. Mentioned them many time.
That actually the basis of one of his books, how he failed at many businesses and Dilbert was the standout sucess.

[james_s]

The fact the left sees it as a positive thing and the right negative, should tell you all you need to know. The fact that euphemisms such as accountability are often used, rather than censor, by authoritarian governments should also elicit some level of alarm.

I'm just struck by how quickly it flipped. It was always the conservatives that were all about conformity and it was the left that was fighting and protesting for freedom of speech and freedom of expression, the right to talk about anything, even controversial things without consequences, I mean it's just talk after all, not attacks or threats. Then somehow that flipped, and it happened so quickly I was caught off guard.

Actually that incident that occurred with the Dixie Chicks that someone brought up earlier is interesting because it happened just 20 years ago when at the time I think it was still fair to say that the left was still the prevailing supporter of freedom of speech and the right was still into conformity. It was the right that was seemingly obsessed with homosexuals, it was conservatives that behaved like the very nosy neighbor my friend had who used to lecture him and make comments about the fact that he lived with his girlfriend and wasn't married. The right is still overwhelmingly the party of religion but the left now has become the purveyors of conformity and their ideologies have become almost a religion, dogma that cannot be questioned, else you are a heathen to be destroyed. Libertarianism was once a faction of liberalism but now seems to be lumpd firmly with conservatism.

[SiliconWizard]

He has started dozens of business that has failed. Mentioned them many time.
That actually the basis of one of his books, how he failed at many businesses and Dilbert was the standout sucess.

I don't know his whole story that well. Now even if we can't say it's not his cup of tea, we might still say that business is not his thing.
And his standout success not relying on really owning the business side of it may be part of the equation, which would explain why he offloaded all the dirty work, which is now coming back and biting him.

[EEVblog]

I don't know his whole story that well. Now even if we can't say it's not his cup of tea, we might still say that business is not his thing.
And his standout success not relying on really owning the business side of it may be part of the equation, which would explain why he offloaded all the dirty work, which is now coming back and biting him.

I think most likely they just offered him the website and email list thing as part of the publishing/syndication deal and it was an obvious "Yeah, why not" back in the early days of the late 90's.
Here is a 1998 capture that says Copyright United Feature Syndicate.
Another snapshot in 2012 shows ©2012, Universal Uclick
Latest ones you can't see the page bottom footer.

Everyone with any ounce of online business sense these days knows that your subscriber list is your most treasured asset.

[tggzzz]

Everyone with any ounce of online business sense these days knows that your subscriber list is your most treasured asset.

Not "these days"; that concept long preceeds the internet.

The traditional manifestation was of a company salesman defecting to a competitor. The first company then sues to prevent the salesman taking the client base to the competitor.

Obviously that happens with large and/or established companies, but it also extends to small companies...

• when my dentist set up his own practice; he had to be able to demonstrate that he hadn't solicited clients
• nother classic example is hairdressers, believe it or not

[EEVblog]

Everyone with any ounce of online business sense these days knows that your subscriber list is your most treasured asset.

Not "these days"; that concept long preceeds the internet.

The traditional manifestation was of a company salesman defecting to a competitor. The first company then sues to prevent the salesman taking the client base to the competitor.

Obviously that happens with large and/or established companies, but it also extends to small companies...

• when my dentist set up his own practice; he had to be able to demonstrate that he hadn't solicited clients
• nother classic example is hairdressers, believe it or not

Yes, of course. Back in the early days of the interwebs though no one really knew how big it would get though or what the future would be. At the time it would have been just another small incidental thing to tack onto an existing big publishing deal.

[tggzzz]

Everyone with any ounce of online business sense these days knows that your subscriber list is your most treasured asset.

Not "these days"; that concept long preceeds the internet.

The traditional manifestation was of a company salesman defecting to a competitor. The first company then sues to prevent the salesman taking the client base to the competitor.

Obviously that happens with large and/or established companies, but it also extends to small companies...

• when my dentist set up his own practice; he had to be able to demonstrate that he hadn't solicited clients
• nother classic example is hairdressers, believe it or not

Yes, of course. Back in the early days of the interwebs though no one really knew how big it would get though or what the future would be. At the time it would have been just another small incidental thing to tack onto an existing big publishing deal.

I remember two points from a lunchtime conversation with colleagues in January 1996:

• wrong: buying pet food over the web is a stupid concept
• right: if this web shopping thing ever takes off, it would be good to invest in shipping companies

The latter was fairly obvious, since the conversation was in Palo Alto and while the '49ers often lost money, the people supplying them made fortunes.

[coppice]

Yes, of course. Back in the early days of the interwebs though no one really knew how big it would get though or what the future would be. At the time it would have been just another small incidental thing to tack onto an existing big publishing deal.

Was how big ever a question? The speed with which consumer connection speeds increased way beyond a dialup modem, enabling streaming and other high data content, might have surprised you. The exact form things took might have surprised you. Was the general direction ever a surprise?

[tggzzz]

Yes, of course. Back in the early days of the interwebs though no one really knew how big it would get though or what the future would be. At the time it would have been just another small incidental thing to tack onto an existing big publishing deal.

Was how big ever a question? The speed with which consumer connection speeds increased way beyond a dialup modem, enabling streaming and other high data content, might have surprised you. The exact form things took might have surprised you. Was the general direction ever a surprise?

Depends on how far back you go. In order...

I remember email bang addressing, and the pain it caused.

I remember seeing if there was anything new by going to cern.ch.

I remember there being a "best of web" competition. This was one of the winners, although back then the line drawing maps were from the Xerox map server.

I remember using altavista, yahoo (even at the beginning, it was obvious curated lists weren't going to be sufficiently scalable) and google.edu. Google was good then.

I remember Amazon selling CDs and books, and thinking that selling shoes/clothes was a stupid concept.

I remember being 25% responsible for an ecommerce site that won one of the Financial Times competition categories in 1999. (Yeah. I'm shameless )

But I don't remember the kremvax hoax

[james_s]

Was how big ever a question? The speed with which consumer connection speeds increased way beyond a dialup modem, enabling streaming and other high data content, might have surprised you. The exact form things took might have surprised you. Was the general direction ever a surprise?

It absolutely was. The internet was for dweebs, most normal people didn't have or use computers in the 90s, smartphones and tablets didn't exist, lots of people thought online stuff was a fad. Lots of it was too, scores of internet startups crashed and burned.

[SiliconWizard]

Everyone with any ounce of online business sense these days knows that your subscriber list is your most treasured asset.

Yup.

[m k]

My stuff started during '80s with DEC Notes and internal emails.
Then came All-In-1 and internal spam.

So I had experience but still couldn't see the urge of exhibitionism the social media has proved.

[tggzzz]

My stuff started during '80s with DEC Notes and internal emails.
Then came All-In-1 and internal spam.

So I had experience but still couldn't see the urge of exhibitionism the social media has proved.

We had usenet. Nothing can compare (favourably) with that

[james_s]

Usenet used to be good, but then it got totally overrun with spam.

[SiliconWizard]

Usenet is still there.
But yes, the most popular groups are now infested with spam. There still are a few more niche groups that work well, though.

[tggzzz]

Usenet is still there.
But yes, the most popular groups are now infested with spam. There still are a few more niche groups that work well, though.

Comp.arch should still be read by everybody. It is an excellent source with a high SNR.

Sci.electronics.design used to be good, but a couple of years ago Win Hill "disappeared". The few remaining people can be good, but libertarian politics intervenes too often.

[SiliconWizard]

Usenet is still there.
But yes, the most popular groups are now infested with spam. There still are a few more niche groups that work well, though.

Comp.arch should still be read by everybody. It is an excellent source with a high SNR.

Yes, this one is good with almost no spam.