:)
molly.com
Wednesday 16 May 2007
Shifting Sands: Truth and Courage and JPG Magazine
As soon as I began reading what happened regarding JPG Magazine, I knew that here was even more evidence of my long-held belief that the room for inauthentic, manipulative voices in our wired culture is becoming very small. I won’t go into the story behind what happened to Derek and Heather here, you can follow the links and read for yourself. I will say that I have known Derek for a decade and Heather even longer and that their individual and combined contributions to our community have come from absolute, authentic passion and dedication.
As readers here know, I have tested boundaries of online community more than once, and perhaps less professionally than most. As I have cried, fallen, made mistakes and done my best to repair those mistakes where possible, the lessons I’ve learned turn out to have far less to do with a specific personality flaw, but a flaw in our culture. That is, the belief that lying or hiding truths is safer, easier and avoids harm.
Derek writes:
“If there’s one thing I’ve learned about community-building, it’s this: Do Not Lie. People are too smart and well-connected to believe a lie anymore.”
What may look like personal struggles here are in my opinion not just personal: They are the result of trying to undo the shackles of an old model of being to survive in a world that can and will be self-correcting, and where community strength can in fact supercede the misdeeds and misactions of others.
From a sociological standpoint, this “shifting sands” idea really should be examined by experts as the shift touches every part of modern life: How we determine our own behavior, how that reflects in our work, our personal relationships, how we raise the next generation – I cannot point out enough as a long-time participant and leader of online and face to face communities that this is the very core of how human beings will or will not live up to the challenge of our individual and combined futures.
One thing is certain, and that is it will never again be easy to rewrite history, to harm others, to manipulate and use them, to govern inappropriately without the community’s involvement and ability to respond in kind. This is why the Web is important. This is why the past months of personal revelations from public people have had to see the light of day. We as a community seriously have to begin assessing and reassessing what is going to be our acceptable behaviors globally as well as personally. We need to make a mess sometimes to clean it up.
Quite simply, these are growing pains, but they are painful for a reason: They require our attention. All of us. This isn’t some theoretical technology. This is the future that we will shape.
Derek also writes:
“It’s the kind of story people don’t usually tell in public. Perhaps I’m into radical transparency or maybe I’m just difficult.”
While my response to this point is a bit semantic, I don’t think this is radical transparency or a difficult personality per se. What I believe it to be is a situation where people with a broader world view have encountered the vestiges of the old paradigms. Authenticity is not a flaw, nor should it be seen as an “act” of transparency. This is courage. These are actions that just might help save the world.
I have always stated that the Web gives the masses the potential to do just that, and it is clear that we can, via our communities and social networks, improve ourselves and gain more enlightened global perspectives that are based in truth and forgiveness rather than lies and manipulation. Idealistic? You bet. Optimistic, well, yes, but it’s not like I believe that this won’t take a very long time or that it will be a successful endeavor. I just feel it terribly, terribly important that we all realize what’s going on. The testing of boundaries and breaking them are part of this shift toward a world where honesty will truly be the best policy. Breaking those boundaries will cause pain and bruising for us all as we go through it, but go through it we must or the chance to better ourselves as individuals and society at large might pass us by.
Derek reflects on lessons learned:
“Communication between partners is mandatory. And you cannot communicate with someone who is not communicating with you.”
I agree with all my heart, and would like to open this idea up even further. Communication between all of us – real communication – from the heart and without lies or agendas – is and will long remain the foundation of hope for all of us. For after all, not only shall the truth set us free from the bounds of our lies, but it will open up an opportunity for forgiveness and acceptance for being the diamonds in the rough that all of us are.
Filed under: community, society
Posted by: Molly | 19:37 | Comments (21)
That is quite a story. Thank you for blogging it!
I can only applaud Mr & Mrs Powazek for being honest, and condemn Paul for his high-handed approach. I can’t imagine what the reasoning is to lie in such a manner; building such a community is something to be exceptionally proud of, not hide under rug, ashamed.
Honesty is something that is apparently in short supply these days. At the risk of sounding like a(n old) curmudgeon, I find the whole thing rather disheartening. The arrogance of some is truly astounding, but not exactly new. People have been manipulative since before we started walking upright.
A community must rely on honesty in its leaders; anything else is just blatant manipulation. Even neglecting to the tell the whole story of something – like how a magazine was founded – is basically a political power-play. It’s not restricted to magazine CEO’s, either. I’m in the middle of a discussion about a Pastor in Lubbock, Texas who has been quite thrifty, indeed, with the truth. This guy manipulated his congregation in exactly the same way as this Paul did, and worse. By withholding information, they manipulate a perception, and abuse a trust.
What all of these people (the manipulators) forget is that they rarely get caught doing the deed: it’s the cover-up that gets them. And so it is with 8020. If it had been a simple business disagreement, things might have been different. But it wasn’t: it was outrageous abuse of trust at the personal level, and to the community of contributors and readers.
Personally, I’d have been quite suspicious at Paul’s willingness to assume the CEO role. Altruistic individuals don’t always see the hidden agendas of others, even people they think of as friends. A healthy bit of skepticism, and a rock-solid legal agreement are the base for a successful partnership (it’s one reason why I will not enter into any partnership, despite some offers over the years). Mind, I’m just a cynic when it comes to someone wanting authority…
I’m not saying that Mr & Mrs Powazek set themselves up for a fall; far from it. They had every right, and then some, to expect Paul to honor the original intent of the magazine. That he didn’t isn’t a surprise: money is involved. (I don’t know him, or Mr & Mrs Powazek.) Presumably sums, and the resulting illusion of power, that tested Paul’s definition of “friendship”, and found it lacking. They trusted, and it’s a crying pity that Paul abused that trust, and took decided advantage of their friendship. (With friends like that, they are not in need of any enemies!)
I feel sorry that they had to go through this experience. I hope they don’t stop trusting others simply because of one person’s arrogance and greed.
Carolyn Ann
PS I’m not sure if your contention that a cover up is easier to uncover in this day and age is strictly correct. It might seem easier, but people simply used other mechanisms (gossip, for instance) in other times.
And, unfortunately, manipulators will always be one step ahead of their prey. Some get caught, most simply get away with it. Manipulation is a political skill that goes back to before we even had language.
But the honesty you’re talking about is the same as Ayn Rand’s political philosophy. (No, I’ve never been able to read ‘Atlas Shrugged’) I’ve had some discussions about this philosophy, and I’m in two minds about it. While ideal, I keep in mind that people, somewhat fortunately I think, will always remain the same. We haven’t changed for 30,000-odd years; I don’t really expect anything to be different in a few billion! Sorry.
/CA
I think one of the most interesting things is the size and speed of the community reactions to the various exposed deceits in the last month or two.
You can follow the removal of photos and accounts from JPG from the forum postings on the unoffical group on Flickr.
The other interesting thing is that when these things are ‘covered up’ or written about inauthentically by the parties involved you can clearly see the hypocrisy in black and white… it almost amplifies the original act.
I can only hope that this sort of exposure to deceitful behaviour might encourage people to think ahead and simply act like better human beings. Note the use of ‘hope’ – the cynic in me says people will continue to behave deplorably in pursuit of their personal ambitions. At least it seems that this chap has been caught in the act.
Hmm, I guess I’d have to say I disagree with a number of your statements. None of my comments have anything to do with the Heather/Derek/jpg magazine situation, which I’ll mention very briefly at the end of my message. I’m also not speaking of specific people but just in response to your philosophical points.
I don’t agree that room for “inauthentic, manipulative voices in our wired culture” is becoming small. Not even remotely. Building images that are just that – images, not substance – is incredibly easy on the web.
I don’t think for a minute that lying or hiding truths is specific to “our culture.”
I believe that the greatest flaws are within individuals regardless of what is happening culturally. I think the greatest growth comes from admitting the horribleness of our own flaws. I think our flaws rarely lead to “mistakes.” I think our flaws are more likely to lead to intentionally destructive words or actions, whether tiny or large, whether directed to ourselves or to others, whether passive, aggressive, or passive-aggressive, however sweetly we try to package them.
I think that as long as there has been “the web,” people have been arguing and taking sides and supposedly exposing others, and that we’re not really that much closer to the truth about much at all because of the web. (oh, perhaps about a scientific fact here and there—maybe—but not much that’s related to communication and interpersonal relationships and images).
The web is full of information and lies and half-truths and self-deception, of people who manipulate, or exaggerate or build up images for themselves that are so easy to build simply because it _is_ the web. For example, politicians will learn more and more just how to appeal to us and manipulate us by speaking our so-called Web 2.0 language, and we’ll believe who we want to believe and be influenced by surface things, not substance, just as humans always have. Predators will continue to pass themselves off as 15 year olds. Marketing guys will be able to make tens of thousands of people believe that they are giants in the web design world, and if anything in uncovered, few (especially outside of our little web standards world) will know about it or believe it, even if they hear it. Women who were molested as children will continue to attract the attention of millions upon millions of visitors by “acting” in porn sites, somehow twisting their own thinking to the point where they believe they are being sexually free and liberated or even adored. Manics will pass themselves off as depressives and vice versa. Narcissists will pass as humble and self-deprecating. Meanwhile, an enormous amount of activity on the web will involve people who are simply living their lives and using the web to do their job, buy stuff, or email a friend or forward a joke, or save some photos, (or even attempt to forge an identity at MySpace). The emphasis of their activities may shift, but I don’t think human nature will change much or that from-the-heart communication will become truer or deeper or finer or more powerful. I don’t think husbands will be nicer to wives or wives will be nicer to husbands because of the web, or that, even more importantly, parents will spend more face-to-face time with their children—and these things are more important than 99% of what is happening on the web.
The web has people I know and love and respect, and everyday I’m thrilled, truly, to be involved because of the amazing people and connections I experience through it. I can hardly wait to see what my email is each day. But I see no utopia or shift to some finer paradigm here. I see people with their full range of personality disorders, hidden agendas, generosity, courage, joy, creativity, selfishness, self-justification, greed, and all the rest….just like in real life. I have hope, but it’s not based on the web. We rarely have proof on the web of who was right and who was wrong in conversations that didn’t happen online. We’ll use our best (or worst) judgement, and leap to conclusions just like we always have. That’s my opinion.
Again, my comments have no connection with the jpg magazine issue. I’ve already leapt to the conclusion that Derek’s version is the accurate one—though for all I know, since I have no time to look into it, Derek P. is, in reality, that weird guy about five houses down my block who never seems to come out of his darkened house. (I’m joking). I’m only responding to various points you made in this particular post, as I perceive them.
Please understand that I’m not for an instant implying that the issue is “societal” and not personal. The point is, it’s both. And for what it’s worth, I have seen people change for the better plenty of times, organizations improve, and people, myself included, taking the hard lessons of life to heart and doing the best they can to use that as motivation to be better as individuals and as part of our communities.
Long been said that it’s the crazy people who believe you can change the world that just might help do so. I’m hanging on to my idealism as long as I can, even if I don’t have confidence that it will work out in the end. We’ll never know if we don’t give it a go, and taking the Web for granted as a tool for social change is, as I see it, a seriously grave mistake.
Go back and read what Tim Berners Lee believes the vision of his creation is meant to do. Know your origins, my friends – this medium has always had the intent of being social as well as technical. It is that convergence that can and does bring hope and the potential for great change.
To think that anyone has the ability to change the nature of humanity is presuming they, as an individual, have power that is greater than a “God”. The only thing the Internet has done and will continue to do is to affect a change in delivery not in the ingrained physiological behavioral patterns of mankind.
But then, Holzschlag, I am a hypocrite. Doing the Don Quixote thing and battling windmills is, on occasion, good for the soul. At the end of the day, I expect only one thing — a sore ass. Make that two sore asses, mine and the donkey.
As far as the JPG Mag thing — that was poor business judgment and execution. Hell, Steve Jobs lost control of Apple but he got it back and Scully got the boot.
:::Time for this neanderthal to shut up and crawl back into his cave:::
I can’t agree with you more, Molly.
It’s almost comedic the response you get today when you go into a bees nest of old-school “suits” trying to explain why being dishonest is bad, or the value of authenticity. They look at you like you have “naive” written on your forehead in yesterday’s jam…
One thing you can’t change is human nature. That’s why deceivers and manipulators will always exist.
No one can change human nature. Society ascribes certain rules of behavior, but someone out there is always willing to test them, break them or just plain old ignore them. Sometimes that’s good, other times it’s not.
But through it all, human nature is astounding in its resilience. Folks just will be folks.
Carolyn Ann
I agree with you wholeheartedly, Molly. I have always striven to live by a code that demands that I treat others with respect and integrity (not saying I’ve always succeded in living up to my ideals, but still) and the idea that Sir Tim’s Contrabulous Fantraption will make life harder for those bastards who delight in screwing over others for their own personal gain is a cheering one.
This is not the first social network where this has happened. It happened over on deviantArt when I was posting my art there. Not only did the “new founder” make claims that the original founders were his lackeys, but edited a number of Wikipedia articles to reflect that.
The problem here is two-fold, in my opinion. First of all, the public tends to buy a concentrated media campaign and the rhetoric of spin. It’s why people actually make a living at parsing words and facts.
Secondly, most of the public has a short attention span. And hostile entities will wait years for the masses to calm down, forget, and move on with their lives. After a while, they can tell whatever tale they like, and because no one remembers the facts, it becomes the truth.
I don’t know these folks, only what I’ve read from these comments and the reading that I did in their posts and the slick, Clinton-esque rambling on the home page about the original magazine being “inspiration” for the new one.
It’s too bad.
I appreciate your post, Molly, but after my reading of the situation I’m concerned that there’s something else at work here, and something far less dignified or honorable than a desire for authenticity. I believe there’s a tendency for us humans to want black and white answers, someone who’s to blame and someone who’s the victim. Every situation I’ve seen where it’s so clear that someone screwed up and bears the blame, when I actually take the time to sit down and listen to the other side it always turns out that my initial reading was way off base. And that’s happened so many times to me that I’ve learned (mostly) to stop assuming anything until I know all the facts. And maybe not even then.
Because of that, when I initially read Derek’s remarks I knew there had to be more to the story. And sure enough, several folks from 8020 have posted their thoughts and it’s quite different from what Derek said.
What I think is unfortunate here is that while it’s cleary a complex situation what happened at JPG and 8020, Derek’s post involves, whether intentioned to do so or not, thousands of people who have no knowledge of the situation beyond what Derek says. That’s flat out irresponsible, whether he realized it or not.
We have a couple of choices here. First, we can take Derek’s words at face value and believe that he was suddenly fired with little to no warning, had his info ripped off the site, and that Paul is some manipulative devil. Second, we could think that Derek is really a selfish, ego-driven individual who is so enraged at not getting his way that he writes that post to take down his old company.
Or, third, we can realize that we know very little about this situation and that there are almost certainly mistakes made on both sides. No one is without guilt.
I think the fact that a social network is involved can sort of obscure or muddle our thinking so that we only think about the marketing aspects of the organization (specifically how that side handles it) and not consider the responsibilities that we all have as mature adults.
Honesty is a non-negotiable, but we also need maturity and wisdom to know how and where to proclaim the facts as we know them. And as a community I believe we must examine the intention behind the speech, no matter how authentic the speaker claims to be.
Yet, in light of the “disclaimer” on the front page of the site, in which the original magazine and its publishers were only “inspiration” for the new site, AND the fact that previous editions of the magazine are only available on another site – it looks, for all intents and purposes – to be a purge.
If you’re in the right, and you know it, there’s no reason to go to that extent to bury the past.
mollyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!
:)
omg ur sooooooooooo coooooooooooooooooooooooool!
im such a bigfan
im only 15yearsold so fansinated by your work!!!
thank you for your mazing designes really did inspire me!!
tc of urself xxx
Molly,
Your biased uninvestigative approach is severly disappointing. David Lowe pretty much cuts all the crap away.
Disappointing story, reminds me of the history of photo.net
Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose.
thank u
good article
i want an essay not a story
thanks for good write
thanks
this subject is very important for us .