Posts Tagged ‘Twitter’

The Rakofsky Effect: It Actually Works!

October 26, 2011

1. My post coining the phrase based upon my reply to Nathan Burney on Twitter:

2.   Someone else then submits the phrase to The Urban Dictionary:


3.  Rakfosky then confirms the hypothesis and proves the theory by filing a new Notice of Motion and supporting Affidavit .As Eric Turkewitz, (co-defendant and local counsel assisting pro hac vice counsel Marc Randazza, representing 20 of the Rakfosky defendants) notes:

[Rakofsky] has now filed a motion to amend the complaint a second time, with a 300-page whopper including 1,248 paragraphs. He has 78 causes of action and demands, and, if my calculations are correct, he demands $145,000,000 in damages.

Part 1 of the proposed Second Amended Complaint is here and Part 2 is here.

4. Finally, it appears I am no longer the lone Canadian in this internet version of Franz Kafka’s The Trial. Welcome Canadian Lawyer Magazine and Reuters Canada as co-defendants! (see page 167 of the proposed Second Amended Complaint).

See also, Ken’s post at Popehat.com: The Tort of Internet Mobbing Is Perfect For Suing The Internet.

The Side-Show Must Go On

September 6, 2011

Social Media marketer Trey Pennington took his own life recently.

Brian Tannebaum and Brian Cuban each have their own thoughtful perspectives on the broader implications, if any.

This post is not about Trey Pennington.  I didn’t know him, offline or online, or on any line for that matter. He apparently was well-liked and well-regarded in his social circles and his digital legacy and social media marketing presence is not my interest or concern. The candlelight vigils and Twitter and Facebook eulogies will soon dissipate. Pennington’s Twitter and Facebook accounts will remain online in perpetuity—a poignant reminder to only those close to him, while he will fade away from the collective memory once the internet traffic and blog tributes dwindle.

The fact that many are so eager to express banalities of maudlin sentiment such as: “if only you sent me a DM, Trey, maybe I could have helped you” or “but he had so many Twitter and Facebook friends and he just emailed me a week ago” , only reinforces this digital artifice. (more…)

Twitter, A Cactus Named Erik, and Social Media Policy

August 11, 2011
Saguaro cactus on hillside at Saguaro National...

Image via Wikipedia

I stumbled upon an interesting document prepared on behalf of the Law Society of Upper Canada entitled “Online Activity/Social Media Policy” dated September 2010 [the "LSUC Social Media Policy"]. It appears to be a template for law firms with associates and staff that need guidance on accepted or best practices for online activity. Here’s the .pdf link.

I encourage Ontario lawyers, law clerks, and legal staff to read this document carefully and decide how and when they wish to participate online on social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Google+, etc.

The LSUC Social Media Policy provides examples as to when these guidelines may or may not apply:

The following are some examples when these guidelines might apply.

  • Beth, a partner at a firm, participates in an e-mail discussion list hosted by a business professional roundtable, where she can send and receive messages on a wide variety of business topics and interact with current and potential clients.
  • Arthur, an associate at a firm, maintains a personal blog that he started as a law student. He has written about law school, classes, his articling experience, and now occasionally comments on his work.
  • Greg, a paralegal, regularly reads the Empowered Paralegal blog and occasionally posts comments on the site.
  • Susan, a litigation support specialist, has a Twitter account that she uses to update her friends and colleagues on her whereabouts, particularly if she’s working long hours on a case.

The following are some examples where these guidelines do not apply.

  • Mark, Nadine, and Lisa have “friended” each other on Facebook and discuss movies and occasionally collaborate in a game of Firmtown. Their profiles identify [Firm name] as their employer but there is no other mention of work.
  • Erik has a Twitter account where he provides to his followers updates on the status of his cactus throughout the day.

The last example is by far my favorite:

“Erik has a Twitter account where he provides to his followers updates on the status of his cactus throughout the day”.

I  have deliberated throughout the day and have decided to buy a cactus. I shall call him “Erik”.

I have also given serious consideration to rebranding, as suggested by my blawging colleague and Twitter friend (I loathe the phrase “tweep”), George Wallace (Twitter: @foolintheforest) who tweeted/twitted/twittered this today:

However, as every rose has its thorn, so too, every cactus has its…um, spines.

While tweeting about one’s cactus all day may be sufficient to avoid breach of the LSUC Social Media Guidelines, it does seem rather mundane and will not increase your Klout score or Peer Index dramatically. I fear that it will likely end up getting you unfollowed or blocked en masse. It also will not guarantee you safety or security, either online or offline.  For example, one could suffer cactus spine injuries or develop cactus dermatitis. Then there’s the risk of criminal prosecution in Arizona if you vandalize (cactus plugging), remove or traffic in Arizona’s state flower, the Saguaro or giant cactus over four feet tall.

The worst, however, is death by cactus:

David Grundman and his roommate James Joseph Suchcochi packed their guns and took off for the desert near Lake Pleasant back in 1982. Snopes.com tells us Grundman had great success shooting up a small saguaro, which quickly thumped down dead.

So he went for a bigger one. A 26-foot saguaro that was estimated at 100 years old.

The cactus was apparently not amused by being shot up – and one of its 4-foot arms tumbled down, crushing and killing Grundman.

What a way to make history.

While Snopes also mentions tales of animal revenge, the site says Grundman’s is the only documented case of a plant getting back at a human.”

By all means, tweet only about cactuses (or cacti), but remember the words of the conservative political pundit Charles Krauthammer:

In the middle ages, people took potions for their ailments. In the 19th century they took snake oil. Citizens of today’s shiny, technological age are too modern for that. They take antioxidants and extract of cactus instead.

UPDATED: A Brave New World

June 27, 2011
1052(Brave New World)

Image by danielweiresq via Flickr

O wonder! How many goodly creatures are there here! How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world! That has such people in it!
Miranda’s speech in Shakespeare’s The Tempest, Act V, Scene I

“There’s always soma to calm your anger, to reconcile you to your enemies, to make you patient and long-suffering. In the past you could only accomplish these things by making a great effort and after years of hard moral training. Now, you swallow two or three half-gramme tablets, and there you are. Anybody can be virtuous now. You can carry at least half your morality about in a bottle. Christianity without tears-that’s what soma is.”

Aldous Huxley, Brave New World, Ch. 17

In  “Got Twitter? What’s Your Influence Score“, Stephanie Rosenbloom of the  New York Times paints a dismal future when she writes,

IMAGINE a world in which we are assigned a number that indicates how influential we are. This number would help determine whether you receive a job, a hotel-room upgrade or free samples at the supermarket. If your influence score is low, you don’t get the promotion, the suite or the complimentary cookies.

This is not science fiction.

It’s happening to millions of social network users. If you have a Facebook, Twitter or LinkedIn account, you are already being judged – or will be soon. Companies with names like Klout, PeerIndex and Twitter Grader are in the process of scoring millions, eventually billions, of people on their level of influence – or in the lingo, rating “influencers.” Yet the companies are not simply looking at the number of followers or friends you’ve amassed. Rather, they are beginning to measure influence in more nuanced ways, and posting their judgments – in the form of a score – online.

To some, it’s an inspiring tool – one that’s encouraging the democratization of influence. No longer must you be a celebrity, a politician or a media personality to be considered influential. Social scoring can also help build a personal brand. To critics, social scoring is a brave new technoworld, where your rating could help determine how well you are treated by everyone with whom you interact.

Is this all there is? Are we now all resigned to a social media caste system where our digital selves are to be rated, traded, bartered, exchanged and sold?

For many lawyers, both old and new, borrowed and blue, the siren song of social media and its chorus of empty promises and get-rich-quick-or-die-tryin’ American Idolatry is too much to resist. The heart is willing, but the bank account is weak. The rocky shoals do not portend any risks. There’s only smooth sailing ahead. Professionalism and Ethics—the Scylla and Charybdis of Lawyering—are best avoided altogether on this epic voyage.

I read Brave New World as a high school student in Grade 10 English class.

At the time, in the unbridled optimism of my youth, Huxley’s dystopia was fanciful science-fiction. Nothing more, Nothing less. While George Orwell’s classic, 1984 has permeated the collective psyche, contorted by many into a convenient metaphor for totalitarianism and class conflict, it was Huxley’s novel that somehow remained imprinted into my sub-conscious. Brave New World inhabited the dark recesses of my mind, waiting patiently, like a crow hovering over freshly killed prey, to feast on a developing cynicism, eventually calcified, when Life’s inevitable disappointments and illusory achievements cumulatively took their toll.

Eighteen years ago I became a lawyer. It was my high school history teacher, Mr. Evans, whom I fondly remember suggesting that I should consider becoming a journalist or a lawyer.I thank him for the inspiration, but today, I feel old. Not chronologically, just existentially old. As though all the years I have spent learning, listening, working, trying to become a better lawyer, and thus, a better human being, have sped by like a freight train—the days, the months, the years—clipping past like dilapidated railway cars, quickly fading into the distance.

What is the point of writing about the Law, practicing the Law, living and breathing the Law, when all that was noble in our profession has been compromised, commodified, compartmentalized? What is the point?

Of course, lawyers need and want clients. Clients need and want lawyers. It is a symbiotic relationship, but a relationship where the client’s needs always must come first. We all need and want to be respected by our peers. Few of us are independently wealthy. We pay our bills and taxes. We deserve to make a living. Yet, is everything fungible, even your ethics? Are you willing to do anything to get a high Klout or Peer Index score, amass Twitter followers and Facebook friends? All at the expense of your clients and your profession?

Before his downfall a man’s heart is proud, but humility comes before honor. Proverbs 18:12

What is the point in exposing the hypocrites; the liars; the egregiously incompetent; the unintegrious? Have you even asked yourself these questions? Do you care, or are you surfeit with the soma of self-promotion and self-congratulation, masquerading as self-actualization?

Where are all the lawyers? Where are the next Scott Greenfields, the Brian Tannebaums, the Mark Bennetts to take up the fight against the banality of it all?

I leave you with a final thought from Huxley’s Brave New World:

“The Gods are just. No doubt. But their code of law is dictated, in the last resort, by the people who organize society; providence takes its cue from men.”
- Aldous Huxley, Brave New World, Ch. 17

UPDATE: Many thanks to George Wallace, partner in the Pasadena, California, law firm of Wallace, Brown & Schwartz and author of the excellent A Fool in the Forest Blog and Declarations and Exclusions Blog,  for his comment and providing a link to a wonderful cartoon that visualizes the  thesis from Neil Postman’s 1985 book “Amusing Ourselves To Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show business”: http://www.recombinantrecords.net/docs/2009-05-Amusing-Ourselves-to-Death.html 

UPDATED: CTB v. Twitter, Inc. and Unknown Persons: Trying to Flog a Dead Horse

May 22, 2011

Briefly, the underlying case is CTB v. News Group Newspapers Ltd. et al. which is an English High Court Queen’s Bench Division judgment arising from litigation between an “anonymous” English premier league footballer, “CTB” and defendants News Group Newspapers Limited and Imogen Thomas. On 14 April 2011, Mr Justice Eady granted first a temporary injunction prohibiting the naming of the footballer in the media, which injunction was extended on April 21st, 2011. The injunction initially sought to prevent details of an extra-marital relationship between the married footballer CTB and Ms Thomas – from being published in the London newspaper, The Sun and was based on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees an individual’s right to privacy. CTB v News Group Newspapers Ltd et al. [2011] EWHC 1232 (QB) (16 May 2011) is analysed in depth by Edward Craven at Inforrm’s Blog: Case Law: CTB v News Group Newspapers: privacy law and the judiciary.

See also,

Since then, Twitter is abuzz about the news that CTB has commenced another action in the English court, this time against Twitter, Inc.  to disclose the identities of some of its anonymous account holders alleged to have breached Justice Eady’s injunctive order by disclosing the claimant’s identity:. The case is styled: CTB -v- Twitter, Inc. and Persons Unknown (Case No. HQ11XO1814. Read Charles Russell’s CRITique blog for a great summary here.

Unlike some others, I respect the Rule of Law and choose not to identify “CTB” in breach of Justice Eady’s injunctive order, irrespective of whether, in my opinion, any such order is unenforceable contra mundum. (more…)


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,090 other followers