<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: /// Facebook: The New &#8216;Too Big To Fail?&#8217;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://donnaklinenow.com/investigation/facebook-the-new-too-big-to-fail/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://donnaklinenow.com/investigation/facebook-the-new-too-big-to-fail</link>
	<description>By Donna Kline — www.DLKindustries.com</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Dec 2012 02:01:14 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: emailme</title>
		<link>http://donnaklinenow.com/investigation/facebook-the-new-too-big-to-fail/comment-page-1#comment-774</link>
		<dc:creator>emailme</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Mar 2012 23:50:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.donnaklinenow.com/?p=2321#comment-774</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Responses to the 18 comments:

1. S Craddock: 20/20, Dateline, Fox, Bloomberg, MSNBC, all the outlets are on Facebook. The common denominator is obvious and it isn&#039;t a political party. 

2. M Strall: The case appears too strong to lose; even if this has to stretch out to the supreme court. This isn&#039;t a patent troll case, nor is it a weak argument; I doubt Yahoo&#039;s is either. 

3. Aok: You are missing something; much more than even Donna has brought to your attention. Keep noticing. 

4. S Williams: Agree but try not to see it from a political angle; this legal situation is only part of the FB problem. This case has the potential to bring out the serious problem of the social bubble and the harm it does to small businesses who think they must be on every social platform in order to be successful.  We are literally taking every person and business&#039;s time away from innovation and thinking. 

5. Linda W: See note to S Williams re politicizing it. It&#039;s not the way to do this because it&#039;s not the real problem. Look at the common denominator inside the social bubble. 

6. Notice Donna did not politicize this. Follow her lead.

7. B Campbell: Exactly, they can&#039;t because they are tweeting and status updating and circling and linking on the bubble of the big four.

8. Al: The reason the media isn&#039;t on it has nothing to do with government politics; it has everything to do with social media politics. We are in a bubble and then on the small islands too of which there are thousands. You can go to sites and put in some handle and ask it to register you on 360 different platforms; one of them does 500 for you all at once! But be sure to go back month after month because they change (old out of business new just got funding).  After all, you can&#039;t win in business unless you are farming everyone elses&#039;s platforms!  

9. Steve again: Agree; now when you go out and write about this case/situation/whatever, don&#039;t be tempted to make it about political parties; it&#039;s about social bubble politics only. Stay focused, your ideas are good when they aren&#039;t covered in Party. 

10. Aok again: Keep it shorter, such as this: Steve, help me understand why/how the patent will be found valid on appeal?  How we word things shapes the answer. 

11. K Craine: Effective approach, thank you. 

12. Steve again: Get rid of the YOUs to express your meaning. 

13. W Smith: Nice!  Stay that way though; don&#039;t be tempted to make it a Party. You didn&#039;t quite yet but I can see it&#039;s possible later. Burn the invitations. 

14. Steve again: Nice summary. Sounds so much better without the YOUs.

15. Re the letter Donna received: Don&#039;t use pigs as the scapegoat of language. We are brutalizing them daily and then we use language to imply they are bad (except when it smells good in the oven; then she is love at first bite). You are right about the likes ecosystem - it is more powerful than any governmental politics. Don&#039;t bring Left Right into this though.  Remember, when you refer to the pig you are referring to a very intelligent animal (much more so than our beloved best friends) and you are referring to something that needs a voice because she&#039;s in trouble. I doubt that&#039;s what you meant though when you say her name. Language matters; it matters to win a case, it matters to get readers on your site, it matters when we speak to pets our better halves and our children, it matters when we speak about our lives. Language tells us who we are. We bring out the best in ourselves when we focus on the power it.  

16. Steve again: with such good points it is a shame they fall flat with governmental politics. Leave Obama out of this and focus on the issue at hand - the social bubble and the concentrated power of false likes, plusses, pins, #s of connections (the ones in your brain are the most important), checkins, updates, the color of your favorite plates, ad nauseum. Businesses go out of business because they are building their lives on other people&#039;s property and stifling their own innovation. 

17. Tex: Not worth a reply

18. Donna, I might have mistyped my &#039;email&#039; the first time. We (as in anyone) are all hackable, shoot me a note and I will give you my #.  I have a few things to tell you.  Thanks for sticking to the facts. This isn&#039;t a vendetta against FB or any Party, your work speaks for itself.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Responses to the 18 comments:</p>
<p>1. S Craddock: 20/20, Dateline, Fox, Bloomberg, MSNBC, all the outlets are on Facebook. The common denominator is obvious and it isn&#8217;t a political party. </p>
<p>2. M Strall: The case appears too strong to lose; even if this has to stretch out to the supreme court. This isn&#8217;t a patent troll case, nor is it a weak argument; I doubt Yahoo&#8217;s is either. </p>
<p>3. Aok: You are missing something; much more than even Donna has brought to your attention. Keep noticing. </p>
<p>4. S Williams: Agree but try not to see it from a political angle; this legal situation is only part of the FB problem. This case has the potential to bring out the serious problem of the social bubble and the harm it does to small businesses who think they must be on every social platform in order to be successful.  We are literally taking every person and business&#8217;s time away from innovation and thinking. </p>
<p>5. Linda W: See note to S Williams re politicizing it. It&#8217;s not the way to do this because it&#8217;s not the real problem. Look at the common denominator inside the social bubble. </p>
<p>6. Notice Donna did not politicize this. Follow her lead.</p>
<p>7. B Campbell: Exactly, they can&#8217;t because they are tweeting and status updating and circling and linking on the bubble of the big four.</p>
<p>8. Al: The reason the media isn&#8217;t on it has nothing to do with government politics; it has everything to do with social media politics. We are in a bubble and then on the small islands too of which there are thousands. You can go to sites and put in some handle and ask it to register you on 360 different platforms; one of them does 500 for you all at once! But be sure to go back month after month because they change (old out of business new just got funding).  After all, you can&#8217;t win in business unless you are farming everyone elses&#8217;s platforms!  </p>
<p>9. Steve again: Agree; now when you go out and write about this case/situation/whatever, don&#8217;t be tempted to make it about political parties; it&#8217;s about social bubble politics only. Stay focused, your ideas are good when they aren&#8217;t covered in Party. </p>
<p>10. Aok again: Keep it shorter, such as this: Steve, help me understand why/how the patent will be found valid on appeal?  How we word things shapes the answer. </p>
<p>11. K Craine: Effective approach, thank you. </p>
<p>12. Steve again: Get rid of the YOUs to express your meaning. </p>
<p>13. W Smith: Nice!  Stay that way though; don&#8217;t be tempted to make it a Party. You didn&#8217;t quite yet but I can see it&#8217;s possible later. Burn the invitations. </p>
<p>14. Steve again: Nice summary. Sounds so much better without the YOUs.</p>
<p>15. Re the letter Donna received: Don&#8217;t use pigs as the scapegoat of language. We are brutalizing them daily and then we use language to imply they are bad (except when it smells good in the oven; then she is love at first bite). You are right about the likes ecosystem &#8211; it is more powerful than any governmental politics. Don&#8217;t bring Left Right into this though.  Remember, when you refer to the pig you are referring to a very intelligent animal (much more so than our beloved best friends) and you are referring to something that needs a voice because she&#8217;s in trouble. I doubt that&#8217;s what you meant though when you say her name. Language matters; it matters to win a case, it matters to get readers on your site, it matters when we speak to pets our better halves and our children, it matters when we speak about our lives. Language tells us who we are. We bring out the best in ourselves when we focus on the power it.  </p>
<p>16. Steve again: with such good points it is a shame they fall flat with governmental politics. Leave Obama out of this and focus on the issue at hand &#8211; the social bubble and the concentrated power of false likes, plusses, pins, #s of connections (the ones in your brain are the most important), checkins, updates, the color of your favorite plates, ad nauseum. Businesses go out of business because they are building their lives on other people&#8217;s property and stifling their own innovation. </p>
<p>17. Tex: Not worth a reply</p>
<p>18. Donna, I might have mistyped my &#8216;email&#8217; the first time. We (as in anyone) are all hackable, shoot me a note and I will give you my #.  I have a few things to tell you.  Thanks for sticking to the facts. This isn&#8217;t a vendetta against FB or any Party, your work speaks for itself.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
