Social media, readers, and writers…
I used to participate in discussions on Goodreads and LinkedIn. I no longer do so. The reasons are many. Here’s one: both have gone downhill since Amazon and Microsoft bought them, respectively. That might explain why there seem to be some moderators who are little tyrants; I’m open to discussions, but they aren’t. Same for members of their discussion groups.
In Goodreads, these few moderators assume their group is their little fiefdom; in LinkedIn, they’re often against indie authors and small presses and favor big publishing conglomerates and their associates. Sour grapes? No. These moderators are rare, but there’s no regulation from either Amazon or Microsoft who give the despots free rein to cancel anyone they please. They offer some “Terms of Service” discussion group members must follow, but the latter often ignore them. (And you thought it was just Facebook and Twitter?)
I’ve already cancelled ALL my memberships in Goodreads discussion groups (it was cathartic to do so from my Kindle, because Amazon bears most of the blame for not cleaning up Goodreads’ act.) I just don’t have the time to discover the bad apples hiding in the barrel among the many good ones. I will avoid any discussion on these sites. Same goes for many reading forums where you’ll find this us v. them mentality (us = readers and/or some publishing professionals, and them = certain authors they like to bully). I’m first and foremost an avid reader—always have been—so that turns me off, to put it mildly.
To be fair, some authors abuse their privileges on these sites. I never have, except for giving “discussion group” its literal meaning “discussions invited.” When thin skins, agendas, and pride get in the way of intelligent discussion, I bail. I’ve also been bullied, lied to, and even threatened by other group members. (Perhaps I should name names, but I’m not that kind of guy.) From what I’ve seen, I’m not unique in having these experiences. It’s sad that we have come to this!
Facebook has shown that self-regulation doesn’t work…in their case, big-time politically doesn’t work! And close to being illegal! Twitter’s the same. My experiences with more genteel groups like Goodreads and LinkedIn show that the flaw can be found in internet orgs assuming that self-regulation does work and codifies that into their business models that often include sharing users’ personal information so that ads can be targeted. Goodreads and LinkedIn’s owners are guilty of the same sins as their subsidiaries.
Sites like Goodreads discussion groups and those infamous Facebook groups, all claiming to be regulated by monitors and moderators in addition to self-regulation, have shown the major flaw in that attitude too: No one regulates the regulators! The internet is full of sites like this. The sanest advice I can offer other authors comes straight from the X-Files: Trust no one! (I could add “The truth is out there,” but it’s frequently a challenge to find it!)
It’s depressing that we’ve come to this. A good idea, the Worldwide Web, now called the internet, originally developed by ARPA and physicists at CERN in service of education and science, has acquired a bad odor by becoming a landfill of chaotic cacophony for the most part where good ideas play second fiddle to rants by little fascists with petty agendas at its best, and bullies, haters, and bigots at its worst. It’s out of control and ruining civilized discourse.
How do we fix the internet? It probably can’t be fixed. Sites like Goodreads and LinkedIn continue to be home to a few bad apples dedicated to make well-intentioned users’ lives miserable. But it doesn’t stop there. The internet is like Pandora’s box: once it was opened, all sorts of disease and pestilence were unleashed upon humanity. The internet’s disease is ending rational discourse; the pestilence is all the nastiness, and I haven’t even dwelled on identity theft, illegal hacking, malware, porn, prostitution, sexting, snuff videos, and so forth.
Bottom line, and what motivated this post: If you want to discuss some topic with me and find me discussing it on my blog (including this post), you can comment on my blog—I’m open to rational discussion, and I can, and do, moderate the irrational here. Otherwise, you can use the contact page to email me, especially if you want to keep it personal. In both cases, be forewarned that my spam filters are well armed and ready.
***
Did you miss Rembrandt’s Angel? Both that novel and my novel The Collector present my unique thesis that stolen artwork can be used as collateral for other nefarious criminal activity. In Rembrandt’s Angel (Penmore Press, 2017), Bastiann van Coevorden, an Interpol agent, has to manage Scotland Yard Inspector Esther Brookstone’s obsession with recovering the Rembrandt, “An Angel with Titus’ Features,” stolen by the Nazis in World War Two. Esther’s mission becomes deadlier and different from her usual cases in the Art and Antiques Division of the Yard. The duo takes readers on a wild tour of Europe and South America before the story reaches its thrilling climax, as they find out what the stolen paintings are used to finance. In the process, the couple’s romantic interludes become a full-blown romance. Available on Amazon, Smashwords, and in most bookstores (if they don’t have it, ask for it).
The earlier novel, The Collector, also features Esther and Bastiann in cameo roles, and he also appears in Aristocrats and Assassins and Gaia and the Goliaths. These three ebooks are available on Amazon and Smashwords.
All of these books can be read independently.
The Great Spring Thaw sale continues on Smashwords.
In libris libertas!
