Realitycheck: the the irreverent guide to outsmarting, outmanaging, and outmarketing your competition / Guy Kawasaki. p. cm. "It's Adobe's PDF format. Editorial Reviews. Review. "Paul Boehmer's energetic reading contributes to the author's "Don't even think about trying to launch a startup without reading Guy Kawasaki's Reality Check." -BizEd. For a quarter of a century, in his various. "Don't even think about trying to launch a startup without reading Guy Kawasaki's Reality Check." -BizEd. For a quarter of a century, in his various guises as an.
|Language:||English, Spanish, French|
|Genre:||Science & Research|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Register to download]|
Reality Check is a compilation of Guy's best wit, wisdom, and contrarian opinions in handy book form. Check Kawasaki Guy by neusihelcodi.tk Mentoring online. You could get it as pdf, kindle, word, txt, ppt, rar as well as zip file. kawasaki, g. reality check - clover. Get Instant Access to PDF File: #b8d Reality Check: The Irreverent Outmarketing Your Competit Ion By Guy Kawasaki pdf.
Some courts have even read subsection c 1 to also cover these moderation decisions too.
But ultimately, the wisdom of Section is that it recognizes that to get the best results — the most good content and also the least bad — it needs to ensure platforms can feel safe to do what they can to advance both of these things. If they had to fear liability for how they chose to be platforms, they would be much less effective partners in achieving either.
For instance, if a platform had to fear legal consequences for removing user content, they simply wouldn't. We know this from FOSTA, which, by severely weakening Section has created disincentives for platforms to try to police user content.
And if platforms had to fear liability for enabling user activity on its systems, they also wouldn't do that either. They would instead end up engaging in undue censorship, or cease to exist at all. We also know this is true from FOSTA, which, by weakening Section , has driven platforms to censor wide swaths of content, or even cease to provide platform services to lawful expression.
But even if Section protected platforms for only one of these potential forms of liability, not only would it not be nearly as effective at achieving Congress's overall goal of getting both the most good and least bad online as protecting them in both ways would, but it wouldn't be nearly as effective for achieving even just one of those outcomes as a more balanced approach would.
The problem is that if ever platforms find themselves in the position of needing to act defensively, out of fear of liability, it tends to undermine their ability to deliver the best results on either of these fronts.
The fear of legal liability forces platforms to divert their resources away from the things they could be doing to best ensure they facilitate the most good, and least bad, content and instead spend them on only what will protect them from whatever the threat of legal liability is causing them to spend outsized attention on.
As an example, see what happens under the DMCA, where Section is inapplicable and liability protection for platforms is so conditional. Platforms are so fearful of copyright liability that this fear regularly causes them to overly delete lawful , and even often beneficial, content, despite such a result being inconsistent with Congress's legislative intent, or waste resources weeding out the bad takedown demands. It's at least fortunate that the DMCA expressly does not demand that platforms actively police their users' content for infringement.
Because if they had to spend their resources policing content in this way it would come at the expense of policing their content in a way that would be more valuable to the user community and public at large. Section works because it ensures that platforms can be free to devote their resources to being the best platforms they can be to enable the most good and disable the most bad content, instead of having to spend them on activities that are focused only what protects them from liability.
To say, then, that a platform that monitors user content must then lose its Section protection is simply wrong , because Congress specifically wanted platforms to do this. Furthermore, even if you think that platforms, even with all this protection, still don't do a good enough job meeting Congress's objectives, it would still be a mistake to strip them of them of what protection they have, since removing it will not help any platform, current or future, from ever doing any better.
What tends to confuse people is that curating user content appearing on a platform does not turn the content into something the platform should now be liable for. But that's not how the law works. Nor how could it work.
And Congress knew that. At minimum, platforms simply facilitate way too much content for them to be held accountable for any of it.
Even when they do moderate content, it is still often at a scale beyond which it could ever be fair or reasonable to hold them accountable for whatever still remains online. Section never required platform neutrality as a condition for a platform getting to benefit from its protection.
Instead, the question of whether a platform can benefit from its protection against liability in user content has always been contingent on who created that content. So long as the "information content provider" whoever created the content is not the "interactive computer service provider" the platform , then Section applies. Curating, moderating, and even editing that user content to some degree doesn't change this basic equation. One of the reasons I recommend this book, even to experienced self-publishers, is for the outstanding primer on social media engagement that makes up most of the Entrepreneur section.
Disagreements and Omissions The weakest part of APE is the Publisher section, and part of the reason for that is the almost complete lack of information on publishing print books. The authors deal with print on demand, but have nothing to say about offset books. There is also no discussion of the crucial role of metadata , and little on keyword research.
I also found it odd, because the authors are social media denizens, that there was little mention of the many blogs that cover the self-publishing world, and where thousands of indie authors go for information, advice, encouragement and training and I hope they will correct that omission in future editions. In fact, Guy told me during the interview he plans to continue to edit and add to the book, updating it as new information comes in.
Recommendation I highly recommend you get a copy of this book. The PDF I reviewed is full of very useful and up to date links. The book is intimately connected to online culture, not only because it has such wisdom to impart on social media marketing, brand development, and interactive relationships, but because the book itself arose from the same soil.
And Guy is pretty funny, too. How can you go wrong? You can check out the completely charming book trailer, and see the results of adeptly marketing your book to a following of 5 million people. Make sure you scroll all the way down the page.