Apparently, when someone handed out brains they left out the group called recruiters. Thus, so lets try this again.
I run a business where I develop android applications. That kind of means that I do not want to work as an employee for your client, oh dim witted recruiters. I have found in programming since I was 8 years old that the best choice of project managers and opportunities is when I have full control lover those choices instead of someone else rather than trusted those choices to someone who is domain knowledge removed from those choices such as a recruiter.
Do not take it upon yourself to email me after I have said no with rude comments and snide commentary as it is not in my interest to care where your next sale comes from or even if you get one, just accept that you did not access the situation correctly when you read my linkedin profile and saw that I operate a business.
For those that access the situation correctly, things are required for me to talk to you via email and those are:
1. A project description
2. A budget range
3. An understanding that all freelance developers charge for their time and work and ask for advances on project costs.
4. If continuing project from a previous develoepr, the source code. And do not forget to send the NDA I signed back to me with your signature, I should not have to remind you a five-year-old-child about that either.
If I do not have those things than I cannot continue the conversation with you as much as I might like to talk to you I have things that have to be coded and built just as you in your professional time have to manage your business and thus I am very sure that if you want anyone to respect your time than you will respect mine.
And, last I only allow myself to be entered on developer lists that businesses keep because they out-source projects if the business understands that to get that right they have to at least buy me one meal.
Internet is growing into a tool that can be used for creation and destruction so I thought I woudl revisit an issue that is at the heart of the Internet moving forward. In pre-internet and pre-telephone days several cultures and geo-political entities came up with the idea that protecting the anonymous writer had an advantage as it helped shaped innovations in the political sphere that kept certain growing countries growing towards more democracy and prosperity. The trade off for that freedom was that under certain legal processes and conditions that anonymous veil could be pieced for the good of that society.
In 2000s the anonymous culture on the internet started changing with the huge influx of new people getting online and now exposed to it. In 2007 one of our highly rated tech writers Kathy Siera was attacked anonymously to the point where she removed herself for internet as far as keeping a blog. Thank in later years we have Zed Shaw being anonymously and sometimes directly attacked by the ruby community for simply stating the obvious flaws of that community.
Than we have the Julia Allison and Loren Feldman saga. Both relatively intelligent people caught up in opposite sides of this debate at times and at times on the same side of the debate.
I think the key difference here is while governments do have control and some do have reasonable processes to balance the good of society against other demands that the Internet because it cannot by itself regulate or oppress that it has very little to do with whether we allow anonymous behavior on the Internet. I think part of the issue now how do evolve the rule making/social norms process into a balance between anonymous on Internet for certain things but you own what you say and do by operating under your own name.
It could even be as simple as people noticing that they get a better social media and social network effect when they operate under their name as opposed to some anonymous handle. And that brings up new twists which laws are my actions and postings than under? For example could the UK sue me for tweeting the name of a soccer star involved in an affair? Could some country try me for talking ‘smack’ about their ruler?
Loren Feldman states that the web is not the community. I am not sure as it sounds more like a way to avoid rather than debate and progress towards solutions. Can we have a community relationship with someone without having phone called them or exchanged something in person such as a meal or drink, etc?I think we can but I am somewhat optimistic about the human condition and its progress some others are not.
This is why I believe Fred Wilson’s calling it a culture revolution is somewhat a maligned naming that understates what we are progressing towards, namely a social community called internet. In that the free speech and freedom came from a pubic trust grant. What do I mean? Every form of government even ones that state they are Democratic are not in that most of them are Republics of some nature. A republic at its very core has this concept of public commons with certain rules that we call fredoms and free speech. Its not free in the sense that there are no rules or anarchy.
The freedom of Internet and its free speech is bound by the social community rules that we assign to someone else to participate in an Internet-connected conversation. Fro example it use to be that usenet newsgroups were a bit wild-west like. But as time went on and as more people not in real-life connected to each signed up a new set of usenet social norms took its place. The only thing remotely true about Fred Wilson’s post is that governments and big corporations will not be the ones that set the new rules, we will through our Internet-connected actions