Why the slippery slope argument doesn’t work for theme sponsorships, and why people in power make bad decisions look good
I’m going to keep this short and sweet. When successful and powerful people pontificate about taking the “the high ground” and establish policies based on the good of the community your first instinct should be skepticism, not acceptance. They could be right, but let the rightness of their positions emerge after a skeptical look, not before.
Matt Cutts and Matt Mullenweg are sitting at the top. They’re successful people. Very successful people. They are both worth millions of dollars. Both of them really don’t have a damned thing to worry about for the rest of their lives. They could both buy an island, build a solar powered mansion, and retire. If the United States gets attacked, they both have the resources to quickly relocate to some other country for safety.
Matt Cutts and Matt Mullenweg are not like the rest of us. But they are telling the rest of us what to do and what not to do. A lot like Al Gore (I agree with Al on global warming, but the hypocrisy and standards of living are just puke-wrenching).
Here’s my argument:
Premise 1: There are some very good themes that have been designed under a sponsored-theme model
Premise 2: Some of the best themes on the net have been designed for link building purposes
Premise 3: Some of the greatest works of art and architecture in the history of mankind have been created under a commissioning model
Premise 4: A distinction can be made between legitimate sponsorships and spammy sponsorships.
Premise 5: It is the responsibility of big companies like Google and Automattic to not be lazy (Google should add that to their, don’t be evil motto) if it hurts the little guy.
Premise 6: Failure to meet this responsibility by big companies like Google and Automattic is tantamount to pissing on the little guy (or stomping, if that seems more appropriate)
Premise 7: Pissing on the little guy (and on creative motivation) makes me puke
Here’s the reasoning: If some of the best themes on the net have been created either under a sponsorship or link building model, then the community of bloggers have benefited from the sponsorship model (e.g. sponsorship was productive and a non-zero sum game for bloggers). If a distinction can be made between legitimate sponsorships and spammy sponsorships, then a policy can be implemented to weed out the spammy sponsorships, but keep the legitimate sponsorships. If a distinction can be made between legit sponsorships and spammy sponsorships, while preserving the inherit good of a “commissioning” model to produce quality themes, then it is the responsibility of big companies like Google and Automattic to make these sorts of distinctions. Because Google and Automattic are failing to make these sorts of distinctions, they are effectively pissing on the little guy (and creative motivation). Therefore, Matt Cutts and Matt Mullenweg make me puke.
Well, there are plenty of mistakes here (like equivocating between Matt Cutts and Google, or Matt Mullenweg and Automattic), but the point and the spirit of the logic are there.
I’m now ready to hear your responses.