What happened to OCMB?

[Alanzo]

It's weird. Back in 2007 no one got paid for being a "leader". Now it's google ads, Youtube ads, clicks. The stories were told for free. No one had a monopoly. No secret groups.

There is good and bad in the expansion of the anti scientology media machine. More exposure but it comes at a price. You aren't just hurting a person's feelings when you criticise them now. You are hurting their business.

And if the "exposure" these properties engage in never exposes a crime, but simply seeks to create a moral panic and hysterical thinking around perfectly legal activities - what's the point?

To whip up religious persecution as a business?

 

[I told you I was trouble]

I still have no clue what this means.

Alanzo (via his post) was trying to further smear Karen by dragging up things from the long distant past (that post have now been moderated so that certain keywords were deleted ... that's also why you would have been modded, because you replied to it).

 

[He-man]

And if the "exposure" these properties engage in never exposes a crime, but simply seeks to create a moral panic and hysterical thinking around perfectly legal activities - what's the point?

To whip up religious persecution as a business?

You need to see the positive side of it man. You get to go on a crusade!

All joking aside. Leah Remini and her crew has highlighted a lot of shit that scientology has done. at the very least they should always be credited for what they've done.

 

[He-man]

Alanzo (via his post) was trying to further smear Karen by dragging up things from the long distant past (that post have now been moderated so that certain keywords were deleted).

Yeah I noticed and figured it out. I still have no clue what Stand. Wow. means though but I'll probably get to that one later tonite.

 

[I told you I was trouble]

Yeah I noticed and figured it out. I still have no clue what Stand. Wow. means though but I'll probably get to that one later tonite.

Sorry ... if I explain properly I will be assisting Alanzo and I don't feel inclined to do that.

 

[ThetanExterior]

I think the Aftermath Foundation should be willing to pay someone to run esmb. Leaving the Sea Org doesn't just mean a person requires a driver's licence and accomodation. They also need to unravel what happened to them and esmb is a valuable resource for that purpose.

 

[Emma]

The downside of being paid for being a social media "star", is you become the property of whoever decides whether you get paid. Voice the "wrong" viewpoint, and you get de-monetized.

What could possibly go wrong?

 

[Emma]

I think the Aftermath Foundation should be willing to pay someone to run esmb. Leaving the Sea Org doesn't just mean a person requires a driver's licence and accomodation. They also need to unravel what happened to them and esmb is a valuable resource for that purpose.

Nope. Nobody is getting paid anything. It's too corrupting. Server fees, that's ok, that's different. What if there was something seriously wrong at the Aftermath Foundation? Would posts talking about that be allowed on ESMB?

 

[freethinker]

I hate it when people say "we" and include me in whatever hot pot they are brewing. Almost always better to write "I". Especially when crusades go down. Especially whenever someone feels the urge to write something like:



Lol wut? We as in the whole board? That is how I interpret it.

Glad I didn't use "we"

 

[freethinker]

Yeah I noticed and figured it out. I still have no clue what Stand. Wow. means though but I'll probably get to that one later tonite.

It's sorta like "Sham Wow", but different

 

[Emma]

Not really true though, people were making monies off ex Scientologists and their stories back then, as well as now. Media made monies off them stories back then. Whoever wrote a book had a chance to do so. I see the difference you're pointing at though, but that was always poised to change.

I guess the difference was that if you wrote a book, it was your intellectual property so it's right that you get paid for your work. It's true that newspapers tell stories to sell newspapers, but it was the person's choice to speak to a reporter. No one else, not even the reporter was paid for getting the story, just the usual wage (I believe).

I don't like that it's changed. I don't like how people with nice asses get paid millions to flash their ass on Instagram while holding some product.

I might be getting old.

 

[He-man]

I guess the difference was that if you wrote a book, it was your intellectual property so it's right that you get paid for your work. It's true that newspapers tell stories to sell newspapers, but it was the person's choice to speak to a reporter. No one else, not even the reporter was paid for getting the story, just the usual wage (I believe).

I don't like that it's changed. I don't like how people with nice asses get paid millions to flash their ass on Instagram while holding some product.

I might be getting old.

Are you saying your age has limited your ability to use your bum to make money of instagram? (Sorry, I am only jesting)

So, people are making money off being anti Scientology. That doesn't bother me much to be honest. It will always be limited by how trustworthy and "good" your products are - Videos, reports, etc.

Besides, from what I've seen from all them blogs, AGP, Marty, Mike, Alanzo - Is that all of them lack credibility due to different reasons. They can't be making a lot of dough, it's freakin impossible. Karen I've no idea, she's like completely off my field of vision since I don't use facebook groups.

What does bother me is what you and also Alanzo have been aiming at - trying to clean the field off critics against Marty and Mike witch would then add to their trustworthiness. The reason that bothers me is how polarized everyone became and then a lot of people left. Could things been different though? I'm not sure, since I still believe you would've demanded a respectful dialogue between critics and weirdoes - sorry, indies. I still believe Zinji, Nexus and all them cookies would have left at some point because it seems that indies in a sense are inexhaustible in their perserverance of their misconceptions of reality.

Would Karen have tried to influence you even if she was not making monies off being anti scientology? Probably? I don't know. What I can say is that you've tickled my brain and that all this is Interesting with a capital "I".

EDIT: If you create content on facebook, youtube, Instagram etc - You hold the I/P rights to it, same as a book. Also you can't use other peoples content unless consent is given. Yes you can repost things, but you don't own them and can't make money off them per se.

 

[Enthetan]

EDIT: If you create content on facebook, youtube, Instagram etc - You hold the I/P rights to it, same as a book. Also you can't use other peoples content unless consent is given. Yes you can repost things, but you don't own them and can't make money off them per se.

I think you may not have read the fine print on YouTube's Terms of Service. I believe the others have similar clauses:

For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your Content. However, by submitting Content to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the Content in connection with the Service and YouTube's (and its successors' and affiliates') business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the Service (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels. You also hereby grant each user of the Service a non-exclusive license to access your Content through the Service, and to use, reproduce, distribute, display and perform such Content as permitted through the functionality of the Service and under these Terms of Service. The above licenses granted by you in video Content you submit to the Service terminate within a commercially reasonable time after you remove or delete your videos from the Service. You understand and agree, however, that YouTube may retain, but not display, distribute, or perform, server copies of your videos that have been removed or deleted. The above licenses granted by you in user comments you submit are perpetual and irrevocable.​

 

[He-man]

I think you may not have read the fine print on YouTube's Terms of Service. I believe the others have similar clauses:

​

Actually I have read that, and several other similar streaming services eula's. And I can safely say that what I said is correct and, knowing you, that you will disagree - So can we just not have this conversation at this point in time because it's completely useless to have. The point is you can make monies off them internets and you retain your I/P. The discussion wether others may use that content with your consent have little to do with the ongoing discussion.

 

[Dulloldfart]

I think you may not have read the fine print on YouTube's Terms of Service. I believe the others have similar clauses:

For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your Content. However, <snip>​

I thought all that fine print was basically what they need to operate, e.g. to show your videos on YouTube, and to allow others to embed your videos on their own sites (like we do on ESMB) unless you say no (simple choice when you upload a vid).

Now, I read about nefarious stuff they do do, such as reducing #views stats for popular alt hosts, banning conservative channels, etc. But that's, er, different.

Paul

 

[Emma]

Are you saying your age has limited your ability to use your bum to make money of instagram? (Sorry, I am only jesting)

So, people are making money off being anti Scientology. That doesn't bother me much to be honest. It will always be limited by how trustworthy and "good" your products are - Videos, reports, etc.

Besides, from what I've seen from all them blogs, AGP, Marty, Mike, Alanzo - Is that all of them lack credibility due to different reasons. They can't be making a lot of dough, it's freakin impossible. Karen I've no idea, she's like completely off my field of vision since I don't use facebook groups.

What does bother me is what you and also Alanzo have been aiming at - trying to clean the field off critics against Marty and Mike witch would then add to their trustworthiness. The reason that bothers me is how polarized everyone became and then a lot of people left. Could things been different though? I'm not sure, since I still believe you would've demanded a respectful dialogue between critics and weirdoes - sorry, indies. I still believe Zinji, Nexus and all them cookies would have left at some point because it seems that indies in a sense are inexhaustible in their perserverance of their misconceptions of reality.

Would Karen have tried to influence you even if she was not making monies off being anti scientology? Probably? I don't know. What I can say is that you've tickled my brain and that all this is Interesting with a capital "I".

EDIT: If you create content on facebook, youtube, Instagram etc - You hold the I/P rights to it, same as a book. Also you can't use other peoples content unless consent is given. Yes you can repost things, but you don't own them and can't make money off them per se.

No jesting required, my bum is not "instagram ready".

AGP - no idea
Marty - no idea - did he get a payout? no idea.
Mike - makes a tidy living from the Aftermath show I would imagine.
Alanzo - no idea, highly doubtful.

Alanzo & I were at odds in 2011 because he wasn't buying "the Indy's are cool" rhetoric, and I was. I was trying to silence the dissent. What Alanzo is trying to do now is make his points (whatever they are) and what I'm doing is allowing it (without the insults or smears). Doesn't mean I agree, but I also think that some of the questions he is asking, are fair questions.

I don't think money had much to do with it. There was a purpose. They wanted Indy Scn to boom without interference. I could have demanded dialogue, but, I had already been handled.

I don't know about Nex & Zinj. Nex came back briefly recently but didn't stay. Zinj & I had burned the bridge of possible reconciliation long ago, but I still would have allowed him to post (post ban lifting) if he was still here.

 

[Lulu Belle]

It's weird. Back in 2007 no one got paid for being a "leader". Now it's google ads, Youtube ads, clicks. The stories were told for free. No one had a monopoly. No secret groups.

There is good and bad in the expansion of the anti scientology media machine. More exposure but it comes at a price. You aren't just hurting a person's feelings when you criticise them now. You are hurting their business.

To be fair...

When Stacy and Vaughn Young did the very first TV interview about Scientology way back when (1996? Maybe even before that) they got paid. I don't remember how much, but it was in the thousands. I remember because it came up later in criticism about Stacy and her motives for what she was doing.

Then, of course, there was Minton. And all the people who got money from him for toeing that line. And going along with his (sometimes insane) agenda.

There was a lot of criticism from a lot of us, including from Yours Truly, about people making money from being 'professional critics'. Whether it was taking contributions from Minton or writing books (or having them written in your name; yes I'm talking to you Jenna Hill and Ron Miscavige...) or being on TV or asking for contributions for years for a movie that never really quite got finished (Mark Bunker)... Etc etc. There are a lot of examples if you dig through this history.

My point is that making money off of Scientology criticism is nothing new. Maybe it's easier in some ways because of social media and anyone and everyone being able to create a website which may at some point have ads, but I wouldn't go down the "not like the good old days" road.

The good old days really weren't any "cleaner".

 

[Emma]

To be fair...

When Stacy and Vaughn Young did the very first TV interview about Scientology way back when (1996? Maybe even before that) they got paid. I don't remember how much, but it was in the thousands. I remember because it came up later in criticism about Stacy and her motives for what she was doing.

Then, of course, there was Minton. And all the people who got money from him for toeing that line. And going along with his (sometimes insane) agenda.

There was a lot of criticism from a lot of us, including from Yours Truly, about people making money from being 'professional critics'. Whether it was taking contributions from Minton or writing books (or having them written in your name; yes I'm talking to you Jenna Hill and Ron Miscavige...) or being on TV or asking for contributions for years for a movie that never really quite got finished (Mark Bunker)... Etc etc. There are a lot of examples if you dig through this history.

My point is that making money off of Scientology criticism is nothing new. Maybe it's easier in some ways because of social media and anyone and everyone being able to create a website which may at some point have ads, but I wouldn't go down the "not like the good old days" road.

The good old days really weren't any "cleaner".

You're right. I had forgotten those examples.

 

[RogerB]

On this point by He-Man

He-man said: ↑
EDIT: If you create content on facebook, youtube, Instagram etc - You hold the I/P rights to it, same as a book.

He is correct . . . as he explicitly said, you hold and retain the I/P rights . . . . By accepting the conditions of the likes of FAceBook, you don't lose those right, but concurrently allow FaceBook to do their thing with your property.

One should not try to be too clever in the effort to be more clever than others by pointing out shit that is irrelevant.

/

 

[Alanzo]

Roger -

Was Karen and Jeffrey running OCMB?