A lot of bloggers are up in arms over the Carlocab.com issue. Personally, I never read Carlocab before. Not because he is a kid (I read all kids’ blogs in HEdCen.Com and I enjoy doing so) but because I don’t read how-to-make money sites, period. As far as I am concerned, tips on how to format original and already excellent content into something profitable is the unsleazy way to get the message across.
But that’s me.
As a background, Carlocab is the marketing/how-to-make-money blog of a 14-year-old boy. Noemi posted an entry which, from my impression, was an attempt to protect the boy from possible child exploitation by his own father. The allegation is that the boy, and his blog, are merely mouthpieces of the father. There is no direct proof that this is so, as Yuga points out. Father and son have not posted any reactions on their blogs so far.
Alright, perhaps, some things are obvious and I’d be the last person to condone child exploitation. I’ve exchanged a few e-mails with some bloggers about the issue. I’ve made some knee-jerk reactions — am not proud of them — and now I need to say more.
My own kids are around the same age as the boy and, because of the high volume of tech speak and reading materials in the house, from the latest gadgets and accessories to the recent developments in Open Source software to Mac to digital photography techniques, my kids can talk and write about a lot of techy stuff that most of their classmates are not even remotely aware of. Adobe Photoshop issues? My 13-year-old daughter gets consulted by classmates. GIMP and Ubuntu questions? That’s my older girl’s domain. And it isn’t just the tech speak in the house either — that’s just a starting point because they have gone on to read on their own so much so that Sam (she’ll be 15 on Monday) actually knows more than I do about certain aspects of geekiness.
In short, in a house where a parent, or both, talk of little else but marketing, it’s not that impossible for a child to imbibe the mindset and the interest.
Granting, for argument’s sake, that Carlocab is nothing more than his father’s mouthpiece, let me react on Noemi’s point about the ethics of not disclosing the real person responsible for the content of the blog:
Most bloggers are against anything that constrain their freedom. But most bloggers also know that The blogosphere runs on customs and norms — on what the community feels is acceptable…
Why should the blog of a child serving as a mouthpiece of the father, if it were indeed true, be less ethical than those of bloggers serving as mouthpieces for business entities, for instance, when they blog about products being promoted by PR companies, in exchange for free dinner, drinks, “being seen” and benefiting from the subsequent rounds of “link love”? Do disclosures of having been invited make them less of mouthpieces? For all we know, the child may be going through a real learning experience here. Meanwhile, bloggers who are so fond of attending PR events and blogging about them do it for reasons much less noble.
The truth is, the “disclosure policy” bit is a standard created by these PR bloggers. It is a self-serving standard, if there ever was one, because it was fashioned to justify these bloggers’ actions and manner of blogging. They will not accept lower standards so that they can feel superior BUT they will not accept higher standards too because that will make them look like leeches and mercenaries.
Now, I ask: Which community? What is “acceptable”? The truth is, bloggers and other web site publishers willing to adhere to strict ethical standards constitute a minority. Surf the web. I do it everyday and guess what? The assholes far outnumber the good guys. Splogs, rip-offs, “manual aggregators” living off other bloggers’ content, parked domains and so-so blogs without substantial content put up for no other reason than to steal keywords and page ranks from legitimate sites, AND TO SERVE GOOGLE ADS, are all part of the norm.
So, which community, Noemi? Your personal circle of blogger-friends? Whose standards of “acceptability”?
UPDATE (August 15, 2007 @ 9.19 p.m.)
An email from reader Dodie, published with his permission:
I’ve read the various blog entries and comments re the issue on the boy’s blog. Sad to say, you’ve closed the comment thread on your site pretinent to the same. Cocomment sana ako, eh. Hehehe. They’re making a real big fuss of something which, I believe, is really none of their business.
So, the allegation is that of a father being a “ghost” writer for the son? And they call it “exploitation”. I vehemently disagree. I haven’t read the kid’s blog; nevertheless, even assuming that their accusations are true, the same doesn’t spell an exploitative act. I call it “father & son” team. Had the father driven the son into some kind of internet pedophile, prostitution or pimp site, by all means will it not only be exploitation but corruption of a minor. But that’s not the case. The boy is a minor (13 or 14 y/o?) & responsible fatherhood dictates that he guide his son through the net. Marketing principles obviously not from the child? Well, that’s education from the father. Had the boy’s blog not garnered a place in the blog awards, will they make an issue out of it as they are doing now? Purely “crab mentality”, I suspect.
Proof of their accusations is immaterial, for reasons above-cited. With or without proof, their allegations are invasive of privacy rights and totally harassing. I wouldn’t even call it allegations, for lack of an iota of proof, but rather, plain conjecture & immaturity on the part of the “crabs”.
dodie
(amicus curiae)
As for the other emails regarding the issue, especially those congratulating me on the cross-examination, unless the senders give explicit permission to publish, I won’t. As for the text messages, tamad ako magre-type, so very sorry. hehehehe
community – the real life/cyberspace community whether blogger or my personal friends outside the blogosphere. It has nothing to do with my personal circle of blogger friends.
“acceptability” as human beings. Truth, respect and honesty.
I separate detailed entries about the new media events from my personal blog. That is my personal choice. I earn money from my other (commercial) blogs so attending events add to my content. You get content from your personal experiences. Sorry we don’t agree on PR but I enjoy meeting people. And I leave it to my readers to decide how they think of me.
You know I deem “questionable authorship” less ethical because a child is involved. I never said he didn’t write any entries. Some were not his. At least, I say who I am. I disclose I attended this. And it is fun. I enjoy it.
Noemi, who defines the parameters of a community? You have yours; Carlocab and his dad and their kind have theirs.
“acceptability” is a very subjective and personal standard.
Point is, who truly has the right to be so self-righteous about subjective standards?
Re PR blogs. It doesn’t matter where they are or whether they are integrated in a personal blog.
Re “meeting people”. If that were the only intention, why are the products being promoted a central feature of the ensuing entries?
“And I leave it to my readers to decide how they think of me.”
So why can’t Carlocab and his dad enjoy the same privilege?
This isn’t a personal judgment on you, Noemi. Nor theirs, for that matter.
The difference is bloggers who get invited to dinners, launches, parties, be it on self-serving purposes or not write on their own discretion and not under the guise of someone else, let alone a minor. There’s a thin line between hiring or treating out a blogger and using your son’s identity for personal gain. The blogosphere’s a dirty world, I admit, but just because it is doesn’t mean we should start blinding ourselves from what’s right and wrong. Like they say, the blogosphere self-regulates. We’re seeing that process happening as we speak. I’m open to the idea that my instincts are wrong. And if I am, then amen to that.
“So why can’t Carlocab and his dad enjoy the same privilege?”
No one took away that privilege from them. That privilege isn’t immune to negative feedback.
Re “The difference is bloggers who get invited to dinners, launches, parties, be it on self-serving purposes or not write on their own discretion and not under the guise of someone else, let alone a minor.”
I take it that the complaint against Carlocab is the father putting his words in the child’s mouth, so to speak.
And PR bloggers are the mouths where PR companies put their words. Not under the guise? Oh come on. The distinction is very self-serving indeed.
Judgment has already been passed on father and son, Andrew, based on the blogs I’ve read. Tried, judged and executed.
The thing is they attended at Top 10 Emerging Influential award so that’s where it started. They are no 4 . They became visible to the new blogger community if one may call it. A lot of bloggers were in that event and got to meet them and even talk to them. Now if I had never met them, I wouldn’t be writing that entry.
subjective?
Two mothers pointed it out to me. So basically it’s the point of view of a mother. I actually chose apathy at first. Then investigated on my own.
PR blogs- is my business. You have your own policy. I have my own. So hope that is clear. I also want to know what makes the Taiwan trip different anyway? I was first a blogger then became , new media publisher later on. We’re just in a different plane. What makes me less ethical if I am in PR events?
“meeting people” come with the products/services. It’s something I enjoy. So if I write about the experience, I also write about the product/service. Really, that is my business. I don’t judge you if you don’t attend any. In fact it helps me look for future advertisers for PMN.
I made a stand for my blog that it is not acceptable . As to proof, I have it.
Now if Carlocab and dad want to continue, why not?
I have no control on their actions.
“The thing is they attended at Top 10 Emerging Influential award so that’s where it started. They are no 4″
So, they’re threatening because they’re popular? But blogging is a highly competitive medium. Ethical bloggers will compete with their own strength rather than by putting others down.
“PR blogs- is my business. You have your own policy.”
Of course. Did I say otherwise? Same is true for father-and-son’s marketing blogs — their business. Why do you feel it is alright for you to judge them AND YET react this way when I criticize PR blogs? We’re both talking about ethics with the difference that I do not impose my standards on anyone. I’m just wondering why you feel you have to do that with Carlocab and his dad.
Noemi, just so it’s clear. I’m not attacking you, personally. I have a general opinion about PR blogs and bloggers, period. I didn’t single you out. I’m not questioning your right to decide about your blog ethics either. So, the defensive stance is really out of place.
As to getting advertisers for PMN, we never agreed that we’d go looking for them, Noemi.
P.S. The Taiwan trip was a tourism and culture exposure program, not a corporate PR event. I’d do it all over again for any country that wants Filipinos to learn about their culture and want to learn about Filipinos and our culture too.
The main point of contention of most people, me included, is that Carl is a kid, a minor. He may be a smart kid, but he is a kid, nonetheless. Personally, I am not imposing my morals on the kid and his Dad. I am not passing judgment on them. But I would like it known that I will not use my own underaged kid (if and when I do have one) as a gimmick or tool to earn money.
We are talking in circles. Please refer to my blog entry na lang. My entry speaks for itself. and the rest of the other bloggers’ opinion in the comments. That’s their opinion.
As to PMN- never mind . I misintepreted pala.
Why should the blog of a child serving as a mouthpiece of the father, if it were indeed true, be less ethical than those of bloggers serving as mouthpieces for business entities, for instance, when they blog about products being promoted by PR companies, in exchange for free dinner, drinks, “being seen” and benefiting from the subsequent rounds of “link love”?
isn’t that your stand on PR where some bloggers like me are in new media events?
If yes, I want to defend myself hence my defensive stand. I feel that I am being accused of being unethical because of new media publishing which is something you don’t believe in.
Point is I have my own ethical standard so I singled that out that incident. You have your own.
@ria: What is your proof that he is indeed being used? Even if the father is behind his blog, how do you know that the kid is not benefiting by learning? if you’re so concerned about the kid, why don’t you email the father to air your concerns?
@noemi:
Re “We are talking in circles.”
No we’re not.
Please refer to my blog entry na lang. My entry speaks for itself.”
I have. It says someone talked to the kid and that person was not you. That, in fact, that person said the blog was genuine.
No we I will requote the part you quoted.
“Why should the blog of a child serving as a mouthpiece of the father, if it were indeed true, be less ethical than those of bloggers serving as mouthpieces for business entities”
Where does it say that PR blogging is UNETHICAL? Where? Why defend yourself when there is no accusation but merely a call for comparison?
Re “As to PMN- never mind . I misintepreted pala.”
Obviously. We discussed TLA and Adsense but not about soliciting ads.
@Connie, I am not accusing the father of “using” the kid, I am merely saying I would not do it.
well that statement doesn’t say Unethical. my mistake. This one …
The truth is, the “disclosure policy” bit is a standard created by these PR bloggers. It is a self-serving standard, if there ever was one, because it was fashioned to justify these bloggers’ actions and manner of blogging. They will not accept lower standards so that they can feel superior BUT they will not accept higher standards too because that will make them look like leeches and mercenaries.
It’s a sad feeling I got when I read that statement. leeches? mercenaries?
Ok, Ria, got that. Neither would I for that matter.
@noemi: re “It’s a sad feeling I got when I read that statement.”
that’s because you felt it was personal. it wasn’t.
re “leeches? mercenaries?”
you should have put more weight on the words that came before that: “make them look like”
it’s about perception. people create standards to serve their own purposes in order to avoid negative perception because people prefer to show only their best faces to the public. it’s human nature, noemi.
I think the issue here is more about responsibility. Who do you hold responsible for the blog if or when something goes wrong? (eg someone sues the kid for faulty advice or slander or whatnot)
For PR blogs, even PR blogs that don’t properly disclose the fringe benefits they get for the publicity they give, the blogger can be held responsible. He or she, by blogging, still chooses to be responsible for everything that he or she writes, regardless of the sleaze involved. It’s their own personal choice, and they know the responsibilities inherent therein.
In the case of Carl Ocab, assuming that it’s actually his dad writing under his name, that’s not the case. If something does go wrong, Carl Ocab will be the one who will be held accountable, not his dad.
This also has significant consequences for Carl Ocab’s future. When he grows up and seeks employment, the Internet will have numerous postings establishing a reputation for him that he did not make.
There’s also the fact that being a minor, he shouldn’t be making these kinds of decisions. That is, choosing whether or not he should take responsibility of one thing over another.
Effectively, his dad is making his choices for him, choices that might not necessarily be for Carl’s best interests.
Anyway, considering that his dad’s blog is more or less the same thing, I’ve a sneaking suspicion this is just his dad’s ploy to create a more popular financial blog – a 14 year old boy giving financial advice is a gimmick after all.
Smells fishy to me.
Just my two cents.
Hi David: “assuming that it’s actually his dad writing under his name”
i really think that is the first issue to be threshed out even before anyone makes accusations about whether or not there is anything unethical about the blog.
i feel for the boy. i would for anyone being used especially by his own parents. that’s why i have strong opinions about young girls who are made to line up for TV show auditions where they will only be made to don skimpy outfits and gyrate a la sex bomb dancers.
but, anyway, i just feel that if the boy’s wellbeing was the real concern, the issue could have been addressed differently. the way it turned out, he got a lynching. AT A POINT when no one’s even sure of the facts.
if we’re going to talk about responsibilities in blogging, i don’t think the treatment dished out to the boy was the product of responsible blogging. i don’t even think he deserved the treatment he got at the bloggers’ affair. he went there to be recognized, to meet people, and these adult bloggers were sizing him up, assessing him as though they were trying to undress him and expose him, and the bloggers exchanging notes afterwards. in my book, that’s called gossip and intrigue.
Re “If something does go wrong, Carl Ocab will be the one who will be held accountable, not his dad.”
Please see the second part of my response to Dexie below.
“I think the issue here is more about responsibility. Who do you hold responsible for the blog if or when something goes wrong? (eg someone sues the kid for faulty advice or slander or whatnot)”
That’s exactly the thing I’ve been thinking about for the past few days when I first read about this issue. I’m not a lawyer or anything.. but isn’t there some legal issues here that should be looked at? I’m not saying sue the father or anything.. Not at all. I think a disclaimer link about who is actually writing the posts is needed, pronto, on that blog. Just my 2 cents anyway.
hehehehe i think any person suing a 14-year-old for faulty advice should be confined in a mental institution.
as to libel, well, the kid is a minor. while he won’t be criminally liable, the parents are liable for damages. who actually does the writing on the blog becomes irrelevant.
“i really think that is the first issue to be threshed out even before anyone makes accusations about whether or not there is anything unethical about the blog.”
True enough. And yes, how this issue has been handled from the start wasn’t as responsible as it should have been.
In any case, the really sad thing about this issue is that either way, if he actually wrote that blog, or if he was ghostwriting it for his dad, because of the “lynching”, talo na rin siya.
Nothing is ever erased from the internet. If he really wrote those entries, this “scandal” is always going to be there to question his credibility.
If he didn’t write those entries, the consequences for his reputation will be even more severe.
Sad, sad day for Filipino blogging.
Question though, if he was sued for libel, even if his parents pay the damages, wouldn’t the record still be against him?
if we’re going to talk about responsibilities in blogging, i don’t think the treatment dished out to the boy was the product of responsible blogging. i don’t even think he deserved the treatment he got at the bloggers’ affair. he went there to be recognized, to meet people, and these adult bloggers were sizing him up, assessing him as though they were trying to undress him and expose him, and the bloggers exchanging notes afterwards. in my book, that’s called gossip and intrigue.
I did not compare notes with anyone. I did NOT even know they were sizing him up if EVER. They only wrote their observations after I blogged about it. In fact I thought I was alone in my observations. Really gossip and intrigue? those are hard words Connie. You don’t even know what transpired. You were not there.
@david: re if he gets sued. yes, the records will be there.
@noemi: Whoever said that “bloggers exchanging notes” referred to you???
And who the heck told you that I only know YOUR version of what happened?
You’re getting too paranoid and defensive.
Re gossip and intrigue. Yeah hard words. So is the accusation that someone’s lying about who writes in his blog. And you don’t even have all the facts.
I checked the blog out… the tone of the writing and the articles in general are not seemingly teenaged. They sound too mature for me. Then again, I’ve been known to make mistakes with written language.
This is really a hot topic, isn’t it? Judging by the reactions.
Re “We are talking in circles.”
No we’re not.
Please refer to my blog entry na lang. My entry speaks for itself.”
I have. It says someone talked to the kid and that person was not you. That, in fact, that person said the blog was genuine.
at the time I wrote the entry I didn’t want to make it obvious (as my point was not to embarrass) so I cited a blogger’s comment.
I even emailed you that Dine and I talked to the boy.
and scroll way below my comments of my entry when asked for more proof
Yes , I talked to the boy in that event . We have photos taken together. Bloggers saw me talking to the boy . I spoke twice to the boy .( Dine who was beside me also spoke to the boy. But she will post her observations if she wants to.)
And his answers confirmed my suspicions. His reply on PPC didn’t match his post on PPC. He couldn’t reply to it. I asked if he could talk about money making online and he evaded the topic and rather talk about blogging tips.
Then Jomar spoke to the boy but couldn’t get straight answers from the boy so turned to the father. Jomar later on told me that the secret is the dad. (check that quote above)
I also compared the writing style of the father and the boy. They are similar.
I emailed you . you could have asked me more you know.
The end of your entry is directed to me Connie.
So, which community, Noemi? Your personal circle of blogger-friends? Whose standards of “acceptability”?
Hence I answer all your allegations.
@The Mentat, I’ve long ago learned never to judge a book by its cover.
@noemi, you’re tying a noose around you neck, you know?
you’re upset about my statement that bloggers compared notes, said you didn’t, then contradict yourself by writing that “Then Jomar spoke to the boy but couldn’t get straight answers from the boy so turned to the father. Jomar later on told me that the secret is the dad.”
you’re upset over my statement that bloggers were sizing him up. And you say, “And his answers confirmed my suspicions. His reply on PPC didn’t match his post on PPC. He couldn’t reply to it. I asked if he could talk about money making online and he evaded the topic and rather talk about blogging tips.”
SO, IT WAS YOU WHO SIZED HIM UP. Did it ever occur to you that he went there to socialize, not to get interrogated? And because he wouldn’t answer, the only conclusion is that he really didn’t know and could not have therefore posted those entries?
Now I don’t have anything to add. You made all the admissions yourself.
Truly spoken. That lesson was actually burned into my brain cells by my 3 kids. Heck, I think those 3 combined could give a lot of people crying foul about their incomes good advice about making money from nothing.
Just found that out myself from my sister-in-law.
I’m a proud daddy here.
From the exchange in the comments, you might make a good criminal lawyer. Just my humble opinion.
Yes I sized him up after I was prompted to talk to him just to end the discussion with some moms. I didn’t interrogate him. I just asked innocuous questions. I made a judgment based on what I saw and what I knew. I relied on first hand evidence which I was aware of.
miss connie, I sure am glad you are no longer in active law practise. i sure would hate to be cross examined by you
I’m retired, The Mentat.
Oooh, my hubby blogs too (tamad lang minsan). Maybe you can swap daddy stories sometime. 
@noemi, i understand that you want to save your reputation by convincing people that your actions were justified — including the tone of your blog entry. but you’re just making it harder for yourself.
So, you didn’t compare notes. There was no gossip about the boy during that night.
But, you just said: “Yes I sized him up after I was prompted to talk to him just to end the discussion with some moms.”
And, what was that? “I just asked innocuous questions.” Oh, right. A few comments up, you said, “And his answers confirmed my suspicions.”
How can you talk about inocuous questions when you approached him with suspicions on your mind — and after the “discussion with the some moms.”
Tama na, Noemi. Naaawa na ‘ko sa ‘yo sa ginagawa mo sa sarili mo.
@honey, LOL I guess the instinct remains.
Connie – maybe you should read you comment in my entry. Is that why you are defensive now?
i don’t need your pity. I made my stand. I will stand by it.
hmmm… Just in case I will need one to defend me, can I hire you? Pro-bono?
@noemi: “maybe you should read you comment in my entry.”
I know. That’s why it says there above — “I’ve made some knee-jerk reactions — am not proud of them”
Re “Is that why you are defensive now?”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA Dream on, dream on.
“I made my stand. I will stand by it.”
You don’t have a stand. It just crumbled from under you.
I know that you will keep coming back for as I long as I respond. You will never let it happen that you did not post the FINAL comment. As though that gives you the final word. So, I’m closing the thread.
I’ve made my point.