Community ranked content might be taking a political turn. Anyone who digs Digg or revels in Reddit will want to watch the skies for Thoof.
According to founder Ian Clarke, the mission of this emergent user community (still in beta) is “to engender democracy by making it simple to share accurate information.”

According to yesterday’s New York Times:

Mr. Clarke is obsessed with the fact that even when accurate information exists on the Internet, it often does not have the political impact that it should.

“I’m concerned that most Americans still believe that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction,” he said. “All of the information is there, but people are still ill-informed.”

Spam subject lines mutate like viruses. What was Viagra last week is vIaGrA yesterday, and will become V!@6Ra tomorrow. A little blue pill by any other name . . .

Fortunately, online communities are finding ways to protect themselves — a great example of grass-roots Internet inoculation.

Brian Hayes of The American Scientist explains:

The spam we see today is shaped in many ways by our own efforts to combat it . . . the contest is between a host organism and pathogens or parasites, and where both sides have to adapt and evolve in order to survive. In the case of bacteria and viruses, the vast majority never make it, but nature is profligate and can afford such high attrition; likewise spammers find it worth their while to send a million e-mails for a handful of responses.

Perhaps this heralds the end of annoying new media mass marketing.

El jefe is a beta tester for Brightcove, a company that helps producers publish, syndicate, and maybe even earn revenue from their video content. I’m guessing that’s how he came across MomMetv.com, whose owner is a Brightcove customer. MomMetv is, as you might guess, a site with video geared for mommies or, well, MomMes I guess. And apparently MomMes are well dressed white women in the suburbs of Denver, all of whom have gaudy TV lighting splashing the wall behind them. OK, so that was just a poke, here’s an actual thought about the site.

I think Missy DePew, the MomMe behind the site (and a TV producer, which is no surprise when you see the lighting), may have stumbled on a great plan for launching a social networking site, which is what MomMetv now is–she started it as an online TV channel to get the conversations started. Whether or not it was a plan, I think the result has two great outcomes:

1. By creating several videos herself, with her friends, she predetermined the tone and the type of content she wants on the social networking site. As a visitor I (ahem, well not me, but maybe my wife, right?) can see how it all works, how I should use the site, and even how to behave in that network, in a sense.
2. There’s already content to react to, and reply to; and not just a couple videos. As she explained during her visit to daytime news (clip available from the press page) she gathered about 50 friends and rolled with four cameras in one day to generate what seems to me must be a hundred or so videos.

So as it stands now the site is sort of a two-parter. Visitors land on MomMetv’s homepage where they can watch any number of videos, but then they can create a profile for themselves and start blogging or vlogging and doing all the social networking stuff networkers love to do.

So what? (At M&M we like to ask that question on behalf of our clients’ audiences, but we phrase it a little more nicely: “what’s in it for me?”).

This site? What’s in it for me? Nothing actually. But that’s where demographics come in. I would not be surprised if this site is bombarded with visitors. As a father of two, one thing I know for sure is that many moms L-O-V-E to talk about anything having to do with kids and mommy-hood. And that could mean significant traffic and advertising revenue, which I imagine is the ultimate goal.

My only advice would be to back off the lighting effects.

Irate Sopranos fans have been sounding off about their dissatisfaction with the show’s untidy ending. They were so ticked off they actually crashed HBO’s website with a tidal wave of angry traffic.

Hey, folks, get the #)%&#! over it. The ending was brilliant. It gave us leave to imagine what happened, setting up a series of scenarios that we’ll tumble around in our brains for weeks ahead. That’s not lazy. It’s the most demanding conclusion possible — one that makes a histrionic mafia family culturally indelible.

What happened when Lt. Zach Garber (the peerless Walter Matthau) walked back in to Longman’s apartment in The Taking of Pelham 123? Where did Charnier go when Popeye Doyle chased him into “that room” at the end of The French Connection? Did Mr. White shoot Mr. Orange at the end of Reservoir Dogs, or did the cops shoot Mr. White first? Does Deckard ever realize he’s a replicant after Blade Runner ends?

We. Don’t. Know. Still, there are plenty of possibilities that I, as the viewer, relish resolving on my own. These types of speculative conclusions exemplify what makes these films (and similar cable programs) appealing; lack of predictability fueled Sopranos authenticity for almost a decade.

If you’re upset because the show lived up to its unpredictable expectations, go buy yourself a Golden Girls boxed set and clam up already.

MIT Media Laboratory has developed the I/O Brush, an amazing animation tool that allows you to “capture” objects and then paint with them. This demo video shows it better than anyone could explain:

As explained on the MIT website:

“When the brush touches a surface, the lights around the camera briefly turn on to provide supplemental light for the camera. During that time, the system grabs the frames from the camera and stores them in the program.”

This is an amazingly creative tool, however for some people it could be an IP nightmare. Some of the examples shown in the video were books and toys being captured and turned into art. I have to wonder what the copyright owners think of that.

Andy Warhol succeeded artistically in reproducing IP with minimal alterations. How would the art- and IP-world respond if someone simply captured a protected object and attempted to sell it as their own creative expression via video art? Alas, those questions are for another day, but that day is probably approaching fast.

I walked into a 7-11 looking to indulge my health food habit, and was sidetracked by a bag of Doritos sparsely decorated with white lettering against a white background: X-13D. The potential eater is invited to taste test, figure out the flavor, and enter a product naming contest online.

A brilliant marketing ploy that I couldn’t resist. After the first chip I felt like the proverbial Violet Beauregarde: is that mustard I taste? Ketchup? Onion? Yes — and pickle, beef, and bun. A cheeseburger!

An interesting experience — not exactly pleasant, but interesting. And the contest website, like the product branding is intriguing, and a great example of the power of participatory marketing. Users can generate clues, advertisements, and enter the contest. Is “Cheeseburger Paradise” too obvious?

Ever sit through a PowerPoint presentation where the speaker put every single word of his or her presentation on the slide — and then proceeded to read it word for word? There should be a law against that, and the presenter should be punished by having to sit through their own presentation for the next 24 hours.

Comic Don McMillan agrees, and he has some hilarious observations about other all-too-common PowerPoint abuses.

PowerPoint’s greatest advantage is also its most notorious curse: It puts presenters at ease, but it can also put audiences to sleep.

Just remember, whether you’re in front of a large crowd or small group, it’s impossible to disappear from the audience’s eye; you still need to have strong presentation skills. The best PowerPoint presentations enhance your presence, they don’t replace you as the presenter.

Movable Type is going back to open source in its next version, succumbing to pressure from Wordpress. According to Technosailor, the damage has already been done, Lord of the Rings style.

One of my favorite lessons was reinforced while watching, of all things, the premiere episode of Hell’s Kitchen. I’m a big fan of chef Gordon Ramsay (read this great New Yorker profile); I admire his perfectionism, and I think he balances high expectations with just enough gut-punch coaxing to get the most out of his people. What’s more, he has a vital business instinct: if something or someone is not working, that’s it. “Shut it down,” as he would say.

In the midst of last night’s culinary cauldron, there was a dynamic that caught my eye. A contestant with fine dining experience wouldn’t let a teammate help her fry quail eggs for an appetizer. Despite ruining what looked like a dozen eggs or more, this “expert” refused help from a willing associate. Compounding the absurdity, the teammate eager to help was an experienced short-order cook. She made it clear that while she didn’t know haute cuisine, she knew how to fry a doggone egg. That turned out to be the very reason why the first contestant refused the other’s help. Experience as a short order cook was, apparently, laughably pedestrian.

Ramsay recognized the problem and removed the struggling contestant from the appetizer station. Ms. Short-Order stepped in and proceeded to turn out perfect eggs.

We know that experts manifest themselves in many forms. But a larger lesson delivered courtesy of Ramsay (along with a nice knock on elitism) is that expertise itself comes in many forms. Sometimes you’re looking for someone who understands the most complex concepts. Other times, maybe all you need is someone with a straightforward skill.

The connection to communications (and I admit I’m stretching, but it’s fun) is that you should be wary of anyone who suggests only the most elaborate solutions, but has trouble executing fundamentals. Sure, you may want a souffle, but that may not be what you need. Don’t dismiss the merits of someone who suggests steak and eggs.