@davidtoddmccarty @jaredwhite While I much prefer open RSS podcasts, and appreciate the sentiment against walled gardens, I have to note that “podcast” is a word derived from a defunct Apple product that greatly popularized the medium itself. I personally hope podcasts mostly remain indie and open to all via RSS but language policing feels like an indirect way to lobby for that
@palafo @davidtoddmccarty @jaredwhite Mr. LaForge: An editor for the New York Times that calls it "language policing" when two commercial companies attempt to co-opt a label that has meant one thing since 2005, and use it for something different, deliberating blurring the line between them.
It's not language policing, it's you failing to recognize your own lack of resistance to nefarious corporate marketing, and perpetuating that misinformation as a result.
@pwinn @palafo @davidtoddmccarty @jaredwhite now we’re talking about prescriptive linguistics vs descriptive linguistics. The truth is that most people don’t understand the underlying tech, and think of “podcasts” as “audio programs I can download to my device”. (N.b. the lack of success of video “podcasts” even though there’s no technical difference between audio and video!) I’m a fan of open RSS-based podcasts, but arguing the language is pointless.
@pwinn @palafo @davidtoddmccarty @jaredwhite disagree? Go ask ten non-tech-savvy friends. (If you get different results I’ll be shocked.)
@aelman @palafo @davidtoddmccarty @jaredwhite
I’m sorry, are you arguing that the New York Times should base it’s editorial choices about technical products on the words non-technical average people use? The companies that market things using bad labels win if they convince enough non-savvy people?
Amazing and sad.
@jaredwhite @pwinn @palafo @davidtoddmccarty Um, yes, people redefine “medical” or “engineering” terms all the time, and popular definitions often vary from the true “technical” definition. Language evolves through usage.
@aelman @pwinn @palafo @davidtoddmccarty Not only do I disagree with this, it scares me. This is how we end up with "alt-facts" and conspiracy theories. Without some semblance of a shared reality where well-established terms actually mean something and they're hard to hijack by disingenuous parties, culture collapses.
@jaredwhite @aelman @pwinn @palafo @davidtoddmccarty I’m not saying this is necessarily a *good* thing in all cases. I’m just noting how language actually evolves in reality. And yes, this *is* one of the vectors that leads us to "alt-facts” and conspiracy theories.
That said, I think the ship has sailed on the definition of “podcast”. The ship has definitely *not* sailed on advocating against making podcasts exclusive.
@pwinn @palafo @davidtoddmccarty @jaredwhite I’m arguing that it’s unreasonable to expect non-tech-savvy people, *or the people who write for them*, to split hairs about terms that have clearly accepted meanings among the masses. It comes off sounding like Kimberly-Clark calling people out for referring to generic tissue as “Kleenex” - it’s fine, and even legally sound, but it’s not going to change anything.
@pwinn @aelman @palafo @davidtoddmccarty Seriously! This conversation is beginning to border on the ludicrous. In what other industry do industry terms get to be redefined by…like, whoever? Do average non-medical people get to define medical terms? Do average non-civil engineering people get to define civil engineering terms? Do the manufacturers of aerospace infrastructure get to have their terminology redefined by some (waves hands) mass group of people?
It's absurd.