Okay -- you can now make comments here using your Facebook login. It all works, though I'm still waiting for Facebook to approve the way my blog will publish stories on Facebook news feeds. You can also use Open ID, Google, Wordpress, Yahoo, Live Journal and a number of options to leave comments. Try it out!

I write about proposition 8 on this blog a lot and because of that, am on the email list of Protectmarriage.com -- the ballot measure committee that raised funds to get it passed. A little while back, Ron Prentice, the committee's chairman, announced that their legal counsel and author of the the text of proposition 8 was set to run for a General Assembly seat in the 5th district of California.

Today, though, I got a mass email from Mr. Pugno updating me on fund raising efforts for his campaign "war chest." I'd never signed up on Mr. Pugno's site and based on his calling me "hostile" in an email last fall, I dodn't assume that he plucked my email address and added it to his list.

What actually happened is that Protectmarriage.com created a new list for Mr. Pugno -- it's called "Andy Pugno -- Protecmarriage.com List 6" in their system that has, at least, some, if not all of Protectmarriage.com's email addresses. That appears to violate Protectmarriage.com's stated privacy policy, which says that they only collect personal information and use it to "send ... updates and the latest news from ProtectMarriage.com." 

Ultimately, it could all lead to a violation of California's Online Privacy Protection Act -- which requires that all the ways a Web site uses information to be disclosed to users. That is, if Protecmarriage.com is actually captured under California's privacy laws. More likely is that they'll slip by on the argument that California's law only applies to commercial sites -- though the statute doesn't define "commercial."

But maybe, Protectmarriage.com gave this list to Mr. Pugno's campaign? Is that then a gift? If so, and if otherwise would've had to purchase such a targeted list, would its market value far exceed the Fair Political Practices Act's $250 limit on gifts? I don't know. Maybe they're looking at it as a campaign contribution, the value of which Mr. Pugno will surely report?

Or maybe he purchased the list from Protectmarriage.com. That brings us back to when, exactly, did Protectmarriage.com say in its privacy policies that it might some day do so? It didn't.

1. Get over the "paper" part. I'm serious. If you can't, then there's no reason to read on. Scores of us younger people -- many who've never had reason to hold a newspaper let alone subscribe to one -- are growing up and slowly taking over the world.
2. But the ad revenue? What about the money? Look -- people place ads in your paper because, even without accurate metrics to guide them, they think they're reaching an audience they can't get elsewhere. That reach is probably exaggerated, but as your audience migrates online, your ad dollars will too. Besides, think of the production costs you'll save.
3. Stop talking about the internet like you're surprised by its reach and power. If the idea of your newspaper Web site's success is so surprising to you that you're thinking about running a front page story on the trend, you show us your age, your naivete and your irrelevance. The generations after you all caught on about a decade ago. Time to catch up.
4. Realize that you probably don't get it. I've watched people, only slightly older than me, take much much longer than I and those younger to adapt changes in the information technology. I had the benefit of growing up with a computer connected to the internet my entire life and I realize that most even a bit older, and that includes those running the news business, didn't. Maybe it's time you step aside and tap the collective wisdom of those who've come after you.
5. Believe that what you have is what we want. News. Information. That's your business and it shouldn't matter to you how you deliver it to us. The problem is you insist on delivering it to us in a medium we've already, rightfully, decided is inferior. Besides, if you don't give it to us how we want it, someone else will -- and for less money than it costs you to buy newsprint.
   
6. Stop thinking of your Web site as the online newspaper. It is it's own, an entity with more power to engage and retain your readers than any medium in history. By the time I've visited your site a second time, it should already know what stories I like to read and it should be serving those up to me -- without my asking. Make what I want not easy to find, but impossible to miss. The internet can do that, you know.
7. Understand that video alone does not a multimedia site make. We've had video at our fingertips for years. It's called TV. If Google can't monetize it, your chances -- based on the current state of the industry you've had a part in guiding -- aren't much better. Your content is your money and it should be delivered to your readers in a way that serves the story. If that's video, so be it. If that's just text, then so be it too.
8. It's not always about the numbers. Well, maybe not the numbers you're thinking. Social networking sites enjoy pageviews / visit that are well into the double-digits. I bet your newspaper is lucky to average 2. If you're reader's not engaged -- it's your fault. You have a powerful medium at your disposal that you're not using to its potential. No one to blame but yourself.
   
9. Paywall or no paywall, do it for the right reason. If you only motivation in creating a paywall is to drive readers to your print product, you will fail. We're not going back to ink printed on dead trees. The era of the paper is dead. If you think you can generate revenue to keep your newsroom thriving, then do it. You just better have a product worth my money -- both in content and form. 
   
10. Know that Google isn't stealing your money. Without Google, most of us would never find you. They're sending traffic your way, traffic that feeds your coffers with money from advertisers. What you should be asking yourself about Google, as the self-appointed source of information is why the news industry didn't invent it in the first place. After you figure that out (see above re: not getting it), ask yourself what the next "Google" is and build that.
    

A press release is circulating this weekend claiming that a new "class action" lawsuit was filed on Friday -- the day before San Francisco's gay pride celebration -- challenging prop. 8 under California's constitution.

Couple problems with that. I'll leave out of all the complicated legal stuff and just note that the suit they're talking about was actually filed 8 months ago, not on Friday. So where did this press release really come from? Is someone trying to drum up free publicity, or is someone just really careless with the facts?

None of the above. Or maybe all of the above.

It's the same case. A new complaint -- amended -- was filed on Friday. It's not online so I don't know how it differs from the original complaint.

I do know this comes after court orders were issued in April and May commanding that the plaintiff's attorneys (or the Plaintiff's themselves) appear personally in court to explain what in the world was going on with this case. According to documents, the plaintiffs have failed to file proof that they gave copies of the lawsuit to the defendants or get answers to their complaint -- things they're required to do to you know, actually have a real lawsuit.

And on top of that, a hearing was set in the case for March 3, but the attorney on the case, Waulkeen Q. McCoy, failed to show up and the judge fined him $200. It was paid to the court by one of the plaintiffs, Tommy Burns.

All that is mysteriously left out of the press release McCoy's office -- presumably -- is blanketing the internet with and is confusing scores of people.

I think we can all safely bet this one is going nowhere, just like it already has for the last 8 months. If anyone knows the plaintiffs in this case, I'd love to hear from them.

• 10000Words - Mark S. Luckie, freelance
  
• Ryslvester - Ron Sylvester, Wichita Eagle
  
• NickMartin - Nick Martin, freelance
• ScottLewisVOSD - Scott Lewis, Voice of San Diego
• AllisonStJohn - Allison St. John, KPBS
• CityBeatKelly - Kelly Davis, San Diego City Beat
• EricWolff - Eric Wollf, San Diego City Beat
• Digidave - David Cohn, Spot.us
• RaniGupta - Rani Gupta, formerly of Voice of San Diego
• AndrewDonohue - Andrew Donohue, Voice of San Diego
• Mark_Coughlan - Mark Coughlan, freelance
• MThilmony - Meg Thilmony, News-Gazette
• RyanSholin - Publish 2
• BriannePruitt - Wenatchee World

Who do you follow?