
Transparency is Bullshit; We Don’t Want to See Everything - ryanwaggoner
http://mightybrand.com/2010/01/transparency-is-bullshit-we-dont-want-to-see-everything/
======
pvg
It seems you've taken the term transparency, defined it in a way that's quite
unlike what people generally mean when they speak of business transparency,
then defined translucency in a way quite like what people generally mean when
they speak of business transparency. Then you've triumphantly declared
transparency bullshit. There's an expression for that kind of argument, haydog
or grassgirl or something like that.

~~~
ryanwaggoner
That _should_ be the definition of transparency, but I wrote this blog post in
response to this self-righteous tone that I see a lot of social media "gurus"
taking lately where they seem to believe that it's their natural right to
whatever information they want about a company or individual, and when the
entity in question refuses, they start whining about "transparency".

A good example was the whole Tiger Woods fiasco. While it's true that he
clearly had something to hide, I don't buy that because he's a brand, he's
obligated to divulge everything about his personal life to the media and the
public. But you should have heard the social media bloggers calling for his
demise because he "owed" an explanation and they weren't getting it fast
enough.

Perhaps I didn't adequately explain that I'm not anti-transparency, but more
anti- towards the "entitled-to-transparency" attitude many social media
bloggers are starting to exhibit.

~~~
pvg
I understand you were trying to comment on something specific, unfortunately
it's hard to tease your points out of the confusion created by using a term in
a way that differs from its common use in the context and then defining a new
term. If you had examples (social media talking heads, Tiger Woods, particular
companies, etc) writing about them concretely might make your argument clearer
and invite responses more interesting that 'that makes no sense'. Perhaps a
rule of thumb to consider is if you start a post with 'this is a rant and
unoriginal', treat it as a draft and revise it until you can safely take that
opening out. (Not that there's anything wrong with a rant but a good rant
doesn't need to tell you it's a rant)

~~~
ryanwaggoner
That's a fair point. I shall endeavor to improve in my future postings :)

~~~
grellas
For what it is worth, I liked many of the points in your post, in spite of its
shortcomings, particularly where you remind readers that some of the most
spectacularly successful tech companies are very discrete in what they reveal
to the world and when. That in itself should give less mature companies pause
before starting to feel sanctimonious in having adopted a business idea that
sees virtue in lunging violently in the other direction.

I find it jarring to hear young entrepreneurs touting their own virtues in
relation to others and, if the basis upon which they do so is ultimately
insupportable in a business sense, so much the better for causing them to
examine themselves and their motives. I would personally elevate the tone a
bit, but that is just me. In many ways, a stimulating post. Thanks.

------
grellas
Not sure but I would think this treatment of "transparency" deals with recent
trends among some closely-held startups to make gratuitous disclosure of their
inside financial information, as discussed in this thread having to do with a
post entitled "Disclosing Your Finances: Should you publicly publish your
finances?": <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1034911>.

I have a detailed post in that thread about how such disclosures may expose
directors to claims of breach of fiduciary duty, among other things, and how
they are therefore not generally a good idea. The related piece to which the
thread is attached contains the counter-arguments, as do other posts in that
thread.

~~~
ryanwaggoner
That's part of what I was referring to, though not in response to those
specific companies, but more with regard to the expectation that companies
_should_ do that, or that they're somehow more honest if they do.

------
indiejade
Opaque: Translucent: Transparent.

All three define varying degrees of perception. Opaque and translucent are
defined as being muddied or "clouded" by material that can distort the
original image.

Could be paralleled with excessive/unnecessary legalese. The more unnecessary
words a contract or legal agreement contains, the muddier it is. I like
transparency where average Joe / average Jane can cut through the BS and say
"so _this_ is what this is really all about: it appears to be X, but is
actually Y".

There's nothing wrong with seeing everything clearly when clarity is the
intention.

------
grandalf
This article is flamebait.

Transparency isn't good or bad.

Suppose a company released internal R&D documents to shareholders in the name
of transparency... that would give the shareholders a better idea of the value
of the stock, but it would also give competitors valuable information. This is
why firms strike a balance between transparency and confidentiality.

------
nir
sometimes.

