Dave Winer is unironically linking Better Bad News's video mash-up of opposition to AutoLink. If I'd seen it unlinked I'd have assumed it was intended as sarcasm. It's full of wild inconsistencies and lots of naughty, naughty, slippery-slope-type arguments. But having now watched this turd all the way through, I see that it ultimately links to an anti-AutoLink petition, so I guess the joke is on me: they're serious. I don't recommend watching the entire video, despite its numerous lessons in how not to seriously argue a point, but since it does appear to be sincere, I've transcribed a particularly gruesome exchange (from about halfway through) between an older woman and her mostly-off-camera interlocutor. I've of course included the interjections I'd offer, were this a three-way conversation.
It's a forced entry is what it is. It's like when I bought that couch on remainder at Target and the couch gets delivered by these two guys, Larry and Sergey.
Let's be clear about your analogy here, because (having already been to the end of your rant; funny, that) I think you'll see that it changes. I'll assume that your couch represents a web site you've requested (and downloaded to your local drive) and that Larry and Sergey represent the Google Toolbar (or, specifically, AutoLink).
But they sit on the couch. I wanted the delivery men to leave. But they wouldn't get up.
Your desire to have the delivery men leave is curious; you specifically asked them to deliver the couch. Actually, this analogy is already starting to show weakness, because Larry and Sergey aren't delivery men -- that is, they don't represent the browser or, even better, HTTP -- but men who came with the delivery men to highlight a few features of the couch; men, I might add, that you specifically asked to accompany the delivery men. Not everybody asks these men to tag along, but you did.
They just sat there. When I complained about Larry and Sergey not leaving my house after they delivered my couch, Mr Schmidt said I was free to ask them to leave, but that they came with the couch and could do things for me that would make my life better -- and it wouldn't cost me any extra.
I have no idea whom Mr. Schmidt is supposed to represent in your analogy, but he sounds like a smart guy. You have two options, as it turns out: 1) You can ask the men to leave -- analogous to uninstalling the entire toolbar -- or 2) you can do nothing, since -- and this is really freaking important, so listen closely -- Larry and Sergey won't point anything out for you unless you ask them to specifically. Consider that you've now opted-in twice: once when you asked them to show up (by installing the toolbar) and again when you asked them to point things out for you (by clicking the AutoLink button).
Mr. Schmidt said that Larry and Sergey would point things out to me that I'm interested in and they would be very helpful.
Yeah, this really is about user empowerment.
So I opened my blog -- www.youcallthischickensoup.com -- to check on yesterday's post, but a visitor to my website left a disturbing message complaining to me that something had changed on my grandmother's recipe; one of the links that I put on my blog [had] been rewritten. And I look over my shoulder and I see Larry and Sergey looking at my blog; they are editing something on my blog. They are overwriting my link on the word 'goose' and substituting their own link to a site where I can buy a cookbook I already have -- because I wrote it!
If a user sees any changes to your site it's because she downloaded the Google Toolbar and pressed the AutoLink button. I'm not sure why she's complaining to you about that. But, concerning the specific problem she reports, she's either mistaken or lying: AutoLink does not rewrite links. We could address such hypothetical behavior (and I'd probably maintain that it's the user's right to do whatever she wants with her local copy of your page), but if we're talking about AutoLink, then she's just plain got her facts wrong. End of story. Anyone saying that AutoLink modifies links is either ignorant or lying to bolster their case.
(Also note that this is about where your analogy falls off the rails; the couch you ordered now seems to represent your website, specifically, and Larry and Sergey appear to represent everyone who orders a couch, er, downloads your web site. You're waving your hand at the fact that anyone who has requested their own version of your couch, er, website, and has also requested their own Larry and Sergey, has done so because they want Larry and Sergey to help them find things on their own copies of your pages. This might seem a minor point, but inferior analogies don't do much to advance your case.)
But I prefer to sell it directly from my blog to help pay for my poultry podcasts. So they sit there, Larry and Sergey, on my couch, uninvited, except to deliver the couch -- I did order the couch to be delivered. It's a lovey couch, but I didn't invite the delivery man to stay and point things out to me.
Actually, they're not uninvited and they're not affecting your sales, remember?
(At this stage the woman is addressed by the man previously off-camera.)
Man: You assumed the delivery men would leave after they delivered the couch?
Woman: Uh huh.
Man: And you're miffed about it because your assumptions were incorrect and so you blame the delivery men for it, when it was your assumptions that caused the frustrations.
Hey, whose side is this guy on? He's right, lady, your mistaken assumptions are the problem! Finally, we agree on something.
I hadn't watched the video previously, but now that I have I'm wondering how they got away with it; the factual inaccuracies in it go way beyond satire, even to the point that I'd wonder about the legal repercussions. Using exaggeration to (try to) make a point is one thing, but blatantly lying in order to badmouth a product just isn't cool.