Speaking for all the Boingers--
Boing Boing has been caught in the middle of a real internet shitstorm and pile-on over the last few days. A blogger named Violet Blue noticed that we unpublished some posts related to her. Some people wanted to know why.
Bottom line is that those posts (not "more than 100 posts," as erroneously claimed elsewhere) were removed from public view a year ago. Violet behaved in a way that made us reconsider whether we wanted to lend her any credibility or associate with her. It's our blog and so we made an editorial decision, like we do every single day. We didn't attempt to silence Violet. We unpublished our own work. There's a big difference between that and censorship.
We hope you'll respect our choice to keep the reasons behind this private. We do understand the confusion this caused for some, especially since we fight hard for openness and transparency. We were trying to do the right thing quietly and respectfully, without embarrassing the parties involved.
Clearly, that didn't work out. In attempting to defuse drama, we inadvertently ignited more. Mind you, we weren't the ones splashing gasoline around; but we did make the fire possible. We're sorry about that. In the meantime, Boing Boing's past content is indexed on the Wayback Machine, a basic Internet resource; so the material should still be available for those who would like to read it.
Thank you all for caring what happens on Boing Boing. And if you think there's more to say, by all means, let's talk. We're listening.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[Xeni] Update, 07-02-08: A number of the BB team were on the phone together today (for the first time since this started) discussing the situation. Several news organizations had pinged us to discuss this, including the Los Angeles Times, so we invited them to join the call and ask a few questions. It turned out to be a good conversation, and we hope the partial transcripts posted on the LA Times contribute to the thoughtful and evolving conversation. Comments welcome; ad hominem/feminem attacks not so much.
(1) BoingBoing bloggers talk about Violet Blue controversy's implications
(2) BoingBoing's Xeni Jardin on unpublishing the Violet Blue posts
[ Los Angeles Times ]
Save the drama for… Andromeda.
I like to keep the drama on the stage… ( insert old jokes here).
I’m now killing myself with curiosity over what Violet did that made you take the posts down. Drama is such fun.
@Gainclone (#1) and @ATOMICELROY (#2), Regarding the drama, the truth is, I agree. That’s one of the main reasons we debated on whether to even respond.
We, too, prefer that drama be reserved only for one’s momma.
But when the apparent campaign to turn this into some kind of a petty blog fight went on for days and escalated, we felt like the responsible thing to do for you, our readers, was to address it.
Blog fights are stupid, airing personal grievances in public is stupid, picking troll wars is stupid. We just want to blog (and make internet TV).
The “unpublishing” versus “deleting” issue is this: the posts were removed from public view while an evaluation of what to do took place. We didn’t want to pay to host them on our blog anymore. This is also why we remove hateful, ad hominem attack comments from public view, too: this is our home, we are proud of the home we built and the guests who visit here with us, and we like spending time here ourselves.
This is a directory of wonderful things. If we no longer think something is wonderful, we have every right to remove it from this directory.
This is not Wikipedia or the New York Times. Boing Boing began as a personal blog, and still is in some ways, even though Boing Boing is a bigger thing now. When new information becomes clear, or someone’s behavior changes, sometimes a creator of work reconsiders what aspects of their personal creative work they’re proud of, and removes them from public view.
The posts still exist in our archives, and they’re also available on the Wayback Machine.
We realize that we’re now bigger and more complex, and we’d probably handle something like this differently now that we’ve grown (and now that we are more aware of how things can play out when someone’s determined to pick a public fight over it). This hasn’t happened before.
But this was not intended to cause harm to anyone, least of all the subject of the posts. We mean no one any harm.
Nobody was “disappeared.” When we start doing extrajudicial blog executions, or showing up to livejournals in the dead of night in unmarked cars and putting bags over people’s heads, or slicing the power cords off of other people’s own blogs, come talk to me about “disappearances” and “unpersoning.”
XJ
I can see not publishing future stories about her, but “unpublishing” seems like a euphemism for self-censorship (or at least denial). This step seems antithetical to the nature of the Web that BoingBoing champions, where everything’s a matter of public record, and directing people instead to a Web archive seems a bit disingenuous. If anything, this is bringing more attention to Violet than leaving the posts up would, as most censorship tends to do.
I can’t imagine New York Times quietly unpublishing any record of Jayson Blair. I think BoingBoing hasn’t lived up to its own ideals with this one.
It seems clear the big mistake was the hushing — both not mentioning the “unpublication”(?) when it occurred, and vigorously policing comments about it as though that could somehow keep it quiet.
In the face of that damage, y’all’s continuing decision not to tell us what’s up is disheartening, but maybe we’ll get over it.
“Posting in epic thread.” (My quotes imply irony!)
At #1. I’ve found a new favorite phrase. Thanks! :)
Thank you. This is the kind of post from BB I’d hoped to see.
Violet has her own blog which is easy to find, so I have a hard time getting worked up about this.
Kudos for making a good call.
Those who don’t understand that the archival nature of blogs, coupled with the perceptive fact of hosting — even archival hosting — as a tacit form of active support, makes “choosing to NO LONGER HOST at your own expense” a perfectly valid part of blog “ownership”, regardless of the reason, don’t really understand the internet.
“Unpublish,” indeed. Choosing to no longer host isn’t hushing — because there is no “after the fact” in the internet. It’s choosing to no longer support via hosting, period.
@Grobstein (#7), I think you’re right. It wasn’t a big pact of secrecy though. We are geographically distributed and it was the weekend, so it took time to get everyone on the same page, up to date, and figure out the right thing to do.
The policing the comments thing was delicate, for sure. We probably should have said something like “We hear you, but we’re not ready to address it yet.” But sometimes when you have people trying to force your hand before you’re ready to respond it’s frustrating.
Well, I’m glad someone said something. That metafilter thread was too hard for me to ignore, and frankly, I have work to do.
Regardless of what anyone says, it’s a nice thing to try and keep personal problems from being blown out of proportion publicly – but hot damn, what a cluster.
I don’t know what happened or exactly when the un-publishing occurred, and I know that hindsight is 20/20 and all that – but once valleywag and mefi hopped onto this a clear communication (even along the lines of “a statement is being prepared, stay tuned”) would have been a good idea. Leaving the Internets speculating in lieu of throwing something out there begats loud raspberry.
Also, just curious – was this a group decision, or the action of a single or minority group of editors?
Thank you for not screwing around with the Wayback Machine.
dangerous territory. telling us to be weary of those who threaten free speech, then threatening free speech yourselves. i agree with number 6. it is as if one day you can proclaim the world to be flat, and then when irrefutable evidence that the world is round is made, you can go back, un-publish the post and say “we never said the world was flat”
very disappointed.
Boing Boing is a collaborative personal blog, not an institution with obligations of impartiality or public service. Which means that the authors don’t have to be fair, impartial or even remotely reasonable, but merely interesting to its audience.
It would seem that some people are under the impression that as soon as a blog on the internet becomes sufficiently popular, it turns into the BBC or something, and becomes subject to various nebulous obligations to The Public, which if it fails to live up to amount to betrayal of that trust.
AisleFive, Grobstein, we were trying to avoid embarrassing people. In the end, it was unavoidable. I expect she’ll survive it.
Ah, that’s doubleplusgood!
@geekpdx: Your curiosity is natural, but airing (and hence overblowing) the details is exactly what we were trying to avoid in the first place.
It was a group decision. Why do you think it took so long?
I’m sure you were. Externally, however, how is that any different from (to pick an extreme, fictional example) what Winston Smith and his coworkers did?
Now, I have to quickly say I’m well aware of the differences between private and government censorship, and it’s your site, so your rules.
But you are also aware that other people have links to your stories, and now those links are, inexplicably, gone. With absolutely no explanation on your part, and (near as I can figure) no redirection.
To put it bluntly: it stinks to high heaven of a cover up. And if you act like a secret cabalistic conspiracy, don’t be surprised if some people see a secret cabalistic conspiracy :).
TylerSweeney, you haven’t been a very careful reader. Go back and try again.
Yep. Save the drama for the llamas.
Links are the driving force of the internet. Every “link” is support for the resulting page. If you no longer support someone or something, you should remove the link; Even if it results in removing past blog posts.
It’s your blog, you can do with it what you like. I will continue to read it because it is fantastic.
I wasn’t up on this Violet Blue issue, but it sounds like a mess, and I think the best one can do with a mess is clean it up! You’re not revising history, you’re IMPROVING it!
I probably would have done the same thing, anyway. If the shit hits the fan, then it’s time to stop throwing shit.
And probably get rid of the fan. Then buy central air conditioning.
I don’t pretend that my blog is even 1/100th as important as yours, and I’m not in the habit of telling other bloggers how to run their blogs — but I wouldn’t have done what you did. At the very least, I wouldn’t have done it without one holy heck of a reason.
I’m guessing that I know what this is about. It’s entirely your right to decided not to let her publish more stuff to the blog. But was it a sane, reasonable reaction to go back and mass delete everything she ever contributed? It doesn’t seem like one to me, and it absolutely seems like an over-reaction to the personal politics she was going through at the time.
s fr s “crng wht hppns n Bng Bng”, Dn’t nymr.
ws jst chckng n t s f y hd gttn vr bng Mcrsft whrs, nd ths s th frst thng s. Y’ll r jst gng t sld n dwn tht slppry slp s, s dn’t thnk tht wll vn bthr chckng bck n nymr.
Gd lck n ll y d. Y sd t hv grt blg.
we have always been at war with Eurasia.
Well, there goes my traffic boosting blog-fight picking plan.
Damn, I guess I’ll have to stick to trying to write interesting things. Curses, foiled again.
I have to join in expressing my burning curiosity about how Violet Blue “behaved” to prompt your unpublication of her. Could you at least post a link to something about the incident so that your readers can judge for themselves? The shitstorm is a-blowing and can’t be unblown. It cannot make things worse at this point to reveal what happened.
@Tylersweeney: Given that Boing Boing is not a public forum, they’re not “threatening free speech”. They have no obligation to maintain archives, nor to be impartial, nor to continue publishing articles by someone they do not wish to.
If you disagree, you can lodge a formal complaint with the Blog Ombudsman.
“But sometimes when you have people trying to force your hand before you’re ready to respond it’s frustrating.”
“Bottom line is that those posts (not “more than 100 posts,” as erroneously claimed elsewhere) were removed from public view a year ago.”
Sounds like you guys had plenty of time to figure out a response.
I have much respect for all of the BB editors, but this really does seem hypocritical. How is this any different then a site-wide filter to remove any reference to a particular phrase?
It’s your blog – so do what you want. However, with all the post archived on the Wayback Machine… this just seems petty.
I am a meat popsicle.
I can’t believe I was so oblivious to the drama. I feel a little left out.
Have fun with your boycott, @Alephnul.
(I really should add: I don’t think there was malicious intent; I don’t think it’s all that important; and it’s the internet, so people love making mountains out of grains of sand. But it’s very hard to hide some things, and when you try to do so, it looks suspicious. And people love a story that has a good suspicious act in it.)
I lost all basic interest in Violet Blue when she sued an adult film star for appropriating the same Crayola name as her.
As if before this blogstress came along no one had strung the words “violet blue” together.
I support Boing Boing’s (or is Boing’s Boing more grammatically correct?) right to make any of their articles available/unavailable at their own discretion. Curiosity is nagging me a little, though.
Anyway, I got go, I’m meeting with a guy about trademarking Beergood.
Also if I had to make a guess over what BoingBoing got their panties in a twist about, I would say it had something to do with Violet Blue trademarking her name.
@ Joel
I guess I wasn’t trying to get at the sauce of this matter so much as answer a more general curiosity of whether a group consensus must be reached before something that materially changes content in such a manner is done. I expect that editors have a lot of leeway with what they can post and edit without calling in TEH COMMITTEE, and was wondering if this sort of thing crossed that threshold.
Of course, I can see that copping to whether this was or wasn’t a group decision could strain things further.
@ Teresa
Not sure if you were responding to me, and if you were, I’m not sure if you meant that the un-publishing or the statement was a group decision.
Taking down all the posts about somebody you’re mad at…and not telling her…and then just leaving it to be discovered…seems kinda shitty to me.
The author Peter Carey, after his divorce, wanted to retroactively remove the dedications to his former wife from all his earlier books. This looks like the same bonehead kind of move.
You can’t un-ring a bell. I know nothing about this situation except, it appears she was a friend, and now she isn’t. But why remove all evidence of a positive relationship in the past?
Of course now everyone will want to know what she did to piss you guys off so bad. I’m sure as hell curious now.
@Teresa (#22), I think that Geekpdx (#15) was asking whether it was a group decision to unpublish the posts. @Geekpdx, the BB bloggers act autonomously with regard to editorial decisions.
@34: would it really have been better if they paid service to transparency posted an article saying “We’ve removed all references to Violet Blue for personal reasons”? That sounds a little too much like the passive-aggressive “I’m unfriending some people who are not true friends, they know who they are” LiveJournal drama posts.
In social situations, transparency is not always the best solution.
“Violet behaved in a way that made us reconsider whether we wanted to lend her any credibility or associate with her.”
Can someone explain what this means? What exactly did Violet do that was so wrong?
I think it would help a lot of people in their understanding of why this action was taken if we knew what she did.
You are probably realizing that posting this was a mistake. The problem is that this article itself references a non-person and as long as it exists it will generate curiosity about the non-person.
Your only remedy is to delete this post and never mention the name of the non-person again in any context.
Yours sincerely,
Winston Smith
Ministry of Truth
The day I pay BB’s wages is the day I get to tell them what can and cannot be posted on or removed from this blog. It’s only censorship if VB forces BB to remove posts about her.
Is this a suggestion that BB should not be allowed to make changes to their own opinions and their own work that remains under their control on a server that they pay for?
What was that about threats to free speech?
When BB goes out and tells other bloggers to remove quotes from the posts they removed, then we’ll talk.
If this is the same as 1984, then anyone who’s ever gone back and friends-locked their old livejournal entries is Big Brother.
Get a sense of perspective. You can argue about whether this might’ve been the best way to handle whatever dispute it was, sure. But you can’t seriously argue that this is “censorship” or “against free speech.”
In fact, I’ve come to believe that it’s a law of nature: whenever anyone on a comments thread starts complaining that the blog owners suppress free speech, they’ve lost the argument. So long as you can get your own blog, your free speech is assured. No one else is obliged to give you their microphone.
And Alephnul, don’t let the door hit you in the ass.
Another victim of the Streisand Effect.
For a blog that prides itself on fighting censorship and championing internet freedoms, you could have done a heck of a lot better, especially the clandestine “editing”.
I respect your right to manage your “hosting” any way you see fit, but you should have been more upfront about it, from the beginning.
AARRGGHGHGH. This whole thing has been raising my blood pressure all weekend. The world is full of crap and all you trolls can worry about is whether Boing fricking Boing is on the side of censorship evil? Hypocritical?
Jesus Mary God save us from you morons. I know calling a spade a spade is throwing gasoline on this fire, and Teresa, feel free to disemvowel or delete if I’m being too harsh here, but this has gone just too far. Arrogant know-nothings hate BoingBoing for being more successful than they are, then they spill over onto Making Light, and they probably even vote. Or worse! They probably don’t vote! And are holier-than-thou about being above that system!
I really don’t suffer fools gladly — so please! Shut the fuck up! All of you!
Jeez Louise, I just hate these people, and it’s not easy to provoke me to that kind of antipathy. I even try to understand Donald Rumsfeld. (I do draw the line at Cheney.)
Why don’t you all take all that righteous outrage energy and do something with it that won’t make the world worse? Go, I dunno, dance energetically with Matt Harding or something. And get the fuck off BoingBoing’s back! They owe you nothing — they give you endless entertainment for free and you repay them with enough hatred — not just on this issue, but on every little fricking thing that comes down the pike — that it has to make them wonder why in hell they do it. Seriously. Grow the fuck up.
Calling yourself a “blog” as a defense for exercising lower standards of journalism than a news organization does not persuade me about this event being handled as a complete PR mess for BoingBoing.
No news organization, including Boing Boing due to its well established popular status, can avoid the label of hypocrisy by hiding the facts about what is now a newsworthy issue of interest to the public. Whatever private nature the initial issue was has now become a public interest. Therefore, everyone involved with Boing Boing better look hard and long into its soul as a journalist and make a choice about whether to serve the public’s desire to understand the facts and make their own judgments about this news or simply shutter its doors. Because the moment you hold back the news like this and hide behind platitudes, you can no longer credibly zealously demand the truth for the sources you go out and report on.
News is pain. If you can’t take it, don’t bother dishing it out.
I don’t mean to be inflammatory, but there are quite a few crybabies here. I’m not sure which meaning of “post” BB is using here, but we have two options:
#1 “Post” refers to the updates to the BB blog itself. They’ve written several endorsing snippets about Violet Blue as kind of a sexuality activist. If she crossed a line, and they no longer felt like they could endorse her, then it’s entirely reasonable that they would withdrawal that support.
#2 “Post” refers to user comments. If Violet Blue left comments that were inappropriate for the blog, then if they were deleted it would be no different than removing the posts of anybody else who spams, flames, or trolls. This is standard maintenance for any blog. I doubt they would “censor” her just for disagreeing, or being controversial (which is what they seemed to have loved her for in the first place).
And either way, they didn’t chisel her name off every corner of the blog; all references to her are still available in the archive, and if you don’t trust that then there’s an independent archive as well.
If you’re terribly curious about what caused the withdrawal of support, then go read VB’s blog; that’s my next stop.
I am now going to be inevitably disappointed when the truth comes out that it’s all due to Violet mocking papercraft dildo cozies.
In all seriousness – I understand that you want to play rumor control and nip the whispering hysteria in the bud (“principle skinner says we have no backbone, purple monkey dishwasher!”), but without being transparent as to the underlying disagreement, rampant speculation is going to flourish in that void, at the very least. More than likely, negative opinion is going to take root as well, and I’d honestly hate to see that, as I really like boingboing, and have since i picked up those weird little zines at the local bookstore, back in the day.
While at first, my obvious standard internet reaction was “OMG FIRST AMENDMENT CENSORSHIP! WHERE’S MY GUY FAWKES MASK?!?obligatory1insteadofexclamationpoint,” but then I thought, BoingBoing isn’t about posting everything that’s out there, it’s about posting what the editors want on their site. People are free to post anywhere on the net, or say what they want, just not in the front yards of people who disagree with them.
I can respect if it’s personal, and I’m sure if it’s something either side wants to reveal, they will. I think saying you guys are “unpublishing her” brings about Fahrenheit 451-like images in posters minds and encourages generic rabble-rousing. Either way, I have to appreciate the maturity of the posters here at BoingBoing. If this were any of the other newspost blogs out there (coughrhymeswithBiggcough) people would be more rampant with the internet-napalm than Bill Kilgore.
Is there anyone on the internet that Violet Blue hasn’t started a blog war with by complaining how mean people are to her?
“Don’t take any guff from these swine…”
I can’t believe the Blog community is up in arms and talking about how this goes against the “standards” for the blogosphere.
Standards? Anyone with a computer and a place to post can put up a blog, let’s stop pretending otherwise. Yes, Boing Boing is a giant among blogs, but that doesn’t change things. They removed articles that they no longer wished to host. End of story. They have the right to do so, and they did.
What part of, “They have the right to do so” are people not getting?
Editorial decisions are usually about changing the future, or at least the present. Trying to change history is something different. History shouldn’t be subject to editorializing, should it? Saying you’ll not “lend her any credibility or associate with her” going forward? That’s defensible. Trying to make it seem like you never did in the past? That’s not very Boing Boing-y. Or, maybe it is and I was just projecting my hopes and dreams on to you. :-)
If you’re in favor of transparency, you can add notes/updates to posts in the past clarifying your lack of endorsement.
“Unpublishing” is now a creepy euphemism.
Just my two cents.
Why would the team go back and delete her posts? This seems very juvenile. No matter what went wrong, she spent HER time helping YOU. Bringing attention to her work- only by deleting and then telling bb about it shows us that you are just asking for more controversy on the subject. Pointless…
The “unpublishing” does seem rather to be a rather Orwellian term, Xeni’s explanation notwithstanding.
Perhaps you should list them all as strike through as it seems you now wish to retroactively remove all the good things you’ve said about the person. That would have been more transparent than “unpublishing.”
As to the wayback machine, it would never have occurred to me that BoingBoing would disappear a story, let alone everything ever written about a certain individual so I would never have thought to need to go to the waback machine to look up BoingBoing material.
I support your ability to do whatever you like on your blog, but I feel like noting that however justified, the manner in which you did this was passive-aggressive and opaque, and “unpublishing” is a stupid and useless weasel word.
You deleted a bunch of posts. That’s fine. It’s your server, you’re allowed to delete whatever you like. You decided you weren’t friends anymore, and everything she did was poison, and not newsworthy or at least worth being in a “directory of wonderful things”. Just, try to avoid the ‘ban everyone who embarasses me’ approach in comment moderation and response. It’s kind of embarrassing.
At the bare minimum, it seems a redirect from past stories to their respective archives is in order.
But I think the decision to “unpublish” is fine. The whole value of blogs is that they are a filter, an active, human filter that sorts in real-time, not some archival history-keeping automaton.
Good move, now I won’t even have to see her godawful English.
“And this. And that. And I was naked. And I did this. And it was amazing. And wow. And hoo. And haa.”
Gives me a headache. Would someone tell her what a conjunction is please.
“If this is the same as 1984, then anyone who’s ever gone back and friends-locked their old livejournal entries is Big Brother.”
If you think BoingBoing is the same thing as an old livejournal, then yes, absolutely. I wouldn’t.
I’d never say that Boing Boing didn’t have the right to delete whatever they want. They also have to right to post glowing reviews of Exxon Mobil gas stations and tell us that Mike Huckabee is a visionary worthy of our support.
Clearly Boing Boing has the right do do wrong things. Just as we have the right to voice disagreement if they do.
“What part of, ‘They have the right to do so’ are people not getting?
I totally get that they have the right to do it. I just disagree with it and am saying why. Is that OK?
BoingBoing, I am highly disappointed that you promote tyranny but choosing to publish only those things that you want on your own website.
Let’s not forget, they did this a YEAR ago and people are just now bitching about it? Sounds like someone just has an axe to grind with Boing Boing and is using this as easy fodder.
So now BoingBoing is a tool that its masters can use to settle petty, personal disputes with other internet bloggers? Not good, and I don’t care what the explanation is, or how many people agree with it. If this were a print magazine no such luxury would be possible.
Moderating comments is one thing–people may post scurrilous, base, profane defamatory comments that do not add to the commonweal, so to speak–but deleting posts is quite another, especially when no rationale is given other than it having to do with “personal” reasons.
I see it as the exact sort of thing that BoingBoing would nail another site for, and I believe has. Whether it is redaction, bowdlerization, expurgation, or censorship I see no place for it here.
Who the fuck is Violet Blue anyway? Probably just another one in the legion of harpy reprobates who has a knack for turning depravity into cash. Who gives a damn? But now you are hoist by your own petard. The smart thing to do would be to swallow your pride, apologize to your readership, (and maybe even Violet Blue) and republish the goddamed posts. That’s really your only option at this point or you lose all credibility, at least with me anyway.
hooray BB. do what you feel with the page, I’ll keep drinking in the wonderfulness.
Revisionist history?
Tempest in a Teapot?
From my vantage point it’s like people yelling over a fence at each other about last years ruined party that I wasn’t at anyway.
Does seem kind weird for Boing Boing to do stuff like this in light of their opinions about similar matters though.
Meh, do what you want, just shut up before 10 PM or I’m calling the cops.
Keep the wonderful things coming. ;)
Gainclone , July 1, 2008 9:56 AM:
*wince* I can imagine George Orwell writing this, only he’d be using sarcasm.
My sympathies are with BB, here. Hopefully you’ve realized that you handled this badly and you’ll do better next time. You certainly have a right to host what you want on your site, and you can be as arbitrary about it as you like.
I wish I knew what VB did to anger you. I’ve skimmed her blog and I couldn’t find any reference to BB in amongst the ‘sex toy of the day’ reviews. I hope you BB moderators understand why everyone wants to know what happened — because they’re scared that *they* might be ‘unpublished’, suddenly and without warning. You have legions of contributors (*not* ‘readers’, in this context) that are willing to adapt their behavior to whatever rules you deem proper. You have to give them the rules. Not the published rules of the comment threads, but rules of behavior outside of BB.
Because from all appearances, you’ve decided to police that sphere of behavior. Your choice. Good luck with it.
I know, everyone wants to save the drama for the mama of the llamas from Andromeda. But shoving those llamas under the carpet just makes the drama fester, and the llamas start to itch and buck, and you end up with a bigger mess than before.
Umm… Respect means that one gives as well as recieves honesty and civil behavior. If one does not adhere to that code than they can not play in the pool with the big kids.
You do not debate with a-holes, rocks, coma victims, rain or two year olds. You will only look stupid.
‘Nuff said.
If BB wasn’t getting respect, neither should it be given.
#58 “What part of, “They have the right to do so” are people not getting? ”
Having the right isn’t the same thing as being right.
Apologies for the length; complex issues should not be discussed in soundbytes.
Perhaps actions to unpublish entries relating to Blue should have been accompanied by some sort of warning — to Blue herself. Or perhaps not. Certainly, anything that is bad enough to warrant this removal but cannot be discussed openly in an editorial manner is likely to be of a more personal nature than a professional one, hence the desire for secrecy.
On the other hand, after my divorce, I didn’t go backwards and remove all posts by my ex-wife from my own website. I respected her privacy by not airing our business in public, but I allowed the previous record to stand.
I think there are two issues here. First, BoingBoing is considered by many to be a journalistic source, which is probably not the correct mode of thinking (except for, perhaps, BBGadgets). While many journalistic tricks have been employed due to the size of the site and ethics of those involved, BoingBoing remains a site of opinion and editorial. When things like the Wayback Machine exist, BB isn’t necessarily responsible for continuing to host content that it actively dislikes. As pointed out, other items have been removed in the past without much controversy.
At the heart of this issue is the mystery of the “why.” Again, it seems to me it is likely of a more personal nature, else the removal would have been accompanied by a detailed justification (and perhaps an apology, such as in the Le Guin case). The reasons for removal may be valid and defensible, but without any clues, the issue will likely provoke thought for some time.
Bottom line, the internet doesn’t have some weird privilege that means it should get to know why these posts were unpublished. And BoingBoing shouldn’t have to defend itself. But BoingBoing often hold themselves to higher standards than merely what they “have” to do. The removal was valid, but reads as petty.
In any case, it’s all in the past, too late to do anything differently now. Worth thinking about for the next time around.
And whether or not you, the Happy Mutants, feel it’s justified, a quick apology for the manner in which you acted (not for the actions themselves) might go a long way to stopping all the noise.
‘Unpublishing’? Puh-lease.
Anyone else see the eerie parallels with BB’s after-the-fact editing and the listing about the pro-family group replacing ‘gay’ with ‘homosexual’? If the whole point of that listing was about the dangers of misinformation, what’s the point of this one besides ‘don’t get caught’?
Maybe each BB listing needs to come with a EULA now.
You people are so volatile! We’re talking about Boing Boing here! The people that bring us Unicorn Chasers and Web Zen and tell us about candy shaped like lighthouses shaped like penis! The people that document the life of mixed-nationality action hero startups and tell us how to Macgyver a microscope out of a webcam!
The endless fun and joy that BoingBoing has brought me is FAR GREATER than that of any news organization that has ever existed.
@52. Yes. News is pain. But BoingBoing is not news. It is LIFE. BOINGBOING FOREVER.
It is clear to me that none of you are worthy of my blood or my life, but I will stand for you. And together, we will restore honor to the ship, and bring glory to the Empire.
To say “we have a reason, but we wont talk about it” is not something I was expecting from BB; even if it is better than saying nothing at all.
Not being able to speak about some fact, possible for legal reasons, creates the feeling of a corporate entity, and not a personal blog (and that post and discussion here reminds me about flickrs infamous “we can’t say anything about it” safefilter disaster) . As do the rules you introduced some weeks ago. Being viewed as a corporate entity and not as bunch of cool people changes what seems resonable behavior — we all agree that corporate entities should not delete arbitrary posts, start censorship and so on, if they want to be remembered as “do no evil” corporate entities.
So I guess the secret deletion of posts you don’t like any more is a bit more than an editorial decision, or at least, a bad one. Even replacing these posts with [insert explanation] would have been better than doing it in the dark of the night.
“They have the right to do so”, but they have to life with the consequences, especially a damaged reputation for their freedom of speech agenda.
Ths hs zr t d wth cndr, r wth frdm f spch. t hs grt dl t d wth th Bngrs nt wntng t trsh Vlt Bl, wh hs n sch cmpnctns whr thy r cncrnd.
f y thnk ny f ths trns th Bngrs nt n vl crprt ntty … Lrd lmghty, hv n d wht t sy. Th ntn s jst t bzrr. t’s sr t mgn thy’r shpshftng lns.
nmbr f cmmnts gt spprssd. Th frst ns wr nsty, cm n frm bdds f VB’s, nd wr bvsly tryng t pck fght. tld th ssstnt mdrtrs t npblsh thm. hd n d hw lng t ws gng t tk th Bngrs t rrv t dcsn. t nvr ccrrd t m tht thy wld dthr s lng vr nt wntng t g ngtv n Vlt Bl. n th mntm, th cmmnts kpt cmng n. Tht’s hw t hppnd. nd by th wy, thr wr nvr ll tht mny f thm.
S fr tht, y’ll pblcly dfm Mrk nd Xn nd Cry nd Dvd? Wht mdl f vrt y mst b.
f y thnk wht hs hppnd s vdnc f vl ntnt … n. Jst, n. stll hv n d wht t sy t n dlt wh cms t tht cnclsn. n th mntm, pls dn’t wrt bck t tll m ll hgh-nd-mghtly tht t’s yr mrl jdgmnt tht wht thy dd mght cncvbly pssbly slppry-slply ld t mlfsnc, bcs f thy rrd, thy dd s t f kndnss. ls bcs t th mmnt ‘m hvng rl dffclty blvng n th dpth nd rslnc f yr wn mrl jdgmnt. t’ll pss, ‘m sr. ‘m jst hvng trbl blvng n t rght nw.
Sncrly,
Trs Nlsn Hydn
So what was the point of unpublishing the posts? No really, I’m completely missing it here. Maybe it is that as stated they no longer consider Violet Blue or her work wonderful, but in absence of additional explanation, I find that answer alone hard to accept. In my mind (and perhaps only) it would seem to indicate some sort of disapproval of her actions, thus my comment: I suspect the fallout from this unpublishing (whether or not directly resultant from unWonderfulling) will only serve to further her fame.
Come to think of it, I’ve written a few books myself.. any way you guys could see your way clear to blacklisting me? I’d kill for that sort of PR.
Still waiting to hear what Violet did that warranted the deletion of all her submissions.
For a blog that values and promotes transparency in media I find it odd that you’re being so quiet about this.
@61 a quick scan of the relevant blogs show that there was already a controversy brewing, to such an extent that comments like this:
“the crew over at boingboing are douchebags. If you say something they don’t like.. blam, you or your comments are deleted”..and more in the same vein.
http://valleywag.com/5019738/blogger-completely-deleted-from-boingboing-archives
were becoming common.
A cool and measured response was appropriate in this case.
Boing Boingers, this is your front porch, and I am but a happy guest.
I don’t know what happened, nor do I care (though it may be fun to watch). My advice:
Don’t give an anklebiter the ladder they need to reach your knees.
Boing Boing should offer those who feel betrayed their money back, in full.
Xeni wrote:
“This is a directory of wonderful things. If we no longer think something is wonderful”
Maybe the problem is simply with your tagline! This statement implies that everything posted here is a “wonderful thing”, however his doesn’t seem to always be the case.. at least by the standard definition of “wonderful”.
Are airplane pilots falling asleep during flight a “wonderful thing”? Is watching a monkey yanked around on a chain while ridding a small cycle a wonderful thing? I could go on, but you get the point.
Your argument centers is that:
1) all things boingboing are wonderful
2) Violet Blue is not wonderful
3) therefore, Violet Blue should not be on boingbong.
But upon review of the archives, one will find many not so wonderful, and some downright rotten things.
So maybe the simple solution is to change the tagline to “A directory of wonderful and sometimes rotten things” and republish Violet Blue’s post.
Problem solved!
I have no idea what happened.
I think one of the things that drew me (and probably others) to your blog was that I felt like I was part of a club. A place where I could find “Wonderful things” and revel in them alongside you. You have always worked to NOT have this huge wall of Us (the writers) vs. Them (the readers). I felt like I had kindred spirits watching the internet for me while I was at work. Buddies by proxy.
I don’t care that you chose as a group to make something not “wonderful” anymore. I just want to know why. The secrecy detracts from that closeness that I cherished.
I’m NOT claiming doom and gloom and I’ll never surf here again. We both know better. For me this illustrates that you have grown and you are a business now. you need to pay attention to the eyes on the pages and how your image is maintained. As a grownup I can respect that. The teenage geek in me is not so easily soothed.
I really don’t care about the feud but …
This is a directory of wonderful things.
I’m sorry, it stopped being that quite a long time ago. I’m looking to the left of this text box and I see…
Devo sues McDonald’s
Pretend cops bully videographer
Pseudo was a fake company
AT&T making jokes about the wiretapping
But maybe you define “wonderful” differently down there in the US.
And, I’m sorry but I have to say “unpublish” is a just a delete. It’s obvious this whole business makes you all uncomfortable and raw but coining a new word is just denial.
Now, it’s my nation’s birthday. If you’re near the border, come on over and have some cake – the red and white icing is at once disturbing and delicious.
Newspapers are also privately owned entities run by an editorial board or even one editor depending on the size of the publication. They can do whatever they want too. They can pull stories, priortize them, fire writers, and print retractions – just like this blog can. But here’s the thing – when an event catches the public attention and becomes a bonafide piece of news, which I believe this issue has evolved into, then there’s something called journalistic ethics that kicks in.
When you create a blog, what is it for? For BoingBoing, a immensely popular blog, the duties to act in a manner that is consistent with the expectations of the audience and the public interest should be one that BoingBoing acknowledges. Instead of shirking these duties because “we’re just a blog”, you should own it and act as though you are a responsible organization that gives reasons for the actions you take and act transparently.
If you don’t acknowledge at least a duty to act transparently, then you are no better than the right wingers you accuse of engaging in coverups and conspiracies.
The defensive rhetoric I’m seeing here is disappointing. It’s like the pro athletes caught doping saying “hey I’m not a role model so don’t treat me like one.” Well, sorry Boingboing, you are a successful source of news for many and you are full of it if you act surprised about it. Come clean or go home because you will never ever be able to speak credibly when criticizing someone else’s lack of ‘transparency’.
The bottom line is that not every word one writes is worthy of permanent preservation. I know it, and the fine editors of BoingBoing know it. That standard is, and always should be, maintained by the owners of the work.
I think I would have kept the existing posts, assuming they weren’t part of whatever the mystery issue is. Then, if disassociation were necessary, I’d have not accepted any more submissions.
Removing the posts seems a bit like whitewashing the history. She wrote for you, I gather; she no longer does.
It’s your backyard, do what you want with it. Personally, I’d “unpublish” everything that has the word “steampunk” in it, along with a variety of other things around here, but hey; it ain’t my backyard.
This is not big brother, it’s not censorship, it’s private property.
Still, doing this is counterproductive. I have a vague recollection of someone called Violet Blue, but that’s it. I don’t know who or what she is, and have no idea what kind of controversy or drama you’re talking about. But rest assured, I have Google at the ready, and I shall now set out to discover every sordid detail I can.
“This is not Wikipedia or the New York Times.”
If the NYT decided to “unpublish” material from a person who had fallen out of favor with its editors, I doubt BoingBoing would cut them much slack. Does BoingBoing aspire to be taken seriously? If so, then it needs to apply similar standards to itself as it does to other publications. But if BoingBoing believes that blogs are not real journalism, then it should make that position clear so we as readers can set our expectations appropriately.
Oh, for a “buzz down” button…
Your blog. Your editorial decisions. If folks don’t agree with those decisions, they’re free to browse elsewhere, or to start their own blog.
As far as whether doing the edit silently was a good idea or not… Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. As a past editor of an online discussion board myself, our standard practice was to return questionable posts to the author with an explanation of why they were removed. That does generate nosyparker inquiries about what happened, but we felt that handling those offline was wiser.
Online metadiscussion tends to escalate rapidly as people feel compelled to defend themselves and/or each other rather than being able to let it go with “We agree that we disagree”.
Just because someone has the right to do something, doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do.
Just because someone was within their rights to do something, doesn’t mean that nothing can be done retroactively to help correct the mistake.
To quietly unpublish the articles was a mistake that BB had every right to commit. They can never uncommit the mistake, but they can take steps to salvage their somewhat unclean reputation, if they should so choose. I hope that when their feelings become unhurt they will be able to unentangle this mess somehow, and maybe things will become a bit more unobscure.
#77 – “tell us about candy shaped like lighthouses shaped like penis! ”
DOH! You beat me to it…
While I honestly think the best way to handle this would have been to simply state where BoingBoing parted ideological ways with Ms. Blue, I understand the desire to have done so without embarrassing anyone.
I have to say though, you really should have seen these problems coming. Unpublishing is a perfectly valid way to handle online content, but I think we would all have preferred some kind of notice explaining why. (the comments conflating it with censorship or attempting to alter history are fundamentally incorrect as you are voluntarily removing your own content, not attempting to make it seem as though it was never there)
I’m certainly not about to stop reading over this, and wouldn’t expect you to care if I did, but I would respect the authors and editors a great deal more if we got a more explicit explanation of what went wrong.
“We unpublished our own work. There’s a big difference between that and censorship.”
I’m interested here in boingboing’s understanding of censorship. For this reason, I turned to the Oxford English Dictionary. The definitions for censor lead the reader down an interesting path. First, we see the legacy of the word: “The title of two magistrates in ancient Rome, who drew up the register or census of the citizens, etc., and had the supervision of public morals.” A censor is responsible for the maintenance of morals. Interesting, as the grounds for the “unpublishing” of Violet’s posts were that she “behaved in a way” which “made [boingboing] reconsider” itself as a promoter of her content. If academics decided that Herder or Nietzsche or any of so many other philosophers conduct rendered their work impotent, or worse, simply off limits, our ways of being in the world would be significantly less explored, less understood, and the conversation in the very least would be much smaller. As the fellow who mentions the New York Times writer points out (in addition to the other implications of the example for the value of history, journalistic integrity, archives, etc, which I will refrain from making or taking up as arguments): work produced and producer (author, writer) should be considered detached at birth, for better or worse. This is a directory of wonderful things, or was, not a directory of wonderful people and people’s actions.
The second definition for censor reads “One who exercises official or officious supervision over morals and conduct.” Seems to me this is precisely what boingboing has in mind in the removal of her posts. Her “behavior” made them reconsider whether they would “lend her any credibility or associate with her.” Something she did violated their unwritten code of morals and conduct, and in the unfortunate opaqueness of a lack of an explanation or delineation of this code, our collective imagination will now run wild. Her morals or conduct violated their code, values, and now she’s “unpublished.”
The third definition for censor reads “One who censures or blames; an adverse critic; one given to fault-finding.” I’m uncertain how this could be argued not to be in line with the actions: the staff admittedly found fault, and is finally explicitly (yet nebulously on its grounds) critical of this fault (a known unknown?), which resulted in the removal of her content. She is the one blamed for the removal of her content, a result of her actions.
The fourth definition is the most unfortunate, in the context of what my understanding of boingboing was (past tense, after this one) about: “A mental power or force which represses certain elements in the unconscious and prevents them from emerging into the conscious mind.” This seems to be the hardest hitting of all, given the ardent denial by the boingboing staff that they didn’t “silence” Violet, rather, they merely “unpublished” her and the concluding argument which suggests a difference between “unpublishing” and silencing, which seems somewhat synonymous with, or at least as egregious as, censhorship. I’d argue that as with many popular blogs, especially those allowing comments, that boingboing is representative of a social unconscious, one from which (ala Lacan) individuals integrate various elements in the continual and dynamic formation of a self, its identity. There’s also an argument for deliberative democratic values being snuffed out in what seems (in the context of this blog) a very righteous (she did something bad, now her work isn’t worth reading, or at least we imply this by removing it from our provided content) decision. Boingboing went out of their way to prevent what they believed (and maybe still do believe, though their actions speak differently) once to be perfectly good content from reaching the conscious minds of their readers. In the information age, a blog like boingboing is undoubtedly a mental power or force. This force intentionally repressed (through the technique of removal) content for whatever (unknown) reasons which admittedly have to do not with the content, but with conduct. This somehow seems even worse than content-centered censorship for that reason. I don’t like the behavior of the body behind that voice, so I will forget what they said in the past, and take action to prevent those recorded statements from remaining easily accessible. Then I will covertly attempt to delete the past. Historically, this rarely is a successful or popular action, especially in what I imagine to be the hearts and minds, the values and beliefs, of the readers of this blog.
What’s more, is that the administrator attempts to argue that unpublishing isn’t an attempt at silencing. Removing a voice from a forum, even if the voice exists in other forums, is silencing. It’s taking one of the amplifiers, one of the relay switches for content, and turning it off, blocking it. Those who listen to the content amplified now hear silence. Those who received the content, now receive a blank. What boingboing did was successfully silence within their arena, their amplifier, their forum, their switch, the content of Violet Blue. And in the wake of this poor decision, a thousand bloggers’ voices cried out in unison, and based on boingboing’s lacking response (nothing more than an acknowledgement of their actions – no explanation, no discussion) as of my reading, were lost on the editorial staff (of course, I’m initially looking past any comments posted – and deleted – regarding this matter on the boingboing blog). Boingboing is right in that they didn’t silence Violet Blue – she is louder than ever, brought to the forefront. What they did is far worse. They censored her content, silencing what was deemed once of value. Then they played semantics and failed to explain.
To conclude, I am aware that boingboing is a public forum, run by those whose private interest controls the enviroment, and that they have no responsibility (in their EULA, or their fine print, whatever) to archive or act as an internet library. Though, I’d ask them to reconsider their “directory of wonderful things†in light of this behavior. Keep the wonderful things coming, just make sure the readers read them fast, that is, before the makers of wonderful things (authors, writers, hackers, whatever) do something that flags the censor.
And who knows, maybe they’ll censor this too. I would have doubted this in the past, but in an attempt to censor, change the past, especially based in their unstated reasons for doing so (perhaps Violet has weapons of mass destruction?) boingboing has changed my perception of their blog for the immediate future.
The only positive to come out of this decision (to acknowledge the deletion of the posts) was the comments: now readers who share a common experience can engage in a conversation about the legitimacy of the action of those who run the forum in which they share this experience. Thanks for that.
What part of, “They have the right to do so” are people not getting?
=======
Exactly. People should remember this the next time they get cavity-searched at airport security, the next time they get pulled over for driving while black or the next time they get detained at Best Buy for not showing a receipt upon exit. When that happens to you, just tell yourself, “They have the right to do so.” That makes it all good.
Before anyone else makes the same error: Violet Blue never posted anything on Boing Boing. She was never a blogger here. The entries in question mentioned her, but they were written by the Boingers.
No comments of hers were ever removed because she never made any. Boing Boing didn’t have comments at the time.
Mh.
BB hs bn gng dwnhll fr whl. BB Gdgts s th svng grc, nd t Xn’s crdt BBTV s msng frm tm t tm. thrws t’s jst th sm ld Cry-Xn lktmbymysht shw.
Prhps shld jst sv my tm spnt w/ BB nd th vr grwng Cry-Xn crpfld nd… *plnk*
I’m reminded of the courtroom scene from THX 1138.
Flame On, my brethren.
@Satan: there is a difference between a newspaper and a blog. A newspaper operates on the premise of objectivity and offering a service to the public, and is an institution with obligations to the public. A newspaper also sells copies on the basis of its reputation. Boing Boing is no such institution; it’s merely a forum for its contributors to post links to things they consider interesting. There is no process by which blogs become institutions subject to an obligation of public service once their readership hits a certain level.
I have decided that Boing Boing is, in fact, a government run food safety program. With that in mind, I am horrified at the way this place is being run. When was the last time you folks inspected a chicken slaughterhouse? How are we supposed to know that the tomatoes we buy in the store are safe? OH MY GOD!!1 The tomato contaminations — all Boing Boing’s fault! These people should be sued! What a disgracefully run food safety program. Surely just another indication of the Bush administration’s incompetence.
For shame, Boing Boing. You are not living up to the high standards that I set for the type of organization that I imagine you are.
@98: Teresa, the LAT post on this indicates that one story deleted was written by VB. Is that wrong?
Link.
As someone who hosts a few blogs, I totally dig Xeni’s analogy of a house. BoingBoing is clearly not a journalism site (how could it be with so few mentions of Paris Hilton), BoingBoing is the personal perspective of four (or so) folks and what they find neato. I dig that, and that’s why I read it and recommend it to others. If they don’t find a certain post neato anymore, I think it’s completely reasonable and logical that they would remove it. I mean, if they published a link to a neato dance thing on YouTube, and then, weeks later, discovered that the video was posted by a known (insert bad person behavior here), they would remove it, just as any of us would. Comparing BoingBoing’s relationship with Violet Blue to The New York Times’ relationship with Jayson Blair is like comparing Sonny & Cher with George & Dick.
But Boingboing is my only source of news. This is the window through which I experience the world!
Seriously, the real reason everyone is in a tizzy has nothing to do with censorship, and *everything* to do with sex. When something having to do with sex occurred, it is the closest blogger’s *responsibility* to the rest of the blogosphere to share it. I mean, that’s what the Internet was built for in the first place, right?
If you *really* want to know what happened, log onto Second Life, and find a hidden island called VelvetSchnapps. Ask for Pete.
Okay, I really don’t care about the Violet Blue thing. I think complaining about the injustice of it all is kind of like complaining that a new edition of a book has come out, and it’s NOT EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE LAST EDITION.
But I don’t really mind the upset.
I do, however, mind the protracted beating of Boxer’s corpse–can we stop with the Orwell references? Please? Because Orwell is exciting, and endlessly comparing anything one considers unfortunate to 1984 is not exciting. It’s very, very, very tired.
We get it. Unperson. Doubleplus. War is peace. OH GOD STOP PLEASE.
I think many posters are forgetting that this is a BLOG, not a public news site. It’s not CNN, or Fox News, or MSBNC. It a blog for crying out loud. If you guys thought something was offensive and decided to remove it, fine by me.
Perhaps those that disagree with your decision should create their own blog. Then they can feel free to post anything they want.
(Although it probably wouldn’t be as popular as this site, which is probably why they’re pissed off in the first place.)
Klenow said: I have a vague recollection of someone called Violet Blue, but that’s it. I don’t know who or what she is, and have no idea what kind of controversy or drama you’re talking about.
Same here… the whole subject must have fallen into the category of “Things on Boing Boing I’m Glad They Write About, But Which I Completely Ignore,” like Klenow & steampunk.
But I like the steampunk :)
@98: Teresa, here’s the post written by VB that was deleted, according to the LAT post: link.
If the NYT decided to “unpublish” …I doubt BoingBoing would cut them much slack.
If you approach a fun website and the NYT with the same expectations, the problem is already yours. Do you truly hold the editors here to the same standards as at the NYT? Really really?
But if BoingBoing believes that blogs are not real journalism, then it should make that position clear so we as readers can set our expectations appropriately.
I think the lady with the jackhammer in the middle of the title should help you set your expectations. She isn’t old. She isn’t gray. I’m betting she isn’t even that much of a lady.
Try not to throw dirt at people who fail to meet your own irrational expectations. You just lose ground.
constant reader, rare commenter.
Let me join the chorus of “it wasn’t censorship.” Censorship is when the government says you can’t produce something or when huge corporations (e.g., msnbc), who shape the national discourse, blacklist people and points of view. Boingboing is a blog and can choose to publish what it does or doesn’t feel like and it can take stuff offline too. Anybody who mistakes this for censorship needs to go offline and speak to people in the meatspace.
p.s. I really enjoyed the interview in the onion recently. I told people about it in my office and thought that a bunch of really good points were made (especially about the people complaining about what flavor of free ice cream is being given out that day). I was really surprised after finishing it to discover that other people were writing nasty crap.
“The bottom line is that not every word one writes is worthy of permanent preservation.”
Although this is true, the posts were not removed because they didn’t stnad the test of time. They didn’t just atrophy out of existence. Something (and we can speculate many nasty things because, at least according to this post, they aren’t saying what) transpired that was unrelated to the content of the posts, and they decided to remove her.
The thing is, it is absolutely their right to do so, and I can even see the reasoning. But how dimwitted do you have to be to think that it would not be a potential black eye, ESPECIALLY for a site like BoingBoing? Pointing out the hypocrisies and secret machinations of the world is part of their meat and potatoes, and part of why I have been a gleeful daily reader for years and years.
I don’t think BB.net is evil for this, I don’t persoanlly care that the posts are gone, and I’ll continue to visit every day. I am, however, bewildered by what seems like a clumsy, clumsy sequence of moves by people who I tend to think of as much smarter than this.
#105
“If you *really* want to know what happened, log onto Second Life, and find a hidden island called VelvetSchnapps. Ask for Pete.”
I SMELL A BLOCKBUSTER
Wow. You here at Boingboing really have handled this badly. Sure it’s your blog, etc. etc. but that’s still not a good reason for the actions that were taken. It has the quality of being in someone’s home and noticing a college year book on the coffee table and when perusing through it seeing regular holes where a face had been removed from some pictures and a name removed from some text. Of course in the digital world we have to be told of the erasures but now that we have it has all the qualities of the Swiss cheese yearbook. Expecting that people looking at the holes wouldn’t have second thoughts about the people that did the cutting is living in a dream world. That’s your doing. Not someone else’s.
I get the impression that the cause of this editing was something personal (“piles of shit lying around”) and that’s fine. I have no desire to get into what someone feels is private. My guess is that nothing at the site was the cause, just the result. The problem is that the sense of “free spirit” that I think is the big attraction about Boingboing has taken a hit.
You’re still in my RSS feed and you’re still one of my favorite Internet stop overs. We’ve all had our freak out moments but it’s important to keep them to rare moments.
What’s the big deal? Unpublishing happens all the time. In fact, there was a recent story right here on BoingBoing about how the CIA unpublished documentation relating to torture. get used to it people, it’s a part of life.
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/05/28/redacted-cia-documen.html
@#103Grobstein, I’ll answer that.
There were multiple factual errors in the blog post by Sarno at the LA Times blog.
This person never “posted” items to BB, they were not an author or a guest blogger.
#91:“If the NYT decided to “unpublish” material from a person who had fallen out of favor with its editors, I doubt BoingBoing would cut them much slack.”
Yep, I can just imagine. -_-‘
Sure, in the end the editors can do whatever they want. Their blog, their site, whatever.
But this was still handled in just about the worst way possible. First posting nothing and then posting vaguely and without actually explaining anything is NOT the right to way stop people from making baseless assumptions and treading the rumormill.
The easiest and fastest way this could have been avoided would have been stating the reasons clearly and as fast as possible. this way, people might still have disagreed, but things would have been more managable.
If people don’t know something, they get curious and start asking questions. I would have expected the BBers to anticipate that…
@81 mindpowered:
Thanks for the link and that info. Sounds pretty harsh, but it would have made more sense to let her continue to make a fool out of herself.
I think both sides of the spectrum have done two completely different actions.
BB’s- being kind, responsible and not overly offensive towards anyone. Yet they decided to cover it up.
Xeni-you have been in contact with Tibetan protesters, talking to them through their struggles with China, fighting for the censorship to be overthrown. It confuses me that you would agree to take that down. Little bit hypocritical.
I know they are not one and the same. They are two very different circumstances but any/all online hinderance will not help this site with its message.
VioletBlue- Acted cowardly, no excuse for that- but her work does not deserve to be swept under a rug..
The difference between the institutions “big blog (with fanzine background), operated by a small company, earning (part of) the living” and “mass media” is not sharply drawn, I guess.
When I read about this, it literally was George Orwell’s 1984.
AW can no longer link to her AWing. ohnoes
If Ms. Blue did something wrong, that may warrant her present and future removal as a contributor, but why remove her past work? What piece of news came out that invalidates the merit of her past published work?
In 1938, Time Magazine named Adolf Hitler “Man of the year”. Well we all know what happened next but Time Magazine did not go back and recant or unpublish that issue. Even if it could have it wouldn’t. Instead, the news evolved and we came to understand and judge the world more fully each day with the accruing facts.
For BB to go back and remove Ms. Blue’s past work is to me an act that goes beyond what I would expect any organization to engage in. You fire an employee or no longer welcome someone’s contribution and that is fine – their future work will no longer be hosted. But their past work? There is something nefarious about that. What is it about the past work that carried the seeds of evil that warrants you to remove them from my view? I would like to exercise my judgment on my own in the fullest exposure of the facts… and I cannot do that now that you’re removed those articles.
Also the fact you acknowledge that the articles can be found in internet archiving sites shows me that there’s something petty or personal in the way you’re doing this. Right now, Ms. Blue sounds like she is a much more interesting personality for having pissed off some bloggers to the point of making them act in such a bitchy manner to her.
Channeling my inner Unicorn Chaser, it behooves me to note that ‘Papercraft Dildo Cozies’ (#54) would be a deucedly smashing name for a steampunk themed Emo band.
Teresa,
Longtime reader, first-time poster as the old saw goes. Thanks for the explanation. The reasons and backstory for “unpublishing” (an unfortunate and Orwellian term) these posts don’t matter much to me — it’s your site. If you want to toss a regular out of the bar for being obnoxious, it’s your call.
However, as someone who’s worked both in traditional as well as Internet media in managerial and technical and editorial roles, I would add a few suggestions regarding your evolving SOP (or lack thereof):
1. Deliberately serving up 404s is simply bad Webmastering practise. I’d strongly suggest putting up a simple notice on each replaced page that the post has been “unpublished” per your Policies. A bit more work, but it would have saved you guys a lot of trouble.
2. As comment #6 above notes, it’s bad journalistic practise to unpublish articles from the record (and like it or not, your site serves a prominent reportorial role that adds to the general record). Strike-outs, addendums stating something is no longer wonderful, corrections, retractions, apologies, removal of hyperlinks to external sites, even “disem-vowel-ing” etc. are all good practise. But when you unpublish editorial content to which you’ve also provided permalinks, you’re destroying your own credibility and inconveniencing those audience members who think well enough of BB to link to its articles, and drive traffic your way.
3. There seemed to be some thin-skinned censorship (outright removal, not just “disem-vowel-ing”) of admittedly off-topic but certainly not hateful comments regarding this incident in other threads. You would have saved yourselves the trouble of playing that game of “whack-a-mole” by making a statement such as this before or upon unpublishing the posts.
This is more than a random group blog; it’s a professional site, with all the trapping thereof (an LLC, a revenue stream, a massive and loyal audience, etc.). You’ve made an effort to put in enlightened policies, but clearly they need refining.
Your site’s (really your brand’s) core values, at least from several years of reading, include zealous advocacy for Free Speech, organisational transparency, good Web design practise, journalistic integrity, the importance of archives, and respect for your audience. Core values should always be incorporated as much as possible into your site policies, especially when you traffic in the business of ideas.
I hope this incident will serve as a lesson learned so you folks’ll be able to handle the inevitable future incidents without causing the sort of drama, speculation, and needless damage to your brand that we’ve seen here.
As for me, I’ll take it as growing pains and keep reading. Thanks for the wonderful stuff.
I must admit, I’m not entirely comfortable with the “unpublishing” of previously public content.
It doesn’t seem to jibe with BB’s normal ethics. Were any other blog to do a similar thing, I’d treat it with suspicion from then on, I think.
I don’t want to get into this argument, I’m not sure where I stand. But I do have one question.
I remember seeing a video in post where Violet Blue was at some big techno-fest. She was trying to interview Steve Jobs or some other Apple bigwig. And she was rebuffed rather humorously.
Now, I feel really sure I saw this on BB (maybe it was BBTV), much less than a year ago. Am I wrong?
Where to start?
Since when is it the public’s right to know every thought that went into Boing Boing’s decision to remove VB’s posts? BB isn’t a publicly traded company. We don’t own a word of it. We don’t pay a cent to read BB. It’s theirs to edit as they please. Additionally, they fully understand that to keep and attract readers, they need to be responsive to their needs; that the content flows in all directions here.
If you owned a blog and someone showed up and started a flame war, what would you do? Would you find a way to end it and move on, or would you log on and get baited day after day?
I’ve managed online communities for several large corporations, and let me tell you — blogs are proprietary. They’re not communes. It’s business. And when someone comes into your place of business and breaks the rules or distracts other users from enjoying your content (or distracts you from providing the best content you can), you don’t let them set up camp. Why would you?
M
What’s troubling isn’t the “unpublishing” per se, it’s that the action seems quite inconsistent with the overall reputation of the site – a reputation built over several years and thousands of posts.
You’ve every right to edit and revise the content of BoingBoing, but you don’t have the right to tell your readers how to interpret those actions (couching the activity in terms like “keeping house” and “cleaning up” doesn’t make it better).
In the eyes of many, you’ve acted hypocritically, damaged your reputation and are splitting hairs in an effort to recover. It’s unbecoming.
You know, every time from here on out that Boing Boing criticizes other blogs or private agencies for not being transparent, for removing things in the dead of night, you’ll most likely see a comment from me saying, “Gv m fckng brk. Y’v gt t b fckng kddng m, y fckng hypcrts.”
wow. Everybody thinking way too hard about this.
Well, Rushkoff, what *did* you do with Pete?
I’ve been trying to leave this whole topic alone but jeeze louise!
Personal qualms are PERSONAL. and (as said before #18) this AIN’T BBC. Leave it alone.
BUT NONE OF THE ABOVE ANSWER THE TEN MILLION POUND ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM:
WHY were the posts deemed removable and hence unpublished?
Why O Why? I do not ask for clarification/justification/any-fication, all I ask is WHY?
I applaud Gracchus.
During the American Civil war there were a group of politicians in the south known as the “Impossibilists”.
Their specialty was ignoring the reality of the situation and adhering to a rigid set of principles which were ultimately only posturing.
Boing Boing is one of the most prominent blogs on the internet and as such has to make real world choices as to their content. Most of us are not exposed to that pressure and never will be. Now, like everyone else I’m a little mystified as to why but I’m not about to jump on the train of righteous indignation and toast the editors on the coals of hypocrite hell for unpublishing a few posts of a sex blog.
What makes boing boing different is the fact of editorial control of content (otherwise I’d go to google and type in keywords and see what came up)
and as such shifts in what is deemed appropriate are expected over time.
The tone of most of there posts makes me believe the authors exist in a world where they have zero real world accountability.
For all the deadheads, I present:
the Violet (lee) Blue(s)
The mods decreed it, Violet wrote it.
Violet wrote it down indeed-e
Mods decreed it, then they took it down
They unpublished, didn’t just pull it down
Some say six posts, some say one hundred
Some one hundred, yes indeed-e
Some say six posts some say one hundred.
But me and my buddies think unpublishing’s fair
I wrote a response I posted 0n the blog, posted it on the blog indeed-e
I wrote a response I posteded on the blog.
You may know by that you’ve got a friend somewhere
Oh, for crying out loud. If my blog had lots of posts about how wonderful someone was, and then I discovered that they weren’t so wonderful, I’d probably do the same thing. I would either remove or update my old posts, and for boingboing to go back and add “Never mind. She sucks” to all the old posts would have been snarky and passive-aggressive in the extreme. The only real remaining solution is to delete the old posts.
Whatever Violet Blue did, I’m sure it warranted some response if the generally chill boingboing crew as a whole took issue with her behavior.
In summary: Whatever.
I certainly wouldn’t argue against the statement that BoingBoing has every right to remove the articles they don’t want posted. They do have that right. They are perfectly free to remove any article they want to.
It just doesn’t seem like a terribly smart move, to me, to remove every article about a person on a vague rationale that they refuse to elaborate. You’re public figures, she’s a public figure, there’s no reason to try to hush it up. All you would need to do is say something like, “We felt that Violet Blue’s decision to sue a porn star using the same nom de plume for trademark violation in the use of that name was an insupportable affront to the principles of intellectual property that we espouse, and we no longer wish to have any association whatsoever with her.” It’s cogent, forthright, and addresses the issue.
Of course, people would still be upset, because that’s just how people are, but I don’t think it would be quite this bad.
For the folks who are taking issue with the tagline (and concept) of “A Directory Of Wonderful Things” – One, they get to call it what they want – Two, I, for one, happen to think that awful things that have already happened, and therefore can’t be undone, are wonderful. I’m as much a fan of stories about penis-shaped gummy lighthouses as I am a fan of stories about 20th century fascists who slaughtered their own people. I read comic books *and* I read the transcripts of Richard Nixon’s Oval Office tapes. To borrow a phrase from Hunter Thompson, BoingBoing is all about having “…the right kind of eyes…”
BoingBoingers, I love you to pieces. As was said previously, “Don’t take any guff from these swine.”
@Jake0748, I can assure you, your memory is quite incorrect. BB or BBtv never published that material.
I have to agree with Satan and emayoh’s eloquent views. No one would argue that BoingBoing does not have the right to go back and delete posts; they even have the right to go back and write new posts, alter posts, etc. Formally, even the most prestigious news organization has the right to do so. However they will lose the trust and respect of their readers by their actions.
An analogy, suppose a political blogger spent years opposing issue A, but then wishes to endorse a candidate who favors issue A. If the blogger goes back and deletes all of their previous references to opposing issue A, then endorses the candidate, there might be a bit of legitimate distrust of the blog. This is not to say a blogger does not have the right to do so, of course, it is just a questionable thing to do (blog or no blog).
If Violet Blue did something so reprehensible that you think she should be publicly condemned, do so. If not, ignore it.
This incident makes Boing Boing look pretty bad. Scrubbing the archives because you are pissed at someone is pretty immature.
Just because an action isn’t legally censorship doesn’t mean it isn’t a bad idea. It wouldn’t legally be censorship for the New York Times to scrub their archives; it would still be a problem though.
Boing Boing is pretty popular and a certain level of responsibility comes from that popularity.
This is a test, right? To see if your followers follow you or your ideals? I stand with the ideals. “Unpublishing” is my new dirty word. Sorry kids, Old Yeller jus’ had to be unpublished. He was in pain.
In all seriousness, unless this is some giant July Fools Day joke or a test or whatever, this is extremely disappointing. No to mention, you probably increased VB’s traffic just by making news of this.
#133 – did you even READ the explanation? The posts were not removed for their content. They were removed because Boing Boing did not wish to lend credibility to Violet Blue.
Let’s suppose Joe R. Blogger writes a wonderful post. It gets linked to. Later on, it’s discovered that that Joe is a major-league douche in matters completely unrelated to the subject matter of the wonderful post.
On the one hand, one can argue that one does not want to support Joe because he’s a douche. Linking is a form of support and therefore, the link should be removed.
On the other hand, the post is still wonderful… this blog is about wonderful things, so, regardless of Joe’s douchiness, the readers of the blog want to read this stuff. For all that Dante was an asshole, we still care about the wonderful things he wrote…
Why?
Thank Xeni. Oof, early senility setting in. :)
I think much of the s*** storm is over people who have no clue what they are talking about
freedom of speech doesn’t go everywhere the way people think it does. If you have a private venue where people are allowed to speak as an open invitation but can be yanked the moment you start spouting unworderfulness stuff that’s perfectly ok.
It is partially open with the understanding that you won’t be an asshat. It makes sense, and it is pretty standard for free speech interpretations.
it’s why hate groups can’t start using our tax dollars to throw their beliefs in our face 24/7, they haven’t been give the forum to spout these ideas. They can still spend their own resources on it, but they don’t have to force us to back them to support their freedom of speech.
and more importantly. what else was the boing boing team supposed to do about this? they feel their association with a former poster might cause problems for them, or it doesn’t fit in with what they are trying to build here so they are pulling them down for review. Do people really expect them to post every bit removed. Or would it have been better if they announced to everyone that they were doing this and further damage someones credibility. It wasn’t going to be happy either way, but they decided to do it without any fanfare in case they did decided to put them back up, if they wanted them down without damaging the original poster.
so please can the big brother stuff, there is no comparison.
The comments on this one range from abusive and thoughtless to, supportive and equally thoughtless. In the end, what’s done is done and in the nature of the internet all this is still out there.
Yes, it could have been handled better initially, but it was handled and now, instead of doing any sort of cover-up and being defensive about it we’re getting a dialogue.
That is a fantastic tack for such a large node of the internet media, and I, for one, appreciate the mods and bbgods forthrightness.
A word on “unpublishing.” This isn’t a new term, at least for those of us who have been blogging for several years. It simply means to remove the posts from the public archive. To the outside web, that’s the same as deleting, but internally it means the content still lives in the database.
I’ll grant that using the term in this context does have unfortunate overtones of doublespeak, but there is a real, if subtle distinction between the two terms.
As someone who’s recently had his first disemvowelling, I’ve been thinking about this sort of thing lately.
BB is a privately held media property operating in the public square. So is the New York Times. So is, in fact, every media outlet, with the exception of public radio & television. Those who own the outlets can, in point of fact, do whatever they wish with their property. I’m fine with that, and have no real beef with the bias that led to the suppression of my comment because it didn’t fit in with the accepted standards of discourse here. Not my house, not my rules.
However, it does seem to me that there is an odor of conflict between the continued and proper assertion of private ownership of the materials published here as a defense against charges of censorship, and certain other positions that are taken here regarding intellectual property.
It seems to me that information does indeed want to be free, except when such freedom conflicts with the interests of the owners, at which point absolute rights of ownership are justly claimed.
I say “odor of conflict” because it’s a nebulous area. BB is operated by a collective, not an individual, and the members of that collective obviously have different ideas and passions. Yes, the missing materials are now available in archives elsewhere. But there is no denying that deleting all posts that mention a particular individual is reminiscent of the memory hole, suppression of information, and a host of other practices that are antithetical to the general philosophical slant that is clearly and regularly apparent on BB. When I had my first blog, my only real rule was that no matter how stupid, embarrassing, or wrong something I had posted turned out to be, nothing was ever removed. But: my house, my rules.
What really interests me in all of this is the spectacle of watching BB grow from “personal blog” into “something bigger.” That’s the essence of the issue. To the owners, this is clearly their property. To the readership, BB has morphed into something of an institution, with accompanying expectations of a certain responsibility or even impartiality.
What I think this exposes is the illusion of impartiality and “matters of record” at all media institutions. Folks jump on Fox for its much vaunted and explicit “Fair and balanced” slogan, but that slogan has been implicitly declared by most, if not all, media outlets for decades now. It’s not true of any outlet. Never has been. Whatever impartiality or responsibility such outlets display is offered solely at the discretion of their owners.
So what’s the lesson here, if any? I’m not entirely sure, but I think it has something to do with recognizing the foundational importance of the private ownership of creative output, and thus gaining a better understanding of what “free ice cream” really means.
#144- “Boing Boing did not wish to lend credibility to Violet Blue.”
And how does that answer the question I posed?
boing boing rocks. do whatever you want. to me, this is a non-issue. it’s yr blog, and i’m happy to read whatever is on it. always entertaining and sometimes even enlightening.
@satan: i’d say just the opposite. the fact that the archives are still available indicates that while the current real-time identity of boingboing is something they care to upgrade, the past is the past and who cares. what’s all the fuss about ? i assume past work was removed for liability issues. what’s the mystery ? anyone concerned about their own hosting liability would do the same.
folks should just get over this. come to boingboing for boingboing and go directly to v blue for v blue.
Here is a way of looking at this, which I haven’t seen above.
There seems to be a mostly-consensus that regardless of any other validity, the unpublishing should not have been done silently.
Let’s follow this and posit a world wherein this is corrected. Thus, a post would appear one day reading, essentially, “Violet Blue is being unpublished today, all posts concerning her removed. Here is why: …”
Now, I cannot imagine a positive reaction to this WHATEVER the merits of the unpublishing. This is in fact quite significant, as it cuts away extraneous details and goes to boingboing’s behavior and policies. Further, I claim that it is the counterfactual which is most strongly supported by the group consensus, and it is still unpalatable. In fact, for all of the controversy rising now, I can’t imagine boingboing would have been in a better position had it done the “right” thing as suggested by consensus.
boingboing may very well be in the “best of all possible worlds” assuming that they were 1) unpublishing VB in the first place; and 2) someone in the public was going to, eventually, find out about it.
“If you owned a blog and someone showed up and started a flame war, what would you do? Would you find a way to end it and move on, or would you log on and get baited day after day?”
There is no evidence to suggest that Violet Blue engaged in a flame war or flame baiting on this blog. She, herself was not even aware of the deletion of the posts about her/her blog until months after it happened.
Since the Boing-Boing posters & moderators refuse to explain their reasons all we can assume is that this is the result of a petty personal disagreement unrelated to the posts, and that they were deleted as a form of juvenile retribution.
Hello. I’m the person who has actually been holding the line in the comment threads for the last day or so. I unpublished a number of waggish comments cleverly suggesting that one third of the visible spectrum had suddenly gone missing. I have neither knowledge of, nor interest in, whatever infractions Ms. Blue may or may not have committed.
Aware that a statement was forthcoming, I did exactly what I do every other day of the year. I unpublished a dozen or so off-topic comments, some hostile, some laced with obscenities, some merely childish. When BoingBoing is mentioned on other websites, we commonly receive comment barrages from furious politicos or foul-mouthed teenagers. As comment storms go, this was a light wind. It was treated the same as any other.
I love this community. Lets give them hell even if it is a personal matter and they are exercising their own rights over their own property and own writing. I am not even being sarcastic. WHY? WHY DID YOU DO IT YOU WORSE THAN NAUGHTY CENSOR-FIENDS!?!?
It is weird when BoingBoing removes information. I had the same reaction about the Cory and Ursula Le Guin kerfuffle (in that case, Cory chose also to not allow comments on his apology to Le Guin).
But that said, this is their blog. This is not a public forum in the classic sense. This is a personal blog written by five people with help from others. (Disclosure: That includes me–I wrote up something Xeni posted about in-flight broadband a few days ago–but also everyone who has ever submitted a long or short item or explanation to BB.)
There’s this incredible confusion on the Net about personal space and personal control. BoingBoing is not the government. BB didn’t delete Violet Blue’s Web site. They didn’t incite people to hate her. They didn’t even comment on the matter. They had some kind of personal or professional disagreement or made a decision about her for personal or professional reasons and chose not to share it.
They did not: remove her words; deny her income; fire her; attempt to get others to fire her; attempt to get her hosting company to drop her site; attempt to disparage her.
The point missed in nearly all the comments to date is that BB has a very very long tail, no sexual innuendo intended. When they point to something, it’s a firehose. Even years later, it can be a garden hose. In this ostensibly rare case, they decided that their bully pulpit of endorsing by referral and aiding traffic by referral no longer met their personal or editorial test.
Why would anyone reasonably argue with that? Is anyone maintaining, for instance, that every single business or personal issue that the editors and moderator and other staff experience should be hashed out in public? Please. I love these guys, but I think they expose just enough of themselves to be interesting, without becoming a reality TV show, Paris Hilton, or, god forbid, Gawker or Valleywag.
A few years ago, a prominent blogger who I will not name due to internal (in my head) policy called me up and screamed at me for an hour. I respected this blogger, and thus let him or her scream at me. My partner of several years at that point, listening in another room, said, “I have never heard you speak to another human being this way.” And it’s true: no one else could provoke like he or she could.
Part of the screaming was about something I had written on my not-very-visited personal blog. I made the decision to “unpublish” this blogger. I went through and removed the blogger’s name from every single post that had mentioned him or her, which wasn’t substantial, but it was enough. I deleted a post or two, too. I know that the Wayback Machine may have them, but I chose to no longer be engaged with this person. Since then, I have not interacted with them or written about them, and life is, in fact, better. (They tried to follow me on Twitter for unknown reasons recently, and I blocked them. Not from spite, but from a policy consideration of non-engagement.)
It seems to me that my position with a few hundred daily visitors to my own blog is the same as BB’s with ostensibly millions of visitors a day. There’s this expectation that BB is a site for record for interesting stuff (it is not), that it is inviolate (it is not), and that the folks who run it must bend to the will of the audience (they do not). Bully for them.
My final disclosure: I am somewhere between friend and acquaintance to most of the BBers, and have benefited many times from the traffic flow that BB brings to things they find of interest. But that doesn’t mean I’m a toady. If the circumstances had been different — if they’d engaged in a campaign against VB, if they had an agenda that this was part of — I’d certainly be concerned and probably publicly critical.
Oddly, the BoingBoing stuff is something as close to what we need from political leaders: their agendas are not close to the vest; they’re on their sleeve, and on their blog.
By now I’ve read through all the comments up to this writing. Those who don’t mind the deletion have a couple of ways of framing the issue so that they are OK with it:
1.
I like BoingBoing so much that I don’t care, just keep posting links to more material objects that I might find interesting; or,
2.
They have a right to do it because they own the site; or
3.
It’s all on some internet archive somewhere so it can still be found and therefore doesn’t matter.
Oh yeah, there was one mandarinish moonling who went to great lengths to explain that it was ok because precedent had already been set and there had been no outcry. Unfortunately, he did not site such precedent, and I, for one, was certainly not aware of any prior, wholesale deletions, and had I been, there certainly would have been an outcry from at least one person.
I see none of these as valid because they do not address the fundamental issue at stake here which has to do with integrity, honour and principle. These are the only things that really matter, and are the only things which, heretofore have made this a great site. It is the foundation upon which everything else rests.
To what standards, if any, does BoingBoing hold itself accountable? Why should we trust you, BoingBoing? When you call others out for doing such things, please explain how this is not hypocrisy of the lowest sort? For the love of god please explain this!
I plead with you one last time to restore your honour and republish the deleted posts. I really want to keep liking you. What is that Google expression? “Don’t be corporate” or something to that affect? Please, please, please.
#51. If you’re going to read one comment in this entire thread, make it that one.
Is there anything less interesting than a blog war? Perhaps after this we can all start worrying about that birthday card that Cory didn’t send that one time, four years ago. Or the plant that was neglected by Xeni. It’s dead now, I hear! And I remember the time Teresa didn’t do the dishes, I mean, that was bad. She totally promised to! And don’t get me started on those other guys.
But first let’s all watch paint dry.
@149
“Yes, it could have been handled better initially, but it was handled and now, instead of doing any sort of cover-up and being defensive about it we’re getting a dialogue. ”
No, we aren’t.
BB has, thus far, not explained what they mean when they say “Violet behaved in a way that made us reconsider whether we wanted to lend her any credibility or associate with her.”
This whole uproar, by the way, reminds me of something in a Websnark post a couple of years ago. (Text-find on “Don’t try to rewrite history” to get to the relevant bit.)
“Let’s suppose Joe R. Blogger writes a wonderful post.”
Why? Xeni said: “This person never “posted” items to BB, they were not an author or a guest blogger.
SO, aside from those who misunderstand the actions at hand, what’s the big deal here? Someone here wanted to stop giving free publicity to someone else, for some reason.
Is that not their prerogative?
As one of the “unpublished” on this forum at the hands of TNH, for a post where I declared that, for the most part, the boing boing party was over, I can’t say I’m surprised at all of this. Well, there’s one aspect of the story that does surprise me: how ham-fisted the handling of the whole debacle has been, given the storied media-savviness the BB gang. Really, it’s like brand suicide.
Forget Nuked the Fridge, Violet Blue is the new Jumped the Shark.
I am curious as to what boing boing may do in the future when a similar case might present itself. If say, Loren Coleman begins talking about aliens as a previously undiscovered species, and then joins the Raelians, will you guys follow the same modus operandi? Clearly trying to do it “quietly” didn’t work in the end (although it appears to have worked for about a year), so will you contact the person in mind and tell them what you are about to do and why? Or is that just going to make the soon-to-be-unpublished party angrier?
“Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.”
–Randall Patrick MacMurphy (One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest)
You know, all the arguments about whose blog it is and editorial privilege really don’t have a thing to do with the credibility problem.
Yeah, sometimes people don’t behave the way you like, and yeah, sometimes you disagree with them so much that you have to distance yourself from them, but to do so in a secretive way, and to do so retroactively – especially when one of the key attributes of your blog is supposedly its openness – well that is going to raise a lot of eyebrows. Why are you acting so surprised by this?
Over on my Livejournal account I’ve had quite a few friendships dissolve, but not once would I have considered going back through all the old posts and removing anything that mentioned these people. The history of the blog is just that, a history, and changing that history, regardless of what term you choose for it, is going to call your credibility into question.
I just had a thought – This reminds me of Robert Rauschenberg’s erasing of a drawing by Willem de Kooning. Art is Art, whether you like it or not. And BoingBoing is Art.
Yes this is a private site and there are owners who have full control about what goes into it, what gets taken out of it, and who gets to write for it. But there is a flipside to this. This private site is sending and transmitting its content to the public. As a member of this viewing public, I have the right to use the means made available by BB to question a decision and ask whether an explanation can be forthcoming about that decision. I am not making a constitutional play for free speech here. I am asking person to bloggers for a clarification that would remove the suspicious of malfeasance on BB’s part for what looks to me like a bad move.
What was it about all the past work that lost merit?
How can you tease the public about “something happened” and then simply presume to not explain it? Do you believe that a complete absence of suspicion is the way we should live with each other? I believe a system works because there is a built in amount of distrust and that is why transparency is so helpful in keeping everyone on the same page.
The longer you hide, the worse this is going to get.
To what standards, if any, does BoingBoing hold itself accountable?
FIRST, READ THE POST. Then, follow this link from within the post.
http://www.boingboing.net/policies.html
Why do people with “Moderator” after their name often come across so negatively? It is the moderator’s role to be “the cop” but, especially on a site like Boing Boing, can’t this cop be one of the cool ones? The sort that can maintain order but still hold your respect? They are a rare breed but they do exist.
I say this because of the tone of things like “…you haven’t been a very careful reader. Go back and try again.” and “It was a group decision. Why do you think it took so long?” and “I expect she’ll survive it.” I realize some of you will disagree with me on this but I read that and my mental hackles start to go up (even though I have nothing to do with the commenters they are directed at). It comes across as… ack, what’s the best way to put this… chippy, maybe? There’s just a touch of “in your face” to it and I don’t like it. Boing Boing is “us” to me and I don’t want the folks I hang with to be jerks.
Now for the constructive element of my comment. Perhaps saying “It was a group decision, thus the delay” or to express your annoyance “It was a group decision. Have some patience.” would have sounded better? Rather than “…you haven’t been a very careful reader. Go back and try again.” try “You missed our point. Read the previous comments again.” I have no clue as to why you all are unhappy with the individual whose articles are at the heart of this issue but rather than the snide “she’ll survive it” maybe just leave that out? Since I don’t know what the issue is YOU are the one that comes across negatively when you make statements like that.
I’m just sayin’.
@ill lich, yeah I think we probably won’t do this again, even if the reasons were as strong and unusual as they were in this case. This was too much of a pain in the ass. We are living and learning.
I was unaware of this until TNH’s post this afternoon. I was curious enough to spend 10 minutes Googling the issue. All I found out in the Blogosphere was a lot of people speculating about what transpired between some other people to make them stop relating to one another in a certain way. That was 10 minutes wasted.
I do have a contribution to this comments thread, though:
IDCSESU
The crux of this problem is people seem to be confusing editorial work with fact-based journalism.
BoingBoing removed editorial content. The same facts available in those posts are still available at various places online.
Comparing BoingBoing to the government’s concealment of data available nowhere else is not only stupid but silly: nowhere have facts been destroyed or claimed to have never existed.
Editorial positions change. Internet publishing allows those changes to be made in real time rather than having to post “Letter from our President”-esque aplogies that many of you think should have been made here.
Many say that as a personal blog, no such apology is necessary. To wit: if you disagree with editorial content, you may go elswhere to find “wonderful things.” But when an editorial decision is made without notice of any kind? Well, then it becomes obvious why people are frustrated, as their ability to make an informed choice about the media they consume has been taken from them.
I do not think a changelog for the website is the answer to this problem. I do not even know if it can be classified as a “problem” per se. What I do know is that this discussion, when properly framed and stripped of attacks and defenses based on the “personal” nature of the issue, is more important than most seem to realize.
#163 Really, it’s like brand suicide.
As someone with no dog in the fight, I’ll listen to your words very closely and then refer to my comment #83 above: “Don’t give an anklebiter the ladder they need to reach your knees.”
Welcome to BoingBoing Gossip Central. You never should have explained that there is a secret reason why you “unpublished” her. You should either come clean with it, or “unpublish” this article and never mention it again.
BTW – I’ve been reading this blog for a while and have NO IDEA who this Violet Blue character is. If you had never brought it up, I still would never have know. I suspect by tomorrow, I will have forgotten.
This private site is sending and transmitting its content to the public
No, this is a website you REQUEST using http.
While I ultimately agree with BB’s arguments from ownership, this whole thing stinks:
* The refusal to even write VB’s name, referring to her as “this person”…
* Failure to acknowledge the changes without being “forced” to by the shitstorm…
* the use of “unpublishing” to keep from saying anything was deleted or censored…
I know BB doesn’t need to meet journalistic standards, but this whole affair really points to the fact that BB is really just a promotion machine… cross us, and you can’t participate in the publicity.
Who is Violet Blue and why should I care?
This is not a government site and whoever pays the hosting bills and/or owns the site can remove whatever material they see fit — without owing anybody an explanation.
One time, before the War/Occupation/Shock and Awe broke out, I saw a commercial for the “Dr. Phil Show” in which the “psychologist” was saying that we should support the war. I went on the Dr. Phil message board and wrote a long rant about how bad Dr. Phil’s reasoning was. I actually signed my real name.
That was many years ago but now anyone who Googles me probably gets the impression that I am some kind of Dr. Phil fan as my name comes up in relation to the message board. I am sure this will hurt my career opportunities as well as my street cred.
Oh well. Sometimes we just have to live with the lame things we do online in the public eye.
At least I have proof that I have always been against this stupid War in Iraq.
I am dumbfounded at the outrage and shouts of censorship. Seriously? It’s a blog, people. If Violet Blue wants to say something, she has her own blog. And a newspaper column.
On the other hand, I’d expect the BBers of all people to know that removing stuff is an act that gets noticed. I share your distaste for needless drama, but I hope you folks have learned that making content disappear doesn’t get you there. And also that being open and forthright is harder than it looks from a distance.
#160 – Sums it up rather nicely !!
BB has, thus far, not explained what they mean when they say “Violet behaved in a way that made us reconsider whether we wanted to lend her any credibility or associate with her.”
Oh BB fer chrissakes!! I never noticed this VB issue until you posted it!! Now, if you have brought it to the fore at least have the friggin b*lls to deal with it!! Show some SPINE.
@pyros: speak for yourself, do not speak for me. from my perspective there has been no breach of integrity. you can disagree but that does not invalidate my perspective. the “three reasons” you cite from “us” are perfectly valid. i understand that you disagree, but i don’t read boingboing for violet blue, i read it for boingboing, and you have not been denied access to violet blue, as the waybackmachine and her own blog are uncompromised. what is the big deal ? it’s what they want it to be, not what you want it to be. start yr own blog, mate. i’ll read it eagerly if it’s as entertaining as boingboing. save the drama for obama!
none of the protesters have yet addresses the issue (and probability) that there may have been liability issues.
Reminds me of when ESPN disappeared Gregg Easterbrook’s Tuesday morning Quarterback column in 2003 for making anti-semitic remarks (involving corporate parent company CEO Michael Eisner) in a blog on another site. Nearly instantly, they not only dropped the column, but completely erased it from the archives. For a short time, some dangling links were left on the site, but they were soon excised. As far as I know, there was no public acknowledgment on espn.com of what had happened – there was no way to discern from their site that TMQ had ever existed. Easterbrook went and wrote his column on NFL.com for a couple of years, and then came back to ESPN, and now his archives are back again, even including those before he had disappeared. What was weird about the whole thing was that you find find the news on lots of other sites, and blogs were discussing the controversy (though they weren’t as widespread five whole years ago), but ESPN wouldn’t touch it.
It’s the lack of transparency, and the attempt at changing history, that’s disturbing. ESPN had the “right” to do this on their site as well; that doesn’t make it right.
BB jumped the shark.
As several other people have pointed out, “unpublishing” something (because you don’t want to pay to host it any more) breaks all the inbound links to that content. Doing so, and defending the behavior, reveals a philosophy of the internet that is sharply at odds with Boing Boing’s public values.
Is the internet just a series of documents, owned by the people who host them? Or is it something more? Is there “value added” to be found in the construct as a whole, consisting of the documents and the links that link them together?
To delete (or “unpublish”) stuff on a popular site is to break inbound links. It does damage to the broader internet, damage to the part that you don’t own. Everybody who loves the web because of its links and connections is going to question that sort of behavior.
I love the web. I imagine and believe that the Boingers love the web. And I’m really really surprised and disappointed to be hearing this “we don’t want to pay to host it” justification for breaking bits of it.
Hosting a document on a server (a document one owns and has the power to remove) supports the creation of a larger and more fragile construct of links in connection with that document. One does not own that larger construct, but one has the power to destroy it at any time. It’s reasonable, I think, for people who love the internet to refrain from such acts of destruction whenever they can. If they cannot refrain, it’s reasonable for other people to wonder why not, and to ask, and to criticize if answers are not forthcoming. Which is what I see happening here.
I really really really did not expect to find Boing Boing breaking inbound links and then pretending that such acts of destruction are of no consequence.
We didn’t attempt to silence Violet. We unpublished our own work.
“In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of the political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. [emph. added] Defenceless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them.”
– G. Orwell, Politics and the English Language
Now, granted, we’re not dealing with a Stalinist purge here. But on some level, all actions are political: the imposition of the will of the group upon an individual. Your choice of language used to describe the removal of Violet’s work and of any comments referring to her seems oddly hypocritical for a site with an editorial bent that rails so strongly against censorship. The way this was handled definitely seems to have left your site with a self-inflicted, and perhaps even deserved black eye.
I think this thread simply proves that what BoingBoing did was irrelavant, and that pyromaniacs with gas cans and tinfoil hats will find a conspiracy anywhere and throw fuel on it.
The only difference is that probably few other places other than BoingBoing would actually put up with this level of complete bullshit from it’s own commenters.
So, every post by one of you nutjobs in a tinfoil hat, every post by some pyro trying to find anything at all that will burn, all your comments are doing is proving how insane you really are.
If half of what you said about BoingBoing was true, this thread wouldn’t exist at all.
I’m hoping it has something to do with Little Brother, cause seriously, i can’t get enough Little Brother.
Reminds me of when ESPN disappeared Gregg Easterbrook’s Tuesday morning Quarterback column in 2003 for making anti-semitic remarks (involving corporate parent company CEO Michael Eisner) in a blog on another site.
Except of course it’s entirely unlike that. GE was a poster there, or had posted, or was supposed to.
That does not appear to be accurate in the VB instance.
NEXT!
Boingboing, thanks for taking the high road and not spewing the private reason out in defense. Stay classy.
bngbng scks!
… prmptvly dsmvlld t sv y gys th trbl.
Where I lose the plot is that these posts (and comments referencing them?) disappeared a year ago and only now does anyone notice. And in that time, no one thought of a way to communicate that to the teeming millions? Or that it needed to be presented in a favorable way? Does that seem believable?
And who will be embarrassed by the facts of the matter coming out? Violet Blue? One of the BB crew? It looks to me like the only ones to feel embarrassed are the boingers, for doing something that seems counter to their public personae and for failing to defend their decision convincingly. Like it or not, you have an audience and they have some expectations. As noted elsewhere, it will be hard to take you all seriously on issues of transparency after this, trivial as it may seem now. I realize BB is not the anyone’s government of public utility and has no legal obligations to be open, but I suspect a lot of BB’s readers have expectations beyond the merely legal.
Add me to the list of the perplexed, and also the list of those who feel it’s somehow… unseemly.
Yes, BB is a private blog. No it’s not the NYT. No they haven’t formally subscribed to a code of conduct. Yes, the hyperbole of “first amendment” “1984” and “unpersons” is way over the top.
But still it just seems … skeevy, distasteful and incongruous for BB to do something like this.
Pedant @#186 – Your choice of language used to describe the removal of Violet’s work and of any comments referring to her seems oddly hypocritical for a site with an editorial bent that rails so strongly against censorship.
They removed their own work.
No work of VB was removed as far as I can tell, just some free publicity for VB, the privilege of which they no longer wanted to extend.
@186: we’re not dealing with a Stalinist purge here. But
But? Are you fricken kidding me? We’re not dealing with a Stalinist purge here but??????
You talk about “choice of language” after a little gem like that?
The “paying to host it” doesn’t hold, you are making money on advertisements on all of these articles.
I can understand that you may have ‘personal’ and ‘private’ reasons for doing these things, but have you told Violet why you’ve done this? She still claims to be in the dark.
I think she’s a B anyhow.
To the commenters who belabor comparisons of this matter with Nineteen Eighty-Four, or insist that they need need need to know what VB did, may I suggest that you strive to get over yourselves. The former displays a stunning lack of reading comprehension, and the latter is mere gossip-trolling.
Come on, admit it, you are finally victims of your own success !!
Tomorrow is another day. See ya!
#198 for the win.
I have had my mentiond on BB deleted as well. Not over a disagreement or web-(bum)-fight or anything. I think our project just got stale after a while (and we had our own drama). http://www.WiFiMaps.com
Am I upset? No. I miss the linkage, though. I still visit BB and jump into the fray wit ch’all.
What to do? I’ve experienced similar situations, where providing links to someone is a good idea at first, and then some drama occurs where doing someone a favor (like linkage, article, etc) is no longer a good idea. What to do?
Just my tiny opinion:
I’m glad to finally hear something from BoingBoing’s side but now I’m just more confused than ever. And sad. I love BoingBoing. I really like Violet Blue. I respect both. To see these two entities taking a stance that’s any less than cooperative really boggles my mind. Why must two sites I really like be against each other? What could Violet have done to get deleted by BoingBoing? I didn’t know that anyone could do anything (besides incessant spamming and trolling) to get totally deleted like that. I totally respect BB’s right to do what they choose on their own blog and I can understand the urge to keep certain things quiet, but now there are even more questions and the silence seems suspicious. Was the issue that original caused her posts to be taken down really worth all this bad publicity and animosity now? I’ve previously agreed with all of BoingBoing’s policies, but now I’m not so sure. In the past few days I’ve seen several different blogs comment on this situation and they all make BoingBoing out to be the bad guy. I really don’t want to believe that, but without more information what am I to believe? Maybe there are issues you don’t want to reveal, but if you have a valid reason and don’t reveal it, it appears as if you have no reason at all.
I still love BoingBoing and I’m not trying to be over critical. I’m just really confused and hurt. It’s like two good friends are fighting and I can’t hang out with both of them because they refuse to be in the same room together. I know that’s not literally true, but that’s what it feels like. I don’t know what’s going on, I don’t know who to side with, and I really just don’t want to have to choose in the first place.
I can’t wade through all the comments, but I figured I’ve been a BB fan since it was in print, so I might as well join the hoards trying to boil the ocean. IBTL!
1. Censorship it’s not.
2. Yes, BBfolk can do whatever they want with the site.
3. Just because something is not censorship and because BBfolk can do whatever they want with the site doesn’t mean an action should be shielded from criticism.
IMO, unpublishing blog posts, unless the posts presented unwarranted legal exposure, is antithetical to the Spirit of Blog. (If there is such a thing.)
Someone way up there in this thread said that having a link constituted endorsement and removing the link was a way to retract endorsement.
That’s akin to the fundies who think that if the government legalizes something, they’re endorsing it.
But here’s what this reveals, and why the Spirit of Blog is B.S.:
1. Everyone’s petty.
2. Everyone’s out to create and maintain their reputations, if not make a buck.
3. No one is immune to this.
4. Everyone’s shocked when these truths are revealed.
No, BB is not a wonderful happy place of idealism and extended virtual family.
It’s run by people promoting themselves and their ideas, and if they believe those ends are best suited by deleting old posts, they’ll delete them.
Nothing hating in what I said — I do think that the reaction here does indicate that maybe the BBfolk should ask — are we a business that generates traffic and ad revenue? Are we a community forum? How are we different from other nifty-cool sites? How do we want to interact with our readers? Are our readers our customers or our product?
-W-
Anytime anybody says anything and takes it back, or recalls a memory with a bit of fluff, or withholds facts about what they did with their girlfriend last night, I’m gonna call them a First Amendment Hater, a lover of Censorship, and make those all so creative references to BigBrother.
@ Boingboing: Handled poorly, but right.
Has anyone here ever read a book that wasn’t written by George Orwell? You know there are other books, right?
Like “Everybody Poops”
Thanks for the update, it’s appreciated.
@196: I can understand that you may have ‘personal’ and ‘private’ reasons for doing these things, but have you told Violet why you’ve done this? She still claims to be in the dark.
Do you honestly care? Or are you looking for something flammable to keep this bonfire going?
To say BB “removed their own work” when they “unpublished” Violet Blue’s words is the kind of spin job of the highest caliber. I salute BB’s resolve in keeping the peasants at bay. After all, a private entity run by very astute individuals owes no explanation to the masses. I admire the jackhammering logo of BB as a true symbol of strength as we continue to make this world wonderful by destroying and erasing away those who refuse to conform with our wonderful goals.
You talk about “choice of language” after a little gem like that?
If you can try to extrapolate from the larger point Orwell was making, then it’s clear that using the terms “unpublishing” and “own work” as euphemisms for the censorship that appears to have taken place is troubling for a site that claims to be against censorship. Indeed, that such terms were used would seem to indicate a level of discomfort with the act of deleting material of VB and others who referred to her — why use doublespeak, if there is nothing wrong with deleting the material in question?
Stay classy, Boing Boing!
Whatever it is she did to piss off the Boing Boing crew, Boing Boing is well within reason to remove references to her on their site. It’s not even remotely censorship.
A link from Boing Boing is a big deal. It’s a major site and it probably does wonders for your Google PageRank, which means your page is relevant, which in turn drives traffic and money to you.
If she did something so egregious as to piss off BB this badly, there’s no reason she should continue to reap the (very real) benefits of links from this site.
That said, I’m really, really curious to know what went down.
I’ve followed this drama on MF, Fimoculous, Violet Blue’s site, etc. In fact, it seems like the kind of story one might find on Boing Boing if the players were different.
I’ve always loved BB, been a faithful reader since 2000. I find it pretty disappointing that the site’s overseerers have chosen the path that you have. I’ve just come to expect more.
No doubt there are other blogging colleagues that were once part of your world (and archives) but who are now, for some transgression or another, persona non grata. Which is fine, normal, human, etc. But we the readers didn’t need to know about it, and life moves on for all concerned.
The way the Violet Blue association ended seems like needless character assassination, while long time readers are left with only an insinuation.
Weak sauce. It all seems very sneaky yet heavy handed, aloof yet exceedingly self righteous, and willfully obtuse in regards to your readers’ rightful confusion when looking back at Boing Boing’s long tradition of anti-censorship and free information.
I’ve quietly applauded as your collective work became more popular, more lucrative, more prominent. It feels now that your success has made you out of touch.
@185: AFAIK, the difference between unpublishing and deleting is that, when something is unpublished, inbound links are not broken. Unpublishing leaves the content intact, but merely removes it from public indices; external pages linking to it can still reach it.
Certainly it is within the moral rights of the happy mutants that publish this fine blog to retract things they no longer support.
Certainly it is in good taste to avoid embarrassing someone in parting ways with them.
Alas, these two have just now proven themselves somewhat mutually incompatible. Perhaps it might have been preferable to replace the “unpublished” posts with something like:
“We’ve unfortunately had some major disagreements lately with sex blogger Violet Blue and decided that it’s best if we remove our old posts about her. Out of respect to her, we won’t go into details about it.”
bb staff have obviously made the decision to not share what happened because they don’t want to feed the fire anymore. As they said: they didn’t start the fire, but they did make it possible. Were they to go public with their reasons, they would be throwing gasoline on the flames and assume more of the liability for the fire.
Theoretically, this whole blogfight could give someone who has lost a large source of their income (by insulting on some level the person/people who are responsible for diverting traffic to that person’s front door) a boost in traffic. Anything that fuels the fire would drive more traffic, so throwing another log on would be counter to the original move of removing all of VB’s posts.
The sense of entitlement by some of those commenting is ghastly. It’s been my experience that people like this are not creators or risk-takers, just self-involved windbags.
Hi folks,
Just curious whether this is the first time you’ve tried this trick. Are there are any other former community members you’ve tried “the silent treatment” on?
Is this generally a reliable way of removing someone from your community? It’s very “Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom” — one can almost imagine the BoingBoing editorial staff mentally ticking down Ms. Blue’s Whuffie.
It looks like this is the first time that this approach has failed, by earning the target _more_ public exposure from prominent places like the LA Times blogs and Romenesko, in what another commenter mentioned is commonly called the “Streisand effect.” But is it the first time that you’ve done this? Or just the first time you’ve been called out?
Just curious.
Trying to figure out what VB did a year ago that would cause BB to dump their association with her.
In October she sued a porn star using the same name. But that’s not a year ago. (That same month she opened a DRM-free sex bookstore, seemingly a BB-pro thing.)
My GReader search finds that VB was last name-dropped on BB on 7-29-07, about N De Samim, a lingerie website. (‘course, it ain’t in the BB archive now.)
The snowball has started rolling, guys, all the disemvowellment and “unpublishing” in the world won’t stop it.
Geeze, all this fuss over some censorship.
1. It is censorship, it’s just not [i]Government[/i] censorship.
2. Of course it’s BB’s right to pull this stuff.
3. Yes, it does make them look hypocritical, and it harms their believability on future articles about censorship as well.
4. Of course we want to know why this happened, by making it all secret and stuff that just piques our curiousity. But we don’t have the right to know, and it’s probably impolite of BB to say, since it’s pretty clearly a personal issue rather than a philosophical difference of opinion.
Sooooo . . .. I will hereby reveal the TRUTH behind why BB did this.
You see, a while back VB and Xeni had a thing going, but VB turned around and slept with Cory behind Xeni’s back, which irked several people. Add to that the videotape that Mark and David made, and threatened to send to Teresa, and things started to get really hectic. VB decided she really didn’t want to get involved a Quintangle, which doesn’t sound much like her, but hey, and asked to have the video deleted. Unfortunately it had already been sent to Teresa, who discovered that the only way to not have the video get posted to teh intarwebz was to delete all references to VB’s blog.
There, now does it all make sense?
-abs, thinks that sigs aren’t nearly as offensive after hearing about this. So how ’bout letting me sign off with “-abs” instead of making me turn a four-character sig into a full-fledged production running sentences, if not paragraphs, in length and distracting everyone from my wonderful explanation of what really happened here?
I’m not surprised that there’s a controversy over someone being de-listed and unlinkified from BB. I’m astonished that this appears to be the first significant case of it. Considering the large volume of material presented here 7 days a week for years, it would be remarkable if some material and links didn’t subsequently become inappropriate for some reason.
Sean Eric Fagan @23:
Gad! Just like every other website that removes material! What a strange and inexplicable act on our part!
In fact, almost all active websites remove material. I’m sorry to have to say this about anything having to do with Boing Boing, but it’s dead normal.
And how much hardship did the disappearance of those hypothetical links create for readers? By my reckoning there can’t have been much of it, given that the entries have been gone for more than a year, and no one remarked it until VB kicked up this fuss.
Maybe that’s why she did it: she was tired of waiting to see whether anyone else would notice.
Oh, come off it. Dramatize yourself on your own time.
It would be very easy to configure this site so it’s not archived by the Wayback Machine. It would be even easier to not provide a link to the Boing Boing archives there — which, you’ll note, we just did. If this is a cover-up and/or conspiracy, it’s so devilishly sly that you don’t stand a chance against it, no matter how much you try to warn the rest of the world.
Kiss your ass goodbye, Sean Eric Fagan. You may struggle, but our eldritch powers shall prevail, subtly reworking the very fabric of space/time itself in order to make you look like nothing more than a person who sometimes posts foolish comments in weblogs.
the jackhammering logo of BB as a true symbol of strength as we continue to make this world wonderful by destroying and erasing away those who refuse to conform with our wonderful goals
he said on BB’s very own blog, the words of which haven’t been erased.
Yeah, you’re a real rebel, you are. Fighting a blog that lets you point out how it “destroys and erases” anything that doesn’t conform on it’s very own blog that for some strange reason doesn’t destroy or erase your comments
Take the tinfoil hat off, put the gasoline away, and go take a nap. Come back tomorrow. You’re post will still be here.
Which reminds me, I heard once that the reason that people generally throw red paint on people who wear fur, is because they know if they throw red paint on people who wear leather that the odds of getting the crap beat out of them goes up astronomically.
You just threw red paint on someone wearing fake fur, the absolute dumbest and the aboslutely easiest fight anyone could take on.
@205: “Has anyone here ever read a book that wasn’t written by George Orwell? You know there are other books, right?”
There are no other books. We have always been reading George Orwell.
This is disgusting. Yes, you have the right to put up whatever you want, and delete it later. But I’m really unhappy to see Boing Boing fall back on “it’s ours, we can do whatever we want” excuse. It’s an EXTREMELY un-BoingBoing way to resolve a conflict.
Also, remember you’re having a CONVERSATION here. We as users provide your content too. When it comes to “rights” we should have some interest in what goes on here as well, even if we are just lowly commenters.
To me it looks like you invited the Violet Blue person onto your website, and then, after some mysterious falling-out, decided to scrub her presence. That’s sick and wrong. You’re rewriting history.
That’s the thing; you’re not just “unpublishing” your property, as you so disingenuously claim. You are only rewriting one small portion of that property, in order to remove contributions that you were once happy to accept.
That’s not all right with me.
The irony is you are drawing attention to the very thing you’re trying to hide. How Nixonian.
To #160 #167 and #180 and others who want to know what “Violet behaved in a way that made us reconsider whether we wanted to lend her any credibility or associate with her.” means I think you’re going to have to remain unsatisfied, because I can’t see that BB going into detail about what that behavior was, and why it caused them to reconsider their collective relationship with Ms. Blue, would do anyone any good. To many who are already convinced that the unpublishing was a mistake, whatever the reason is not going to be enough for them. And to the rest of the world, it’s simply going to be gossip. I think BB is (and, perhaps slightly clumsily, has been all along) trying to exercise a degree of decorum here. Hell, I’m as curious as anyone else — that’s why I’m here in the gapers block, but I have the self-awareness that my curiosity doesn’t trump other people’s private affairs.
Araaaaagh! This action doesn’t change my view of boingboing in the least (I still like BB). I just wish I knew what the dang controversy was! I googled “Violet Blue Controversy” and the best I got was her asking steve jobs for a photo.
And I just read through all 166 comments (okay skimmed most) hoping to find some answers. This is doubly driving me nuts, because I don’t actually care that much about her, but now there is a mystery surrounding her. If anything, thier choice to remove and adress their decision to do so has resulted in more publicity for her.
HAHAHAHAHA!
The internet is serious business.
Go back to your LOLcats everyone. That’s why the internet was invented.
#207 – No, I just figure she’d tell the reason where BB won’t. And damn I’m curious!
@208
I read “removed their own work” to mean that they removed articles that they wrote about VB – not that they removed articles or posts written by VB.
How would this be a “spin job”? If I wrote an article about the nation of Spain, and then removed that article from my website, how could this be construed as anything but removing my own work?
she’s silly, well done
Unpublishing a web page THEN telling a potentially interested party where else you can find it is exactly what Orwell was warning us about.
This sort of food-fight is so much worse than publishing the name of a CIA operative or printing showing photographs of soldier’s caskets.
@ACB: No, as Joel Johnson said somewhere above, “unpublishing” refers to making the material private, not longer link-able from the public web (but not deleting it from the CMS database).
buh-bye!
“Violet behaved in a way that made us reconsider whether we wanted to lend her any credibility or associate with her.”
Hmmm I don’t think this was a good marketing move because at this point I think Violet could be replaced with Boing Boing.
This doesn’t feel transparent. This doesn’t feel open. This doesn’t feel good in anyway.
As much as you think you did the right thing it doesn’t feel right.
As much as you think it’s not a big deal – we are talking about it away from Boing Boing and the key word being “away”.
Sometimes we create our own drama hope this isn’t the vibration/vision/intention Boing Boing is moving towards. As we can all see it wouldn’t be a healthy choice since well it already backfired.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/webscout/2008/06/violet-blue-scr.html
I love how in that picture she looks about to purge.
Save the drama for Obama!
What was this awful thing that ms. Blue did to deserve banishment from the tribe?
If anything, the silence makes me suspect that it must have been a gigantic transgression. Blue must be the most evil person on earth to shake the BB leadership to not just shun her but erase her entire existence as part of BB. When will we start burning her in effigy and declare a jihad on her and add her to the list below “Salman Rushdie”?
If you love your country, or BB, then don’t question “why”, simply accept the wisdom of the leadership and trust that they are doing everything in your interest and not at all to cover their asses.
I’m guessing somebody slept with somebody they shouldn’t have.
punish!
delete!
“There are no other books. We have always been reading George Orwell.”
If you go to Z’ha’dum, you will die.
Wow, just in sheer procrastination from doing what I should actually be doing, I just looked up Teresa Nielsen Hayden on the Wikipedia.
I grew up in Mesa, Arizona too! Not only that but from 4th grade to 12th grade I was Mormon! And now I could not be more not-Mormon!
Mesa was so small in those days that I really must have, at some point in my life, actually *seen* to corporeal Teresa Nielsen Hayden – at Tri-City Mall or Smitty’s or TG&Y or the U’Totem, or Starship Fantasy, or Revco, or A.J. Bayless, or, later Fiesta Mall — not that I only hung out in stores and video game places (although they *were* air-conditioned), just that those are things with public names; and not like “Leslie’s House” or “DeWitt Stables”.
Weird.
Wow, you know, I kind of really don’t care.
Carry on.
@134
Right back atcha, TillWe.
The Happy Mutants handled this business very poorly, but growing organisations (especially those that travel the road from amateur to professional) always make mistakes along the way. The ones that survive are the ones that learn from their cock-ups and build credibility.
As I understand it, Ms. Nielsen Hayden was brought in as an expert to help develop some solid community policies in concert with BB’s existing core values, and she (and the site’s owners) are open to listening and making improvements. As long as they follow through, that kind of responsiveness and humility puts the BBers far ahead of the media pack.
Then again…
@222: “In fact, almost all active websites remove material. I’m sorry to have to say this about anything having to do with Boing Boing, but it’s dead normal.”
Professional Web sites provide, at the very least, manual or automated re-directs from the “unpublished” URIs to a generic page explaining that the material is no longer available due to such-and-such a policy. At least, they do so if they want to maintain credibility as professionals. Pointing out the fact that other Webmasters are lazy about something isn’t exactly an excuse, especially when the volume of unpublished links was relatively small, and the resulting broken links were deliberate rather than the artifact of an over-priced CMS.
@172: “The crux of this problem is people seem to be confusing editorial work with fact-based journalism.”
This is really beside the point. You won’t find the NYT or any other credible newspaper purging op-eds and reviews that it regrets publishing (and I’m sure David Brooks alone has been the cause for many regrets at 42nd St) from its archives, either.
Editorial positions and the opinion of the audience do change over time, but only dishonest and insecure content publishers and authors use that as an excuse to quietly erase the past. There are better ways for a site, especially one like Boing Boing, to handle these things.
@210: If you can try to extrapolate from the larger point Orwell was making
Stuff it with this Orwell crap.
Anyone making claims or comparisons so BoingBoing taking down some of its own content to the world that existed in Orwell’s 1984 is clearly someone who is insane, or hasn’t read the book.
@186: we’re not dealing with a Stalinist purge here. But
There is no “but”. We are not dealing with Stalinistic purges here. At all. In any way, shape, or form.
Anyone who brings up stalinistic purges has never been through a stalinistic purge and isn’t dealing with reality.
The linguistic BULLSHIT in this thread is amazing, on the level with “terrorist fist jab” comments, on the level of “Obama’s middle name is Hussein”, on the level of “He went to a madras”.
ANYONE who makes an Orwellian “1984” comment regarding BB taking down it’s own content is doing nothing different than openly pondering what that fist bump was.
And it’s all because what actually happened isn’t very flammable by itself. BB took down some of its content. That doesn’t burn very well. So certain nutjubs and pyros aren’t talking about what actually happened, they’re talking about stalinistic purges and Orwell’s 1984.
Because that can actually keep the bonfire going.
What actually happened was a fist bump, fairly common among younger people. What some morons want to turn it into is a “terrorist fist jab”, which gets a certain segment of the easily excitable population into a tizzy.
1.- make a “Don´t unpublish me BBro!” T-shirt
2.- make Violet and blue versions
3.- PROFIT!
unpublish -> the new Truthiness
“Save the drama for Obama!”
Save pajama for malambo!
(Dali Lama Yokohama!)
(Razor comma mocha grande)
Agent blogateur:
-noun
A blogger who manufactures a controversy in order to boost her sagging Google page rank.
Oh…that explains everything.
I feel better now for caring. :/
g
Ugh. After reading through most of the comments, all I want to do is bang my head on the desk repeatedly.
Y’all crying “CENSORSHIP OH NOES” need to, for one, read up on the term so you understand what it means, and two, take a nice long break from the internet.
There is this thing called “outside” that can be a very pleasant experience. I recommend checking it out.
Having stepped into poop on a number of occasions with my own blog, I understand completely the necessity of removing posts, and of providing explanations as to why they were removed.
Violet Blue has many other venues to express herself in. This drama has only served to increase her online presence. She’s going to be better than ok after this blows over. Nobody needs to worry about her.
For those who find this “EXTREMELY un-BoingBoing,” think about your idea of BoingBoing-ness, and now consider the fact that you are not writing for BoingBoing. That should tell you everything you need to know about the validity of your idea.
Apparently VB never posted anything here, so it’s somehow more valid to “unpublish” references to her. Fine. Whatever. Fewer pages for you to post ads on.
But if one or more of the BBers themselves part company with BB (and the remaining authors) for similar (undisclosed) reasons, would the remaining BBers “unpublish” the work of the departing BBer, in order not to “lend credibility”?
145 posts and not ONE person talks about the serious google juice to be had from lots of BB links?
There wasn’t a way to handle this that wouldn’t offend someone.
For all the drama and chaos and harsh words on both sides, for a lot of us, I think this boils down to “Why are mommy and daddy fighting?” (Adapt to your queer/gay/poly friendly version as you prefer).
Not knowing why things are they way they are only makes it tougher to understand.
Many posters here have argued that blogs (even professional, high-quality blogs, like Boing Boing) are inherently incomparable to “real” media outlets like the NYTimes, and therefore can’t be held to similar standards. These writers are doing blogging a disservice, and in happier times this kind of argument would really be struck down around here as antiquated. Professional blogs are emerging as a new kind of real media outlet serving the public interest, much to the detriment of old media sources like the New York Times. Admittedly, as a very different kind of media source than print journalism, the standards of integrity and appropriate behavior are still being defined, and will necessarily be very different from those designed by print media. But the readers who say that leading blogs shouldn’t hold themselves accountable to the blogosophere or their readers for anything other than their own whims are consigning blogs permanently to the realm of web rants and puppy pictures, when blogs like BoingBoing have already demonstrated their power as a media source and their capacity for social influence and public information.
Certainly, BB is under no obligation to its audience to explain any actions, maintain its archive, or even to post anything on a daily basis. But neither is the New York Times, frankly. NYTimes holds itself to higher standards in order to maintain its reputation as a media outlet in the face of its readers. By allowing a personal battle to rise to a point where it required selective retroactive elimination of all mention of a feuding person, BB really risked damage to its own credibility. The combined reaction this has provoked across the blogosphere is indicative of some transgression of the emerging community standards of the web. If new media sources on the web are supposed to be taken seriously by society as a source of information — and they should — the best blogs on the web will need to maintain similar concern and standards for their integrity, rather than taking the “love it or leave it” attitude that many readers feel is most appropriate for the web.
It’s to the credit of the awesome BB team that they’re addressing the issue head on, and really, since the precedent here is limited it’s not surprising that it happened. But given the site’s prominence on the web, and the impact that it can potentially have as a source of information, it might be wise for them to avoid editing the archives over any personal casus belli in the future, or for the editors to come to an agreement over how to handle such incidents in the future consistently with their principles and the ones they’re championing in public. Like it or not, along with its prominence BoingBoing has become a real media source in the eyes of much of the web, and along with that perception comes the expectation of standards.
I personally read BoingBoing far more than the NYTimes, and frankly, trust it more, precisely because I know the four authors, trust their judgment and where they’re coming from.
I feel pretty sure that if any of the BB staff were likely to have THAT huge a rift with the others, they wouldn’t have wound up BB staff in the first place. So I think that’s a nonissue.
“Unpublishing” previous blog posts is, among other things, a attempt to rewrite history. It stinks.
I don’t think this was about drama or Violet boosting sagging ratings (which I don’t buy anyway) or about who “owns” BoingBoing… this was about holding BB to the same standards that they hold everyone else to. I have seen numerous posts here over the years about Comcast or Microsoft “unpublishing” the work of a dissenter, for example, and the sh-tstorm that BB staff and readers subject them to for it. When BB did the same thing, many of us had to question it.
I love you both, BB and Violet, and don’t want to have to choose one side or the other in a messy divorce.
Satan@238: What was this awful thing that ms. Blue did to deserve banishment from the tribe?
It’s not your decision to make. And you’re now scrambling to find some black hole into which you can insert your grand unified conspiracy theory.
If anything, the silence makes me suspect that it must have been a gigantic transgression.
Something tells me that you always suspect a gigantic transgression is going on somewhere.
Go read about “argument from ignorance” and “God of the Gaps”, take a nap, and come back when you’re feeling less paranoid.
Re #187 “If half of what you said about BoingBoing was true, this thread wouldn’t exist at all.”
Hey, just because this thread exists *now* doesn’t mean it won’t get “unpublished” next week. It’s the right of Boing Boing — a right to remove information (and to remove entire community discussions) now exercised by precedent.
Shall we infer that Boing Boing now felt that all comments and discussions on the removed stories were not credible as well? I ask rhetorically.
And, just because we think Boing Boing wouldn’t do anything *that* evil to the cool people reminds me of the points around the FISA debate — that we shouldn’t place our trust in people, we should trust standards and ideals and put a framework in place that doesn’t rely on the goodwill of those in power.
Is it hyperbole to attribute this must discussion over some insignificant old posts? Maybe — but I guess we’re all insignificant in the big picture and if Boing Boing — or some other blog — were ever “unpublished” in toto by those they pay for hosting. It would just be the loss of an relatively insignificant point-of-view in the massive world, and thus nobody should care.
That’s why I speak out.
Anyone making claims or comparisons so BoingBoing taking down some of its own content to the world that existed in Orwell’s 1984 is clearly someone who is insane, or hasn’t read the book.
You apparently need to do some homework. The quotation I sited was from his essay Politics and the English Language, which was reprinted in the collection Shooting an Elephant and Other Essays. While 1984 is a great work, it is not the only thing he wrote.
Nonetheless, whether or not you’ve read any of George Orwell’s work, the point stands that the language used seems troubling. If you have some disagreement with that, perhaps you could explain how “unpublishing” — as a novel invention in the English language — is not euphemistic, at least. Or perhaps explain how “unpublishing” others’ comments (apparently without explanation, in some cases) is not troublesome for a site that espouses values of free speech.
“And how much hardship did the disappearance of those hypothetical links create for readers? By my reckoning there can’t have been much of it, given that the entries have been gone for more than a year, and no one remarked it until VB kicked up this fuss.
Maybe that’s why she did it: she was tired of waiting to see whether anyone else would notice.”
Seems perfectly natural for VB to ‘kick up a fuss’. Nobody likes to be unpublished. Rex spoke up about the same thing….is he on your shit list too? Is he just trying to get attention?
It’s disappointing that you choose to attempt to minimize the issue, and deflect the blame for this snafu on to VB.
Whatever VB did to incur your wrath, doesn’t excuse your own actions.
Last, if you thought nobody would notice the unpublishing (that term cracks me up, especially considering the tradition of this place), why take the dramatic action in the first place? What was the overriding need to scour all reference to VB from the public?
Frankly, the very concept of unpublishing in this instance, and your insinuating explanations, seem downright petty of the group at large. In the end, it reads to me, “we were trying to be tactful, but that bitch had to bring it up so fuck you all if you can’t take a joke”.
You know, OK. Yeah, it could have been handled better. It wasn’t. Maybe that sucks, maybe BoingBoing isn’t the quite the collection of pure-hearted Internet freedom fighters you hoped they would be.
But you know, there’s a lot of more important shit going on. Maybe we should all devote this energy (apparently an incredible amount of energy) to something a bit more useful.
Just a thought. I’m getting back to my work at a vacuous entertainment company now.
Surely there is no definition of “Freedom of Speech” that does not allow one to take down links that they no longer wish to host. That’s not censorship, that’s freedom of association.
Those who would curtail freedom of speech are those who would object to this.
It’s important to point out that blah dada tao. What’s drama yours is dramamine. These are turbo threads we’re wearing, ya hurd? My fallopian myopian extropian: whack a mole, whack a mole, we all fall down.
#234 –
You won’t find the NYT or any other credible newspaper purging op-eds and reviews that it regrets publishing from its archives, either.
What’s your point?
That this isn’t the NYT?
Here’s a cookie for noticing.
Editorial positions and the opinion of the audience do change over time, but only dishonest and insecure content publishers and authors use that as an excuse to quietly erase the past.
What is erased? There is a link in the post on how to go look the stuff up yourself, elsewhere. Where is the insecurity? the dishonesty?
There are better ways for a site, especially one like Boing Boing, to handle these things.
There are also bigger windmills to be chased.
As much as the whole situation is frustrating and upsetting, I am glad that we did comment and open it up to discussion on our own site.
Let’s see if I can ask this in a way that gets through the moderation queue, since apparently my first try didn’t pass muster:
What do you mean by “exist in our archives”? I can think of at least two posts whose original dates of publication I know and which do not appear in these archives.
Unpublish is the weasel way of saying censorship. You should have kept the posts up and added a rider to them…..
Shame on you BoingBoing, you are just the same as the people you criticize.
I suppose it was inevitable you follow the corporate path of censorship yourself. Where are your beliefs now?
@GREGLONDON: Right on. BoingBoingers: your blog, your rules. Nuff said.
#257, Christopher, said:
“and the sh-tstorm that”
Ho! You accidentally misspelled shitstorm! I don’t want to come off as a pedantic motherfucker or anything. Or piss you off. (etc)
BB’s blog, BB’s rules.
Everyone posting analogeous, hypothetical situations and trying to reason out what the correct thing to do are missing the point.. That’s not what happened. The reasons for the action are unknown to us (incomplete data-set). Your summation is not going to be selected as the new and improved “how we handled it”, so there is no need to further push this situation into the realms of speculation and imagination..
BB have made a statement of their actions and reasons, that’s all there is, that’s all there needs to be. This is a non-issue that blew up for whatever reason, and that is all. Get over it.
Unpublishing is not even REMOTELY about unwriting history. Its about not providing support to someone who has done something you find distasteful. Whether the posts were in the past or not, their existance were still a form of tacit support.
Is that concept really that hard to grasp? REALLY?
removing their own blog posts is in no way, shape or form a violation of the causes BB espouses. Consider it a severing of association. Nothing wrong with that.
Did I miss the part of this post where Boing Boing operatives raided bookstores and burned all of Violet Blue’s books? Where Cory and Xeni took axes to Violet’s servers while David frantically grabbed every article she ever wrote and shredded them? No, well then why don’t we all relax and realize that Boing Boing is a place where a group of interesting people post about things they deem worthwhile and not the NYT or the Post.
Violet Blue has a blog where she can express herself and no one has taken that away from her…why don’t we extend the same courtesy to Boing Boing and let them express themselves the way they want on their blog.
“We hope you’ll respect our choice to keep the reasons behind this private.”
And you’ll be respecting the choices of the United States Government to do the same with their decisions?
Many posters here have argued that blogs (even professional, high-quality blogs, like Boing Boing) are inherently incomparable to “real” media outlets like the NYTimes, and therefore can’t be held to similar standards
No, not “blogs”.
Boing Boing, specifically.
Apples and oranges.
@Talia #249:
Option 1: “Excellent idea! I’ll bring my blackberry so I can continue to comment on internet blogs while outside.”
Option 2: “But when I go outside I get in trouble for arguing with complete strangers…”
Please accept whichever option you feel is funnier. If you think that neither are funny, than I have failed you, and apologize.
thnk tht thy hd t rmv Vlt Bl s tht thy cn hv rm t try t sll mr cps f “Lttl Brthr” — By th 3 DVD Bx St tht nclds th swt f Cry — t wll hl th lm.
Bt srsly, Bng Bng gs hv bn brngng dwn th qlty fr bt yr — sd t b cl plc t s fn stff, nt t s t lst 50% pshng prdcts tht th wnrs r sllng.
Has anyone actually bothered to find the deleted posts on the Wayback Machine? Irony: one of them is about accusations of Google censoring search results, including excising Violet Blue: Google “disappears” sex blogs?. It turns out that it probably wasn’t intentional on Google’s part, and that she hadn’t been “disappeared” but bumped down to 50th place or so.
Also, perhaps “permalink” should be renamed.
259: Hey, just because this thread exists *now* doesn’t mean it won’t get “unpublished” next week.
Argument from ignorance. You’re conspiracy theories are getting really old.
reminds me of the points around the FISA debate — we shouldn’t place our trust in people, we should trust standards and ideals and put a framework in place that doesn’t rely on the goodwill of those in power.
I hate to break this to you, because it means shattering a fantasy world you have in your mind, but, there is no framework that you can put in place around BoingBoing, because it isn’t your blog. The thing about the FISA debate, is that its the American government, which has slightly different constraints than an individual blog.
Governments are better designed having “frameworks” such as separation of powers, transparancy, some form or representative elective process, certain rights for individuals that the state cannot overrule, and so on.
That isn’t how blogs work. There is no “framework” like that for a blog, because, well, a blog isn’t your government.
I’m sorry, but that’s just the way it is.
Just wanted to point out, despite what Teresa and Xeni allege above, that at least one Boing Boing post was written by Violet (although it was technically posted, and probably edited, by Xeni). I’m linking to the WayBack version of the article.
link.
“Also, perhaps “permalink” should be renamed.”
To spermalink. Fitting!
Sorry, I meant to provide the link. (It was missing due to submitter error, not nefarious BB moderators.)
What the hell does removing links off a website have to do with free speech? Did they block Violet from posting on her own damn blog? No. Did they make any attempt to censor any of the other bloggers out there who are wasting time writing about this (Looking at you latimes.com….)? No.
They didn’t even delete the posts, as they said. They unpublished, which means the posts are still saved somewhere, just not for public view. OH MY FREAKING GOD, THE HORROR! Whatever shall we do!? Now I’ll never be able to look up those old Violet Blue posts on–oh wait, right, now I remember: I absolutely don’t give a damn.
Seriously, reading Boing Boing comments is getting to be about as painful as trying to read comments on YouTube. Accusing Boing Boing of Orwellian censorship over this shite is like accusing stores with no shoes/no shirt/no service policies of being Nazis.
“tempolink?”
#274:
hahahah, did you really just compare BoingBoing to the government? *giggles* I had no idea they wielded such power.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
You, of course, have the right to do whatever you want on your blog. But as far as I can tell you’re being very unfair to someone, and it tarnishes your reputation. I respect your right to make this decision. I don’t respect the decision you’ve made.
From Xeni’s comment:
Then why delete all the posts without an explanation? Surely never making any further posts would have been less of a public attack.
@272
“Unpublishing is not even REMOTELY about unwriting history. Its about not providing support to someone who has done something you find distasteful. ”
But what is that “something” that was so distasteful?
In order for me and many other readers to decide if we think this censorship was warranted we need to know what caused it.
I understand that the BB staff wanted to handle this quietly, but clearly that isn’t going to happen.
Tell us why you did this so we can try to understand, and decide for ourselves if we agree with your decision.
No one holds a gun to you head to make you read the site, you know.
Well, as far as I know, anyway. Maybe someone does.
This is a really interesting situation. It reminds me of the Judith Miller portion of the Plame Affair. At the time, I remember being really happy that Miller was being sent to prison, because her writing had often supported the Bush administration who were busy ruining the country at the time. Reflecting back on it recently, I think I had it wrong. The de facto ability journalists in America had to keep their sources confidential was eroded, perhaps beyond repair. In this case I’m wondering what Violet Blue did to provoke this action. I would like boingboing to explain their actions in great detail, however they have no obligation to do so. Therefore, because this information is unavailable the only way I can evaluate the situation is by examining the ethics of redacting one’s own work. Just as I don’t expect Apple to make OSX version 10.4 available for commercial sale once they’ve completed version 10.5, I don’t expect a blog to make it easy to find content from the past that they don’t consider to be their best work.
I think the most interesting thing about this thread is the defensiveness exuded by the mods in both the original post, but especially the comments. That and the seeming surprise that this (this whole thread) would happen – as if they don’t know from seeing this in many, many other sites that battling folks here will do nothing but feed the fire.
I’m used to seeing this from small-time bloggers, businesspeople, or other “regular” folks that suddenly have a sharp spotlight pointed at them, in some kind of conflict that’s hit the Diggs of the ‘net. They tend to overreact. They initially post because they want to do what they can to diffuse the issue or get their “side” of the story out, but eventually succumb to frustration at the various inaccuracies, personal attacks, stupid comments, etc. that seem to be inevitable on a web forum…and lash out in snarky and defensive (or completely unconstructive) ways.
I guess we see the “big” folks give in occasionally, like when Aaron Sorkin decided to have all-night posting battles with trolls on fansites.
Seems like the best thing for the mods would be to either not to read the comments, wait until it blows over once interest has died down…Or, if a response is needed, wait 5 minutes after reading a post to respond. Don’t respond to any post that was inflammatory – someone else has posted a similar point, but in a more thoughtful way. Respond with a lengthy, well-thought out post, and re-read it 3 times.
Not that I’ve ever gone through this =)
Hello Boing Boing Editors,
The post said you’re listening, so here’s what I’d like to say.
I completely agree with your statements that this is your blog and you have every right to do as you wish on it. That’s your right and I’d defend it to the last.
But the notion of removing posts about (not by) a person as a whole just does not sit well with me. The term “unpublishing” is more than a little off-putting. It feels very closed, not the openness I associate with your site. Again emphasis on your.
I like Violet Blue’s work. She’s an excellent, sex-positive/GLBTQ-centered advocate. I don’t know her personally, or much of her personal interactions with the editors of this site. Again, that’s none of my business. I can like the work of Xeni and Joel and Cory and Violet even if they aren’t all on the same path. I don’t have to choose sides, that’s nonsense.
Those of your resurrecting poor Eric Blair to do your arguing for you seem to be very anxious to tar and feather boingboing for crimes against the internet. If you disagree with their decision there are much more elegant ways of voicing that opinion than simply chanting “DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER” or calling everything “newsspeak”. You start to sound like the sheep from “Animal Farm” always at the ready to drown out discussion with handy bleeting.
I interviewed Cory recently for Public Libraries magazine, coming out in fall-ish. He was pleasant, courteous and thorough in answering all my questions.
Thank you for a great site. I’ll still be reading and recommending it to patrons and readers of my column. Cheers.
“Many posters here have argued that blogs are inherently incomparable to “real” media outlets — These writers are doing blogging a disservice”
I’m with you 100% here, Kalbos, and was just going to add my last two cents along these very lines.
Theresa and the rest: you can’t argue that blogging is evolving into the new media in one post, then turn around and say “it’s just a blog, not the news!” in another. If blogs like BB are in fact becoming the world’s new form of media — one that we can generally trust a whole lot more than sources like the NYT and Washington Post at times when they skew a story to the right or left, or outright censor someone who respectfully and politiely disagrees with them on their forums — if that is the case, then you do in fact have to hold yourself to at least the same if not higher standard that you hold the old media. If you criticize someone else for doing something you yourself have just done, then you have become a hypocrite…
BoingBoing has deservedly occupied my #1 spot on my Google RSS feeds page for many years. Violet’s blog has been #3 only because BB Gadgets has been in second place since it was started. But if these are the new standards you are holding yourselves to, I have to question whether or not I can trust BoingBoing now any more than I can trust the old out-of-step “mainstream” media like CNN, the NYT, or Fox News. I expected more of you, esp. Xeni with the vast flood of news from Tibet that she brought us just a few months ago, and Cory who knows how to spot such a slippery slope. We shall see… but VB gets bumped to #1 today for sure, regardless.
Haven’t read many of the above comments – not especially interested really. As far as I’m concerned old blog posts are fair game for deletion regardless of the reason. No explanations were necessary but given that the above has been offered, it’s okay by me.
I’ve read bb for years – my world is richer for your editing of it. Some of my favourite books, music, sites, whatever, have come from your links. You’ve influenced my politics and defined a lot of my ‘culture’. BoingBoing rocks my socks and losing it would be tragic. Just keep doing what you’re doing.
Unfortunately, from the outside this is pretty must the most un-Boing Boing thing you guys could have done. Removing posts from your archives is a big blogging no-no, and not fully and openly disclosing why you did it is another.
Instead all this post has managed to do is piss off the people you should care about the more: your readers.
Violet who?
Maybe I don’t spend that much time on the internet to understand this. And maybe that’s a good thing.
As far as I’m concerned, this is still one of my favorite blogs.
“Y’all crying “CENSORSHIP OH NOES” need to, for one, read up on the term so you understand what it means, and two, take a nice long break from the internet.”
OK, I’ll bite: Censorship is the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful or sensitive, as determined by a censor. The rationale for censorship is different for various types of data censored. Censorship is the act or practice of removing material from things we encounter every day on the grounds that it is obscene, vulgar, and/or highly objectionable.
You lose, Talia. And it appears that YOU are the one that needs a to take a nice long break from the internet.
And Boing Boing, unfortunately, YOU lose, too. Very sad.
I fail HTML. You can copy and paste from my previous post or I try one final time:
link: Google “disappears” sex blogs?
Disappointing thread. As bad as, if not worse than the fanboyishness one might find at a circa 1998 Mac site.
“Stop yelling at poor little boingboing! You’re all just jealous, haterade swilling meanies!”
There’s a middle ground here folks, calling out BB for totally blowing it PR-wise on this one, or pining for the days when it actually WAS a tiny static HMTL blog by Mark and David is not tantamount to torches and pitchforks. And, no, don’t worry, I’ll take care not to let the door hit me on the ass as I exit.
Ta!
You know what? I don’t even care if they tell us.
But tell VB.
So far, her story is that they haven’t told her word one of why she was censored. That’s a crappy situation no matter how you cut it.
I just wasted 15 minutes on google for the most boring drama ever.
Thanks, internets. Thanks a whole lot.
semipermalink
lol, syllables
Agent blogateur:
-noun
A blogger who manufactures a controversy in order to boost her sagging Google page rank.
Antinous FTW.
This is stoopid
I know comment rating is not going to happen here, but don’t we all wish there was a ‘hyperventilation’ button we could press to alert our fellow readers.
Maybe you could call it the Godwin Alert System.
Alright, listen up, all you assholes …..
1. YAY! I’m number 255 !!! Woo Hoo!
2. By my direction, the Happy Mutants have ‘dispossessed’ themselves of any connection with Violet Blue. This was MY decision, and MINE only. The BBer’s were following my orders.
3. Anyone notice that I’ve become an invisible person here on der BoingBoing? Can ANYONE show me a post about me?
4. I say: ‘Bravo, good people, bravo indeed! Do what you must, when you must, and let the devil take the hindmost.’
#288
Because leaving the links up would still lend/imply support, which is something they no longer wished to do.
#289
Its not censorship. You can still read plenty of violet blue stuff on her own website.
And yeah, cat seems to be out of the bag now, I guess. Although I understand the principle behind what they did, and agree with it, they probably should just have left the old links and not posted anymore. That would have saved a world of hassle.
“Violet behaved in a way that made us reconsider whether we wanted to lend her any credibility or associate with her.”
And yet the way BoingBoing has collectively behaved has only damaged its credibility. If anything, she seems all the more credible and a better person to associate with.
BB could at least tell HER what she did that was so wrong.
Perhaps everybody needs to calm down a little bit.
Yes, it’s just a blog. But it’s also not the quaint little four-person per-zine some here have tried to construe it as. Let’s be honest and recognize that BoingBoing is a pretty big deal, not the ravings of a few lunatics in the basement.
And you know what? I just looked at that last sentence, the total reversal of the idiotic blog stereotype and then looked at the hundreds of comments battling over free speech and censorship and I keep thinking of the concept of the faithful betrayal. Even if some (many) of those who are upset are going overboard (One Orwell reference should have been enough), what a beautiful overboard. Overboard for free speech, for watching like hawks or feeling like they’re watching like hawks or getting active when they see something they think is too controlling or breaks with the traditional freedoms of the internet or even the standards to which BoingBoing is being held. Appreciate the lofty standards, don’t get indignant. What a beautiful compliment that you have helped create a community who reacts when they see something wrong, and imagines you as paragons of internet liberty to such an extreme that removal of a dozen odd posts about things get them riled up.
To the moderators and defenders of BoingBoing, I think you also should calm down a little bit. Many if not all of these people are coming in good faith, legitimately perturbed by something, and to get angry at them or accuse them of harboring secret agendas is preposterous. Is there nothing even uncomfortable about this decision for you? It seems like it was pretty uncomfortable and fraught for the Boingers, I don’t see why it should be so easy for you to swallow.
Last, I want to say that the uncomfort for me isn’t in the removal or in censorship at all. Those who claim that BoingBoing has the right to do so are correct, though a little short-sighted. They also have the right not to delete them, doesn’t mean it’s what they should do. For me, it’s the internalization of what, by the comment count and the blog links to this “tempest in a teapot”, has become a pretty public affair. Whatever it was in the beginning, keeping mum about it was just a bad idea and now it’s bearing fruit. When you keep things like this too private, it sparks fear in your readers, images of burning books and photoshopped disgraced Soviets, not because what you did was so heinous, but because they are without any perspective to offset their worst nightmares.
I love what you do, and that you’re open enough to have this dialogue. Nobody should shit on your front porch, but a healthy shouting match can go a long way.
Well, if anyone deleted my posts from their blog I’d beat them senseless with a stapler in a sock, but that’s just me.
Having followed this story for a while now, and having been an avid reader of BoingBoing for much much longer than that, all I can say is… I’m terribly disappointed in you, BoingBoing. I’m astonished by your hypocrisy. I deeply respect the values you seem to hold yourselves to… This crass behaviour makes me lose so much respect for you.
I guess it was for the best. For all too long I had not ventured too far into the blogosphere beyond you. Time to broaden my horizons.
I’m surprised we haven’t seen a fifty hitler post yet.
Pathetic. You just lost another long time reader.
This thread is an excellent example of the “arguing on the internet is like the special olympics” saying :p
re #266: I am also REALLY glad you guys did, David; I’ve been watching and wondering if the whole thing would just be ignored on this side of the fence (the appearance of which I think is what really pissed Violet off.)
and re #270: LMAO – Remmelt, I just didn’t want to get unpublished for saying “shitstorm” on the blog. ;)
As a simple point of reference, not picking sides between “Mommy” or “Daddy” — 72 BB posts (April ’05 – May ’07) that have been “unpublished” due to their mention of VB.
But if these are the new standards you are holding yourselves to, I have to question whether or not I can trust BoingBoing now any more than I can trust the old out-of-step “mainstream” media like CNN, the NYT, or Fox News.
You may be a fool for trusting those sources more than you trusted BB in the first place. I mean, who ever heard of Fox News having an agenda?
But really, that’s an apples to oranges comparison, Doubly so because BB is free. Triply so because I can’t imagine BB is more than 10 people total.
Your expectations are your own.
@Talia: I don’t buy into the google juice story — at least I don’t remember that BngBng only links to the wonderful side, and punishes the not so wonderful side of the world by articles with no links whatever.
@#264
“What’s your point?
That this isn’t the NYT?
Here’s a cookie for noticing.”
Can’t take that cookie, since that wasn’t my point. Quite the opposite, in fact, if one isn’t a literalist. I was addressing the previous commenter’s erroneous distinction in this context between factual reporting and op-ed pieces.
My opposition to wholesale “unpublishing” is a matter of media professionalism and ethics based on my years in that industry. I’m sure there are many professional journalists and editors and publishers who’d disagree, though I have yet to meet one.
“What is erased? There is a link in the post on how to go look the stuff up yourself, elsewhere. Where is the insecurity? the dishonesty?”
Unless each “unpublished” post is replaced with some sort of explanatory information (not even necessarily alternate sources — that’s the least of their obligations) or a re-direct to such info, it’s bad Web publishing practise for a site like this one. A good Webmaster doesn’t deliberately strew 404 errors around his site.
(and anyone who can code a nifty “disem-vowel-er” would find the tasks I described above trivial to implements, especially since un-publishing is probably a rare thing around here).
The dishonesty (non-malicious, in this case) comes from not publically acknowledging that a given post has been “unpublished” (when someone says “we’ll try to handle this one quietly,” there’s a modicum of dishonesty involved). The insecurity comes from not publically acknowledging that one made an error in choosing to report positively on a given individual or other entity in the past.
“There are also bigger windmills to be chased.”
Perhaps for you. But you’re not running a brand with explicit core values like the Happy Mutants (or the NYT, for that matter) are. I’ll leave my suggestions for their assessment, and hope that they’re taken by them as constructive and friendly.
Actually I had no knowledge of the VB issue ’till this post. Now I’m plowing through Google.
My take:
1. The coverup is always worse than the crime.
2. Regardless of their reason they just lost all credibility on censorship, DRM, and related issues
3. They might as well just rename the blog “unpublishing” since they just got joined at the hip w/ that perfect bit of newspeak.
Don’t let the door hit you on the way out. Wouldn’t want to cause a crying fit.
I’m an avid BoingBoing reader for years, proudly advertising the blog to friends and visiting at least once a day, always finding interesting, smart or entertaining posts.
But now, this is seriously weird. I don’t know, but “unspeakable” reasons are a lame explanation for “unpublishing” (if a big news site used that made-up word, BoingBoing would have made fun of it) any post.
What’s so super-secret? What’s so embarrassing?
This isn’t about anyone’s “right” to “unpublish” work, it’s about how lame the story sounds, especially when held to BoingBoings standards and commitment to openess and transparency, or at least traceability.
It’s just weird, and I’m sure whatever my subconsciousness is making up as I think about this, is far more tragic than whatever it is that really caused the deletion (no, I won’t use the word “unpublish” ever again) of her posts.
If this stays the way it is (which I don’t hope) BoingBoing will drop quite a bit in my valuation, and I’m sure I’m not the only one.
:(
#294 “Theresa and the rest: you can’t argue that blogging is evolving into the new media in one post, then turn around and say “it’s just a blog, not the news!” in another.”
Yes, they can. What’s more, they just did.
Sorry for saying this, but your remark makes you sound like a dinosaur. Boing Boing is never going to replace the exact same spot that is now held by the traditional media, because it is not the same thing. You sound like record companies unable to adapt to this new-fangled internet thing. Boing Boing can and do what they damn well please.
And fuck you very much for making me respond seriously in this thread.
Also, who really actually cares about this? I mean, seriously? Deep in your heart? Is this more important than, say, the length of your toenails?
Good discussion folks.
However, it is fairly safe to say that this is not a free-for-all.
A blog tends to be “controlled” content in some form or another, otherwise it is merely a bulletin board and even those often have moderation.
Even with that said, there is a specific theme or approach to most blogs or we wouldn’t all have this one on our RSS/Favorites.
So, point is moot. Boing Boing, do what you will and we will either follow or fall off.
#314 – Pathetic. You just lost another long time reader.
And when you click that posters name – turns that’s the only thing they have ever said here. Ever.
A registered reader. Yes.
A community member? Not really.
A self-important jerk? You decide.
#242
agreed.
Wow, I had signed off on this, but after reading a lot of the thread, I wonder about people’s understanding (or lack of understanding) of the difference between private citizens, publishing a blog, and the government of the United States.
Last time I checked, private citiizens were not considered nation-state level entities with Constitutions and a Bill of Rights. The fact that Boing Boing and it’s creators have a right to privacy does not conflate with their criticism of the U.S. government’s increasing disregard for the rights of private citizens.
Redirect that vitriol at the real destroyers of rights – the Republicans and their ilk. Geez.
I heard she built a really sub-par steampunk keyboard.
(@christopher, I just noticed that my last reply was directed at you as well… nothing personal! And ehm… I didn’t mean to say fuck! F-ck! :)
It appears that the tendency of the denizens of the web to go absolutely apeshit over what is, essentially, a non-issue from A YEAR AGO remains unchanged.
The posts were taken down a YEAR ago. Nobody cared then, people only seem to care now because they can hop on over to Boing Boing, post some negative things and somehow feel better about themselves and their righteous fury.
It is pretty sad.
Their censorship is bad, but ours is acceptable? This kind of double standard speaks badly of BB as a whole.
If there is a grievance between you and Violet then fine, but from your readers point of view all we saw was a whole chunk of blogging history tweaked out of existence in the blink of an eye. You would have saved yourself a great deal of headache by simply stating that fact that you took down those posts when you did it.
More troubling to me to be is my loss of respect for BB. This is not so easy to simply replace.
[the rest of this comment has been redacted]
@308
“Its not censorship. You can still read plenty of violet blue stuff on her own website.”
Yes, it is censorship.
BB has decided to censor themselves, for an unknown reason that they refuse to divulge.
Did Violet Blue refuse the lusty advances of one Cory Doctorow? Did one of BB’s big sponsors balk at their connection to Miss Blue’s blog? Did Miss Blue call Xeni a dithering ninny?
I can’t find links to anyone else who’s this mad at Violet Blue, so it looks like it’s most likely related to their advertisers.
As an aside, its amusing to me this post has gotten so much more attention and commenting and righteous rage, than, say, any post relating to what the government is up to, or the RIAA, or any other sneaky bastards who actually, you know, affect how we live.
“The government can do what it wants, but DON’T YOU MESS with MAH BOINGBOING POSTS!!111!!”
:p
@Subterrene: following your argumentation, I do not see why, for example, net neutrality (bandwidth is just some service some telcos are selling, why shouldn’t they sell premium access for more money) is something one should debate. And so on. I agree with lots of posters that this feels very unBoingBoingish. And that a blog, or even (#326) something like a “web community”, is a bit more than just a private entity, like it or not.
DAMN you know what just happened? We had these really nice chocolate cookies and we left them out in the sun and now they’re all melted! I don’t know what to do… Perhaps I can put them in the fridge for a while. That would do!
Now what where we talking about?
#326 – This isn’t a community, it’s just a personal blog. Community would mean the standards were set by more then a handful of people.
@320 – point taken, excepting that I see nothing dishonest or insecure about the BBrs actions so far.
Badly handled? maybe, but not really. I mean, look at the fun we’re having. And look at all the jack-offs who insist they will never read or comment again (despite having never commented before!!!). Does the internet get any more entertaining?
i don’t think this is really about violet blue anymore, and i think it’s a shame that she will profit from being the spark that ignited this debate, but i think the debate is worthwhile none the less.
i think the word censorship needs to be refitted for the new millenium. the old meaning only applies when there are limited channels on which information can be distributed. if someone restricted what information could flow on one of these channels, we called it censorship. but as long as the internet stays neutral then the old meaning of censorship is dead.
i don’t think we should think of deleting content off of a blog as censorship however. it is becoming conventional wisdom that when opperating in the attention economy of the internet, it is far better to ignore than to rebuke. i think people should have the right to retroactively ignore others.
boing boing linking to violet blue’s blog, and having a post about her accesible to google search, would drive people to her site. they are not trying to rewrite the dead past, they are altering the living past that still influences internet traffic today.
there is now one channel on which all content producers compete for space in the public’s consciousness. boing boing has done well in this competition by consistantly posting quality content. they share this space in our consciousness with other websites they deam worthy.
its important to note that the past is no longer dormant, but rather plays an active role in determening internet traffic paterns in the present. if boing boing kept their links and references to violet blue, she would be benefitting from their hard work and stature. why shouldn’t boing boing have the right to choose who they lend credibility to?
Talia, just because reference to someone can be found elsewhere does not mean they have not been censored HERE.
You challenged readers here to look up the definition of censorship and it turned out that it DOES apply after all.
You were wrong. And so is Boing Boing.
@334
so
what?
#334 “I can’t find links to anyone else who’s this mad at Violet Blue, so it looks like it’s most likely related to their advertisers.”
That’s pretty flimsy reasoning. “I don’t have any facts to work with, so I am going to resort to angry snark.” :p
It’s your blog,
But at the same time I have to agree to the frustration of not knowing what the heck is going on. Perhaps this could have been handled a little better. *shrug*.
one more re #290: Talia, you’re right, no one makes us read BB.
I’d be very very interested in seeing the numbers as far as net traffic to the site before and after this debacle, though.
(And since you seem to be one for wanting definitions–not that there’s anything wrong with that– debacle (noun): 2. An event or enterprise that ends suddenly and disastrously, often with humiliating consequences. 3. A confused rush or rout; a stampede)
BB could at least tell HER what she did that was so wrong.
If you weren’t holding a can of gasoline, I might think you had a genuine concern about this. But given the pyros running amuck, it lands slightly flat.
To quote from Xeni’s post way up at the top:
“the posts were removed from public view while an evaluation of what to do took place”
Depending on what the incident in question was, this makes perfect sense to me. If VB seemed to be doing something they considered morally reprehensible, then I can understand why they would want to take them out of the public eye while they debated whether or not they wanted to continue supporting her. I can’t see them doing it for some trivial issue.
“We didn’t want to pay to host them on our blog anymore. This is also why we remove hateful, ad hominem attack comments from public view, too…”
This quote imediately follows the first, and while it may not have been intentional, it does sort of imply that VB did something they really, really, really didn’t like.
The fact that they still aren’t talking about the reasons implies that either they are still evaluating whatever the original issue was (which, even after a year is still possible) or that the issue is a private matter, that the public is entirely unaware of…. and probably that they feel that more harm would come from revealing the information than by keeping it silent.
I really can’t see them doing this over the her name lawsuit.
#172: Xeni, I’m not sure whether you’re saying the cleanup was a mistake or opening that decision for discussion was a mistake. I’m actually more in agreement with the latter than the former…
This is important enough to me to make this my first post ever.
How is it possible to stand for openness, freedom, transparency and equality when you try to erase the past?
I’ve considered you all to be some of the best journalists of a new era. Will you be leaders and live with your mistakes, or will you run a clubhouse?
Your values are expressed in every post you’ve written. Consider those values and explain to us how this is acceptable.
The right response is to reinstate the posts and issue an apology to your readers. We believe in you and we want greatness.
Justin Watt:
“Removing posts from your archives is a big blogging no-no, and not fully and openly disclosing why you did it is another.”
Citations, please. I am yet to read the Official Bloggers Rulebook, or indeed meet one of it’s enforcers.
__
Chemical Orphan:
Censorship, in the negative sense which a lot of people seem to be jumping to, means making the material unavailable to society at large (or a specific set of people). This would require BB to be the original publisher of the material, or at least it’s main source.
VioletBlue’s work is available elsewhere, this is not it’s prime source, so it’s not censorship per se. Do you demand NYT runs pr0n in it’s pages, that they are censoring it otherwise? Is there no such thing as editing (or indeed good ol’ human “change of heart”), or is it all black & white censorship?
#338 – Community would mean the standards were set by more then a handful of people.
This is the forum. You and I are the community.
We are just a handful of people. If this weren’t up to my standards, I would not comment here, nor would you.
What you said is like saying no community exists at a coffee shop because the owner decides to close at 8 each night, regardless of his customers wishes to stay until 11.
Reasonable limitations do not prevent a community.
The argument a privately held editing it’s own content constitutes censorship is, of course, poppycock.
HOWEVER, the frequently-made converse argument – that since it’s not censorship there’s nothing whatever wrong with it – is equally rubbish.
You can be an ass, legally and within your rights, and still be an ass.
It’s one thing to go back and put disclaimers on old posts. But outright deleting them? Not cool. Totally within your rights, and still not cool.
I enjoy both this blog and Violet Blue’s, and until I saw this post I had not an inkling that there was any bad blood between the two. After today I will still read this blog and Violet Blue’s blog; the only difference is that I will trust this blog a little less.
@Christopher (#344): I don’t think the net traffic to BoingBoing is affected either way; what will change is the image of BoingBoing and the feeling while reading it.
I have a great deal of respect for Boing Boing and Violet Blue, and I am indeed saddened to see a rift forming. I wish the both of you luck in resolving the situation, and hope you are able to.
I do not believe this counts as censorship. The posts remain on the wayback machine, just not in the Boing Boing archives.
Dear BoingBoing,
Regarding your recent exercise in taking down your own comments, I find that my undergarments are in a serious twist and they are currently holding me hostage. They’ve informed me they will not unbunch until you provide sufficient explanation as to why you did what you did, that they eventually approve of said reasons, such that they can feel like they have editorial control over your actions.
My undergarments indicate that you have one hour to comply, at which point, they will strangulate an important appendage. If, after two hours, you still have not complied, they threaten to move up and cut off my nose to spite my face.
Please help.
Sincerely,
In A Bind
How long til Gawker or someone gets the savory deets? I’m not gonna pretend to be too mature to not wanna hear what happened.
Here’s a little something to please and anger both the blindly adoring fanboys/grrls AND the rabble-rousing haters.
1. Boing Boing certainly has the right to “unpublish” any of its post(s.)
2. Readers certainly have the right make or update their opinions on Bong Boing’s credibility based on those unpublishings.
For me, it’s tough to square my image of the blog as a champion of transparency/free speech with this move. I won’t stop reading, but some posts on those topics may ring a bit hollow for awhile.
Boing Boing owns their blog, but not their reputation — that’s got to be earned. One misstep doesn’t erase everything that I like about the blog. But it’s not a high point, either.
This kind of reminds me of the days of child hood. “Fine you’re not my friend anymore, I’m taking your toys out of my sandbox and throwing them over the fence into your yard!”
Yea sure it’s not a kids game and it’s grownups (?) making a real living (?) and such, but it’s still pretty petty looking on the surface.
RE #326 MDHATTER;
That’s really unfair to hold it against long time BoingBoing readers that today is their first post. Not a community member? Is BoingBoing just about commenting on posts, or is it the larger relationship with the internet, spreading the ideas and websites BoingBoing allows us to find, and turning other people onto this side of the internet? If my comments haven’t gone on this board but have gone to my Congressman, my senator, the boards of various companies, should I be disregarded?
I just want to say that I feel your comments on this thread have been disrespectful and uncalled for, treating people who feel differently than you on the subject of unpublished posts like traitors. Now, I speak to no other threads because I am not, as you say, a “community member”. I rarely read beyond the articles and have never, until today, felt the need to comment. But what does it say that not just one or two but several regular BoingBoing readers felt to need to register to express an opinion today? Not that they’re not valid community members, but that this is an important but delicate topic that needs to be handled with respect. Please give them (and me) that much.
Tempest meet teapot.
As someone who is ‘all over’ the internet on a daily basis for both work and pleasure, the first notice I had of the ‘shitstorm’ was the above mod post.
I think sometimes when you’re in the middle of a pile on it seems bigger than it is, and I guarantee the mod has generated MORE of a piling on by posting about it on Boing Boing.
Having said that, Boing Boing has every right to choose not to reprint – to put it in old media terms – any article they have created at anytime for any reason.
And you have every right to voice your displeasure by letting them know why you such a move causes you displeasure with it turning into a maulfest.
You can also stop reading and start finding neat stuff on the internet yourself.
Course I am really just curious as to why the did it, but that as a good New England boy I know to ignore the gossip demon when it whispers in my ear and mind my own business.
What really gets me about this is the overwhelming torrent of overwrought teeth-gnashing and wailing over what is, in essence, a relatively minor issue of how best to withdraw support from someone who you no longer wish to support.
The fact that this was not handled well is not in dispute; the stated goal was to not to offer the appearance of support to someone with whom they’d discovered that they disagreed, without causing a shitstorm. The above shitstorm shows that this goal was not accomplished.
That said, is this really worth all the emotion and hyperbole that’s being poured into the issue? BB has always seemed like the sort of place where smart people who could discuss something reasonably would congregate, but I’ve frequently been disappointed in that regard. Every time something comes up that’s not popular, the threads are flooded with posters implying loudly that BB’s editors are puppy-kicking, baby-eating, kitten-sodomizing paragons of pure malevolence, bent on the destruction of everything that they claim to uphold. It’s silly, and it’s sort of exhausting after a while.
Could we maybe actually discuss this, like adults or something? I know this is the internet, and that’s a foreign concept here, but could we do it just this one time?
Teresa Nielsen Hayden / Moderator on VB:
Yikes. What happened to the quiet respectful moderator who didn’t want to embarrass the parties involved?
Spurious! How do you even know that the reasoning involves anyone being “mad” at VB? It could be some dreadfully embarrassing or extremely personal thing. How does the rest of the internet’s opinion of a person relate to another group’s like/dislike/indifference to her?
And as has been mentioned numerous times on this site, the content is not influenced one iota by the sponsors.
I read this thread, and all I hear is wank.
Christ, I am sick of the drama. I repeat. Grow a sense of perspective. Maybe it wasn’t the best way to handle this situation. But all the dramatic announcements that BoingBoing has LOST YOUR RESPECT and you’re DEMOTING IT FROM #1 IN YOUR FEEDREADER are just ridiculous. Come on. I’ve quit reading lots of people because they lost my respect, and it’s your right to make that call about what you read and don’t read, but the dramatic flounce is just because you crave attention. Cut it out.
Teresa, I love you, but I’m thinking they should never have re-opened comments here. It’s worse than freaking Consumerist.
@greglondon #346:
“If you weren’t holding a can of gasoline, I might think you had a genuine concern about this. But given the pyros running amuck, it lands slightly flat.”
Can of gasoline? What?
I simply stated what I believed would be the more class thing to do, and that thing didn’t even involve the public, even.
In fact, if BB had even had the decency to talk to VB privately and say “hey, we got a problem with this thing you did, and we don’t think we can support you anymore” and worked from there, we probably wouldn’t even be having this thread.
Besides, just because BB could and had a right to “unpublish” without notice/discussion/acknowledgment doesn’t mean it should have.
GregLondon @355:
You are fabulous. :)
I went looking for an amusing unicorn picture to link to as a change of pace.
Let me just say It had never occurred to me that GISing for “funny unicorn” would lead to a picture of a swastika-toting unicorn on someone’s buttcheek.
….
In spite of my rage, I’m still just a rat in a cage.
Two comments.
One – This is an excellent example of the law of unintended consequences. An action that was clearly legal, and presumably well founded, has turned around and completely backfired. If your goal was to remove yourselves from participation in any discussion of or promotion of Violet Blue, it seems that you have ultimately suffered an epic fail event.
It seems strange that this set of bloggers (BB contributors) would make that particular mistake. You all seem to be more aware than average of how events can get spun back on people on the web and net, and the dangers of appearances.
Two – While your unpublishing permit is in order, Mr Fagan will be remaining with us for the time being. Your license to unmake is hereby revoked. Unseemly public display of eldrich powers by public figures is a Class 3 Infraction, punishable by indefinite suspension of unmaking privileges and a fine of $13 and 400 blogs of community service. Unmaking privileges may be restored upon completion of a tactile public good such as production of an article demonstrating a creation event in “Make Magazine” or the like, or contribution of similar tactile object or construct to Burning Man or Maker Faire.
I’ve spent some time thinking about this today, and I’ve come to the conclusion that I couldn’t care less. I would be more shocked to learn that the editors don’t occasionally go back through the archives and purge material that they no longer agree with.
@331, 350: this valleywag.com is really mean spirited, turning the thing into yet more gossip.
I still love bb. They not always make the best decisions ever, but so what.
@Talia #366: Even neo-Nazis need to have a unicorn chaser every now and then.
#348 – I think if you read the post carefully you will see nothing was ‘erased’.
Imagine (for 10 seconds) BB as a print magazine – BB will not provide THAT PARTICULAR back issue to you. You may find it elsewhere and BB tells you where that is and wishes you luck in your quest.
Is that not their prerogative? Isn’t that less offensive than the other active options of disemvoweling and delinking or maybe entirely replacing the posts with angry rants against Ms.B?
The arguments about old links driving new traffic are very relevant, and I’d imagine someone did something to deserve this treatment.
I don’t need to know what. If this happened all the time I would be as deeply annoyed as some here are, but it doesn’t.
If Xeni and Joel et al. felt something brought the quality of their site down, and mocking it wasn’t worth the effort, then they should remove it.
Interesting that you mention not giving relevance to Ms Blue, and you don’t mention why you took down other comments. Were they also somehow gaining undue relevance in their criticism of you taking down content, so you took down additional content?
Seems like you might want to rethink this particular explanation and excuse. It doesn’t seem all that logical or likely.
@362
“And as has been mentioned numerous times on this site, the content is not influenced one iota by the sponsors.”
What proof do we have of that claim other than the word of the BB staff?
What reason do we have to trust the BB staff on this issue when they hypocritically violate the rules they expect others to behave by?
Forgive me for my impetuousness, but I have no reason to believe that BB is any less beholden to its advertisers than any other media outlet.
Talia: So apparently what you meant when you challenged readers to look up the definition of censorship was actually a challenge to deduce YOUR PERSONAL definition of censorship, expressly tailored to fit your syncophantic support of the practice of so-called “unpublishing.”
Why didn’t you say so in the first place?
Regardless, it really is censorship.
And the more I think about it, it’s not just Boing Boing who lost credibility, or you who lost your challenge AND credibility, but all of us readers who lose information and a site worthy of our time and attention.
I guess I will be following George Carlin’s advice and at least keep the late Boing Boing’s bookmark around for another six weeks.
“We hope you’ll respect our choice to keep the reasons behind this private.”
If it was a public action by Violet Blue that triggered the unpublishing, then no, I can’t respect BoingBoing’s choice not to name the public act which provoked the public act of unpublishing. The only thing being done by “privacy” in such a case is protecting the judgment of BoingBoing from evaluation, which is craven.
If it was a private offense, but BoingBoing is refusing to tell Violet Blue what she did that was privately offensive, then again, I can’t respect that. While it is perfectly proper to keep a private offense out of the public eye, it is not proper to refuse to explain to the offending party the reason for the public disassociation.
So, no, I’d have to say my respect for BoingBoing is reduced by this.
Also, a social observation –
This event demonstrates the fuzzy boundary between web publisher and web reader, particularly when blog comments and blog links are factored in.
In a sense, the deletion seems like a more old-school media answer than a new media aware response. The new media environment is that the readers and commenters feel part of a community related to the blog and posts. The participation of readers creates a feeling of ownership. Old-school media responses make some or many of those participating readers feel like a social contract was broken.
Actions done in public may be argued over, but actions done in secret are more likely to be seen as betrayal.
Again, sort of incongruous for this set of bloggers to have missed / neglected / not predicted that.
Without knowing the underlying issue, I can’t comment on whether some reaction was necessary or appropriate. But BBers being surprised by the response when it finally became public seems odd.
It seems entirely predictable to me…
#358 – I totally respect your comment, because it is thoughtful, it respects our hosts, it makes no utterly false associations, it is calm, and it is simultaneously productive and not defeatist.
@Chemical Orphan, #340
I question that the definition of censorship you’ve posted is really relevant here – it requires that a “censor” be the one doing the removing, and in this case, it appears that the content was removed by those who wrote it, because they no longer wished to appear to support the person to whose site it linked.
If old items were removed due to lack of storage space, would that be censorship?
If future planned items were not written for the same reason the posts were removed, would that be censorship? What if the link was determined to contain a virus? Or if the BB folks collectively decided they were tired of running a blog and took the whole thing down?
Where does “not supporting things you don’t like” stop and “censorship” begin?
I visit BoingBoing more times a day than any other site. I’ve been a fan and a loyal reader for quite some time, and have never understood the hate-on that some people have for this place.
I’ve never been a fan of Violet Blue, and whenever BB would make a post about her, I could never understand the interest. The little I know of her I don’t like.
But this whole thing was wrong. Changing your opinion of someone and deciding to no longer support them is one thing, BB changed their opinion of someone and decided to pretend that BB never supported her.
One my main reasons for liking BB is because of the politics it supports, and is against. But now I feel like I’ve been lied to the entire time, and that BB has just been pretending to have the beliefs claimed. I’m disappointed and disillusioned.
#375: reference post #349. He explains it better than I can.
This has nothing to do with censorship. It was their own posts they removed, not anything she wrote. Admit it! Y’all just want the gossip.
What, you all would rather BB criticize someone in public over a private matter?
You want drama, just go to tinynibbles:
“A is stalking me”
“How dare that damned porn star B take my name! Now I have to ruin my sex-positive sex-worker DRM-free rep and sue that bitch and have her re-edit all that porn she did before I even knew what a blog was.”
“Rape! C is stalking me! Do you know what it’s like to be a woman?! Rape!”
“Great. Now I’m deleted. Transparency!”
“D assaulted me. Stalker! Child molester! How dare he! What about the children? What about our rights?”
Wrong blog. That’s tinynibbles fodder not boingboing’s. Crying censorship won’t change the type of content they post.
Seems like comments with the valeysomething.com links that I was talking about at #370 are gonne. Better this way, but made me look like a idiot (which is quite normal, I dont care… :P)
Forgive me for my impetuousness
The first bit of honesty this entire thread…
Coupla things, kind of OT, but at this point in the thread, what isn’t?
People who cry out “conspiracy theory” might stop and think. A conspiracy is people working together (in secret) to do something. Deleting — sorry, “unpublishing” — VB’s posts was done by a group (the BBers) behind the scenes. My theory: that’s a conspiracy.
People on the web use “conspiracy theory” the same way they use Godwin’s Law — to squash whatever someone’s saying, ignoring the non-Nazi-referencing parts of what they have to say. In this case Hitler’s been replaced by Orwell, with people shrieking that this is NOT “1984.” No, it isn’t… but “unpublishing” is still doublespeak.
It amuses/annoys me when “conspiracy theory” is the buzzword aimed at people on the web who talk (not that I necessarily agree with them) about, shall we say, alternative narratives behind 9/11 or the motivations for the Iraq war. Of COURSE there were conspiracies in those cases. The question is, who conspired?
The use of “conspiracy theory” as an argument-ending putdown started, I think, with the JFK assassination — although, 45 years later, we still don’t know if there WAS a conspiracy there.
Not to elevate the BB/VB dustup to that kind of historical level or anything. But let’s use words to mean what they mean. This was (self-)censorship. Whether or not it’s justified is another question. And it was a “conspiracy” too. No reason to shut down debate.
Personally, I agree with all the commenters who’ve said that BB was within its rights, but handled this stupidly.
Finally… after reading 300+ comments, here’s a simple key to who’s wrong here. The many commenters who put apostrophes in the wrong place are wrong. Disregard them. Also the ones who leave out apostrophes that should be there.
Unless, of course, the apostrophes were merely “unpublished” by Boing Boing.
Re: the chocolate cookies.
I’ve left them in the fridge for a while and now they are stuck together and I can’t get them apart for the life of me.
(to all the people who want to know the nature of the issue between bb and vb: you are gossips. It’s OK, just admit to it (see #355) and move on. You can now scroll up and (re-?)read comment #199)
hhhh
bngbng s jst tkng t’s cnsrshp plcy t t’s lgcl cnclsn. f y crtcs th st n cmmnt, t wll b dltd. s nw, f y crtcs th st nywhr, yr wrk wll b npblshd.
thr prncpls r mkng mny nd lttng trs nlsn hydn b lyng cnt. dn’t b stpd.
lk ths:
“vryn pstng nlgs, hypthtcl sttns nd tryng t rsn t wht th crrct thng t d r mssng th pnt.. Tht’s nt wht hppnd. Th rsns fr th ctn r nknwn t s”
if they left the posts up, you could potentially still find those links doing a search. Those posts, old as they may be, are new/current to the viewer. Finding articles related to the person in question still implies the media outlet is supporting said person. And as previously mentioned, any derivative web traffic the person recieves is, in fact, unintentional support.
So what do they do. Be all half-assed about their non-support?
Based on the stated reasons for unpublishing the posts, it seems there’s a good and simple middle ground balancing the desire to not promote VB and the readers’ desire to not see retroactive editing (if the latter is a fair summation of dozens of individual posts).
Simply go back, repost dimemvoweled versions of the original BB posts and remove any hyperlinks that point into VB’s site.
People who cry out “conspiracy theory” might stop and think.
Thinking sort of went out the window a long time ago.
By the way, your tin hat is a bit slanted.
xeni, i’ve had ex’s before who have tried to insert themselves back into my life for whatever reason, and i wished i could ‘unpublish’ them or at the very least, ‘disemvowell ’em! wash your hands of the beeotch, grrrrl, and get back to the wonderful. chicks, eh? what are ya gonna do?
Now, that’s not true, #387. If you criticize BB nonconstructively and are an ass about it, yeah, your post will be deleted. I’ve seen plenty of meritous, well thought out criticisms be left alone.
Some people dont understand the concept of posting civilly and/or intelligently, however. (Yes, I realize there’s some hypocracy there).
Is the plural of “penis” really “penis”?
It’s your blog, delete what you want.
On the other hand, if your aim was to deny the oxygen of publicity to Violet Blue, that would appear to have been an almighty fail.
You might consider, next time you disappear someone, just deactivating all the hotlinks in the relevant posts and sticking the pages in robots.txt or equivalent.
I was hashing out a really long well-thought out response to the whole situation and then I read what Gracchus said in #125. I’d just like to say …uh what he said.
Why didn’t you just copyright the stories, that would have taught us all a lesson.
@#392 the stories are copyrighted, and released under a Creative Commons licence.
I just spent 20 minutes skimming the above comments. I’d like the contact info for whomever I need to sue to get compensated for wasting my valuable 20 minutes.
Meh – what a bother over a whole lot of nothing. You all, in a word, need to chillax and get over yourselves. Those that can’t need to beam up to the mothership pronto.
Now if we could just unpublish all the damn steampunk nonsense.
@376 (See): Well, it wasn’t supposed to be a public disassociation, specifically because it would have provoked these same inquiries about a private matter. I get that people are curious. I get that “You’ll just have to trust us” is a fairly weak offering. But we’re still trying to strike a balance between (belated) forthrightness and decorum.
As we said in the original post, there was clearly some fucking up here on our part, although I can report that even in our internal discussions we weren’t entirely sure what a better course of action might have been. And it’s difficult to say “We’ll never do that again” when we’re not sure what a better option would have been.
We’re all hearing the “You should have told us what was going on” remarks. I can only speak for myself, not everyone, but I think that’s a fair point and were a similar situation to arise in the future — ugh! — we’ll take a different tack.
For those continuing to wonder what happened, my best guess is that #40 nailed it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violet_Blue_%28author%29#Lawsuit
Using trademark law as a weapon to “protect” your lame blogger pseudonym is not cool.
I’m disappointed with boingboing. This isn’t the same as getting the “BB + VB 4evah!” tattoo changed. This is going through the photos and taking out Trotsky. You did like the posts when you first put them up, right?
Imagine (for 10 seconds) BB as a print magazine – BB will not provide THAT PARTICULAR back issue to you. You may find it elsewhere and BB tells you where that is and wishes you luck in your quest.
BB is providing back issues, but redacting certain pages. And the manner of redaction is very dishonest. When some entity, like the government, hands me some documents containing redactions, I can at least tell they’ve done it because the black lines are still there, letting me know something was covered up. BB completely altered the back issues and covered up the altering of them.
Bad password,
Using the pretext of an animated argument to spew vile misogyny? I don’t think so.
BB just made Miss Blue an extremely famous personality. Way to go guys. Talk about achieving the exact opposite effect from the stated goal! Bravo!
I had no idea who Violet Blue was until today. Now I’m all curious. I want to know everything there is about her.
Another thing I learned today: BB handles problems like an immature girl in Jr. High.
Saying it’s you’re blog and you can do what you want is a bit of a straw-man fallacy. I haven’t seen anyone suggest legal penalties for your behavior. It’s you’re blog, you can do what you want.
People are saying they don’t like it.
People have made the claim that you are stifling free speak, which appears to support your straw-man. But free speak is both a legal concept and also vernacular english. You have clearly stifled free speak in the vernacular sense and clearly have not in the legal sense.
First off, I like the advice from Gracchus. Good policy.
It really disappoints me when blogs remove articles. I do a little blogging. I can be wrong, stupid, taken-in or misinformed at times. When that happens I can always remove the links to someone or something that has turned out to be something I don’t want to support. Removing the links will make sure I’m not contributing to their pagerank.
I can add a note along the lines of “Doh! What was I thinking? Feel free to read this article to glimpse a major screw-up on my part, but don’t bother otherwise.”
But delete it? No. I put it out there for better or worse and will live with that.
Does a blogger have the right to delete their articles if they want? Sure.
Do they lose credibility by doing so? Absolutely. The more trusted the blog, the more they lose.
I’d love to see you put the articles back up, remove the links, and add a note saying that the article does not represent any current support for the person in question.
I really hate that Boing Boing pulled those articles. It’s your right. I’m just very disappointed to find your standards aren’t what I thought. Boing Boing has a reputation for fighting fearlessly for Good Side. This kind of behavior tarnishes that reputation.
Please, guys, make it right and acknowledge this as a mistake and a lesson learned!
Well, BB’ers, I don’t know this Violet Blue character from a hole in the ground, and I figure you might have a good reason for the big nuke, but here’s the thing: you have every right to be secretive about your withdrawal of support…
…but you wouldn’t quietly accept such behaviour from others if the situation was reversed. I don’t truck with hypocrisy. So you’ve just lost two eyeballs.
This is going through the photos and taking out Trotsky.
This is not a stalinistic purge. If you think it is, you obviously weren’t there, and you’re tinfoil hat is causing your vision of reality to blur.
wow, this is a crazy thread. I only got to about #50 before I got fed up with the misplaced sense of entitlement people have.
It seems to me that people are getting all worked up about something that they don’t have the right to exert any claim to. To me, Boing Boing writers/editors have given me a glimpse into their perspective on the world by sharing with me things they find fun, interesting and at times very weird. In return, they get…absolutely nothing from me. Huh. What a concept.
If they decide to no longer share something they don’t want to share with me, I’m fine with that. They’ve invited me into their home and I am their guest. If someone invited you into their house for dinner, would you fault them for not displaying photos of their ex-wife? They were there before. Now they’re not. Is that ok?
It’s really just a simple matter of manners you ungrateful bastards.
It seems to me the people who are giving BB grief are the same kind of people who would sit and listen to a street musician play his entire set and at the end not only leave without making a donation but also yell at him for ommitting a verse from your favourite song.
I wish we could unpublish the idiocy from people themselves. Good grief.
As at least two other commentators have pointed out, I’d also be interested in reading an explanation of the @Teresa’s claim in #99 that “Violet Blue never posted anything on Boing Boing. and the article posted on Friday, Dec. 29, 2006.
I suppose we could split hairs and say that the article was actually posted by Xeni Jardin, but as it reads “by Violet Blue” and seems to be original content for Boing Boing that seems a little disingenuous.
As others have said – including the editors themselves – your blog, do want you want, imo. Interesting to watch the netorati participate in a train wreck that looks like it could have been orchestrated by the Nixon administration.
Save the drama,for my pajamas!
It is your space, and you have a right to add or remove any material, barring copyright laws. But you wrote, “Violet behaved in a way that made us reconsider whether we wanted to lend her any credibility or associate with her.”
To write that statement, without any background on what was supposedly so heinous to lead to such an action, is unethical. You should have just said, the stuff is gone, the reasons are private. Now, you’ve just added to the speculation. Not particularly noble behavior.
#324: “…Also, who really actually cares about this? I mean, seriously? Deep in your heart? …”
Apparently, you do, since you posted seriously :)
Satan@404: BB just made Miss Blue an extremely famous personality. Way to go guys. Talk about achieving the exact opposite effect from the stated goal! Bravo!
Yes, this is mature. And so relevant.
@399 —
The very nature of unpublishing—removing something from the public view—is a public act. I understand that it might not have been intended that way, and it did fly under the radar for a while, but it still was always a public act.
Dear BoingBoing,
Regarding your recent deletion of content about VB, I know you deleted this content over a year ago, but since I just found out about it now, I am simply incensed of the damage you’ve been causing this whole year, quietly, without any fuss, and without my knowing of the damage.
Some might wonder HOW could the damage from these deletions be so terrible, if the deletions took place over a year ago, and I just realized it now, and only because someone told me.
But I am not some people. I do not wonder. I am a pyro looking for something to burn, and by gosh, you look mighty toasty to me.
Thank you for providing some year old spark for me to pour my gasoline on.
Sincerely,
Tin Pyro Man
If this is about VB’s abuse of trademark law, why not just say so?
Maybe if this kind of situation arises again, you could put a disclaimer or an editorial / click through note around the old article, to the effect that you think the original post was wrong, rather than just deleting it? eg.
“We now think this article is inappropriate, because of this fact [explanation] [link to old article for historic interest], BB editors 2008″
I’m pretty sure (say) science journals do that, even when they discover that a given article was seriously flawed because of made-up data, plagarism, etc. they preserve the record but highlight the fact it isn’t to be trusted.
The content was deleted a year ago.
It was so irrelevant, that all you whiners didn’t even know about the deletions until now, and only because someone told you.
So, whatever “damage” you think these deletions caused, the actual damage was zero. The only “damage” is in the hyped up sense of injustice you keep heaping on the fire.
I, for one, refuse to get involved in this, because any additional posts just perpetuate. . . oh, damn.
Gosh what fun! Do you think we’ll get up to 1984 comments?
Which bit of “freedom of expression” do people not understand? If BB want to withdraw their older posts then that is their prerogative, if that makes you feel violated then go elsewhere.
Or perhaps I missed the post where BB declared itself a journal of record. Was it unpublished perhaps?
FredB #410, I’ve been wondering about that post too. In Teresa’s defense, it was before her time here, but I remember the post from when it went up, and it was definitely Violet’s work and advertised as such.
In light of this, Xeni’s #117 is posing a real challenge for me, I’m having trouble understanding how it could have been said in good faith.
I call bullshit on the justifications. This is nothing more than, “we’re taking our bat and ball and going home”. Trying to spin it doesn’t cover for it being a petty tantrum.
If I didn’t had better things to do now, I’ll want to start a flame war with some of the fanboys. And girls.
down the memory hole….
does boingboing reserve the right to silently “unpublish” posts they have made in the past? yeah.
does this make them hypocrites? i feel that it does.
am i happy with boingboing at this point? no.
they did something they reserve the right to do but also lost a lot of credibility in my eyes.
(this might be a little unfair, but anybody else notice the initials of boingboing are BB?)
#419
AMEN
When I think of boingboing’s target group, I certainly don’t think of them as people who you’d want to keep silent and happily play along, pretending that previously-published content has never existed when we’ve just seen it disappear into a memory hole.
It’s your blog. So far, no problems. I don’t even care why you did what you did. But I do not tolerate people who covertly exert their powers of authority and then clam up on all questions about it. Nemo’s post was deleted. My e-mails were ignored. Nothing. Not even an “We have our reasons but we won’t divulge them to you, now bugger off, shrimp.” Anything would have been better than nothing.
Boingboing’s editors, of all people, getting themselves worked up into the delusion that – if you only delete enough posts, if you only ignore enough questions – you can make people eventually go away and quietly accept the reality that you created.
You lost me as a regular member when you “quietly and respectfully” totally ignored your readers.
“Blogger and San Francisco Chronicle columnist Violet Blue shares this roundup of memorable moments in memehood with BoingBoing readers. Full text follows after the jump.”
Going through the wayback link, it looks like that specific entry was made for BoingBoing. Is this a wrong assumption.
Also, I’ve seen dozens of well written posts here, and it feels like the moderator has mostly decided to be snarky and at times rude in her replies. I realize that blog drama isn’t exactly the best way you could be spending your time, but it turns out you kind of signed up for it.
There should be a question mark after assumption. Oh well.
If I had to deal with the pile of crapola people are merrily generating in this thread, I’d probably lose my temper too. :P
If boingboing’s intent was to exercise control over their own content in order to disassociate themselves with a public person who has done something they ethically disagree with, we can only observe that they’ve failed to do so.
At this date, Ms. Blue is more closely associated with bb than she ever was in the past, and I’d bet dollars to donuts that her site has gotten more traffic from this kerfluffle than it ever did from positive posts about her.
What’s worse – boingboing’s credibility as a site on the vanguard of openness and accountability on the web is significantly tarnished. Boingboing doesn’t “owe” it’s readership anything, but if they wish to maintain their reputation as a leader in net responsibility, they’ll have to do something other than quietly disappear something without further explanation. I’ve liked and admired bb’s stance on copyright, net neutrality, and general internet good-egg-ism. I hope they’ll hold themselves to the same high standards that they so regularly post about when others fail to do so.
My respect for boingboing is lessened, and I doubt I’m the only one. Ironically, had they explained what the real source of the consternation was about (and assuming that some rumors are true) I’d probably have agreed with them, and not batted an eyelash about unpublishing those posts. It’s the secrecy that makes it stink. More transparency, please, boingboing?
LOL. They unpublished Comrade Violet. Awesome.
Hahaha, I’m the real winner here, I’m powering my laptop using a dynamo that’s being driven by the immense speed of incoming comments. Wonderful!
I’m powering my laptop using a dynamo that’s being driven by the immense speed of incoming comments.
Hot Air – clean, renewable energy. And the supply is limitless.
It seems that there are a number of things that are being bandied about in the comments that are either completely untrue or only vaguely understood, and that some posters have not actually applied operational brain cells – no, scratch that, their hearts – to trying to understand.
VB was not a BB poster. She did not write articles for BB. BB linked to stuff by her. No work of hers has been altered, deleted, changed, or even (re)commented on, to make a particular point. So this isn’t censorship, unless you think “not linking to” is an act of censorship; in which case you can skip to the next comment looking for support for your point of view.
I think that The Reason is probably a very personal one, that the person(s) involved really don’t want all over the Internet. I respect the BB team enough to not want them to feel pressured to expose something they don’t want to, especially on possibly the most-read blog in the world.
It sometimes becomes difficult for readers to realize that blogs involve actual people who have parts of their personal lives that they don’t want to share on the blog. There is a point, different for everyone, where say “that’s as personal as I want to get”.
I can see it now: pressured into finally speaking out, Cory admits that he’s become allergic to wavelengths in the 435 nanometer range and therefore can’t have references to anything that color anywhere on the blog server. (My sympathies if you actually have a chromatic aberration, Cory.)
Fine. Would knowing that (or whatever The Reason is) help anybody? Improve anything? Fix the problem? No. It’s been stated that this is a personal issue; I personally believe you have no right to demand to know details of someone’s personal life unless you’re sleeping with them, and there are limits there too.
Perhaps the BB team should replace themselves with idoru so the readers can obsess about their (completely fictional) personal lives without actual people being involved.
Yes, it does feel a little weird to have a blog that is very dedicated to everyone’s free expression make this decision; I can only guess that it was, for the person involved, so hard an issue that this was the only way they could see to address it.
Sometimes people make decisions that we wouldn’t ourselves when they’re personal ones. Sometimes they’re (objectively) bad ones. Subjectively they may be the only thing that makes it possible to keep going.
I hope whatever the issue is can be moved on from at this point. Best wishes.
Greg @419, the point isn’t how long it takes to notice that the past has been revised. The point is that it’s been revised.
Also if the speed of discussion on boingboing keeps up can we get a box to enter noko and sage in?
also, SAGE.
Anyone who is questioning the point of this, has to remember that BB has been at the forefront of blogging journalism. It’s not unexpected that they be held up to the light for examination/criticism.
What we have found is that a site that prides itself on supporting civil liberties and freedom of speech is quite prepared to ignore the need for transparency when it comes to personal grievances.
I will not contest that it is BB’s right to take down any/all posts they feel it appropriate to. Again they also owe us no explanation because this is their site/server/space. This is not a public service.
We are definitely not BBs editors, nor do we dictate it’s direction. We are it’s audience though and can vote with our fingers.
The only parties behavior which has been brought into question is Boing Boing’s, through their actions. Further to that, I have to agree with another commentator above that it was not very thoughtful to suggest innapropriate behavior on Violet’s part without justifying that comment.
Hmmm, so anyhow, where’s that chaser???
Keep the drama for Jeffrey Dahmer!
If Teresa had a karma button I would moderate it down 1.
@#335 TILLWE: If you were an editor/poster here, you could decide what gets posted, archived, etc. You aren’t. So it feels “UnBoingBoingish”… so what? They are private individuals, they are not a corporation, they are not a government.
I also would add that, insignificant as they are, I’ve gone back and edited my blog posts on Myspace for content. So am I now guilty of censorship? Oh lord! I’m going into self-imposed exile right this second.
Not.
violet who?
Takuan, oh High Costello, we here in the GreatVoid(tm) are in dire need of your Sage Wisdumb(c.’08). pleez grant us the ability to move on in our NeddyLittleLives(R), and GethruthisBullShit(t.m. applied for). many thanx, Oh High One. i remain your humbolt Screwfly.
@399 Joel Johnson – well put. I think that’s a fair response to the points that have been made. I don’t expect to see any NEW points made after your post, either. The rest of the comments will just rehash the same points over and over.
#369 – agreed!
Hot Air – clean, renewable energy. And the supply is limitless.
Ahhh, I’ve always wondered how Cory powered the hot air balloon he uses to fly round the blogosphere, he must have needed to gain some height when he decided to respond to this topic…
Disappointed. Truly disappointed. This thread is now up to 443 comments and posting speed is already declining? We will never make it to 1984 comments!
Get with the program people! Post your favorite recipes for tomato sauce! Discuss the grandchildren! Bitch about the neighbour’s dog! We need you! Boing Boing needs you! Do it for the memory of Violet B!
Seriously, I thought this thread would reach some sort of critical mass, implode under the weight of its own self-importance, and turn into a black hole that sucked in the entire blogosphere.
disappointed.
Seriously, I thought this thread would reach some sort of critical mass, implode under the weight of its own self-importance, and turn into a black hole that sucked in the entire blogosphere. disappointed.
Let me introduce you to a little something that we like to call Untitled 1
Headline:
Boing Boing Makes Violet Blue
OW!
OW!SHIT!OW!
Let me tell you this is hard. At my parents house I have copies of BoingBoing the zine that were mailed to me because I was a big zinester.
It seemed like an amazing blog, not a personal blog at all, but one of a group of people who had really great ideas and compiled authoritative documents of what was interesting going on that day.
Not personal.
Authoritative.
Then they added in all kinds of serious analysis of what free speech means on the internet and one thing they definitely railed about was that individual companies do not own the discussion about themselves- they cannot censor other people talking about their company and what’s written should remain written.
This afternoon a journalist friend of mine sent me an email that I had to read how low the site had fallen.
And this Violet Blue story absolutely flies in the face of EVERYTHING that I understood from the words written in BoingBoing. BoingBoing marketed itself as the opposite of this behavior. There is nothing in COVER-UP of the actions taken to eliminate coverage of this one person’s works that remotely sounds like the BoingBoing that has been sold to me by the writers.
I want to say this even if my post gets disemvowelled. I had an account here under a different name and I posted many great and well-received comments that tried to promote my non-libertarian, pro-liberal-business agenda. And I got a lot of great responses, but soon the vowels started disappearing. No one would explain why. One time I pointed out exactly why what Cory Doctorow wrote was factually incorrect and my comment got disemvoweled. That was awful. Then a third comment of mine that was midlevel critical of the POV of a piece got screwed with. I realized that the editors simply had a problem with my POV and I left the site. A few weeks later I wanted to comment about a great company they talked about and I could login, but I had no posting privileges. My account was gone. I never cussed, never spammed, never called people names, never trolled, and never wrote anything that I didn’t want my name attached to.
But my account was gone.
I think the Boing Boing editors are mightily confused about how they sell their product- they are the defenders of a free internet, that is everything that Cory writes day in and day out. But the cover up of this Violet Blue thing proves that they are no better than the corporate organizations they railed against.
I for one am done with this site. They hold others to absolutes they refuse to live up to themselves. I have no idea what caused the loss of my original account last year and will never know. At least the BoingBoing crew know from me why I won’t be visiting the site again.
Oh. My.
Such a fuss.
A little perspective; in a hundred years no one will care.
Speaking as one who has had one’s vowels removed by BB mods; BB moderators, do as you must to maintain the editorial quality. Most of us will appreciate your efforts.
The rest of you who take umbrage at what has transpired, you need to realize that somewhere, right now, someone on the Internet is wrong. Go pile on them.
#450 GET
Higher Pagerank is equal to greater monetary value–and BB has the power to contribute to someone’s Pagerank by linking to it.
As long as BB isn’t being a bully, stealing AdSense lunch money, I am happy.
#440, Subterrene: what I wanted to communicate is: In a way a blog is only useful if there are readers. If the same people read a blog regularly, they develop a feeling of community, and a sense of things they expect from the blog or not. They have — of course — no right to expect these things, but they do so, anyways (as they do if the regularly use, for example, Starbucks or McDonalds). As intelligent readers in a blog with a comment facility, they voice their ideas, feelings and notions, only strengthening the (false) sense of community.
In the end, the social web is born, and if there are differences between consumables like McDonalds meals and “web 2.0″, user interaction and even user generated content is one. Or shortly: BoingBoing as a web 2.0 product, a high-level blog, functions only via readers attention; even on the level of advertsing revenue. This gives me, the reader, a bit more responsibility — and more urge for voicing my option if I feel something went terrible wrong or unBoingBoingish.
I’m not sure but some people here don’t get the difference between critique (I, the reader, am disappointed and say so) and managerial or editorial dictums (I, the shareholder, am disappointed and say so). In the first case, my influence is only in the option in voice (and to a lower degree, in the shallow threat of taking away my attention), in the second case, there is real influence. To say “If you were an editor/poster here, you could decide what gets posted, archived, etc. You aren’t. So it feels “UnBoingBoingish”… so what?” makes clear that you don’t get that difference.
I’m neither editor, poster nor manager, but I’m still a reader, this is an attention based commerce, this is social web, and if BoingBoing wishes to ignore the feelings of it’s community, it still can be a wonderful mass media outlet, but it cannot be a trusted blog anymore.
For all those who say that this is a trivial matter, you are wrong.
I can see they doyens of corporate America and governments around the world breathing a sigh of relief. Boingboing did it, why can’t we? Yes, BB, like it or not, you are this influential. This could easily become the new mantra of redactors of every stripe. A very bad precedent has been set.
For those who say this isn’t an autocratic-like maneuver I ask, “how is it not?” When purges take place almost all of it is trivial bullshit. There is never enough time to find the smoking gun so it always best to use the scattershot method. This is not to say that BB should in any way be compared to, say, Stalin in other respects, but a purge is a purge.
Furthermore, I don’t expect any reasonable person to necessarily agree with my point of view. Reasonable people placate and abide. They smooth things over. Their goal is to arrange their world in such a way as to avoid any turbulence. Anyone who causes it, no matter their claim, has to be marginalized.
But I’m not trying to deny or even deprecate their important role within complex sphere of the social ecosystem, merely pointing out their limitations. They have their place in the world to be sure. As Shaw once wryly noted though, all progress depends upon the unreasonable man. Progress is a synonym for change, and change is a synonym for struggle. I can understand why some may not be inclined, but there is no other way of making the world a better place.
In this particular situation, the only dialogue of any importance will come from the unreasonables. It is their voice that we must generally listen to on matters of broad, rather than narrow social scope. The passifying reasonables (who are more expert within a more narrow social realm) should not be expected to contribute anything of relevance. They will only block progress and should therefore be ignored.
Given BBs actions, no reasonable person could advance a compelling argument that would have any truck with an unreasonable.
lmao – We can always count on straight talk from Joel. ;)
This whole thing is starting to remind me of Cory’s story about Google taking over national defense. When I read that, I couldn’t imagine such a “Don’t Be Evil” group doing something heinous like that. I’m not saying this whole thing is anywhere on that scale, but it shows that even good people do dumb stuff from time to time. Like Barack approving the FISA changes.
I agree with post #30 –
But my main question is this: Why were the posts deleted instead of disemvoweled?
I’ve disemvoled this next part in advance to save you some time Moderator:
Th BngBng cntnt Nzs nd t chll th fck t – y gys r trmnds hypcrts!
If something was cool enough to warrent a post however many years ago, it should stay up for that very reason – regardless of new developments.
Wh rlly crs bt ths grmln fcd btch nywy?
Come on people, we’ve got to beat ‘Untitled 1′, I for one don’t think we’ve heard enough times about whether bOINGbOING has a right to remove posts, then once we’re done with that we can have soem more definitions of censorship, and then a random mixture of people saying “Go boingboing!” and “I hate boingboing!”…and if we’ve still not beaten ‘Untitled 1′ then I’ll throw in a few posts comparing boingboing’s policies to everything from Stalin to 1984
There is no Violet.
This was designed as a
psych-experiment/beta-test of the comment function when running in lightspeed ludicrous.
Oh my god.
Someone on my blog may have hit it on the head.
Is this because Violet recently sued the Porn Starlet over rights to the name?
It is, isn’t it?
AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Greg @408, I didn’t mean to imply that unpublishing Violet Blue was Stalinistic–it’s that it’s revising the past. Sorry I couldn’t come up with a better example than Trotsky. I chose him because the revision was famous and historical, not fictional. For v. 2.0, insert something about how it’s like erasing an ex-friend’s comments from your yearbook.
This thread would have twice as many posts if the Powers That Be weren’t deleting comments willy-nilly.
This thread would have twice as many posts if the Powers That Be weren’t deleting comments willy-nilly.
Ah, Doctor Pickles. In the interest of transparency, I will give you some numbers. Out of ~480 comments, a grand total of seven have been unpublished (yes, that’s what the button says: Unpublish). Five of them had inappropriate links and the other two were yours. There are also a couple dozen bile-drenched anonymous comments. I have approved more anonymous comments for this thread than the ones that I have ignored. In other words, your comment represents this thread in microcosm. A whole lot of people rubber-necking as they drive by a fender bender.
@Faustus: but I want to say “I luv boingboing, but you shouldn’t do this” — may I?
@459
I heard that they were keeping Einstein’s brain alive in a jar, but Cory ate it, and then he punched a fluffy kitten.
The more I read, the more that this looks like a publicity stunt.
Look at the facts:
* The editors keep enticing us, but refuse to give the details.
*Even Violet Blue “claims” to not know why this happened.
* There are now over 23,300 google results for “violet blue boing boing”
One of my postings is amongst the removed Violet Blue posts, and all I can say is, who cares.
Too much damn blog drama. I say, whatever Violet did to piss of the BB editors was probably horrible, and deserved this treatment.
I’ve seen Violet being a real cnt, before.
http://blog.gism.net/2008/07/01/violet-blue-sucks/
GabrielM, I had the very same thought a few moments ago. Are we in fact all falling for a massive viral marketing campaign being perpetrated by both BoingBoing and Violet? ;)
(tightening up my tinfoil hat)
AisleFive @6:
Sorry, Aisle, but “unpublishing” is actually the term the Movable Type interface uses for leaving a text in the database (as opposed to deleting it) but making it no longer visible on the site. It’s the opposite of “publishing,” where you draft a text out of sight of the readers, and only make it visible once it’s finished.
I’m almost impressed by the pretentious meanings people have been reading into “unpublish.” They all must use some other content-management software.
I noticed the posts were missing a while back when I was looking for Boing Boing’s reference to something VB wrote about the size of the adult industry being overstated (or so I remembered). I shrugged and moved on – the info was easy enough to find elsewhere.
Frankly if BB is uncomfortable endorsing VB via posts that link to her writings, it’s their right to withdraw that tacit endorsement, and they attempted to be classy about it by keeping their little squabbles quiet (boy did that backfire – but who was complaining and why? Is this a publicity stunt?)
They wanted to promote her once and no longer want to do so. So what. This is tedious.
That’s not censorship – not allowing them to express their current opinions as they see fit is closer to censorship and their opinion is that VB isn’t worth supporting in any fashion. (Did I mention, boy did that backfire?)
Can we go back to arguing about the environmental damage caused by kids’ “painting” with a bucket of water?
Guys!
This is it! I can almost guarantee!
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/10/sex-journo-viol.html
Violet Blue sued a porn starlet for using the Trademarked Name.
Which goes against the high-and-mighty BoingBoing credo of “everything should be free for everyone to use.”
AH HA HA HA HA
THIS? THIS IS WHAT YOU COULDN’T DISCUSS WITH ANYONE?
AH HA HA HA HA HA HAHA
I’m not sure why I feel the need to be the 472nd post (or later by the time I hit submit), but I do, so here goes. Somebody mentioned above that Violet Blue had sued another Violet Blue over trademark issues on the name. Do a Google or Wiki search it’s pretty easy to find. Whether or not that is the issue at hand I support your right to “unpublish” your own work. The only suggestion I would offer, since this is about hosting decisions is have a better linking system to the deleted posts rather than just a 404 error page. Not all BoingBoing readers are savvy enough to find the posts through Google cache or the Wayback Macine. In this way you won’t be “supporting” Violet Blue, but you will support the ideas that you represent. Either way, it’s much ado about nothing. Or is it, “the lady doth protest to much methinks”.
#300
There’s a middle ground here folks, calling out BB for totally blowing it PR-wise on this one,
I disagree, because there are in fact situations where there is no way to make things right with PR.
If they had aired their issues with VB, as many are now screaming at them to do, then they would be screamed at for publicly dissing VB.
If they did not respond to the screaming happening elsewhere, they would be screamed at for a cover up.
If they don’t respond to any of the attacks in the thread, they’re guilty of being aloof and unresponsive. If they do respond, they’re guilty of being defensive. If they apologize, then they are guilty of not being abject enough.
If they had left their links to VB on their site, they would have been compromising their own values, and paying an ISP to do it.
Guilty, guilty, guilty. I don’t know if I can continue to read the work of such guilty people.
If nothing else, they’re guilty of being the kind of people who get attacked by their readers in situations like this.
Why are people hating on gossip? Gossip is a wonderful thing. It’s on Brown’s list of human universals and might be seen as a basic human need. It’s fun. It builds relationships.
Same with drama – it’s not on the list of human universals in name, but it’s certainly there in spirit:
conflict
conflict, consultation to deal with
conflict, means of dealing with
conflict, mediation of
It’s not wrong to love gossip and drama. Nor is it immature. It’s just human.
I think it’s cool that people who say mean things about BB or its authors get disemvoweled, but people who call VB a cnt etc. don’t.
What was it Xeni was saying about ad hominem attacks?
Rotorglow,
If you will flag the offending comments, I will be happy to look into it. Just click the eyeball and fill out the form.
James, that was discussed many, many comments up-thread..
eg. #40, #139, #219, #400, #417..
Also (and I’m happy to say I don’t know at all), if it was related to the trademark action, why would BB have deleted the posts “a year ago”, when the trademark thing only happened in October 2007?
to derive some good out of this, I’d be all for boingboing offering a tutorial on how to use the wayback machine. I stare at that interface, know it is something I should love and understand and revere, and I just can’t possible grasp how to make it work without some agonizing process. Not that they’d have to use the tutorial to teach us how to find Violet Blue, but it would be nice if they could turn this into an opportunity to make the web more accessible to some of us un-savvy peons
So if I’m to take what the mods have posted and read between the lines this is a case of:
Hell hath no fury like a woman ignored.
hey guys, it’s been noticed over at metafilter that xeni’s initial comment has been edited to remove a phrase that read to some people like an unflattering way to describe VB. that’s it’s been (apparently secretly) edited is bothering a few people. anyone want to clarify what the deal is there? considering the nature of the current kerfluffle, this is the kind of thing that would probably throw gas on the fire.
@481
Since when are links to stories about this issue on other sites “inappropriate”?
Or are you saying that anything that criticizes the moderation on BoingBoing is “inappropriate” and shouldn’t be seen?
Or are you saying that anything that criticizes the moderation on BoingBoing is “inappropriate” and shouldn’t be seen?
Doctor Pickles,
Do you only have an out port? Have you not read this thread in which you keep posting?
Wow, there’s a lot of self-important people who read Boing Boing, aren’t there? To quite a few of you I’d just like to say: Get your own blog. And get a life, stop borrowing the Boingers’.
@shmegegge, can you link that?
I, for one, welcome our new hypocritical overlords.
Jesus Christ! Really??? Nearly 500 comments here, with hundreds more on Metafilter and other places around the ‘net?
Why is this an issue? Boing Boing made a decision to remove content from public view on their own website. What business of yours is the “why?”
Don’t like it? Ask for your money back. Feel you can no longer trust the Boingers to provide interesting stuff? Just stop coming here.
‘unpublish’? unboingboing…
my, how you’ve changed!
I’d just like to take this opportunity to congratulate you for reading this far.
I can understand changing your mind about the subject of a blog posting, but I wouldn’t go so far as to delete the posting. Instead, you might have added something like this to the entry:
“UPDATE (mm/dd/yyyy): It turns out that we were wrong with our original posting. Instead of being wonderful, we now think that XXX is a skanky worthless POS and we wanted to change our posting to reflect this opinion. So, you can ignore what we wrote before. That is all.”
Would have been simple. Would have been pretty clear that you no longer think positively about the subject (deleting the posting makes things less clear).
this comment is the one I’m talking about.
I prefer not to detail the changes, since I imagine there’s a good reason they were made.
Just wanted to say that I sincerely appreciate the words of support *and* the respectful criticism of the people who are posting here. Also, +1 to Joel’s post #399.
This is not censorship. It’s the quiet revocation of an endorsement. All Boing Boing had done in the past was provide links to some of Violet Blue’s content. The content is still there. You never needed Boing Boing to access it. Boing Boing no longer wants to endorse it, so this is the best of both worlds: you can still access the content and Boing Boing isn’t endorsing her. I’m utterly baffled as to why so many people have a problem with this.
I think I’m lost, I was looking for the forum on running things into the ground.
Never mind.
The comment that shmegegge is referring to is this one, in which Xeni originally said:
“[T]his is our home, we are proud of the home we built and the guests who visit here with us, and we like spending time here ourselves — so we don’t like to leave piles of shit lying around on the floor.”
Some believe that the implication is that Violet Blue is one of the “piles of shit” in Xeni’s comment.
The comment appears to have then been subsequently revised to read:
“[T]his is our home, we are proud of the home we built and the guests who visit here with us, and we like spending time here ourselves.”
A web cache copy of this page which may include the original, unedited copy may be located here.
Wow, what a mess. Sounds like you guys lost about twelve “long time readers” with this personal choice you made on your personal blog last year. Shit. Do you guys need like, some money to pay the rent or get some food? Should we start a paypal donation in your names?
I mean, seriously, and I totally agree with these twelve guys. I mean, I’m sure they never, ever deleted a tweet or blog post, or a photo from their Myspace or flickr account, or tore out a page of their diary and burned it, or forged their tax records (oh yes, I know) or ever did anything like that, ever. They’re clearly superior to these so-called Boing Boing bloggers and editors and we should all care what they think.
Oh, and in case you couldn’t tell, I was being sarcastic.
People who say this thread is simply a matter of bb-haters versus bb-fans are oversimplifying the situation enormously. I enjoy boingboing and despise Violet Blue’s abuse of trademark law as much as anyone.
But I’m troubled by unpublishing. Boingboing is an influential commercial site that criticizes the practices of others. When BB’s board makes a mistake, it should do what it expects the people in charge of other good businesses to do: apologize, and set things right for their users.
Websites change. Deleting old content that you don’t want to keep is perfectly reasonable. BUT: blogs, with their diary-like, timeline based nature, seem to offer a fixed record of events: changing ‘the past’ breaks that illusion, and feels wrong.
The word ‘unpublishing’ feels very Stalinist / Big Brother-ish.
500?
Wow, I could only make it through about 60 of the comments before my eyeballs melted.
Xeni, I think I have commented on BB/BBG exactly once, and that was to warn you about riling up the internet trolls. I had no idea they were just so willing to barge into your house and play paddywhack on your head no matter what.
To the whole BB crew: it seems to me that you are handling this quite well, and with an even-tempered hand. You acted, you explained, and you explained your explanation. Well done.
And is there a “Godwin’s Law” for when someone calls “censorship” over a private posting in a private space? Maybe we’ll have to call it “Violet’s Rule.”
well done, sir.
Woo Hoo – I made the 500th post!
Moderators,
Please do not “unpublish” any comments that would rob me of this special honor.
Thank you.
@TILLWE
Sure you can say that, you have the right :)
gabrielm,
Your honor is safe with me. Mazel Tov.
hey, could you unpublish this post from a few years back for me? it will save me having to criticize you in public in order to have it removed. many thanks in advance!
http://www.boingboing.net/2004/05/04/apple-deleting-criti.html
now look here. i read the first 60 or so comments, and i assume the other 4oo+ is just more of the same. which is to say, ridiculous. i can’t remember the last time i saw so many references to 1984 all in one place.
so let me just say these: 1. BoingBoing is not the only channel on TV. If you don’t like what you’re watching, just change the channel. 2. When BoingBoing starts charging for access to their site, that is the moment we can start complaining about their content or practices. As long as it’s free, SHH!
That is all.
Just in case anyone was wondering, Violet has stated she has no idea why her posts were 1984’d.
http://www.tinynibbles.com/blogarchives/2008/06/when-transparency-does-not-equal-erased.html#comment-1705
To the BoingBoing crew — I would like to chime in as one more person disappointed by this choice. Your voice has been a powerful one for transparency and the free flow of information on the internet, and it will be just a little less powerful now.
Consider, for example, this deleted post about a Google algorithm change that inexplicably dropped sex-positive blogs in the rankings. Posts like that are an important watchdog for the community, but if you posted the same thing tomorrow, you would have to start by distinguishing your own opaque deletions. Your distinctions might be right — but readers would have to wonder if the real distinction was just that it wasn’t you doing it.
Again, I appreciate all the work you’ve done, and I understand why you might feel jumped on right now, but please don’t dismiss all the complaints — some of them are because we like you.
@Faustus:
“I luv boingboing, but you(1) shouldn’t do this”
(1) by you I mean bOINGbOING, not Faustus.
@#399, Joel:
Are you channelling Donald Rumsfeld?
A few observations:
i) a lone moron will usually reach better decisions than a committee of smart people
ii) unpublishing is to self-censorship as water-boarding is to torture
iii)private issues are not best dealt with via your publication.
Next time, try amending your Christmas card lists.
Oh, and now would probably be a great time to dig 50 or so “wonderful things” out of your reject piles.
I’ve been skimming through comments here & I cannot believe the presumption & hysteria & vituperation of some commenters. First of all, BB is only a blog, regardless of its popularity & influence. Secondly, it’s not your blog; if you don’t like BB’s peaches, quit shaking their tree. Thirdly, how important will this ‘thing’ be in 5 years? Five months, five weeks? Next week? I see an great deal of energy being expended on something that, in the grand scheme of things, is awfully unimportant.
unpublishing is to self-censorship as water-boarding is to torture
Thanks, Tubman. We didn’t have enough histrionics yet.
@JCUSHMAN (#509), Thanks. I hear you.
Much ado about nothing. How would you all like it if your parents forced you to keep hanging out with the drama-mongering kid next door who makes a living writing essays about their crotch, suing indigent, single mom sex workers, and stalking their alleged stalkers by screen capturing every single thing they write and saving all their dynamic IP addresses? It’s like being forced to hang with the leper even if you’d rather play with your cool friends.
At least boingboing doesn’t cry RAPE or STALKER whenever a male does something they disagree with. Quietly unlinking someone is tons more mature and honorable than the former which is VB modus operandi.
This is a directory of wonderful things not one person’s PR vehicle.
Doesn’t anyone consider that her wondering publicly about this was a calculated ploy into forcing BB to publicly address what should be a private matter? Most people ask for clarification privately and quietly wait for the answer. No answer IS an answer. Unless you’re a stalker.
This is a publicity ploy and you’re all falling for it. Just look at her wikipedia entry discussion and history page. Her ‘close personal friend’ is frantically updating it regarding this matter as it unfolds. Isn’t wikipedia supposed to be encyclopedic? Her’s is maintained up to date like a vanity blog.
Trying to garner sympathy from the hordes of people who don’t really know what’s going on is pretty pathetic. Majority does not always rule and wanting to handle something privately does not automatically make a person wrong.
Already way too much bandwidth has been wasted on this non-issue.
@GabrielM
WIN GET! …although everyone knows that every get is really a mod get…
BB is basically saying: Shut up, this is our sandbox, we can do whatever we want to and we will. If you’re unhappy about it, then whine about it here in this designated contained area, and if you don’t agree with our decision, too bad. We won’t give you an explanation because we don’t feel you deserve one.
But hey, we’re listening.
@TillWe,
yeah I got that, but it’s nice to know there are people so polite that even when I don’t take offence they’ll apologise :)
Also, all these people criticising the word ‘unpublishing’, boingboing didn’t just make it up, it’s the actual real word for an actual real thing that has nothing to do with any kind of newspeak as has been stressed many times in this thread. So please, stop making hilarious gibes about it.
Hi, is this the line to the bathroom?
Thanks.
meanwhile…
@Alexreynolds (#496), I think Xeni removed that phrase because it sounded inflammatory and insulting in a way that she didn’t intend.
Also, I ask that people please don’t continue with the nasty names or post stupid, sophomoric insults. The moderators will do their best to remove or disemvowel those comments, whether they’re about a Boing Boinger, Violet Blue, or anyone else.
The moderators will do their best to remove or disemvowel those comments, whether they’re about a Boing Boinger, Violet Blue, or anyone else.
Thank you to those who flagged comments with vile epithets. I have disemvowelled the offending language.
It’s hard for me to imagine that even the most pro-BB commenters here won’t feel a twinge of embarrassment for the bloggers the next time it publishes a story about censorship.
I accept (grudgingly) that the backstory is none of our beeswax. But the editors would be well advised to take a cold look at how seriously this episode has damaged their brand.
Since I know everything, I advise them to de-unpublish this material, make a terse but sincere public apology to their readership and She Who Must Not Be Named, and get back to business.
I don’t like Violet Blue.
I lost respect for her a while back, when she participated in the argumentum ad hominem against the censorware guy who was found to have posted in the adult diaper newsgroups, but I don’t agree with BoingBoing’s decision to remove her from the site.
This is the sort of thing that you would be outraged over if a similar group did it.
It’s bad form.
Please consider re-instating her content and instituting a policy to not behave similarly in the future. While BB is a private blog, it has a greater responsibility to the community than you may realize.
Perhaps you could update the links that pointed to her site and point them towards her Wikipedia entry instead.
“There’s a big difference between that and censorshipâ€
In my opinion “unpublished†is just another word for censorship, The next time someone posts something in my forum that breaks our T.O.S I am going to reply that they were “unpublished†and not deleted I don’t believe the individual in question will see the difference .
After reading multiple stories from many sources I have come to the belief that ad revenue may have been a motivating factor in this decision. Of course this is your blog and you have the right to publish and or “unpublished†(as you call it) as you see fit however, This in my opinion does and will hurt you creditability.
I personally come to Boing Boing to primarily read Mr. Doctorow’s posts in regards to Privacy and Copy write reform . Most of the other posts are typically available on the other sites I frequent Digg, Reddit ect (nothing personal, any blog posts of journalistic integrity will appear on many sites) As such I would be quite curious to hear Mr. Doctorow’s take on the situation.
My own opinion is that this was done to placate an advertiser and secure future revenue streams. I make this assumption based on other stories that I have read and the fact that posts to Boing Boing have to first be reviewed by your editor Xeni Jardin. If this is the case I believe that Boing Boing just took a steep on to the slippery slope.
Of course I could be wrong ………..
@#513, Antinous: Sorry, I couldn’t work out a pithy enough way of referencing Stalin’s airbrush work on those Bolshevik Party Congress group photos.
Care to fill us in on the rest of that irregular verb? If it’s ‘we unpublish’ and ‘they censor’, how does the second person go?
David #521, in this climate nobody thought that silently going back and editing something out was maybe a bad idea?
Really, it’s the silent edits that create the worst of the bad feeling, because it makes us all go “am I crazy, or did that used to say something different?” In my world, doing that to people is a hostile act.
@Alexreynolds (#496), I think Xeni removed that phrase because it sounded inflammatory and insulting in a way that she didn’t intend.
That’s fair. But it seems rather unfortunate that the comment was edited in a discussion about whether revisionism and secrecy are generally ethical practices in a public medium. Having an unedited version available on the record allows people to decide for themselves if that behavior is acceptable.
@Teresa (Moderator), I’ve got to say that I find your tone to be consistently condescending. It’s bothered me for a long time now and kept me from ever really jumping in to the comments section. Your responses in this discussion have displayed the same dismissive attitude is particularly antithetical to the tone that draws most people to this website. People have legitimate concerns about how large, respected institutions that they are emotionally invested in behave.
Also your comments about Violet Blue seem to the opposite of classy. You can’t say some of things you’ve said about Violet Blue in this thread and then pretend that Boing Boing is too demure to state the reasoning behind wanted to be disassociated from her.
@Xeni You said, “This is also why we remove hateful, ad hominem attack comments from public view, too…” This seems to be disingenuous. You remove terrible comments that users post but I don’t think you ban them and retroactively delete everything they ever wrote. Also, these were things that you wrote and obviously felt okay with the content of for a period of time. None of the posts were hateful, contained ad hominem attacks or anything on that level. I think that people are upset because Boing Boing is essentially denying any relation to Violet Blue instead of coming out and saying that someone they used to associate no longer has their support.
If Violet Blue is such a person that all of this is worthwhile then it seems like others who read this blog would like to know why. If it was solely a personal thing then it seems against the professionalism of Boing Boing to delete the posts and the should be restored. If it was bad enough to warrant the deletion then it seems worthy enough to mention why as we would probably like to know huge truths like that anyways. I don’t want to support someone who is killing kittens and would appreciate it if that’s the level of things going on here.
I think as a semi-confession I’ll admit that maybe more than a few people, myself included, are looking for a reason to give up on Boing Boing or at least ween ourselves. Which is a terrible reason to get all riled up about this, I agree. Nevertheless, for some, this may be the steampunk straw that broke the papercraft camels back. For me it’s the tone deaf self promotion and condescending moderation, things that I could navigate around before, but now I’ll take my eyeballs elsewhere. I realize that I’ll probably get a few snarky replies saying “who the hell cares?” but if that’s the attitude around here then that’s just another reason to move on.
I think the best move for Boingboing to do would be to unpublish their unpublishment.
Wait, what?
@#524, David Thomsen: To be fair, ‘unpublish’ isn’t some Orwellian euphemism dreamt up by BoingBoing, it’s just a standard Content Management System term for the button that puts content off-line. However, I do find Teresa’s insistence on the “clear” difference between unpublishing and censoring quite amusing. I suspect it’s the result of a reasoning process that starts with the conclusion “we don’t do censorship” and adjusts the premises to fit.
From UCLA Information Studies assistant prof Jean-François Blanchette’s brief explanation of his project promoting forgetting and exclusion in information design:
#529 – that is a good post. I agree with your assessment. BB is caught in a flurry of self contradictions and I don’t see it taking the path to solving those problems. It wants to keep growing and establish its credibility yet refuses to admit the responsibilities that come with the territory. It wants transparency to be a standard yet fails to follow its own preachings.
@Tubman: it’s the same difference as the difference between “painting words black” and “censoring”. Or, for all consequences, between “removing content from public view” and “deleting content”.
What Satan is really saying is that as readers we have a right to expect that bloggers will do what we expect and will give us what we want. He’s saying that we have a right to put words into other people’s mouths and if they don’t correct us we’re right and if they do they’re feeding the conflict by responding.
He’s saying that as a matter of principle BoingBoing should be bound by a framework of norms and rules and laws that they violated even before Satan imagined them.
That’s what he’s really saying.
Christ, who cares? It’s only another blog-ball fight. I’m just happy to see a post that isn’t about steampunk or Corey’s latest book/reading. Enuff already.
Dude, if you guys re-post the postings and change her name from “Violet Blue” to “Burnt Sienna” or better yet, simply “Flesh”, I’ll give you a dollar.
A. Whole. DOLLAR. That’s FOUR games of Pac-Man.
@#534, Tillwe: It’s not quite that clear cut. If BoingBoing had unpublished a page, say, because the HTML in a table was a mess, no-one (well, hardly anyone) would be crying censorship. Here it’s because they don’t like someone any more, and that certainly is censorship, regardless of who wrote it, and whether you, I or anyone else would it consider it a reasonable thing to do if we were privy to the justification for it.
@Hagbard: No. Re-read “Social Networking and Blogging 101″.
Holy crapdoodle. 520 comments in a post!
So many thoughts…
First — Wow, yeah, gonna have to go with the “eww” crowd on this one. BB is a pretty large blog, to be sure, and with this whole transparency — fight for what’s right — etc vibe that gets pushed around, it’s awfully weird to see you all pretty much use “their tactics” when it comes to your house.
It seems petty and spiteful to just wipe the pages.
You could have added a comment, or a link, or even kept the BB URL’s and just placed a note that the content was removed, etc. No, just a quiet “disappearance” that finally came around to bite you guys on the butt.
Weird stuff.
On the other hand you guys finally opened up a forum for it on your site, and David’s doing a nice run of encouraging discourse. I don’t “need” to know “WHAT” happeend, it’s certainly not my place if it’s a personal (POS) matter, but again.. the vibe, the transparency, the new media, yada yada.. you guys handled this like “Old Media”, so, it’s weird. Thanks for trying to patch it up.
Also thanks to the mod(s?) for being easy on the DEL key in this thread. And the dsmvwlr key.
Oh… and Unpublish? Yeah it’s a CMS term, but it really could have used a nicer alias in this regard. It didn’t cost anything to host it, bytes versus CPM wise, and while some of us nerds knew the term it has a really weird vibe to it when you combine it with the stuff above.
You guys have a great blog. It deservedly has gotten huge over the last few years. All organizations go through growing pains, and all large groups have their insane fringe disruptors. Just keep on truckin’, you guys. People come here for a reason.
That being said, I can’t agree with your choice of head moderator. Teresa may have expertise, but she seems to have to work too hard to control her emotions. I’m mostly a lurker, but just from the few comment threads I’ve taken to reading, she tends to be domineering, condescending, and paranoid that everyone’s out to disrupt her discussion threads. Unlike Joel, she hasn’t done much to adopt the general “Boinger” attitude since joining your group. Sorry to say it, but if I had to offer one point of criticism it would be the slow pot of dissension she has been brewing amongst your regulars since arriving.
It’s worth considering that maybe some of this controversy sprouted there.
I don’t care about VB one way or the other..
but..
I sorta miss BoingBoing 1.0
Wow, being unpublished by boingboing is better than an Orbit in the NYT.
500+ comments about a topic that (1) Isn’t Canadian, (2) Isn’t Steampunk, (3) Isn’t one of Cory’s books, or (4) Isn’t about the TSA baby killers is a site to behold.
You just had to bring back comments didn’t you…if only you’d never had comments then this whole poostain of a thread could never have happened. Just goes to show, you can allow a horse to comment but you can’t make it gather any moss. Or something like that.
(waves at Brad before the dsmvowlr cannon explodes)
One of the main arguments here goes something like “yes they have the right to do what they like on their blog, but they were wrong to do it, because it goes against the values they supposedly stand for, and that makes them hypocrites.”
Perhaps I’ve been reading too much GrokLaw and Lawrence Lessig and Cory Doctorow, but I thought that the point of the whole CopyLeft movement was to allow creators of content full control over how their content is used under copyright law. For example, a person who writes some cool code should not be prevented from sharing their code if they want to.
Where in that do we see anything that means that BoingBoing has been hypocritical by editing its own content? Aren’t they in fact champions of creator’s rights to do as they see fit with their own work?
#538 I’m sorry tillwe, which of my comments are you referring to?
@Hagbard: Seriously, for me BoingBoing is not only part of the “copyleft” movement, but they also stand for something like net transparency, for “the good side”.
Someone posted this link somewhere above, and it is a good example what BoingBoing is saying about other companies …
(I also get the feeling that you have a very narrow definition of CopyLeft, or miss out on the -SA part of CC licences etc.)
@Hagbard (546) — the one about “What Satan is really saying is that as readers we have a right to expect that bloggers will do what we expect and will give us what we want. […]” (535). And maybe “Social networking and blogging 101″ is the wrong course, “Attention economy 101″ would be better.
@#545, Hagbard: The hypocrisy lies in being opposed to censorship when others do it, and then censoring their own blog. Apparently, the “it’s not censorship when we do it” line isn’t working quite as well as anticipated.
Sister Y,
Thanks for the Brown’s list of human universals.
I knew if I kept reading I’d find something of value to be learned.
Has anyone stopped to think that the reasons that they removed their connections to the blogger in question, as well as their reasons for not disclosing those reasons, might be legal in nature? These days, when retards sue people at the drop of a hat, sometimes maybe it is better to just remove things and move on.
Again, all this fuss…a YEAR LATER.
Get over it people.
Was this because Boingboing had been included as a ‘pornography site’ in blacklists because of links to VB’s site? you know in all those lame filters that libraries, schools, businesses & dictatorships use.
s t ky f mntn tht fnd sm f ths cmmnts stndngly stpd? ‘v knwn hmstrs tht hd mr gl thn th Bngrs. Mny f y gys hv bn rdng thm fr yrs. Hv y rlly nt pckd p n tht fct bt thm, r d y jst lk httng ppl y knw wn’t ht bck?
nd s fr ll ths “rwlln dtng” crp — chrst, d y tk tw scnds t thnk bfr y pst t? Y knw th Bngrs hv mjr cmmtmnt t trnsprncy nd pn cmmnctn. Tkng stnd n ths sss, nd wrtng nd pblshng wblg tht’s rn n ths prncpls, dsn’t mn th thrs f tht wblg r blgd t tll y bt vry lttl thng thy thnk nd d nd dcd.
f y thnk t ds blg thm, nd tht th fct tht thy hvn’t tld y vrythng smhw trnsfrms thm nt schmng wsls, thn ‘m srry, bt y’r blckhd.
Vlt Bl hs dmnstrbly ld mr thn nc bt ths mbrgl. Ds tht mttr? Whrs Mrk, Xn, Cry, nd Dvd r gttng trshd fr nt bng trnsprnt fst ngh. nd why dd thy hstt t rspnd t tht scrrls stry n Vllywg? Bzrrly ngh, bcs thy ddn’t wnt t trsh Vlt Bl. Thy cld hv. t wld hv bn sy. nd nlk th ppl wh r ttckng thm, th Bngrs wld hv bn tllng th trth.
Bt thy ddn’t d t, bcs bsclly thy’r mch ncr ppl thn sh s. Thy’r ls fr lss dsprt bt fndng wys t ttrct n dnc. n tht scr, thr r strns f hmn vl th Bngrs wll nvr ndrstnd.
nd yt, sm f y r pllryng thm.
Prd f yrslvs?
So of course, Boing Boing will no longer complain about missing ( un-published ) gov’t documents or newspaper stories that are here today and gone tomorrow, right?
It is your blog and you are free to do what you will, I delete old junk that no one reads from my blogs.
However, as a strong proponent of free information and speech I find it hypocritical.
I get 30 folks a day looking for old PPC Assembly code on my personal blog. It’s a wee bit different when you are leader for freedom of information and have the readership that you do for you to erase stuff because of a personal disagreement that you refuse to discuss.
Do what you will, but I’m disappointed. What harm would there have been in letting the old stuff gather dust as it rapidly does on the internet? Or updating the information to reflect your current views?
It’s your website. You can do with it as you like, include or delete posts as you like. Even this one ;]
It’s your website.
Bruno
Unpublishing is an inherently public act of repudiation, because what is published is by definition public. An explanation of the cause of the repudiation should be provided to Violet Blue as to what triggered the act.
If her act was private, then a disclosure only to her is polite, by not revealing a private act to the general public. But to refuse to tell her why she triggered it is immature. (If she was informed, and is lying about not knowing the reason, it would be nice if BoingBoing would mention she’s publicly lying.)
If her act was public, there’s little reason for not explaining the reason in public, because there’s no privacy to preserve. But it still would be immature to refuse to even privately tell Violet Blue what the triggering act was.
So, it looks like what BoingBoing is trying to do is keep its reasons secret because it fears those reasons would be publicized by Violet Blue and seen as ridiculous by the public.
BoingBoing has a perfect right to act as it is, of course. It’s not even hypocritical. It merely leaves us with the conclusion that, one way or another, BoingBoing is doing something it should be embarrassed about, and so is trying to keep it from being known.
#553: “Violet Blue has demonstrably lied more than once about this imbroglio.”
Demonstrably? Where?
I hate it when three of my favorite blog peoples fight, I purely do. But you don’t get to say that and not back it up.
Well, you do get to say it, but it’s tacky and it sucks and I expected better of you.
Sanctimonious Condescension, in paragraph form! Bravo! Now if you could just edit that down to the facts in the second to last paragraph…
(Looks at huge number of posts)
Hey!
I just got here…
What’s all this then, eh?
Fact is I’ve got nothing to add nothing to say about this.
Moving on…
#544 (timestocome) – do you really believe that’s even close to a valid analogy? Is there a social contract or a Freedom of Information act governing BB that I’m not aware of?
As far as a charge of hypocrisy goes, is there a post in which the BB folks attacked a blog for unpublishing their own posts and then taking (*gasp*) nearly 24 hours to organize a response? Because otherwise, you’ve got an apples and oranges situation here.
Fair enough; I don’t speak for everyone else, but I certainly don’t think the Boingers are obliged to tell us about everything they think and do and decide. But I do think that, having committed to publishing a weblog run on certain principles, they are obliged to actually run the weblog on those principles, or be called out for it. And they’ve been called out for it, so everything works out, right?
I’m curious about these demonstrable lies that Violet Blue has perpetrated. I must have missed something upthread–any chance you could demonstrate?
Mountain out of a molehill! Seriously.
Yes, BB did censor. They censored THEMSELVES. Which they have every right to do when they realize that some entity promoted on THEIR site no longer jives with THEIR mission. The only crazy thing that happened is that the BB editors changed their minds. No wait, that’s not crazy, that’s to be expected.
What’s actually crazy is people’s expectations that BB OWED them something more than their brief explanation of why the posts were removed. They have a juicy burning desire to know the inside scoop. “OMG you have to tell me what she did that was so horrible!! For real, I need to hear it!!!” Not because being privy to this information would really help anyone make a more informed decision about how they currently fee about BB. But because they want to feel like they’re a part of the inner circle. They’ve obviously invested a lot of time reading and contributing comments to BB, and they feel as if they are owed access to the inner sanctum of BB collective decision-making. They want to feel like every time something is posted on BB, it’s posted JUST FOR YOU. News flash – No, sweetie. You are not owed anything. Deciding what content to promote and why is a privilege reserved for the editors of each individual blog. If you’re really missing out on that sense of belonging (seriously, you are, you are CRAVING the attention), start your own blog, or join a basketball team at the Y even. But don’t come down on people for not delivering what you were never entitled to in the first place.
Thoughtcrime does not entail death: thoughtcrime is death.
547
So BB dropping references to a site they no longer wish to refer traffic to is the same as Apple suppressing criticism of one of its products on a commercial website?
I’m not sure what net transparency is, except as a general idea. It sound nice, but I think it’s like the court’s definition of obscenity. You know it when you see it. But what if others don’t see it the same way, and you don’t in fact sit on a court?
Honestly I’ve never read through the CC license, so I don’t know what the SA part is. Tell me more.
@Teresa
Wow – for a moderator, you inject a great deal of volatility to the discussion. You can’t say that you’re actively trying to not trash Violet Blue and then explicitly call her a liar the very next paragraph. I mean you can, but that just makes you seem very disingenuous.
I will not call Teresa incompetent. But obviously Teresa doesn’t know what she’s doing.
See how comes off?
Teresa, maybe you shouldn’t have signed up for a job where your basic job is to wade through blog comments huh? :(
I agree lets get worked up over the worst parts of this thread and try to ignore any of the many many posts here that are reasonable and aren’t filled with craziness HRRUMPH HRRUMPH HRRUMPH
“Who gives a fuck, anyway?”—Frank Zappa.
In defense of the boingboing editors and staff, this is (as far as this longtime reader can recall) the first time that boingboing has had to deal with such an issue, insofar as the public audience is aware. It should by now be most obvious that boingboing has entered waters not yet charted by most, if any, blogs before, a unique occurrence whereby a personal blog of relatively humble origins has grown to a global phenomenon with popularity and page hits that rivals that of the larger, older, and more traditional news media sites. As such, there is no clear precedent for how the editors should handle their newly found spotlight as they straddle the boundaries of blogdom and unbiased journalism (as it appears some readers view boingboing’s current status). It is certainly unfortunate that the editors compromised the same beliefs they have espoused all of these years, but this seems more the unintentional result of a hastily made decision than anything else. The editors were presented with a situation not yet encountered, they made a mistake that they have made abundantly clear they regret, and have pledged to prevent such an action from happening again. Were boingboing to repeatedly go back on its own statements regarding free speech, such hostility would be far more justifiable, but as it stands this seems a case of cruel and unjustified attacks. So may we all just forgive the editors as they acknowledge their mistake, and allow them to move on from this?
And, on another note, may I propose a possible fix (if it hasn’t already been done)? Couldn’t boingboing simply go back and insert text or a image marker of some kind that would state “boingboing no longer supports this person/work.” As such the editors’ personal opinions could remain ex post facto, while readers would still be able to read the posts and make up their own minds. Just my own thoughts, though.
Har har. You asked for comments…!
Add my voice to the disappointed. For me, the spirit of the Web is transparent and archival. BoingBoing is a blog of record, imo, and I think you should not be “unpublishing” (definitely an Orwellian term) previously published posts — especially without telling anyone.
The notion that you “didn’t want to pay to host Violet Blue’s posts” is disengenous. You’re paying to host your own archives. And anyway, hasn’t the recent meme been that storage is now virtually free?
History is too easily rewritten. I value BoingBoing for your fundamental integrity. I shouldn’t have to go to the Wayback Machine to see the “true” BoingBoing archives.
@#537: Tubman. (Because he was the last one to talk about censorship)
It’s not censorship because they were simply removing posts that could be considered approval for Violet Blue and her actions or beliefs. Posting about deleting the posts could have negatively affected her reputation as well as positively affecting her notoriety. If they didn’t want to do either their actions where the most logical course.
Because of the support that is implied in a boing boing post and the real gains that people gain from posts, and the fact that boing boing is not simply reporting news as traditional media is “supposed to,” it’s not censorship. The best way to represent boing boing is not a newspaper or news show, but a bookstore/hobbyshop.
If the bookstore owner doesn’t care for a particular books author, subject or view, it doesn’t have to sell the book. And while the bookstore owner might not care for the book/author/subject it doesn’t mean that he/she wants to criticize it openly by announcing the fact that they aren’t selling it. They don’t try to publicize the book positively or negatively. It doesn’t make sense to do either one.
The bookstore metaphor doesn’t work entirely because you can’t expect a bookstore to approve of every book it sells because it is selling them and benefits by having a large variety of material. Boing Boing is “selling” the views and opinions of the editors. Which is a little different.
On hypocrisy: The difference between this and boing boing calling out corporate or government censorship is that boing boing isn’t about reporting facts and news. It’s about opinions and views and stuff they think is wonderful. For their credibility they have to be accurate and factual, but they don’t have to report everything. If they claimed to to just report facts and that was their aim I think it would have been required for them to report that they no longer supported Violet Blue and the reasons why and then let their readers decide about it, but in this case it would still probably amount to little more than gossip.
#548 tillwe
Oh that. I was rather hoping you would say, “Hey, good point about putting words in other peoples’ mouths.”
You references to books in the Borges Memorial Library are not causing me to have that, “I know exactly what he means!” moment. I’ve read Down and Out, so maybe you’re referring to whuffie in some way, but of course we still live in a world that has the other kind of economy.
The substantive merits of what happened with Violet Blue and BB may be completely trivial and personal in nature, but the process by which the issue was handled is being applied in a manner that sets a precedent. Further down the line, some issue may come up that gives BB pause to “unpublish” another contributor’s work and mentions of said contributor. What happens then? Will these targeted surgical removals be done on an ad hoc basis or will there be a public announcement giving notice that it will happen, or does it just happen in the hopes that nobody makes waves for at least a year?
It’s not about censorship because censorship is about government exercising force to quiet speech. Clearly, BB’s actions are private. What’s at stake is the credibility, reputation, and integrity of this blog to be able to successfully defend itself from criticisms of hypocrisy, underhanded actions, and a general unwillingness to accept a level of responsibility that many would presume a public blog like this would have espoused by merit of its success and public visibility.
#549 tubman
Like many others, I disagree with your definition of censorship. If you can’t prove to me that they committed censorship, then I can’t agree that they were hypocritical.
I’d admit, I’d like a link or three for the “demonstrable lies” that have been mentioned. The implication of evidence should be supported by said evidence, and all that, and that’s a pretty strong accusation to be levied.
For better or worse, Boing Boing’s on defense now because of the way this broke. Obviously, Boing Boing wouldn’t handle something like this the same way again, and there’s only so much they want to fuel the fire, but when you have strong statements like that, you reach the point of needing to explain them.
Put another way: if Blue is demonstrably lying in all of this, then she should be held accountable for it. If the Boingers wanted to save face for her and handle this quietly, that’s commendable, but if she’s abusing that in some way it becomes foolhardy on their part.
And if she’s not, then accusing her of it is pretty dirty pool. But honestly, I have a hard time believing the accusation would be made without evidence to back it up.
So, other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?
@#567, PeaceLove:
I think the term “blog of record” is equal parts absurd, hilarious, and contradictory.
“Is it okay if I mention that I find some of these comments astoundingly stupid?” – Boing Boing moderator, to audience.
Oy.
“Whereas Mark, Xeni, Cory, and David are getting trashed for not being transparent fast enough.”
I can’t believe I have to point this out, but the big issue here isn’t that they weren’t transparent *enough*, they weren’t transparent *at all* *in any way* *whatsoever.*
This situation is going to be studied in college courses in a few years as an example of how not to handle PR in a high-traffic site.
Wow. So many comments.
I keep up with about a dozen blogs and until this moment I knew nothing about any of this. And I’m pretty sure I don’t care.
I see most blogs, including Boing Boing, as one big editorial feature at best. If the statement the editors want to make includes quietly clipping out some articles, not engaging net-controversies, or posting unicorn pictures every day for a week, that is fine with me.
Although five days is officially my maximum tolerance for unicorns.
This whole fiasco makes me sad:
1. Every future Boing Boing post about online transparency, government and corporate censorship, and the like will have to be bracketed by a disclaimer about this issue.
2. The reputation and credibility of all of the Boing Boing writers are being damaged by what looks like the actions of one of them.
3. The ad hominem attacks and assertations (“if you really knew what happened, but we won’t tell you, all of this wouldn’t look so bad”) in #553 aren’t doing the BoingBoing-ers any favors.
4. Still not sure why Teresa and Xeni are alleging that Violet never wrote any BoingBoing material, when the Wayback link at #280 points to an article clearly written by Violet, if posted by Xeni.
5. Also surprised that Teresa and others are so tonedeaf to the nuance of “unpublish” as a transitive verb vs. good ol’ “delete”. Material is “unpublished” if it has never been published; retroactively unpublishing is something I’d expect from the Bush administration.
Honestly, I think the best way to move forward from this is to republish the material and just not look back at it. Any other decision will damage the credibility and the reputation of the Boing Boing brand.
“Unpublishing?” Seriously? On boingboing?
Did you get hacked or something?
So I come in from painting the fence, clean the brushes, take a shower, eat a light dinner, go on-line, read the news, and drop in on boingboing for some…
WTF!?
This shit’s none of my business; I’m outta here.
“This has zero to do with candor, or with freedom of speech. It has a great deal to do with the Boingers not wanting to trash Violet Blue, who has no such compunctions where they are concerned.”
I don’t think you understand that by saying “If you only knew what Violet Blue did, omg. But we don’t want to trash her so we’re not going to tell you!” you are *implicitly* trashing her, and doing one worse by inciting speculation. If you don’t want to trash her, you reduce the level of detail. “We had a difference of opinion” or “We regrettably aren’t able to work together at this point.”
You guys really badly need to get some PR consultants.
Who are you calling an ADULT!?!
@567:
Thanks for proving my point in under 500 words… Yikes.
So, hypothetically speaking, if BoingBoing’s ISP decided to “unpublish” the site, would that be censorship? Or not?
I’m curious where Cory and Xeni think the supposed line between unpublishing and censorship lies.
The internet – Serious business! ;)
I’m sure in a year we’ll all be reading Boing Boing with a skeptical eye because of stupid internet drama bullshit over Violet fucking Blue. Next article!
Theresa said: “It has a great deal to do with the Boingers not wanting to trash Violet Blue, who has no such compunctions where they are concerned.”
Can you point to such an occurance? Because all I’ve seen from her comments is befuddlement.
@Teresa Nielsen Hayden
With rhetoric like that … well lets just say that you would make a great politician.
I suppose what I found weird is that I went out seriously looking for something from the Violet Blue camp and found nothing but confusion as to why this was done. In all honesty I don’t care either way, arguments are arguments, but at this point it sure would be nice to see an air of grievances between the two parties so it could be over and we could go back to things that we are more interested in.
Wow. Just wow.
Personally, after reading all of this, I’m going to have some ice cream and contemplate what happened during those three years before they found Earth.
@#579 Teresa Nielsen Hayden / Moderator
I honestly believe you when you say the Boingers’ silence was motivated by a desire to save face for Ms. Blue. I also honestly believe that the situation’s escalation wasn’t due to malice on their part — this has all the earmarks of trying to do the right thing and rolling a natural one.
Unfortunately, at this point their initial motivations aren’t the issue. The dam’s broken and the water’s not going to rush back behind it anytime soon. The question now is: how does this get resolved, as quickly and easily as possible?
I think the best move now is a post from one of the Boingers, going through the decision and reasons for it, being as up front and candid as possible, alongside regret that things went the way they did, both in Boing Boing’s relationship with Ms. Blue, and in handling the disassociation.
It’s a crappy thing, especially since I doubt anyone did anything wrong, but sometimes the only answer is an apology and an explanation, even if you’re pretty sure you didn’t do anything wrong in the first place.
@Teresa:
You’ve stated that Violet Blue has lied and trashed BoingBoing. I haven’t seen either thing in any other place I’ve looked.
Yes this cherry is nice I’ll pick this one.
If you follow VB’s blog you will see that it’s a never ending stream of people, corporations, ex-friends who done her wrong. The whole world is against her. They are all dragged through the mud publicly and she definately censors comments to her blog. Ever wonder why there is not one negative comment on her nekked pix anywhere to be found? C’mon this is the internet. No matter how beautiful or sexy one is (and she’s far from either) there will always be a few derogatory ones. So don’t complain about boingboing. The fact that these mostly negative comments are more than 500 strong and growing is case in point.
So add boingboing to the list of people Violet has fallen out with over the last few years. It’s not like she is the most lovable blogger in the world. Steve Jobs with his great business instincts knew to turn his back on her.
It is normal to want to disassociate with anyone or anything one finds repulsive. The fact that they tried to do it discreetly has nothing to do with censorship or transparency and everything to do with manners.
Sure +1 for transparency, -1 censorship. But this particular instance is not the forum nor the best example to stake one’s arguments to those issues on. Apples and oranges, let’s not get confused.
You know, I’m a big fan of Boing Boing and have been for years. I’ve met Cory a couple of times (and recorded him for podcasting a couple of times) and he always matched my expectations of being a decent sort. I used to read the Boing Boing zine back in the day too.
That being said, after reading the comments from Teresa Nielsen Hayden here today and, in general, over the last few months, I think that the best thing that Boing Boing could do for PR and the quality of the community here, is to let her go. She’s clearly burned out and/or pissed off with people and is generally kind of… well… not nice, which is not good if your job is the official moderator for a public blog that people make their living doing.
I’d also suggest just coming clean about whatever it is that Violet Blue did that pissed people off here. She’s said, in response to my asking her about it, that she has no idea of what the issue actually is. This is her public statement. So, if she’s lying, then you should say what you told her. If she’s not lying, she seems like she wants to know. It might also save face to just be clear about it, whether it is trashing someone or not. With more than 588 comments here, as I post this, this tempest in a teapot clearly isn’t serving to improve anyone’s reputation as it is.
Teresa, you’re basically saying:
“I won’t tell you but trust me, it’s for the best.”
And accepting that message is completely unnatural for most healthy skeptical Americans. We aren’t about blind trust. We’re more about making judgments on our own. So of course there will be backlash in the absence of information.
The real issue here is the quality of PR used in the handling of this issue as well as preserving the integrity of the BB brand idendity. Goodwill for a trademark like this is incredibly fragile and easy to damage.
Regardless of the merits of the BB v Blue conflict, the public image that BB puts forth needs to satisfy a level of acceptability. It’s something that BB has failed to address and that is the real reason the goodwill of the brand is in transition right now. It won’t take much to push it either way.
I’m going to second what’s been said a few times over (though I’m late getting to the debate) and say this is all very Memory Hole-ish for a blog that is anti-censorship. If it’s an issue with the sponsors, something should be said so that the readers can make an educated decision about whether they want to continue to read blogs sponsored by pro-censorship ads. If it’s a personal issue with Violet Blue, I’d suggest she, herself, should be informed as to why, as interviews with her seem to suggest that she has no clue why it happened either.
Anthony Burgess said it best: “You can destroy what’s been written, but you cannot unwrite it.” Saying its on the wayback machine seems to only go toward undermining the integrity of boingboing, who would lambaste any other site for doing the same thing, especially without the transparency of giving a reason why.
Did any of the unpublished work contain comments from the community?
#579: “who has no such compunctions where they are concerned.”
You keep saying stuff like that.
Are you seriously playing the “if you only knew what we know, you’d be on our side” card?
The sort of goodwill it takes to get away with that is exactly the goodwill BoingBoing has been busily burning during this controversy. Last week, they had that kind of goodwill with me. Right now, it’s too dented to make that “trust us, we’re the good guys if you only knew” approach workable.
If you’re not asking us to take private interactions on faith, then what? Is our Google-fu so weak that we just haven’t found whatever-the-heck you’re on about?
Because, lately, publicly, Violet Blue has not trashed Boing Boing anywhere anybody can find. Making this hatefest for her seem very strange and inexplicable to outsiders.
Well, at least it’s not goatse, eh, BB?
Such utter bullshit.
“A number of comments got suppressed. The first ones were nasty, came in from buddies of VB’s, and were obviously trying to pick a fight. I told the assistant moderators to unpublish them.”
I saw several non-nasty queries, jokes, and comments about VB get “unpublished”.
You’ve got a bright future as a White House press secretary.
Before I comment on this post and on some of the comments here I just want to preface my comments by saying that I usually love Boing Boing and appreciate it immensely. 99% of the time you guys are on spot and doing a great job.
I should also probably mention that I am not an advocate for Violet Blue. I could barely recall who she is or any of her writing, and have no idea what issues there are between her and BB. And I’m certainly aware that VB may have not-pure motives in bringing the issue up. But however this came to light, it’s an important issue on it’s own merits.
That said, the squeaky wheel gets oiled, so it’s the 1% of the time that you screw up that people are gonna write in about. And boy did you screw up. Deleting (“unpublishing”, whatever…) a slew of blog entries to disassociate yourself from someone you are having personal issues with and doing it secretly is just… bizarre. Especially for a real blog and not something you find on livejournal. And beyond that it comes across as just amazingly petty and immature.
Integrally speaking, you really missed the mark. The proper thing to do was keep the entries and simply not post any new entries about or by Violet Blue. If whatever your issues were really were personal, than those issues had absolutely no bearing on the prior entries. If the issues were truly important enough that you felt being associated with her was somehow damaging to the BB mojo, then you should have placed an update note on each entry stating that you no longer associate with her and probably even why.
This is just plain old common sense decent behavior folks. For any person or any blog. But in the case of Boing Boing it is especially egregious because Boing Boing is an advocate for internet transparency, anti-censorship, and journalistic integrity. Not only does this behavior make BB seem hypocritical, it damages the very causes that you advocate.
And pragmatically speaking, obviously whatever your intentions were, it backfired big time. You have just called more attention to the thing you were trying to hide, and to the person you were trying to disassociate from than there ever would have been if you had just not taken any action at all. And ironically, by your petty behavior towards someone supposedly unworthy of your association, you have seriously called into question your own worthiness, and imperiled the desire of some to associate with you.
The right thing to do now, obviously, is to apologize to your readers and “republish” the posts and leave it at that. If you really don’t want to feel like you are promoting VB, post an update to each post stating that you no longer associate with or promote this person and leave it at that. And even more obviously, promise to, and fulfill that promise to, not do anything like that again.
On to the comments…
@Xeni#5 “We didn’t want to pay to host them on our blog anymore.”
Sorry but I call BS here. You can’t seriously expect anyone to believe there is any monetary issue involved. If anything, the content will bring you more ad revenue. And obviously the posts themselves were ok with you or they wouldn’t have gotten here in the first place. Clearly it’s the person involved and this is some form of punitive action. Again this comes across as petty and immature. If it’s truly personal, take it up with them personally. If it goes so far beyond the personal that you start thinking about revisionist unpublishing parts of your history, then it really deserves to be addressed in some form publicly.
@Xeni#5 “When new information becomes clear, or someone’s behavior changes, sometimes a creator of work reconsiders what aspects of their personal creative work they’re proud of, and removes them from public view.”
Some creators might, but this goes against the core of both Boing Boing’s stated and continually advocated for positions on net transparency, and it’s standard practice. In the past, any posts that needed to be corrected or turned out to be false or otherwise undesirable have not been secretly disappeared. They have been *updated* with the incorrect information *appended but not erased*. This clearly demonstrates a very strong advocacy against the very thing which you ended up doing.
@ACB#18 “Boing Boing is a collaborative personal blog, not an institution with obligations of impartiality or public service.”
Isn’t “collaborative personal” something of an oxymoron? While certainly Boing Boing hasn’t violated any *legal* obligations, they have violated the common decency imperative to not be hypocritical. While it does have entertainment aspects, it has also championed itself as an advocate for certain causes, and then acted against those causes. Impartiality is not an issue here, I’m not sure why you brought that up. Boing Boing in it’s long standing practice of advocacy journalism and it’s strong association with Cory who is a spokesperson for many of those causes makes it especially obligated to behave in accordance with those principles it advocates.
@TARMLE#48 “The day I pay BB’s wages is the day I get to tell them what can and cannot be posted on or removed from this blog.”
No one is (or could) telling BB what it can do. But it’s a public blog, not a private diary. Which means there’s a relationship between BB and it’s audience. And that audience has the right to tell BB what it thinks. Of course BB has the right not to listen. But then what’s the point of having a comment function? And in a sense, you do pay BB’s wages as does everyone in the audience by increasing it’s adware revenue.
@CAROLINE#49 “But you can’t seriously argue that this is “censorship” or “against free speech.””
It’s not external censorship of Boing Boing, which is a separate issue. And it’s not against the constitutional/legal right to free speech, also a separate issue. But it is censoring in the sense of damaging the integrity of the public record, and in the sense of preventing users from discussing the issue (previously). And it’s anti free speech not in the legal sense, but in the supposedly advocated for position of being for the free market of ideas, and open communication, and transparency of dialogue.
@MICHAEL#51 “Why don’t you all take all that righteous outrage energy and do something with it that won’t make the world worse? ”
Is that woosh? So… it’s wrong for other people to care about this blog and comment on it… but it’s ok for you to express outrage at other people’s comments on a blog and post your own comment on it…?
@CERONOMUS#58 “What part of, “They have the right to do so” are people not getting?”
This isn’t an issue of “rights”. A waiter has the right to dump a pile of salt on your food before serving it to you, that doesn’t mean he should do it. Or that the owner of the place can reasonably expect to stay in business if he lets the waiter keep doing it. Or that the customer doesn’t have the right to speak out against what the waiter is doing. What part of “just because you can, doesn’t mean you should” are you not getting?
@PYROS#70
Great post!
In any case, I will still read and enjoy Boing Boing and respect the effort that goes into producing it. But if BB wants anyone to take them seriously when they write advocacy pieces about internet transparency and journalistic integrity, they better start practicing what they preach. Put the posts back, apologize to your readers, and promise not to do it again. Then behave better next time!
Still luv ya tho :-)
I can’t figure out what’s more annoying, the Violet Blue crap or Teresa’s attitude towards commenters, but it’s neck and neck right now.
Valleywag weighs in.
Kind of makes me wish the BBers had just cleared the air somewhat up front. Those of us who are disappointed are not trolls; we’re your most passionate fans!
First Obama supports FISA, then BB “unpublishes” a prominent blogger…sheesh, what a depressing week!
No comments I made, no matter how tame and good-natured, got through if they contained ‘violet’ and ‘blue’. I had a funny ‘roses are red, violets are blue’ comment that got trashed, and a comment in the policy post asking for a FAQ about the VB fiasco which also got trashed.
It seems like BB didn’t learn a thing from the Digg HD-DVD Hex key scandal, aside from “They didn’t censor enough. MOAR censorship is the answer!” which is hilarious, but also sad.
Here are my conclusions, which I think I share with a number of people:
* what you did feels out-of-character and hypocritical; it’s literally “not what expect” from BoingBoing, not in the guilt-trip sense of “I’m disappointed in you” but in the literal sense that I’m very surprised;
* the same goes for the lack of explanation/transparency;
* the partial explanations, the hints and unsupported statements like “demonstrably lied”, are incredibly frustrating; I hate mysteries with no explanations!
But I want to add one more:
* Theresa has lost her cool, and has posted in a rude, intemperate, ill-considered way. Obviously if you can’t be more calm or impartial than that you’re in a great deal of trouble when it comes to simply doing your job with any credibility. I expect more from moderators than that. It’s a tough job, I know. And you’re failing at it, very publicly.
Tubman, Tillwe, Satan, Mullingitover, et al,
You keep saying the same things over and over. We get your point. Do you have anything new to say? Reading your comments is like ringing Ferris Bueller’s doorbell on the day he plays hooky.
While you’re at it, can you unpublish a few steampunk posts? Cause those are gonna be pretty embarrassing in a few years too. Just sayin.
Theresa;
I totally empathize with your defense of the Boingers. A lot of these comments are really over the line, deliberately playing in the sandbox of a controversy because they know that if they get disemvoweled or otherwise admonished, they’ll get their own little suppressed speech and a chance to compare someone to a Nazi or a Stalinist or something. (Classy, those of you who compared removing posts to intentional suppression of political enemies in order to oppress and genocide millions.)
My only problem with how you’ve handled this, and maybe it’s because of your comments that went undirected, is that it seems like you’re upset with even those comments that presume the best of the Boingers, but just points out that what might have seemed like a good idea was/is a very very bad one. You ask us to take them on good faith, that they are really working for the causes they claim, well, you know what? You’re going to have to take us on the same faith. All these comments, the articles around the internet, these aren’t just sour grapes from people who are just jealous; they’re just disappointed that once, in one situation, a bad decision was made and seemingly exacerbated by a refusal to acknowledge that it was bad in the first place. Not saying that’s the case. But it’s a legitimate opinion and those espousing it are people who fight for many of the same interests as this blog promotes. Everyone needs to calm down and give each other the benefit of the doubt in this situation, but I think the Boingers really do need to be out in the open in addressing this.
@Antinous
Using a Ferris Bueller reference to bolster your point is like me responding to you by quoting Carrot Top.
Satan,
If you can quote Carrot Top without having to look it up, bring it on.
No matter what issues were raised by initially making this post, how can it possibly help anything to start calling Violet a liar and accusing her of trashing BB?
I see no evidence of her doing either those things and to imply she is only makes it seem like you are insulting her, which you claim to be trying to avoid doing in the first place.
So, you don’t want to trash her by revealing the reason behind this whole fiasco, but you’re perfectly willing to call her a liar in the comments?
Shamefully unnecessary. Either get some proof or stop calling her names.
It’s doubly offensive that these insults are coming from a moderator; they’re supposed to be above all that pettiness. I really hate to see something I like as much as BoingBoing being represented by someone so willing to resort to name-calling.
Is it libel if you only strongly imply that someone has done something so horrible that you cannot even speak about it? Let’s find out!
Teresa @553, yes, people are stupid. Especially when they’ve been kept ignorant. Don’t blame them for that.
Many of us have very high standards for Boingboing. When Boingboing appears to turn against principles of transparency and accountability, we’re confused.
Some people here are young. I tend to think they deserve extra slack. Some of us are old and fugheaded. Disemvowelling us is about all you can do.
So far, this situation only requires a statement from a boinger that you meant well, but you were overzealous in disassociating yourself with Violet Blue. I would expect that what was once wonderful is still wonderful. To unwonderful her seems excessive.
If the law requires you to disassociate yourself from her, you could at least say that much, couldn’t you? I suspect most of BB’s readers would be happy with something like, “We’re not going to link to Violet Blue anymore; we just don’t think she’s boingboingy. Sorry about deleting the old links to her site. We got carried away.”
Reminds me of several weeks back during the Cory’s Book Tour Comment Wars when Cory lost his cool and after a while a lot of comments (including his) sort of went away.
What an odd, immature and yet very fascinating group of people.
“Tubman, Tillwe, Satan, Mullingitover, et al,
You keep saying the same things over and over. We get your point. Do you have anything new to say? Reading your comments is like ringing Ferris Bueller’s doorbell on the day he plays hooky.”
Antinous, you seem to be some kind of official moderator. Think about that before you go picking fights with your readers.
@#616 Antinous
…you mean you can’t?
What a strange and wonderful world you inhabit. Oh, to have such joy in one’s life… sadly, only cognitive degeneration or an appropriate drill bit to the skull and tissues within can restore me to bliss….
@602 That was very well said. I must say I appreciate it when someone takes the time to think out a response, and takes the time to do so without invective pr personal attacks.
Well done.
Very depressing situation. I really don’t care for whatever beef is between Violet and Boing Boing, but I do subscribe that the idea of never deleting content, and if so, it better be for a damn good transparent reason.
Based on all statements, it sounds like Boing Boing didn’t like what Violet said or did at some point, so they’re deleting every mention of her. If this is the case, the action is flat out deplorable.
I’ve also read of a second instance of Boing Boing deleting mentions of another blogger… almost immediately after he spoke negatively about Boing Boing.
Between these two instances, what I’m walking away with is that if you say something critically of Boing Boing, one of its members, or maybe even an advertiser, Boing Boing may remove previous mentions of you.
Or that Boing Boing may remove opinionated posts because it may embarass them in the future.
Its really a bad precendent, especially from a blog that has set so many good precedents. I really hope Boing Boing acknowledges this bad decision, and helps continue to set a higher standard of blogs instead of contributing to their stereotype as catty, unethical forums.
will@435: Greg @419, the point isn’t how long it takes to notice that the past has been revised. The point is that it’s been revised.
Bullshit. The damage done to BV by deleting these posts over a year ago was small enough that you jokers didn’t notice it for a fricken year.
At which point, all this bullshit about censorship and Stalin and Orwell and 1984 gets bandied about by a bunch of tn ht wrng, mlq-tst hrrngng, mealy-mouthed bunch of whaaaambulance drivers.
I don’t uphold ideas of opposing censorship or opposing fascism or opposing stupid wars simply because some fucking piece of paper says they’re a bad idea, FOR FCKS SAKE, I oppose them because censorship leads to fascism leads to stupid wars leads to PEOPLE FCKNG DYING. I oppose them because THEY INFLICT A REAL FCKNG COST.
Any mthr fckr who is bitching about “censorship” on BoingBoing, when that “censorship” took place over one fckng year ago, has completely missed the fckng point that THERE WAS NO REAL DAMAGE INFLICTED BY THAT ACT AND IT WASN”T CENSORSHIP.
The only damage is your collective underpants in a knot over some legalistic worship of some vague thing called “censorship” that apparently has no real meaning, no real cost, inflicts no real damage, and is simply some dumb fckng vocabulary term that means whatever the fck you want it to mean.
The next SSHL WHO BRINGS UP 1984 PROVES MY FCKNG POINT. This isn’t some totalitarian Big Brother rewriting history and sending your sorry asses to room 101. Any SSHL WHO BRINGS UP JOSEPH-FCK-M-STALIN PROVES MY FCKNG POINT. Millions of people fckng DIED in the purges, in the pogroms, in the prison cells of the secret police.
And you mf’s have the NERVE to compare that kind of shit, THE DEATH OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE, to someone deleting SOME BLOG POSTS???
And when called on this absolute and unmitigated BULLSHIT, you have the GALL to argue legalisms? To argue that it’s NOT the damage inflicted, or even POTENTIAL DAMAGE INFLICTED, but that its some unholy WORSHIP of some WORD OR CONCEPT to the point that it loses all REAL MEANING?
To go and argue that this is FCKNG EQUIVALENT TO JOSEPH FCKNG STALIN??????
You argue as if REAL PEOPLE being FCKNG KILLED is SO IRRELEVANT to the point that you can compare DELETING A BLOG POST to A POGROM THAT KILLED MILLIONS OF PEOPLE, and do it with a straight face. And when called on the bullshit, YOU INVOKE SOME LEGALISTIC LANGUAGE MANEUVAR TO JUSTIFY IT???
ARE YOU FCKNG KIDDING ME????
Theresa,
I have found your comments in this thread (and some others, TBH) to be dismissive, demeaning, and hardly in the spirit suggested by saying, “We’re listening.” You may be, but it seems you’re having some difficulty *hearing*.
Being called unintelligent, a blockhead, pretentious, etc etc is not something that inspires an audience to careful consideration of their words and opinions, and polite, reasoned discourse.
Please take some time AFK. I’m sure this has been a rough ride. Please don’t make it tougher by letting your reactions fuel the flames.
One man’s opinion.
@Teresa (#553)
“Is it okay if I mention that I find some of these comments astoundingly stupid?”
“And as for all this “Orwellian editing” crap — christ, do you take two seconds to think before you post it?”
“… then I’m sorry, but you’re a blockhead.”
Not good form insulting many of the loyal fans who have tried to articulate their concerns and confusion. Do you really have to be so mean and condescending?
The post ended with “And if you think there’s more to say, by all means, let’s talk. We’re listening.” not we are going to belittle you for expressing your opinion on this strange situation.
I love BoingBoing, I don’t like this dismissive tone. If you didn’t want comments regarding this issue, shouldn’t have asked for them. If you mean “We’re listening” then listen and don’t insult.
Also, you keep alluding to the bad ways VB has behaved and how BB is above that hence keeping mum. But that stance, backhanded VB trashing, and condescension towards readers is turning a fire into an inferno. Boo!
Teresa Nielsen Hayden / Moderator
Stay Classy…
“In attempting to defuse drama, we inadvertently ignited more.”
Wow. Understatement of the year. I never heard of Violet Blue until this, but after reading all this I was compelled to Google her… If anything, it’s giving her more publicity. Maybe this is some reverse, or anti-advertising? I’m confused.
Although I do agree with the decision (and right) to delete whatever you want to, I can’t say I wholeheartedly agree with how this is being/has been dealt with. I do feel like I’m left in the dark, and I’m rather disappointed. It’s like saying “Something bad happened, and we’re not going to tell you what it is, but it’s being resolved. The bad lady is gone.”
I almost want to say that I feel this is a half-hearted attempt to quell the curiosity of those who already knew about the incident(s?), while igniting the interest of those who didn’t know (and probably wouldn’t have really cared) in the first place.
I do love reading BB and BBG, and this “thing” isn’t going to make me stop reading… Again, I do agree with the right to remove/add/edit whatever you all want to. This is your house, and we have to obey the rules, but I think we’d all like to know what rule was broken – I’d like to stay in good favor of the my gracious internet overlords – and will other “violators” be dealt with similarly? Was a warning given? If someone does/has done something you don’t like, are they erased from the tomes of Boing Boing forever?
I thought Boing Boing was a celebration of wonderful things. This resulting chaos is not a wonderful thing! “Secrets don’t make friends!”
:)
#615 mullingitover
What an odd thing to say. A whole day spent heckling BB, and then you accuse them of picking fights.
This whole thing is a minefield. Literally any response from anyone at BB is an opening for an attack. What they get attacked with depends on what they expose.
It’s all pitchforks and torches, isn’t it? These people are guilty of having bootmarks on their faces! Let’s get ’em!
Having just spent an hour poking around to get ‘the background’ on this story it’s pretty easy to develop a narrative as to why Violet got clipped when she did: Congdon; No Name Jane; The fifth Boinger theory – Take your pick, they’re all entertaining and equally irrelevant.
But does anyone really think it took Violet a year to notice she’d been ‘unpublished?’ The real story here isn’t why BB did what they did but why the story is breaking now. The whole thing has the stench of orchestration and a quick look at Google Trends suggests BB’s ‘response’ made Violet a hot topic today. Mutual parasitism at its best. Perhaps Mr. Sarno can clarify the sudden interest?
My tinfoil hat says that Violet needed some publicity and this was a great way to spike some quick hits. This sort of behavior might have something to do with why she was redacted in the first place. Who knows? Who cares?
As to the discussion of censorship, BB has always been wholeheartedly nepotistic and what the editors give they can also take away. Coop and the Reverse Cowgirl are a couple of notable beneficiaries of BB editorial policy. Violet is apparently one of the casualties.
The Fab Five (yes, Joel, we love you too) are opinionated, capricious, self-obsessed and fully entitled to do whatever they damn well please with anybody’s posts. The day they stop having opinions is the day I shuffle over to the Huffington Post before taking a header off a viaduct.
Those who take issue with this can just keep on trucking over to a genuinely neutral POV website.
Please tell us when you find it.
Gee, it looks like Boing Boing has finally jumped the snark!
You are e-waterboarding all your fans, Boing Boing. You should be put on trial for your heinous blog crimes.
FREE VIOLET BLUE!
FREE VIOLET BLUE!
Do I have to purchase two other colors at the same or higher price to get that offer?
and the hits just keep on comin’ !
FREE HAT!
And for the love of the FSM, someone burn some sage…
@David Markland
Who was this other blogger? because I’ve been looking around and can’t find a thing…and that would totally throw this into a whole new light/brave new world.
@Satan
Ferris Bueller is ALWAYS relevant. Also Ferris Bueller>Carrot Top. Remember kids what really matters is what you like, not what you are like.
Aren’t egos amazing things? This has been handled very poorly. I would like, however, to quash this stupid meme: “It’s my blog and I get to do whatever I want on it.” Nope, life doesn’t work like that, never has. The reasons why should be pretty obvious.
The blogosphere is incestuous and narcissistic to a fault. God I hope this is the beginning of the end of that crap.
@ Teresa: Violet Blue has demonstrably lied more than once about this imbroglio.
Really? Then demonstrate it. Please. It’s the Bushites that say stuff like “we can demonstrate it, but the evidence is secret and I can’t tell you”. If you have something solid to claim, then claim it.
If we are getting things wrong because we don’t have all the facts, then give us the facts. If you want to keep them secret, then we’ll have to operate without them. You can’t hang on to your cake while you’re eating it.
I had no idea how long it was going to take the Boingers to arrive at a decision. It never occurred to me that they would dither so long over not wanting to go negative on Violet Blue.
What are you talking about? According to Xeni and Joel, the Boingers reached a decision over a year ago.
I never understood why BB posted so much about her. I don’t know why BB no longer posts about her. But BB has (according to Xeni and others) spent the last year falsely pretending they never did post about her.
If BB rewrites it’s history to pretend they never published something they did publish, I’m not going to be able to trust BB to not rewrite its other publications.
Sure, it’ll probably be a while before it drives me to the point of not visiting anymore, and sure, no one at BB is going to give a damn if it does drive me away. So I guess BB should go ahead and rewrite all previous its publications to whatever beliefs that it happens to have at the moment.
I’d like to coin the term “denial of whuffie attack” but I don’t want to claim any royalties.
Unfortunately, this comment thread will surely pass the numbers racked up by “Untitled 1″, alas. That one was MUCH more fun. This controversy has given me a whole day of heartburn and a headache.
Ouch.
Lots of anal trolls in this thread.
If this is about Violet Blue copyrighting her name, yeah, I’m with BoingBoing.
Hagbard:”This whole thing is a minefield. Literally any response from anyone at BB is an opening for an attack. What they get attacked with depends on what they expose.”
Um, sorry, no. There was an obvious right way to handle this. The parts that they have been “attacked with” are the breathtaking errors in judgement. Ironically, Teresa posted the proper steps herself a while back:
(1.) Get out there and say something, fast.
Epic fail. I can’t believe a sober person made the call to keep pushing Disney memorabilia posts and other run-of-the-mill content on the site while this was festering. (Note that this has been stewing for a week. Not only did BB not respond, they actively squashed discussion about it in comment threads.)
(2.) Acknowledge that there have been screwups. Avoid passive constructions.
Note the first sentence in our post here:”Boing Boing has been caught in the middle of a real internet shitstorm and pile-on over the last few days.” Bzzt. Wrong. The first words should’ve been something along the lines of “Mea culpa.”
(3.) Explain what you’re doing to help fix the problem. Be telling the truth when you do it.
The action items we see here are: none. Instead BB is telling readers to go elsewhere if reading the redacted items is something you’d like to do.
(4.) Give up all hope of sneaking anything past your listeners. You’ve screwed up, the internet is watching, and behind each and every pair of eyes out there is a person who knows how to Google.
The failure in this step is the whole reason we’re talking about this.
(5.) Corporate-speak will do you more harm than good. Instead, speak frankly about what’s going on. React like a human being. Talk like one, too.
The fact that none of the principals wrote this post, and instead pushed it off on poor Teresa, is the epitome of corporate and it’s kinda cowardly. Whomever made the call to delete the content should be defending it here. If that was Teresa then the principals should be backing her up.
Wow.
What a massive load of comments.
Passion. Intrigue. Desire. Fervour.
I think everyone needs to take a deep breath and then all clamber into the same room together with a shit load of lube.
Work it out that way.
Sometimes words can only take us so far.
Breathe. Get quiet. Get slippery.
And then move on.
By the way – my heart’s with both sides.
So there.
Cheers.
Robbo,
Did you have to say ‘shit’ and ‘lube’ in the same sentence?
To quote something that’s become cliche elsewhere..
“you’ll get over it.”
Or you’ll leave and spend more time at ZealotsRus.ConspiracyTheories.org, I suppose.
It just occurred to me its foolish to be getting so angry about the huge amount of selfish ignorance parading like drug crazed angry penguins through the thread, so I’ve decided to just laugh about it instead.
Trust me greglondon I know exactly what you mean, but there’s no point. If people want to convince themselves that people removing contents from their own blog is EVIL and BAD and ZOMGZ TEH ARE TEH DEEVIVLL, well, not much you can do about it really. Its not worth getting so worked up over. Just laugh at them and pity them.
@neon:
“It’s my blog and I get to do whatever I want on it.” Nope, life doesn’t work like that, never has. The reasons why should be pretty obvious.
what are you talking about ? leaving aside the notion of how life works, of course that’s way blogs work. always has been.
lets not conflate the two.
@burnchao:
i completey agree with greglondon. calling this “rewriting history” is baloney and rather myopic. boingboing is not in the business of writing history at all. it’s just a blog, not a government archive. it’s infotainment, at its best inmho. jeez, this has gotten so absurd.
i might change my name to blue violet just to see what happens.
I liked that fellow called violent blue who posted earlier.
@ Teresa: Seriously, your comment number is #581 and you couldnt find a single thing in the previous 580 comments worth a serious thought? All we get from you is snotty comments and non-answers. Is it really so much to ask of you to at least try and respond to some of the more thought provoking comments. After all, you did ask us to comment, do you think so little of us that if you respond to us at all its just to sneer?
On the upside, less than 100 posts to go before we overtake Untitled 1! Never let it be said that pointless internet pontificating never accomplished anything! :P
@Mullingitover
you see you and me, we differ on around step two of your grand plan. I don’t think they did anything wrong, so there’s no need to acknowledge screwups.
This argument has gone on long enough (through various people) that I’m sure whatever I say won’t convince you, but I’ll bash my head against this wall anyway.
For me, I agree with the analogy of the bookstore that Valchael posted at #570, if the shop owner doesn’t want to stock a book he doesn’t have to, and this offends noone. If a shop owner has stocked a book, then chooses not to stock it without telling anyone this is also totally up to him and not only that, it’s totally morally fine as well. The only bad that comes of it in my opinion is people coming to the bookstore looking for the book he no longer stocks, it’s a bit of a pain for them. I don’t think the fact that some people were inconvenienced is enough to force the shop owner to stock books he doesn’t want to. It’s a free world.
for tl;dr : it’s not censorship, it’s like lasering off a tattoo you don’t like anymore :p
To me Boing Boing has always been more like a hyperactive kid sister than an authority figure. Enthusiastic, experimental, energetic, curious, sometimes maddeningly unbalanced but always lovable. I don’t expect perfection and I always appreciate your honest efforts. Keep up the good work, flaws and all.
(SMOOOCH!)
Jeebus, you numbskulls, google “unpublish” and learn a thing or two.
For what it’s worth, I love me some boingboing, even if Cory is a little heavy on the “look what I did!” some days.
Also, Violet Blue nauseates me.
This excision is sort of unboingly.
Can some bloggy person tell me if it is impractical to just remove the links to VB instead of unpublishing the entire article?
The fanboys will stay, the people who care will leave. I guess we’ll remember this as the day BoingBoing died.
i have the perfect face-saving solution for all parties involved…
i’m going to go to bed. and when i get up tomorrow, there’s going to be a gleeful and giggly post about how this was actually a collaboration between boing boing and violet – a bit of social engineering to drive up eachother’s traffic, and kudos to us, dear readers, for so zealously participating!
and the top five most vociferous comments shall be awarded with steampunk strap-ons. HUZZAH!
…. really, it makes about just as much sense as this entire kerfluffle.
But Michael, maybe there are some fanboys (and girls) who care. I guess your second sentence is wrong.
The fanboys will stay, the people who overreact will leave.
FTFY
Single-serving commenters who’ve shown up to stand in a circle chanting, “Fight! Fight! Fight!” won’t know this, but regular readers will. We get comments every day accusing BoingBoing of Orwellian, soul-sucking, Stalinist censorship. Every day. Day in, day out. And those concerns have been addressed every day. Being puffed up with outrage may be new to you, but it’s old to us. Come up with something that hasn’t been said a hundred times and it’ll be taken seriously. Really, we’re very conscientious here at the Department of Disemvowelment and Unpublishing. Keep calm and carry on.
“Come up with something that hasn’t been said a hundred times”
The BB moderators are all actually 16-armed lizardlike flying telepathic aliens who club baby seals and stalk Barbra Streisand.
What do I win?
The BB moderators are all actually 16-armed lizardlike flying telepathic aliens who club baby seals and stalk Barbra Streisand.
Pics or it didn’t happen. Also, Cory’s vegan, so the seals are out.
Ross,
To me you’ll always be that cousin that I really like but will never visit because he lives in Detroit.
@cherry shiva:
calling this “rewriting history” is baloney and rather myopic. boingboing is not in the business of writing history at all.
boingboing altered their archives to make it look like they never performed action X. They rewrote their history. It can’t be described more simply than that. If you pretend you never did something when you actually have done it, you are rewriting your history. I don’t believe you when you pretend you don’t understand that.
If you pretend you never did something when you actually have done it, you are rewriting your history.
What’s the pretense? This happened a year ago. Nobody gave a shit. Had anyone asked a year ago, it would have been answered. What are you on about?
#654 – see #650
Long time fan of the blog, first time commenter. (I’ll assume that all this fuss is a secret membership drive.)
BoingBoing is one of three blogs I read every day, no matter what, so I am a bit perturbed by the way Teresa the Parody of a Moderator is acting.
The situation with Violet Blue is a bad one, but as much as I respect the regular contributing staff of this blog, I trust that they made the right decision somehow. Teresa, on the other hand, should never be allowed to interact with BoingBoing’s readers.
The more I read the comments posted by her, the more I think this whole thing is a hoax, simply because of the over the top, ugly way she is acting.
Teresa, you would not have a job “moderating” if it weren’t for the people you are attempting to insult.
It’s your blog. You can do what you want with it.
It also reinforces my reason over a year ago to give up on Metafilter. After enduring endless rounds of trollflamepoutyfights and yesyoudidohnoyoudidnts, I gave up on Metafilter completely.
Haven’t missed it.
#656: “boingboing altered their archives to make it look like they never performed action X.”
That’s not why they did it though. They did it so that the links wouldn’t be supporting someone they no longer choose to endorse. The goal wasn’t secrecy it was removal of support. Kind of like Obama leaving his church (to use a really outrageously extreme example that might get me into hot water).
What could VioletBlue possibly do that would get past posts that referenced her beleted? I can’t really think of any crime that would cause someone to want to tear out all traces of an old acquaintance from memory… and I have an EllJay where I wrote about meeting my ex, falling in love with my ex, and my ex breaking my heart.
I guess if posts about you and your EX got you added to the ‘pornography’ list of several major internet filters and an accountant told you that those 4% in missed page views was a significant number now that you’re big… you know, a new car big, or maybe a used car big… or even car payment big… maybe it was even used car payment big… I sure know I would remove all posts relating to my ex for $50 a month… even if a few of my readers started reading because of the talk about my ex.
Speaking of flying lizards, Takuan is conspicuous by his absence. I miss him.
#657: SWEET
I’ll be in my bunk. Or possibly someone else’s.
@ANTINOUS
And you’re not standing right there with them, chanting along right now?
Pot, meet kettle.
The BB moderators are all actually 16-armed lizardlike flying telepathic aliens who club baby seals and stalk Barbra Streisand.
Cory’s vegan, so the seals are out.
Hey, it says “club” not “club and eat.”
Antinuous, how often have you had to answer those charges in a post? I don’t keep up on comments, but I’ve been reading Boingboing for a few years. I don’t remember anything like this posted before.
And, no, I’m not saying this is somehow analogous to any number of Eviler Things. What’s happened here stays simple: Boingboing’s past was rewritten without explanation. That’s the sort of company behavior that the old Boingboing would have mocked with glee.
Okay, we’re 2/3 of the way through to 1000 comments. Come on, Boingers, we can do it!
someone should “unpublish” this thread as it is definitely not a wonderful thing and it’s seriously boring
And you’re not standing right there with them, chanting along right now?
No, I’m not.
Faustus:”you see you and me, we differ on around step two of your grand plan. I don’t think they did anything wrong, so there’s no need to acknowledge screwups.”
I have to give credit, it’s Teresa’s plan, I just agree with it. Step two is automatically broken if step one is broken, silly. If you don’t get any kind of message out, you’ve screwed up. Then if you don’t admit *that*, you’re continuing to screw up and fail to admit it, creating a feedback loop of fail and leading to a legendary whuffie inferno. As we have here. O noes.
#638 mullingitover
Sorry no yourself.
I’ve seen enough PR disasters to know that there is a point where positions are committed and it’s all over but the stoning.
1. The lynch mob can always be pointed to as evidence that something should have been done differently earlier on, but it doesn’t actually prove that the other thing would have prevented the lynch mob.
Specifically, how do you actually know when responding quickly trumps sitting tight and hoping something will blow over?
2. Ujamaa Incident at Stanford. People were upset, but when the two perps came forward at a meeting to apologize, that was when the real hysterics began. Why? The given reason was that they didn’t apologize right, so it was viewed as a slap in the face.
3. Not all problems can be fixed. It’s true that what’s going on is damaging their reputations, and it’s true that hi-visibility figures are vulnerable to this sort of attack, but that doesn’t prove that this sort of attack can always be avoided.
Even if there was a PR approach that might have defused the situation, I don’t personally agree that famous people owe me or you good PR. But that’s just me.
4. This goes back to my previous posts. There is an honest debate in this very thread about whether or not they actually did something wrong in the first place. You can see which side I come down on. So if I don’t agree that they did wrong, perhaps they don’t agree either. And if they don’t feel they did wrong, it would be unprincipled to apologize.
5. Telling some bloggers they need to hire PR consultants is corporate-speak, in my book.
I think 5 is evidence in favor of one of my earlier comments as well. When they were giving no information, they were guilty of that. When they gave X bits of information, they were guilty of withholding. You claim that there is some number of bits of information where they would stop being guilty (to say it a different way, “where people would stop posting angry comments in this thread”). I argue that the guilt is in the minds of the “loyal fans”, so that everything they say at this point can and will be used against them.
Your post-5 thing is another good example. Guilty of hiding behind poor Teresa — that’s a good one. Except that a number of them have peppered the comments with their responses.
Were mistakes made? Of course mistakes were made. If they hadn’t made them, would the outcome have been different? I’m not so sure.
“#656: “boingboing altered their archives to make it look like they never performed action X.”
That’s not why they did it though. They did it so that the links wouldn’t be supporting someone they no longer choose to endorse. The goal wasn’t secrecy it was removal of support. Kind of like Obama leaving his church (to use a really outrageously extreme example that might get me into hot water).”
And that explanation makes absolutely no sense. Suppose Larry Lessig gets hit on the head tomorrow and suddenly decides oops…an infinite copyright term is a wonderful idea. Presumably BB would no longer want to support Lessig. Would they then unpublish every post referring to him in order to avoid “supporting” him?
Suppose Larry Lessig goes crazy and kills someone and goes to jail for it. Would it make sense to remove everything he’d written in the past to avoid “supporting” him?
Now, it would make sense if they now have information that, say, Violet Blue plagiarized the things that were linked to. But even then, as others have pointed out, a simple “Update: as of xxx we learned this material was plagarized,” etc.
But removing past posts by someone who *today* is not someone they’re supportive of? Yeah, and Larry Craig was just looking for extra toilet paper in the stall next to him.
So compelled by this story that i was forced to change my status from avid lurker to first time poster…. even registered, something i tend not to do on the interwebs.
this is censorship.
it’s also a defiant act of ‘trust breaking’ with the BB community.
Worse still: Teresa. Who you kidding honey?
“Thank you all for caring what happens on Boing Boing. And if you think there’s more to say, by all means, let’s talk. We’re listening.”
Yeah right….
We’re listening.” Yeah right….
If you don’t think that we’re listening, how do you explain this response? We’re all ears.
A year ago and this is the result – where was all this bloviating then? A certain someone seems to have played the “I’m shocked, Ricky, shocked to find gambling going on in here!” card with the press. The abyss has already looked into that one’s soul.
@Talia:
The goal wasn’t secrecy it was removal of support. Kind of like Obama leaving his church (to use a really outrageously extreme example that might get me into hot water).
Removing support is making statement like “I don’t support the actions of X” (like Obama did), and then no longer linking/attending/whatever. Obama didn’t hide all previous instances of attending the church.
@Antinous:
What’s the pretense? This happened a year ago.
Um, exactly? The last year that I’ve been reading BB it has silently altering previous publications to be completely opposite than when originally published.
Nobody gave a shit.
Nobody gave a shit because nobody knew it was going on. That lack of transparency is one of the basic roots of the problem. And the fact that this has been going on for a year makes it worse, not better.
Had anyone asked a year ago, it would have been answered.
It wasn’t asked then because no one saw it happen. We are asking now, and we aren’t getting answers. Instead, we get run-around responses (at best) or name-calling (from Teresa).
Burnchao,
What are you still on about? Nobody noticed because nobody cared. Suddenly people are shitting hedgehogs because of something that they didn’t care enough about to even notice for a year. How perfectly dreary.
Boingboing is great. Long live boingboing. But it’s a dark day when I read that the reason this issue has been handled so poorly is due to the boingers’ attempts not to trash VB.
That’s cool, they have Theresa to do it. But why did VB need to be trashed to begin with?
Theresa, and I presume the rest of the crew avoiding this discussion, doesn’t seem to realize that the readership cares a great deal about the health of this site. That Theresa suggests that our criticisms should be dismissed because we think of the boingers as ‘evil’….is frankly insulting.
It’s because I have so much respect for this project, and each of the principal writers, that I have been reading it daily since 2000.
For me, it has nothing to do with VB, or what she did, or whether she lied, or is ‘trouble’. It has everything to do with boingboing’s actions.
I agree with several above who have said it more eloquently–the posts should stay, and the personal fighting should pretty much never come in to play. People fight, but to draw attention to it on one of the most heavily trafficked sites is just classless.
The ‘pile of shit’ comment floored me.
I’m sure you will survive and continue to prosper. But in my eyes, you screwed this one up, and every time Theresa condescends to type up another unhelpful and incendiary comment, things get worse.
Good luck getting through this. It does appear that boingboing is being held to a higher standard than other blogs, but then, there’s a reason for your success.
Faustus — I disagree. I think they should acknowledge the screwup and apologize — not so much for what they’ve done but for how they’ve done it. I don’t think anyone meant to cause a firestorm or even give overt crap to Violet Blue, but pretty much every chance they had to mitigate the reaction was blown along the way:
* First, they went in and pulled down a bunch of posts without telling anyone they were doing it or why. Stipulating for the moment they had a good reason for doing so, putting up a boilerplate post in the place of the missing ones saying “this post contained material we’re no longer comfortable having on our site, for various personal reasons. The material is still available on archive.org for the curious. Thanks, all” wouldn’t completely quell the response but it would take a lot of its bite out. Actually leaving the post up but removing the active links with an edited “we no longer feel comfortable linking to this” at the bottom would be significantly better. Or even putting a single post up explaining that they felt they needed to remove Violet Blue related material from the site preemptively would have made this a curiosity instead of a firestorm.
* Secondly, when the absences were found, a full year later, they could have issued a short public comment immediately. Even if they felt they couldn’t explain, acknowledging the situation while they worked on their formal response would have given people some sense of connection. By keeping quiet as long as they did, they made the situation worse for themselves.
* Thirdly, the post this very thread is attached to could have had more information in it — and some sense that they recognize a good chunk of their audience was upset. As it was, the post did nothing to really ameliorate the situation.
* Fourthly, the official representatives of Boing Boing could have generally been nicer in the thread. In the situations where people were clearly going out of bounds, they could have elected not to engage at all, and when they did engage, it could have been with less vitriol. Some of the people involved are paid to do this — while they don’t need to suffer abuse, they also shouldn’t be promoting it.
This won’t kill Boing Boing, no matter what happens. But this has struck at enough people’s sense of what Boing Boing stands for that some kind of acknowledgment that this was handled badly can only help matters. Even if they just apologize for letting their fatigue with the storm carry their emotions, or apologize for not handling all this a little better or in a way that addressed some of the audience’s concerns, that would be a step forward.
Dear BoingBoing,
Please do as you see fit and don’t feel compelled to excuse yourselves. Really. No editorial call you could make with this site would register on my radar as a “free speech abuse.” I hardly think that being an uncensored public tablet is any kind of mission at play here. It’s an editorial publication, not the public commons. And nothing can take away the many wonderful things I’ve found and learned here. Shit happens. Sometimes a minor edit to the archives can make a real difference for someone’s present and future. We’re human.
Having seen enough attention-whoring trolls wage their attention-grabbing campaigns against good sites, I can safely say I am not at all curious about the details of what happened here. Don’t need to know ’em. Not even a little. Plenty of tawdry internet drama out there. Seen it, done that.
You are far, far too good to us, your audience, for even making mention of this.
scarabic
so, umm, I love this about Boing Boing. This whole ugly thread. It is the heart of the internet, and not it’s dark festering heart (that’s 4chan). This is the living breathing functioning of community, and while the debate has sunk to /b/tard depths at points, that’s because there is really anger and pain here. Which is relevant, and always will be, but isn’t the best voicing of opinions to foster constructive change. And there is really, genuine though put into this, thoughts about what Boing Boing is, because people treat it as more than just a personal blog, and because it espouses ideals and voices “good web citizens” discontent, and because it is always difficult to reconcile espoused principles with real life behaviors.
With as much sincerity as I can muster, thanks for the discussion. Because if there is anything that dispels fears of an Orwellian reality, it’s discussion like this.
Sheesh. I guess it’s too late to suggest a group hug, huh?
I happen to agree that this incident isn’t the Boingers’ finest hour and, in fact, this whole thing seems to contradict some of what they claim to stand for, but I’m not going to lose my cool over it.
oh, and this is definitely “untitled 2″
let’s salvage the best of a bad situation…
go with plan #670, unpublish this whole thread — and for the next year pretend this never happened. continue with business as usual. grow.
instead, repost using plan #638. end of story.
for maximum effectiveness in plan #638, retro-date post to one week (or one year) ago. AND lock comments, no one wants to upset loyal readers with discussion or see moderators behaving badly. Or worse, have moderators chide/insult loyal upset readers.
note: for item (5) of plan #638, do not use corporate speak “unpublish” and then berate readers for not agreeing with narrow definition of term (yeah i’m talking about you #470)
do not use corporate speak “unpublish” and then berate readers for not agreeing with narrow definition of term (yeah i’m talking about you #470)
As I have explained several times, we have an unpublish button which does exactly what Teresa described. I’m sorry if you think that the reptilian overlords are controlling us from deep beneath the Denver Airport, but that’s your issue, not ours.
Gd frkng lrd ht TNH mr thn ht stmpnk.
ls, jst bcs ‘m flng snrky, ds nyn ls hr Strngsd’s vc whn lstnng t Cry’s rdngs?
I have been a reader and supporter of Boing Boing for many years. I bought Cory’s books regardless of reviews because I liked him and agreed with his views on copyright. I bought a copy of his latest for my son, and screwed up and missed a reading at the Ballard Library in Seattle by two hours, but my son and I came to support him. I’ve always like Mark’s eclectic tastes which closely match my own. My current eternal subscription to Make Magazine is largely based on Mark’s association.
Right now I am feeling like I never want to associate or let my kids associate with the members of Boing Boing again, and this includes my subscription to Make. A post about how “we decided to unpublish/erase our relationship with this person” demands some “transparency” or you have reduced yourself to many of the vices you denounce.
I honestly feel betrayed. I suddenly feel like Boing Boing is now a “Directory of Ways to Benefit Our Careers” with an associate link to Amazon for every post you make.
I feel like Boing Boing has betrayed me that same way Disney betrayed me, going from a company that wanted to enrich and entertain, to a company that will do whatever it takes for a buck.
Well, I think it was likely the trademark suit and the FILING for the trademark over a year ago.
Wendi Sullivan Blue was not named Violet Blue, you see, until she had her name changed about two years ago. She kept that fact a secret even from her friends.
Then she filed for a trademark with the intention of suing the porn actress who had been using that name since 1999, a porn star, moreover, she had been aware of the whole time, and who had invited her to be on her (the actresses) KSEX radio show, in fact.
At any time prior, Violet Blue, the porn actress could herself have sued Wendi Blue for the use of the name, but she didn’t.
In fact they have totally different businesses which makes this sort of suit especially wrong.
Now Violet Blue the porn actress had semi-retired from the business and is a single mom trying to get a non-porn career for herself, and at the time of the lawsuit her whole income was the very small porn site she ran to sell videos and stuff to her fans.
She could not afford to defend herself against the suit.
Adult Video News even issued a call for a lawyer to defend her pro bono but it didn’t happen, and the lawyer she was able to get wasn’t able to actually do more for her than file motions.
So, here we have successful writer suing single mom ex porn star and winning in court over a name when nobody ever confused the two.
Seems to me BB did the right thing here, because this was simply slimy.
Thrsdy @601:<> sw svrl nn-nsty qrs, jks, nd cmmnts bt VB gt “npblshd”. Y sw wht fw y hppnd t s. sw th cmplt st. S cld y pls cl t wth rmrks lk “bvs bllsht”? Y rlly dn’t hv tht cmng t y.
mllngtvr @576: f thr wr, s y ssrt, n trnsprncy t ll, ths thrd wldn’t xst, th ntry tht bgn t wldn’t xst, th Bngrs wldn’t hv frttd s lng nd hrd bt wht t sy, nd y wldn’t knw ngh t b tlkng bt ny f t.
rsBcchs @186:<>s svrl thr ppl hv pntd t, “npblshng” smthng (bcs y dn’t wnt t py t hst t ny mr) brks ll th nbnd lnks t tht cntnt. Dng s, nd dfndng th bhvr, rvls phlsphy f th ntrnt tht s shrply t dds wth Bng Bng’s pblc vls. Nnsns. Mst lrg, ctv blgs tk mtrl dwn, fr vrty f rsns. Sm d t mr thn thrs. My rfr y t th frst prgrph f BH’s cmmnt @594? H r sh dscrbs hw Vlt Bl tks stff dwn frm hr wn st.
Wht y’v flln fr hr s VB’s vrsn f n f Krl Rv’s fvrt trcks: prtndng tht prfctly nrml bhvr whch smn hs nggd n s nsl, lrmng, nd dscrdtbl. My gss s tht y mstly rd nw wblg ntrs. f y dn’t d th knd f nln rsrch tht lds t rdng ld ns, y wld nvr ntc tht smtms thy’r mssng.
rsBcchs gn, @557:Vlt Bl hs dmnstrbly ld mr thn nc bt ths mbrgl. <>Dmnstrbly? Whr?1. s mntnd rlr, by prtndng tht thr’s smthng xtrrdnry bt rmvng ld mtrl frm wblg whn th prctc sn’t nsl, nd VB hrslf ds slnt dts n hr wn st. 2. By mssn: nt mntnng tht th ntrs wr npblshd vr yr g, nd tht sh’d knwn bt t fr mnths bfr gng pblc. f t ws nws t ll, t ws ld nws tht n n ls hd ntcd. 3. vrsttng th nmbr f ntrs bt hr. cn’t gt n ccrt cnt wtht rdng ch n, n rdr t dstngsh ntrs tht r ctlly bt hr frm nstncs tht r jst hr wblg bng crdtd n pssng s th src f lnk — nt my tp prrty t th mmnt — bt thy’r nt n th thr dgts.
Tlk bt thngs tht rn’t nws: Vllywg stry trns t t b nrlbl; flm t lvn.
Longest comment thread ever?
Can someone give me the cliff-notes version, as I don’t feeling like reading all 688 posts?
Can someone give me the cliff-notes version
Blog meets girl.
Demoman @678, I wasn’t referring to you or anyone like you. I wrote that as a private response to a single commenter, then messed up and published it to the public thread. It’s been an exhausting day.
@Archeaopteryx
If that is the reason it is more than…well, reasonable, though I don’t see the cause for all the secrecy if that was the case.
( tap, tap, tap )
Pardon me, is this the punch line?
Rex Sorgatz is another blogger who sez Boing Boing deleted a posy about him after he wrote some criticism about them.
Read here.
As for someone lamely comparing this to Obama leaving Wright’s church… its actually more like if Obama went back and deleted any record of his previous attendance and enjoyment of Wright’s church, and trying to bury it under the rug.
If Boing Boing wants to disassociate with Violet Blue, they should simply stop writing about her. That’s it. Everything else looks like they were trying to cover up previous association, which could easily be construed as lying.
@antinous #688,
yes, you have defended the term “unpublish”, and i get the specific distinction after reading through this mess. but a lot of comments don’t agree, are confused by, or reject as hypocritical that narrow definition.
so you have a button that says unpublish. the concept of pushing that button on BB holds different values and implications for different stakeholders (boingers, readers, fanatics, dissenters, fight club, corylovers, xenifans, moderators, overlords of reptilian persuasion).
i may agree with you, but that doesn’t stop the confusion and general discomfort when reading the original post and thinking ‘oh, they’re just using the harmless unpublish button and nothing hypocritical or mysterious is going on, move on but comment if you like’
it’s not my blog. if you don’t value my readership and attention then compare me to some nut job who thinks aliens are controlling the illuminati. i may come back for another.
(FWI, they are controlling us through the british monarchy not the denver airport, duh)
PS i like you antinous, at least you are active in this quagmire and have a sense of humor =] keep it… this too will pass
I don’t see the cause for all the secrecy if that was the case.
What secrecy? Some old posts were nuked for cause or causes unknown. How does that constitute secrecy? How can you hide something that nobody is looking for?
@PROFESSION – given how litigious this woman seems to have become, who can blame BB for not wanting to say why?
Teresa @691:
What you’ve fallen for here is VB’s version of one of Karl Rove’s favorite tricks: pretending that a perfectly normal behavior which someone has engaged in is unusual, alarming, and discreditable
Thats right folks, your to blame for thinking something is wrong here, all of your heart-felt commentary is just the result of you falling for a sneaky trick.
Blog meets girl.
That’s it. So long BoingBoing!! I ain’t ever coming back!!
Antinuous, since you’re listening, would you care to answer the following? Do you believe that if something is successfully covered up, it doesn’t matter?
Teresa, Violet Blue’s behavior isn’t the issue now. What matters now is Boingboing’s.
reading this entire post makes me feel like that time when I was a kid walking in on my parents screwing on the bed.. *runs off in terror*
BB will never feel the same.
Cliff Notes Version:
“We want to make money off of you and someone we previously promoted we don’t like anymore so we have decided to erase our relationship with this person. But we won’t tell you why, but we still want your money.”
I think the next snarky reference to steampunk gets a whuppin’.
(Non-snarky references to steampunk in this thread are off-topic and also get a whuppin’.)
(Only comments about comments about steampunk should be allowed. But only this one. Subject closed.)
We want to make money off of you and someone we previously promoted we don’t like anymore so we have decided to erase our relationship with this person. But we won’t tell you why, but we still want your money.
Interesting perception of implied contract. Did you mean to post that in the LSD thread?
BB: meow
Readers: MEOW!
BB: meh.
Readers: MREOOOOOOOWWWWWWW!
BB:……..
@691 Teresa Nielsen Hayden
There’s a difference between a normal behavior for blogs in general is a normal behavior for Boing Boing in the specific. There are plenty of blogs that never delete posts at all. If they deviate from that pattern, it’s notable. Consensual sex between adults is a normal behavior in society. Make one of the adults a Catholic priest and suddenly it’s a scandal.
But if you do do that kind of research, and you remember that there was a Boing Boing link that was relevant, and you go back to look for it and can’t find it, your first reaction isn’t to go check the Wayback Machine to see if it was deleted. Your first reaction is to question whether you actually saw that post on Boing Boing at all. When you then can’t find it elsewhere, you question whether or not you ever actually saw it.
That’s the problem with taking out chunks of the discourse. It causes doubt where there shouldn’t be any.
This disturbs me more than the original “deletion” thing did — the implication of your statement is every post that was about an unrelated topic that had a “thanks Violet Blue” and link at the bottom was also deleted. I admit freely I may have misread that, but if it’s the case then there are posts (how many, I have no idea) on a variety of topics that were taken down sheerly out of tangential association. That seems like overkill, regardless of the reasons.
I’m not sure that the lies you cite are strong enough to hang “demonstrable liar” on. “Pretending that there’s something extraordinary about removing old material from a weblog when the practice isn’t unusual” ignores context — deleting posts isn’t unusual, but deleting all posts that so much as mention a specific person is noteworthy in most situations, and Boing Boing deleting posts without warning is also noteworthy. “By omission: not mentioning that the entries were unpublished over a year ago, and that she’d known about it for months before going public” is indeed a lie (though a lie by omission can be questionable), though we’ve seen no timeline of events that shows us when Blue was informed, or what her response was. We need details before we can accept the deception as a deception. And “overstating the number of entries about her” sounds more like hyperbole than a lie, to be honest.
@693
That, I believe. And I’m sorry to have added onto it, for what that’s worth. But I hope you can understand why some of the less vitriolic folks are concerned about all this, and I hope that some kind of resolution other than the story dying down naturally can be found.
makes me feel like that time when I was a kid walking in on my parents screwing on the bed.
Before YouTube, eh?
cliff notes version:
Violet Blue (aka Wendi Sullivan Blue, Sep 22, 1970) is upset that nobody noticed she was removed from BoingBoing for a year and raises hell, calling in some non-stop press coverage from latimes, gawker/valleywag, and her own unreadable blog.
Violet Blue’s boyfriend Jonathan Moore is up all night building an archive.org spreadsheet with the latimes blogger (stalkerish behavior??)
Legions of fans try to hold BoingBoing accountable, and they listen (to their credit).
Nobody tries to hold Violet accountable for her shameless attempt to gain pageviews through inciting public drama and ramming her quotes through the “latimes!” so they will be carved in Wikipedia RS stone.
Violet Blue knows that the best offense in a blog war is to pretend to be on defense.
I agree with #700 above, that BoingBoing’s initial silence was probably due to fear of litigation- this ANTI-DRM PRO-SEX blogger DID sue a single mother porn star on trumped up TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT charges.
BoingBoing, I was ambivalent about you before, but now that you’ve contributed to the collective good of this planet by removing another outlet for Violet Blue’s hypocritical ramblings, I salute you and add you to my RSS feed.
Yes, this thread is a step in the right direction, and if it had been created as something other than an afterthrought we’d be much better off, I think. At the end of the day I think (hope) we all know this is a tempest in a teakettle, but the ‘omg scandal’ meme is a particularly powerful strain and people on the internet are generally less shy about saying what they think, fair or not. I feel for you, I’m sure you’ve learned a valuable lesson, and I genuinely wish you guys the best of luck.
I’m going outside to frolic now, have fun with the hand-wringing everyone =]
@699 Antinous
You can’t actually know that. If someone were researching something Boing Boing commented on or linked to, jumped back to Boing Boing to check on it, and found no evidence of that link, they’re not going to raise a hue and cry that the link was deleted.
Well, okay, some people would, but most wouldn’t. Instead, they’ll think “oh man, I could have sworn I saw that on Boing Boing, but I guess not. I better try and track it down elsewhere.”
That, to me, is the heart of the problem. It’s not Orwellian or Censorship or anything else — but it takes out chunks of the scholarship, and unless the researcher has an eidetic memory or an obsessive need to know every post Boing Boing has put out, it distracts and confuses them when they try to go back and check the post later.
Eric,
That’s a thinly stretched argument. I can’t say that it’s wrong, but it gives apparent weight to distant hypotheticals. I can see why all this might be meaningful to Ms. Blue, but the level of breast-beating is disproportionate to the event. Although it’s certainly kept me entertained all day.
#703 Will Shetterly
No no no! Haven’t you been reading MY comments? This is no longer about VB’s or BB’s behavior. It is now about the commenters’ behavior!
I’m angry at you all and I’ve been posting comments about you all and I’ve been dissatisfied with both your responses and your lack of responses. Don’t you all think it’s time you come clean, apologize to me quickly, and hire a PR consultant? Isn’t it time you acknowledge that you’ve been condescending and rude, and dismissive of my well-thought-out and deeply-felt outrage?
hagbard,
Will usually shows up for the sole purpose of defending the government of China (which is a laugh riot given his comments in this thread). If you click on his name, you can see his whole comment history. You have been warned.
A summary? This is about as accurate as anything.
My first impulse is to say it was handled poorly but I don’t know. If there were legal issues, or relationship issues or both then…. I don’t know I would have handled it any better. Probably not.
And since I haven’t the slightest clue what is really going on I’m left with commenting on the controversy which… no.. no, I don’t really feel like it. I think I’ll just wait it out.
@Antinous
By secrecy I meant not giving a reason for the removal of the posts. If it was for the whole VB trademarking her name thing then I don’t see why BB wouldn’t just come out and say “hey, we don’t agree with this so we aren’t going to link to Violet anymore.”
If this was for personal reasons (which it appears to be) than a certain level of reticence about discussing the removal of past posts is reasonable.
However, as much as I support Boing Boing in their right to make editorial choices about the content they display, calling VB a liar without giving a solid reason is a bit tacky(Teresa, the lies you cite do exist but I think they are unworthy of the vitriol you invested in calling her a LIAR).
If this is personal and Violet Blue knows the reason for it then just tell me that. I’ll believe it.
I’m willing to bet the mods have “unpublished” a couple hundred comments from this thread by now (for reasons in complete accordance with their policies, I’m sure), so…
Comment #1000!
Sorry Oulipian, but the best that I can offer you is #788.
Its not an attempt at a coverup. Its not an attempt at a coverup. Its not an attempt at a coverup.
*bashes head on desk* Gah.
Clearly, the intention was to sever connections and no longer support someone who behaved in a way they found unconcionable. The removal of the links was intended merely as that, withdrawal of tacit support.
Im sorry. I just don’t understand how anyone can assume anything otherwise. It just makes no sense to me.. it sounds like outright paranoid delusional lunacy to claim otherwise.
Its very very sad. I feel so bad for you guys.
Antinous–
It’s not purely hypothetical for me, because I’ve obsessively read six years of a webcomic at one go because I’m positive they did a specific strip that I wanted to cite for an essay. More than once. Not being able to find said strip can drive me absolutely around the bend, but it’s never occurred to me that it might have been deleted. I just assume I’m misremembering.
I haven’t had that specific situation come up with Boing Boing, but I can easily see it happening. We are the internet — we are obsessive and remember tiny bits of things we try to look up later. It is in our soul.
I really think there must be a cadre of 4 – 5 very angry people who are registering and leaving comments about how this it the very worst thing EVAR, and they’re disgusted, and therefore BB are profiteering jerkz!
anyone have a better explanation of the foolish bloviating above? (my share not included, of course)
#712 mullingitover
“and if it had been created as something other than an afterthrought we’d be much better off, I think”
This is what I’m talking about. You’ve just fabricated a characterization of events to further advance the case against them. Even if they do right, they did it for the wrong reasons, or without sufficient respect, or something bad.
LOL. I just read #724 as an answer to the question in #723.
Since this has become a straw poll of sorts, I would like to add my word of support for BB and its policies. BTW, I’ve always assumed that if you went much beyond last week, the links would start to get a bit threadbare; assuming otherwise assumes infinite storage space, eh? So the arguments about how this destroys the fabric of the web seem disingenuous at best, ignorant at worst.
Eustace,
“Arguments about how this destroys the fabric of the web” makes me think of The Lady of Shalott, which seems appropriate to the general hair-tearing.
oops, other way round, best for worst…
(retreats, mumbling to self)
I had forgotten how heinous it is waiting for these lengthy threads to reload.
I’m amazed at how this one post and what preceded it has generated such vicious and impassioned discussion (or arguing past one another, depending on one’s perspective). As the smoke begins to clear this evening, it seems like there was a shattering of some kind of BoingBoing ideology for some folks. That ideology is somewhat amorphous and slippery, but the gist is that there existed an unacknowledged contract of archival integrity between BoingBoing and its readers. For those readers most hurt by the removal of posts related to Violet Blue, as well as the handling of that removal, their BoingBoing ideology of open source transparency, which was never officially acknowledged–yes, I think official is the right word when you’re talking about online businesses, even of Directories of Wonderful Things, was broken by the revelation that BoingBoing isn’t necessarily a blog of, for, and by the people (read: netizens with an emotional stake in the blog that embodies their ideology). BoingBoing is part of a business model that encompasses an editorial board embodied in Mark, Jeni, Cory, David, John, and Joel. That board makes decisions about the way BoingBoing is run, and there’s no reason personal views, feelings, and emotions can’t figure into their decisions (if they did at all in what’s become a fiasco in as far as it’s exploded into one in the comments and within the blogosphere–perhaps the explosion is contained). Anyways, it’s time for BoingBoing readers to reflect on any kind of ideological investment that they have in this site or others. This is not to say that BoingBoing doesn’t reflect or represent a certain “good” or “bad” ideology, but we all should, as reflective and critical thinkers, examine our investment in the work of others ad infinitum or we run the risk of complacency and childlike horror when reality doesn’t measure up to our expectations.
dynamicsubspace,
That’s a great meta-comment. Asking all interested parties to examine their own motives is a good way to get value from the experience. Otherwise, it’s just hot air.
My thoughts in no particular order:
* This should be included with the Mass Hysteria
post.
* Most people (like myself) check this blog to see what is new and interesting on the net and elsewhere. I don’t expect to be able to reference it like an encyclopedia.
* BoingBoing is under NO obligation to keep blog posts around forever. There is plenty of stuff that I thought was cool a year ago and when I see it I delete it. Much easier than trying to explain to my wife or kids or mom what I was thinking at the time, especially if I don’t even know.
* Obviously BoingBoing got tired of her and decided to not give her any more press. They featured her on the front page of their blog many times.
* VioletBlue has her own media outlets in several places and if she wants some more fame, she can get it there. Sex news can be interesting but, like Star Trek, gets old fast. MEH.
* If you don’t like that BoingBoing took down some old blog posts, then just get back to work and get a new favorite blog or make your own.
* If you are still upset, lets all work together to get the warrantless wiretapping straightened out, and then come back to this crap.
Hey BoingBoing, post some stuff about Wall*E or something so these dorks have something else to read.
NEXT POST!
seven hundred and thityone fukkin comments on this ridiculous thread? AHHHHHHHHHH!?! WTF? untitled#1 will be so sad…
[note: I don’t know anything about the drama with Violet Blue, nor do I much care. Also, I have not read the 700+ comments to this post.]
This post is not only insulting to the readers, it displays ignorance to how media works. I am being asked (well, told) to “respect the choice to keep the reasons behind this private”. What is respectful about ignoring the obvious questions that come about when we’re only told part of a situation? Is it respectful for us readers to assume Ms. Blue did something wrong with no supporting information?
Grw pr, boingboing. I’m a loyal daily reader of your site but why should I trust you more than I trust say, the NYT or even USA Today. If you have something to say, say it. If you want to continue to make posts telling us to respect your undisclosed reasons I hope you get laughed into obscurity as you quickly lose the trust of readers.
I like boingboing. Please don’t fuck it up.
The BB’rs are not going to tell us why, because it is their business and not ours.
Would you have made the same call? Get a blog and figure it out.
“Will usually shows up for the sole purpose of defending the government of China (which is a laugh riot given his comments in this thread).”
Antinuous, if I was the sort to sue, that’s the sort of slander that would inspire me. Where have I defended Chinese censorship? Quotes, please.
Whenever I talk about China and Tibet, I cite Michael Perenti, who has extremely harsh things to say about China. You may think all critics of Tibet are defenders of China, but I do not live in a binary world.
I take freedom of speech and faithfulness to facts very, very seriously. Far more seriously than you, based on what you just said. I now understand why you think hiding the past is no big deal.
Truth matters. Ponder that. If it didn’t, this thread wouldn’t have made it to ten comments.
#681 Antinous
…this reminds me of the time i was taught the difference between “listening” and “hearing”…. By a Politician.
Shout outs to BB for hearing us!
First!!!
everyone find a puppy and cuddle with it for 5 minutes. problems solved
I think I have reached a conclusion, 700+ posts later by the time I press POST. In part it comes from this quote on a Valleywag entry:
As Rebecca Blood wrote in her outline of weblog ethics: “Changing or deleting entries destroys the integrity of the network. The Web is designed to be connected; indeed, the weblog permalink is an invitation for others to link. Anyone who comments on or cites a document on the Web relies on that document (or entry) to remain unchanged. A prominent addendum is the preferred way to correct any information anywhere on the Web. If an addendum is impractical, as in the case of an essay that contains numerous inaccuracies, changes must be noted with the date and a brief description of the nature of the change…”
Yes it’s your blog, and I’m only a reader; many have stressed that unless we’re paying for BB, we don’t have a right to complain. BZZZT! Check the ad links at the bottom of every page. BB is in part driven by ads — I’m sure it pays for in part the server space and possibly some of the salaries of moderators there, small as they may be. Your FederatedMedia account is gonna feel the effects of this.
BoingBoing is in fact a brand, a product. By alienating your viewers and readers–which undeniably has occurred to some of us with this action and how it’s been handled–you’re cutting into your own profit margin. Whuffie is (and maybe should be) more important to you–although many of you have lost a lot of that, too–but the impact of this will be felt in the coming months. I don’t know how much it’ll be felt–as I mentioned earlier, I’d be extremely interested to see the numbers on your traffic pre- and post-debacle. As a mere former reader, however, I am not entitled to that information. Maybe in the Down and Out universe I could look that up…
I know some of you (decidedly moderator Teresa) will be saying “so one reader is leaving? so fucking what?!” but I’m certain I won’t be the only one leaving from this. As some of you have extolled in brighter days, vote with your dollars, and I’m doing that. I’ll still read Cory’s books, get his iTunes feed, and I think I’ll keep the BB Gadgets feed around for a while, though–Joel finds some really cool shit and there’s not a lot of room for blog bitch-fights on a simple tech review.
I gotta say, in parting, that I think a lot of the bad taste that has been building comes from Teresa: I don’t often dig into endless comments on every post, but I’ve seen entire exchanges back and forth between Teresa and whoever is arguing with her where she insults, their response is completely disemvowelled, her angry response follows, another disemvowelled reply, etc. This is not good moderating; a moderator should be felt and rarely seen, imo, and shouldn’t become embroiled in emotional tirades or calling the “customers” stupid, blockheaded, etc. as we’ve seen throughout the day on this thread alone. Antinous on the other hand seems to handle the job very well. I would encourage the original Boingers (and the real 5th Boinger Joel if he has a say) to let her go. That is, if my comment doesn’t get disemvowelled immediately upon posting. ;)
I’m genuinely sad to go; BoingBoing has been a great source of many wonderful things for me for many years now. It’s been the RSS feed I check every few minutes throughout my day, in order to make it through long hours and several begrudged jobs. But I think with this whole mess the shark has been jumped/the fridge has been nuked. I’m fairly sure that a year ago, when the posts in question were “unpublished,” one of you probably said “wow, this is gonna come back and bite us on the ass.” It was probably Cory. And sadly, it has bitten a big chunk of us readers right off.
So long, farewell, auf wiedersehen, goodbye.
Bump!
sometimes people in my life do things I think are foolish or even stupid. If I love them anyway, I don’t really notice.
Well it’s about time you posted!
Now he shows up.
Antinous #699
What secrecy? Some old posts were nuked for cause or causes unknown. How does that constitute secrecy? How can you hide something that nobody is looking for?
Deleting old posts that no-one notices or cares about doesn’t constitute secrecy. Posting a note on your front page saying that you did it, but you’re not saying why – that’s secrecy.
I’m going to bed. By this time tomorrow the secret will be out, and someone’s going to have egg all over their face.
By this time tomorrow the secret will be out, and someone’s going to have egg all over their face.
Fine. She kidnapped the Lindbergh baby. Are you happy now?
Why is there an assumption that there’s a big secret? It has grown to Cthulhuthian proportions, this moistly glistening, evilly pulsating gobbet of clandestine turpitude. That is based entirely on gossip-fueled hysteria. I read this play in high school.
First of all… who is VioletBlue?
Second… BoingBoing can do whatever they want, if you don’t like it don’t read it.
Third… since when is BoingBoing a major news source? It’s just a site we come to to look at weird shit, all these comparisons to 1984 make me want to vomit.
Holy Moley! This is like that time when Drew told everyone to lay off the posting of (excessive) boobies on Fark: Mayhem! Outrage! Weeping and gnashing of teeth! Maximum bloviation!
Okay, it’s not, but that’s the first thing that came to my mind.
The second is: boy, people are freaking desperate for the dish. Folks like Doctor Pickles, Satan, Shelly P–they’ll just die if they don’t know every tiny little detail. Sure, there’s a whole bunch of blather about “censorship,” (pardon me as I scoff for a bit) but they always come back to their desperation to know just what happened. I’m overwhelmed by their throbbing public titillation.
Third, valleywag? Freaking valleywag? What utter dreck.
BB is a blog. A BLOG! And, yep, I’m a fanboy. I pop in once or twice a day and stay for a bit. (I’ve never said thanks, so I’ll do so now. Thanks for everything, Boing Boingers, even the steampunk.) That said, I’ll just suggest that all you self-righteous dingbats get over yourselves. Or do us all a favor and [insert acronym of your choice].
First, thanks to boingboing for listening to readers, opening up discussion on this even though the response was probably exactly what they were trying to avoid in the first place.
To the people screaming transparency, censorship, conspiracy: it’s none of our business! What about privacy?
As mentioned in #700 “given how litigious this woman seems to have become, who can blame BB for not wanting to say why?”
Also as alluded to in #711 “Nobody tries to hold Violet accountable for her shameless attempt to gain pageviews through inciting public drama and ramming her quotes through the “latimes!” so they will be carved in Wikipedia RS stone.”
Everyone is dictating what BB should do. Now stop for a minute and think what VB should’ve done if she sincerely wanted to get to the bottom of this versus inciting public drama for more page hits. Any sane person would’ve contacted BB privately for an explanation and waited for an answer. On the other hand one who has no intentions of resolving anything but wants the page hits anyway would do as VB did: get two friends to blog publicly and then escalate it to other blogs until there’s enough shrill drama, seed comments here with anti-boingboing rhetoric, and have her boyfriend give live updates of this on her wikipedia page till an administrator tells him to knock it off due to conflict of interest.
The whole thing reeks of a pre-meditated grab for attention. Again from #711: “Violet Blue knows that the best offense in a blog war is to pretend to be on defense.”
And as quoted in Valleywag today: “But there’s one more very likely reason why Boing Boing’s editors might have decided to wash their hands of Blue: Her desperate coattail-riding. Before this dispute, Blue had been known to call herself “the fifth Boing Boinger.” That’s more than a stretch.”
Honestly, anyone that’s ever been in this social situation before would know that quiet disassociation is the best way to disengage from social climbing drama queens.
Thank you boingboing for trying to handle this as diplomatically as possible while distancing yourself from an internet pariah. It’s not your fault VB shills have seeded the discussion with paranoid ideas of a conspiracy that just do not apply.
No one missed those posts for a year and no one will care about this a couple of days from now either. It’s just private drama blown all hell out of proportion and BB owes no one an explanation regarding this particular matter. Don’t be suckers. Think!
I’m transiting the Slow for now, the Beyond will still be there – or did I emerge from the Unthinking Depths?
@740 – You check this blog “every few minutes”? That’s just sad. Especially since if you have it as an RSS feed, you would be able to tell if something interested you or not automatically. SO if you check it then everything on this blog must interest you. HENCE you love BoingBoing. THEREFORE I am betting you are just ranting and will not actually leave. BUT IF YOU DO, please don’t let anyones SNARKINESS hit you on the comment button on the way out.
BTW It’s after 1 am my time and I’m just being a jerk now.
On a related note, anyone expecting a trackback link to a post about, oh I don’t know, let’s say DONGS or SEX ADVICE, would last forever, please give me a break. Let’s imagine this: Rebecca Blood might be wrong.
Also, I have never heard or noticed Teresa, and I read this god damn blog a few times a week.
And finally, I hasten to add that BoingBoing has neglected to take down all their previous posts that kinda sucked or were not that great. Maybe there can be some kind of voting button to mark interesting posts and after a year the dumb ones disappear. That would save some space on my blog for shizzle!
Maybe there can be some kind of voting button to mark interesting posts
There is a ‘Favorite This’ button, although I have no idea where the information goes, if anywhere.
Wow, when did Boing Boing turn into LiveJournal?
#733 deadtrout
I’m probably breaking a rule in Social Networking and Blogging 101 by responding to a commenter who doesn’t read teh comments, but here goes:
BB said, “Violet behaved in a way that made us reconsider whether we wanted to lend her any credibility or associate with her.”
It isn’t really necessary for you to know what VB did; it isn’t necessary for you to judge whether it was bad or not; it isn’t necessary for you to have faith in BB’s moral judgment, because your concurrence is not required for BB to make an editorial decision. Nor is your concurrence required for BB to make their own moral judgments.
You’re free to withhold page views from them if you want. You’re even free to express your anger at them in the forum they’ve kindly provided for you to do so (and they’re free to delete it).
But I think you are angry at them for not giving you something that you have no claim to.
Long time BB reader sez:
I love that comments are re-enabled here.
I love that BB brought Teresa in as wrangler, making that possible.
I love that she’s not one of these boring beige moderators oh-so-wistfully wished for upthread.
I love the precision of her language and the passion behind it.
I love her intricate understanding of the task of moderating for *Boing Boing* as opposed to other blogs or communities or lists or whatever.
And those “insults” seemed pretty right on to me.
Roboz, #658:
You have that entirely backwards – if Teresa wasn’t here to make this into a place where conversations can occur, the comments wouldn’t exist on this blog.
Jesus! It sounds like the fruitcakes have spilled over from Myspace.
It’s frakin’ Blog!!!
Sounds like an attention whote from Hell.
Violet, build a wall AND GET OVER IT!!!!
I am sure that those who don’t care about this are seriously under-represented in this thread. So let me join those who are saying, *I don’t care about this bogus issue*.
That being said, I think the people who do care about this are just expecting the wrong things. Like the people who complain about wikipedia not being 100% accurate all the time. It is what it is.
And boingboing is what it is, and that means it’s up to the boingers to do whatever they want. And if you’ve come here expecting anything else, no wonder you’re disappointed.
I’ve read BoingBoing practically every day for the last 5-6 years.
Sure, I trust you to only unpublish BAD PEOPLE. I also trust George W Bush to only detain BAD PEOPLE at Guantanamo. Us little people don’t need to know what’s going on, because we can trust big people to do what’s right. And if in the past you accidentally greenlit posts about BAD PEOPLE, then it’s good that we can’t see them anymore, because they might confuse us. Thank you for protecting me from BAD information.
But seriously, why not tell your readership what’s going on? Screw politeness. Like it or not, the future’s finally arrived: it’s 2008, and you’re an internet news source, and I’m an adult, more or less, and I’m afraid I simply need to know. If you shy away from that, even a little, well…
I know it’s your site, you pay the bills, and as such you’re perfectly entitled to censor your archives however you see fit. But I’m also entitled to seek news/commentary/whatever from a source I trust. I don’t expect anyone to be unbiased, but I do make a huge distinction between those that are and aren’t 100% open and transparent. This is just… disappointing.
Good luck with your blog.
-Adam C Morgan
Antinous: re: the Favorites button
Have you seen the Add as Friend button? Now THAT one really weirds me out. I mean, what happens if you click it, and then nothing seems to happen, but two hours later a big, unmarked van pulls up to your house. With no windows in the side. I just don’t wanna go there.
Have you seen the Add as Friend button?
We actually test drove that one a couple of months ago. Your ‘Friend’ shows up on your profile page. Exciting, huh? We were sort of hoping that we could form a secret club, but no luck.
Sorry Teresa, I’ve had enormous respect for you since the early nineties, but you’ve still screwed up here during the course of a long and difficult day with the accusations of lying. You said “Violet Blue has demonstrably lied more than once” and then, when challenged, failed to demonstrate even one lie. I think you should apologize to her.
In your #691, the first “lie” you attribute to Violet is “pretending that there’s something extraordinary about removing old material from a weblog.” That’s not a pretense, it’s a difference of opinion. There is something extraordinary about these deletions, as many hundreds of your most loyal fans have told you today. What we have here is a difference of opinion, but no lie. You can call it nonsense all you want, but routine edits and cleanups of old content cannot reasonably be compared to what happened here. There was nothing routine about it, and no lie in pointing out its extraordinariness.
The second lie you attribute to Violet is “not mentioning that the entries were unpublished over a year ago, and that she’d known about it for months before going public.” That’s a lie all right, if she in fact did know. But it’s not a “demonstrable lie” unless you can demonstrate that she did, and you haven’t even tried to demonstrate that. You may know it, but you haven’t demonstated it. You haven’t even pointed to anything suggestive of it. I myself didn’t happen to notice, and the deletions broke several links in my own archives. So, maybe a lie, but not a demonstrable one — or at least, not one you’ve demonstrated yet.
The third lie you attribute to Violet is “Overstating the number of entries about her.” That’s just lameness on your part. If you and the Boing Boingers can’t make an accurate count (“I can’t get an accurate count without reading each one” says you) than how in the hell do you think it’s fair to expect Violet to have an accurate count of material she doesn’t have access to? At least you’ve got a database. So, sorry, no — that might have been hyperbole, or it might have been error, but it surely does not rise to the level of “demonstrable” lie, when you (who has access to the database) cannot even make the count you accuse her of lying about.
I really think you need to stop with the insults and start focusing on the damage control. Because this has been seriously beneath you. You know who you have been reminding me of today? Jerry Pournelle on GEnie. No joke.
Why did the BBers not tell a white lie? Saying “we had a personal fallout” instead of “she’s unwonderful” would have avoided tons of speculation about VB’s and the BBers’ morals.
Trying to figure out a way to ‘unread’ five years or so of Boing Boing.
‘Unpublishing’ someone is disappearing him or her, exactly to the extent that lies within your power as an online publisher.
It’s an unkind, even violent thing to do.
just press the OWIST button…see what happens then…
@764
Violent? Good job, you’re moving up the ranks of goof-ball posters.
to Hiram in the Netherlands; calling this violent only exposes to your readers the extent to which you have been protected from the reality of violence, and the harm this has done to your perspective. Perhaps you should start a server farm for all the poor discarded links on the internet; perhaps nothing else will protect your delicate sensibilities. Until you volunteer to pay for it, you remain a transparent puff of gas.
Eustace: By your logic, every time Cory criticizes an entity for “disappearing” its archives, he’s full of shit if he doesn’t volunteer to pay for the hosting?
BB is the reason I am constipated today.
reply to #768You could put it that way if giving offence was your intention; but “criticizing an entity” covers a lot of ground and I would prefer to discuss a case.
I’m pointing out a basic hypocrisy – and I’m pointing it out in a particular case. A case where the deletion of a link was characterized as violent. Perhaps instead of putting nasty words into my mouth you might share what you think – about the hypocrisy of flaming others for not hosting content you are unwilling to pay storage costs for.
@763 Why did the BBers not tell a white lie? Saying “we had a personal fallout” instead of “she’s unwonderful” would have avoided tons of speculation about VB’s and the BBers’ morals.
Just speculating but it would seem pretty obvious. Saying it was a personal fallout would’ve prompted VB to speculate on what the personal fallout from one year ago could’ve been and maybe drag even more people through the mud. She doesn’t seem to settle disputes privately.
Like someone else said above if she really wanted to know she could’ve asked directly. In her blog she said asking would’ve seemed accusatory. Only a desperate media whore would think that asking on a blog and getting other blogger friends to ask in public would be less accusatory. As seen here, never under-estimate the power of suggestion.
This is all double plus ungood.
Marley9 writes “What we see more often than not, is the reply “Oh yeah? When then your an idiot…”
This hasn’t been my usual experience. You may be overgeneralizing from your own experiences. But I wouldn’t want to sound too critical of someone who speaks for so large a part of the BB readership.
Again, it’s very amusing that Theresa is bothering to respond (and so combatively with the folks making garbage posts) – as if she believes it will do anything but feed the fire.
When the Internet masses start blathering like this, there’s not much that can be done to calm it down short of locking the thread, or just ignoring it (it WILL die down in a couple of days). It’s like arguing with a two-year old.
When did “We reserve the right to unpublish or refuse to unpublish anything for any or no reason.” get added? Unfortunately, the internet archive cuts out after August 2007, when it wasn’t there.
Perhaps before you condemn Boin Boing for unpublishing the entries, it would be good to look at how people found out about it.
From posts on her blog and a subsequent comment on a post after the first Violet Blue says:
“@ Seth — I agree. when I made this post I’d been emailed about it over the weekend and wasn’t sure what to do. asking why they’d taken the posts down seemed accusatory, so I figured I’d make a statement calling attention to it — at the very least — rather than being silent while still trying to figure out how to address something so bizarre. I figured that was the most open and accountable way for me to address the questions and rumors, while still not knowing what the hell is going on (and being not sure what the right thing to do is in a situation like this). I mean, I’ve never seen a well-known blog take down so many posts in a mass deletion without a peep — let alone that it seems to be about me. plus, I thought I was friends with Boing Boing, so it feels incredibly awkward.”
And from there it seems it went to other blogs including the latimes and valley wag. And the LA times blog has quotes from Violet Blue. If she thought that she was friends with them wouldn’t it be normal for her to ask someone from boing boing? Calling it open and accountable is funny because it seems more like she told everyone except boing boing directly unless she contacted them and didn’t get a reply. But with her “openness” wouldn’t she have said something like that?
Considering that she said nothing about it would make one assume that she didn’t try to contact Boing Boing and simply got it publicized in places with high traffic based on Boing Boing’s name specifically. Giving her publicity as the wronged party.
So what is Boing Boing supposed to say that will satisfy people? Give a reason for their actions that might include some private stuff that may embarrass people? Plus in such a public space such things might be considered slander or libel and could have legal repercussions.
On boing boing simply saying that they didn’t support Violet Blue anymore when they took down links to her could affect her ability to work even without giving the reason. It could even do so a year after the fact based simply on their reputation. After Violet made it news anything they could say could cause any sort of consequences for everyone involved. Giving the reason might be even worse.
Just because Violet Blue decides to talk about every part of her life on her blog doesn’t mean that it’s prudent for other people to do so. Especially when the people have some form of celebrity. Any sort of news can affect their livelihoods.
There’s no way I’m reading this entire thread or keeping up with it, but I just thought I’d throw in my two cents.
You have every right to control what you post (or “unpost,” as the case may be) on your own damn blog. Why this isn’t common sense to everyone here, well, it’s beyond me. It’s not like they’re censoring her. They’ve simply decided that they don’t want to promote her anymore.
Good grief, people. Grow up.
IMO, the way out of this was to say something like …
But that’s just what I like to think I’d have done in your position. I’m slightly more sure I wouldn’t have called people blockheads or liars.
@antinous (somewhere around 600): After skimming 550-775 after breakfast I have to agree that there is much repetition. In fact, the usual scheme is A-B-A-B-A-B…-A-B, with A (or B) one of the post of the suspects you named stating and repeating the reasons why this is something we did not expect from BoingBoing, and the other one is by someone like GregLondon, Talia or even the Moderator telling us that we are wrong and there is nothing to see here. Either one triggers the others to restate their position. I demand ;-) a official name-calling of the B-group for repetitive positing, and are happy to have found some C and D opinions in my morning reading. And I’m still waiting for the official Z posting setting things straight, finally.
@Hagbard: in regard to the transatlantic time-lag, and the length of the thread, I won’t go into the specifics of Creative Common etc.
Ah, Crap. I left out one thing even though I previewed my comment:
The propensity for blogs to air their grievances with another party by instantly talking about it with their readers publicly instead of working it out with the other party simply screams “LOOK AT ME!!!!!! LOOK AT ME!!!!!!” and the medieval “I DON’T KNOW WHAT’S GOING ON REALLY BUT I MUST GET REVENGE FOR THIS.”
Sorry for caps and having comment number 777 is exciting in a small meaningless way.
How come when I go to the home page, it’s
http://boingboing.net
but when I come here it’s
http://www.boingboing.net/natokakantoka …
(Well, it said “Thanks for signing in, oheso. Now you can comment” … )
@626 – I had to google Congdon – She got Amanda Congdon fired? Because Amanda didn’t say nice things about her?
@749 – She really called herself “The Fifth Boinger”???
@772 – No she doesn’t settle disputes privately; She sues.
I’ve learned a lot more than I knew about her reading this thread, and none of it is good. Come right down to it, as far as I can tell, she is not a good person.
But you know, I am betting the real reason is worse than anything we have seen exposed here, and I am better we’ll never know what it is. But what I’ve seen here is enough.
And she’s a bad writer.
So what is Boing Boing supposed to say that will satisfy people?
It’s beyond saying something. Excuses are worthless, and legitimate reasons aren’t there.
The more I learn about about VB, the more I don’t like her. So why aren’t I over there complaining about her actions?
I’ve never been a fan of hers. I’ve been a constant reader and fan of BB for many years. Maybe Seven? Nine? I don’t know. And now I found out that BB has rewriting its publications for at least a year. This revision has been done changing views to the complete opposite of those at publication time.
So now I know that when someone at BB has a change of opinion, all previous publications will be altered to fit this new opinion. If Cory loses his Disney crush, BB will pretend that Cory never had a Disney crush by altering all previous publications, however remotely associated.
So its beyond saying something. You haven’t been able to figure out what to say to make it right because there isn’t anything that can be said to make it right. BB has been lying to its fans and supporters for at least a year, and we aren’t going to be happy about it no matter how you spin it.
Are we allowed to speculate about why this might have happened?
I doubt it was anything personal against Violet Blue. Boing Boing has some pretty big advertisers. They want to make their advertisers more comfortable by linking to less “adult” content.
@#784 posted by Burnchao
I have the same concerns as to whether other things could have been altered and it would probably be a good idea for them to figure out a general policy for informing about edits.
Maybe a separate page listing edits for public record that is automatically generated.
Or adding the edited info at the bottom and crossing out the wrong stuff or something. I know I’ve seen updates on entries before.
In this case however, I would find it hard to accuse them of lying to us readers.
If I were to have to consider deleting posts I’ve made somewhere about a person for private reasons I think I’d probably decide not to say anything as well because saying something could very well bring attention to stuff.
Nobody beyond the West Coast gives a shit. Super drama. Blah blah. Sometimes it’s just better to put stuff offline.
@#786 Wouldn’t it be kinda interesting if all this 21st century gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands was about the eternal triangle? The more things change, the more they stay the same eh? It’s just a blog people, try getting as wound up about Zimbabwe or Tibet….
@ Eustace, 768: what would, in your view, constitute a violent act, on-line, if not, for instance, the stealthy removal of every mention of someone’s name from a widely read web publication? Do you consider the retouching of photographs by dictatorships as violent acts, or as mere unpleasantries?
Or is it perhaps impossible for you to conceive of any other kind of violence than the fists, bullets and bombs kind?
Remember primary school? The cabal of ten year olds deciding that Jimmy was now persona non grata, and that no-one could say his name out loud anymore? Is that not violence?
“I am boing boing’s irritable bowel syndrome.”
I’m glad I checked before posting because Jackdavinci (#602) already said everything I wanted to say — and more.
Meanwhile, Evilgenius (#30) gets my vote for best Orwellian comment.
In that context, it’s childish emotional abuse at best. Violence would be if they all ganged up on Billy and beat him with chairs (maybe I went to a bad school)
BoingBoing doesn’t owe you anything. Time for a mass unbunching of panties, no?
I agree with Hiram in principle. Removing all references to a person on a well-known blog can be a kind of emotional and psychological violence. Whether the term is correctly applied in this situation I don’t know, since I don’t know the circumstances that led to the removal. Without any intended insult to Ms. Blue, I tend to trust the integrity and good intentions of the BoingBoing team.
This is, however, a huge screwup for BoingBoing. Many of your most passionate and loyal readers think you made a major Net transgression, whether you see it or not. I’d like to see Cory address this; among the editors I think he carries the most authority on matters of free speech, Net transparency, and the structure of the Web.
I look forward to the posts (not comments, posts) this will generate on BoingBoing going forward.
i understand your position, boingboing. just wanted to add my support. there is a wise welsh saying: “there’s no point lifting your petticoat after you’ve pissed”. a clarification would have eased crazy-traffic to the site, but hey, hindsight’s a ‘wonderful thing’.
for those who don’t understand how linking (even in archived posts) to a certain website is Endorsement, and that you have to pay to keep up that endorsement through your hosting, yes, throw up your arms and walk off muttering ‘RIP’.
The blog has explored the many nuances of transparency, freedom of speech in a way that has engaged well with the public (hell, we’re talking about it now, those who aren’t shouting).
It has shown that these issues are *not* black and white. They emphasise the human faces of these debates – actual *people* who are affected by stupid legislation, editorial decisions and aggressive litigation.
This isn’t a debate of ‘Principles’, but of human activity-that’s what boingboing have always been about.
There are some unhappy mutants somewhere in this kerfuffle, and it is boingboing’s right to protect them.
Doesn’t it seem obvious that this is something *very* personal? The blog is open and frank, the fact that this unpublishing (look it up, saddoes) has happened quietly means that something was really wrong.
As an aside, i found violet blue to be one of the most inane contributors on this blog, and fleshbot. When she gets a break from blowing her own, i hope she’ll see that notoriety comes at a cost. It’s up to her integrity as a person whether she wants to offload it on someone else’s site, and someone else’s time.
@dros: funny thing is the end of your repeat-rant: “As an side, i found violet blue to be one of the most inane contributors on this blog […]” (emphasis mine). One of the points of dissent is that BoingBoing is holding to the position that she never contributed, but that everything were article by the BBs themself. Which is technically true, but seems to be borderline in at least one case. So, why do you identify VB as a BoingBoing contributor?
I appreciate that yesterday, after the fact, I got an apologizing reply from Xeni to my original mail. Including another thinly-veiled yet vague remark about “someone’s” offline behavior in an attempt to explain without explaining, and feeling the need to clear up allusions of hypocrisy and censorship when I didn’t bring them up myself. At least it’s something. But honestly, I never would have gotten any reply or explanation if public pressure hadn’t forced BB to make a statement and if everything had quietly died down instead, would I?
Boing Boing has learned from this, no doubt, and it must continue fighting the good fight. I sincerely wish that you will rebuild your credibility with a changing community. I for one would simply find it hard getting too deeply involved again without constantly being reminded that Boing Boing, for whatever noble reasons, was using the same deluded anti-information control methods on its members that it condemns in many of its posts.
Obviously no one is going to change their mind at this point on how they feel, but after nearly 800 comments, it’s probably a bigger deal to your readers than you guys thought (and still think).
Quarterly Prophet,
Coming from someone who’s never posted before his dozen posts in this thread, we’ll take that for all that it’s worth.
I wish people would stop using the continuous present tense for this one act of whatever-it-is that took place a year ago.
The air of discomfort radiating from the boingers’ comments on the subject is almost palpable; I think we can take it as read that if such a situation arose today, they’d find some other way of dealing with it.
hmpf…just woke up…800???
peacelove@794: Removing all references to a person on a well-known blog can be a kind of emotional and psychological violence.
I have a little blog over at warhw.com. It’s called “War Handwavium”. It’s tag line is “A study in how language misdescribes violence, war, and the use of force.”
It’s my own little space where I wanted to be able to point out how people use language to downplay the real costs associated with violence, war, and the use of force.
I’m almost tempted to start another theme in that same blog where people misdescribe verbal arguments as “violence” just to make something sound far more dramatic than it really is. Because that also misdescribes violence, just in the other direction.
Saying “we will be welcomed as liberators” downplays the cost of an invasion. Saying “we will be out in 6 weeks or 6 months” is downplaying the cost of a war. Creating an incident where none existed such as the Gulf of Tonkin incident, or testimony by Nurse Nayirah about incubators, or stories in 2003 about human shredders, those are all using language to invent somethign that didn’t happen, in order to justify war.
All I see here is a bunch of people who are trying to use inflamatory words to describe the removal of some posts over a year ago as being something far worse than it really is. People have repeatedly compared this to Orwell’s 1984, or Stalin’s purges, or whatever. Calling this “violence” is no less a misdescription of what really happened. And it is used solely to over-dramatize what happened.
I’m surprised someone hasn’t come out and said the BB’ers have an industrial shredder in the back room and grind up human beings for their slurpies in the morning.
Post #711 has a nice, short narrative of what happened over the last year between VB and BB. What you’ll notice there is a decided lack of violence, a decided lack of damage inflicted by BoingBoing on VioletBlue.
There are quite a few hand-wringers on this thread who are quite certain that something illicit happened somewhere and must have been inflicted by someone, but when pushed to point out actual, specific, damage suffered by VB, they shake their heads and invoke Donald Rumsfeld, stating defiantly, “We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.”
Which is to say, they’ve got squat, and have to resort to linguistic propaganda that I normally see used by hawks looking to overinflate somthing to justify war. A sense of righteous indignation over some nonexistent harm inflicted on someone that people don’t even care about, just that the “harm” done, gives them reason to go to war on the “harmer”.
So, where are the WMD’s? What real, actual harm has been inflicted on VB?
Talking about the “integrity of the internet” will be shown to be equivalent to charges of yellow cake from Niger. Charges of “censorship” will be shown to be equivalent to “mobile biological labs”. All of them nothing more than handwaves attempting to invent something where nothing real exists.
I’m looking for specific damages that were inflicted on VB as a result of BoingBoing deleting it’s own posts over a year ago.
> Boing Boing has learned from this, no doubt, and it must continue fighting the good fight. …
> I for one would simply find it hard getting too deeply involved again
What the fuck? Who are you? Will you get over yourself already? It’s not like you let BoingBoing fuck you gently every once in a while. It’s not like you have a sweet, mysterious relationship that only the two of you know about. What’s more, no-one knows about this because you’re some guy with a handful of comments on a blog.
It’s a blog. If you care, you lose.
> it’s probably a bigger deal to your readers than you guys thought
The only big deal is the amazement the BB crew must feel at how people can get so worked up over something so inane, while a post about warrantless wiretapping, no further than 10 posts (I didn’t count) away from this one, generates not a 10th of the amount of rage, anger, confusion and spite.
Personally, I would feel pretty lost when I would find out my blog is frequented by a bunch of crybabies. Lost, and disappointed.
Dear all, you need way more lulz in your life. Check out how they do over at /b/, where they make sure that everything, EVERYTHING, gets ridiculed. I’m not saying that’s something to strive towards, but it sure puts stuff in perspective.
Perspective. Look it up. And stop crying over this utterly uninteresting story.
Just out of curiosity, if Boing Boing, as a private entity, has the right to unpublish anything they retroactively deem unwonderful, wouldn’t that also mean that AT&T and other suppliers of broadband services, as private entities, have the right to do away with net neutrality?
This is very sad. No matter how you slice it, dice it, or rationalize it, Boing Boing’s lost some credibility. Anything they have to say about transparency from now on will ring a bit hollow.
I really wish Cory would weigh in on this.
…but when pushed to point out actual, specific, damage suffered by VB, they shake their heads and invoke Donald Rumsfeld…
Dude, nobody gives a damn about VB. We care about BB, what its become, and what it has really been for at least a year.
I’m looking for specific damages that were inflicted on VB as a result of BoingBoing deleting it’s own posts over a year ago.
We’ve pointed out specific damages that were inflicted on BB as a result of BoingBoing rewriting it’s history for over a year.
@tillwe
For clarity: “your repeat-rant”. i typed my comment in a quiet voice. i also state that i am ‘adding’ my support. i am agreeing with other posters, i assumed that was ok on the internet. i am mainly a lurker on this site, so forgive me for breaching your take on comment etiquette.
as for ‘contributor’, well, i misspoke. what i meant to post was “violet blue’s contributions”. and by that i mean ‘things she has done wot appeared on this site one way or another’.
i feel for the editors. so many people out there are just too ready to jump down each others* throats.
*have left out apostrophe from performance anxiety.
I’m going to add to the gossipy bullshit, because I’m not into celebrities or scandal-rags and need some sort of outlet… and I don’t have a life:
“We hope you’ll respect our choice to keep the reasons behind this private.” This, it seems, is my cue (and the 800 people before me) to start guessing/commenting.
It could be that there was a simple falling out and BB staff got fed up with her. Maybe they want to move out from under the blacklists for porn sites (would a link to Violet Blue do that?) and are hesitant to admit that censorship won. Maybe Violet Blue and the BB staffer(s?) had hot orgy sex and it wasn’t as good as Violet writes about in her blog… I mean, she’s supposed to be an expert (sexpert?), then BB bought drugs from VB, but the quantities were less than expected (she ripped them off). Then — and I am sure of this part — they all sacrificed a few infants to Cthulhu and are now trying to part company before the authorities catch wise.
wow. 800+ posts. I love BB. I don’t really care if VB was your drug mule who held out.
> No,I am not the Violet in the story,
> I am the other one,
I was so expecting that gallery to be NSFW. It’s not, folks. False alarm.
Well, the day of the last post about VB was within a day of TNH getting welcomed onboard at bOINGbOING. Maybe she’s responsible for it.
Well, the day of the last post about VB was within a day of TNH getting welcomed onboard at bOINGbOING. Maybe she’s responsible for it.
Yes, Burnchao, you nailed it. She also killed Jimmy Hoffa.
Look, they put puppies on the front page!
Aren´t they sweet?
Puppies in BB < -> Anne Nicole Smith in FOX
And remember, the “Don’t unpublish me BBro” T-Shirt
will be avaliable on Cafepress. Violet and Blue versions. (no really)
The motivational posters “We can unpublish… just don´t tell Cory… “, “Sexy Contributors aren’t THINGS” and “OOPS… This never happened” / but is in my cache…” will be avaliable soon.
#802 remmelt: I’m not sure I fully understand what you’re trying to get at with this rant, and I don’t think I should care anyway. I don’t care about blogs. I do care about the way I’m getting treated by other people.
Remmelt wrote,
“The only big deal is the amazement the BB crew must feel at how people can get so worked up over something so inane, while a post about warrantless wiretapping, no further than 10 posts (I didn’t count) away from this one, generates not a 10th of the amount of rage, anger, confusion and spite.”
This is a lot like Theresa’s whine that VB edits posts on her blog without notice.
Maybe true. But we had higher expectations of BB, especially given all the lip service paid to openness, transparency and free speech on the site.
Principles are meaningless unless you uphold them at those times when it is the most difficult thing to do.
Jesus f’in Chri–,
You adolescent, lame-ass BoingBoingers: listen up: GGGGGGGGGGGGGRRRRRROOOOWWWWW UUUUPPPPPP.
It’s time to move out of adolescence. I’m sorry if the co-editors hurt your feelings by bitch-slapping Violeta (who I love, esp. the group females picts).
I took Cory’s USC Set Top Cop seminar and I can tell you he’s human, like the rest of the co-editors. In my opinion, they fucked up. Cory and Xeni especially contribute to the digital commons so to “unpublish” comments reeks of a half-ass committment to freedom of expression, etc, which an activist and journalist should prioritize over all else. (who cares if violeta hurt their feelings or whatever).
BUT SO WHATTT? They made one f-in mistake, in my opinion, and maybe it wasn’t even a mistake since I don’t know the juicy details.
BUT LET’S ASSUME THEY DID FUCK UP: Great, they’re imperfect and still one of the best websites. Now you navel-gazing, creative class, Silicon Valley losers, you reek of what Kara Swisher calls the “Echo-chamber effect.” I’m really glab you all came of age when the good old net launched, but big f’in deal.
The inter-umbilical cord ties you all together like reactive, little teenagers, whose feelings are so easily hurt.
Our country may go to f-in war w/ Iran (hello, read stuff like New Yorker).
There was just a little march in your city last weekend about something called homophobia, tranny-phobia, etc [sp?] (and news bulletin, a tranny teenager was killed in your hood a few years ago). Then there still happen to be a few homeless and poor blackies to think about.
Grow up. Expand your viewpoint. As they say in South-Central, or as Immortal Technique, Mos Def and M said, “TELL THE TRUTH NIGGA” [south-central style] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USh8zul8kIQ
Final memo to you hurt babies and girlies: the Internet was partially funded by the military; the US military was engaged in something called the cold war, wasting millions of dollars and stunting our economy with its military-industrial complex; the cia was failing from its inception; our military industrial complex failed during wwii to bomb the concentration camps, a moral failure that blows away any “great, greater, greatest” generation b.s.
so your luvly internet is infected. You all have a creative class narcisism virus.
Happy 4th of July.
Good luck finding a cure.
I appreciate all the commentary, from the words of support to the legitimate outrage. It’s helped my understanding of the spectrum of concerns, if nothing else, and changed my opinion on a couple of points.
So.
Many.
Comments.
I was ignoring this insanity all of yesterday, then this morning I thought, “oh, I’ll check out these 800 comments… how could that be a bad idea?” Oops. It was SUCH a bad idea. Oh. My. GOD. I want the past 45 min of my life back… i mean, are you kidding me?
Sorry, Teresa, that your job was ridiculous yesterday and had to read all of these. For what it’s worth, I have complete faith in you and in all the BoingBoing staff – you all do great work on here and elsewhere. Here’s hoping this blows over as soon as possible.
Dear Argon in 811,
This is not people. This is a blog. I’m going to assume you don’t know any of the BB crew personally. The “other people” don’t enter into it. You do not have any kind of relationship with Boing Boing, other than the one that only exists in your head.
If this really, truly affects you, in your life, you’re doing something wrong. If it doesn’t, good for you, but then why come crying in this thread?
Dear Brian in 812,
Not “maybe true”: Yes true. Very true. And sad. We can talk about how bad it is that Boing Boing did this and not that, how Violet Blue told someone this thing that day, but in the end this post generates 800+ comments and the ones that really matter are lucky to catch 80.
To me, what matters most in a community is not the thing the community is for (techno-political blog, Corvette cars, bass-fishing, etc.) but the people that make up the real community. If these people are cool, the community is cool. If these people get overly upset over something that isn’t worth the time, the community suffers.
We’ve just displayed the ability to say in 800 posts what could be condensed in about 4 (5, counting the funny responses.) What does that say about us?
Remmelt@ 802,
To call the readers of the blog you moderate ‘crybabies’ is to undermine your own credibility as a moderator (or whatever the hell that icon by your name is for).
As for perspective, BB got caught doing something sneaky and the reaction is proportional to BB’s scope. Little Brother was watching and BB is guilty of removing VB’s posts. Its only a big deal because BB took it there. That’s the long and the short of it.
And for you to call this “utterly uninteresting” after 800 comments is really just plain dumb. But please, you and all the snippy moderators fire away at your readers with your superior sense of this problem, the world and your clear definition of ‘unpublishing’.
Principles are meaningless unless you uphold them at those times when it is the most difficult thing to do.
Principles are meaningless if they are so vague that “censorship” can be invoked because someone defrags their harddrive.
oh heavens! those poor helpless sectors got unpublished! This is an outrage! Look at how I wring my hands!
The vehemence with which people argue for their god given right to be incensed over something that’s based on their disconnection from reality is mind boggling.
A bunch of nutjobs have turned this into a Gulf of Tonkin incident, and when pushed to point to actual Vietnamese boats or actual damage inflicted on US warships, they have to retreat to vagueities, slippery and easily morphed language like “justice” or “values” or “principles”.
Lemme tell ya something, any war fought on “principles” is a stupid fckng war.
All you nurse nayirah types need to show some actual dead babies or shut the hell up.
A bunch of nutjobs have turned this into a Gulf of Tonkin incident, and when pushed to point to actual Vietnamese boats or actual damage inflicted on US warships, they have to retreat to vagueities, slippery and easily morphed language like “justice” or “values” or “principles”.
I know I’ve explicitly pointed out to you the exact damage done. Are you high?
I know I’ve explicitly pointed out to you the exact damage done. Are you high?
Explicitely? Exact?
You did no such thing. Handwaving generalities around in an attempt to keep up the pretense of an imaginary Tonkin attack that never occurred, in order to justify all the self-righteous martyrs on this thread to throw themselves against some imagined evil.
Girl and Girrl weigh in on the issue.
I’ve been reading this thing since last night. Does this sound familiar?:
surprise
confusion
perturbation
disappointment
expectation (of a return to original sense of well-being)
Boingboing will return to it’s original seat, but if not I will just involve myself in it less.
And sorry, but Greg L if others shouldn’t evoke murder by the state to make a point about this topic (I agree), then you should not reference dead babies or military strikes.
Guy@818.
I don’t moderate here. This is not my blog. The icon next to my name tells you that I took the time to add a URL to my profile. It links to my webpage.
> And for you to call this “utterly uninteresting” after 800 comments is really just plain dumb.
How does “blog catfight” rank compared to “warrantless wiretapping” or, I don’t know, “e-voting fraud” in your relative interestingness list?
The 800+ comments don’t imply this is a worthy cause to fret about. They do tell you something about people in general and us in particular.
I hope all those who have bid farewell to Boingboing someday grow up and return. Else don’t.
Oh, in case I wasn’t clear enough, burnchao, I would be looking for who did what to whom, when they did it, and the damage it inflicted.
Since the concept seems to be too difficult for a lot of people to grasp, here’s a few examples:
(1) Cheney repeatedly visited the CIA in October of 2002 and leaned on them to cook the NIE. The NIE was released to congress in October 2002, grossly overstated the certainty of the intelligence it had, and based on that faulty intelligence, congress authorized the president war powers against Iraq. People died.
(2) The US miltary adopted the idea of “embedded reporters” starting on March 2003, controlling and hiding the visilibility of the cost of the war from the American public, maintaining support for a war that would have otherwise quickly become unsupportable. Specific examples include pulling the credentials of two reporters for publishing photos of a bullet-ridden humvee. People died.
who did what to whom, when did it happen, and what was the cost?
And incase that still isn’t clear enough, “censorship” isn’t a cost and isn’t damage, it is the “what”, in that part of the sentence. What you won’t find is any actual damage because it isn’t actually censorship.
I’m compelled to add that this topic isn’t about Teresa. I know she can use some biting language (check my comment history) but she’s fair and intelligent from what I’ve read. She isn’t a bogeywoman. I don’t think it’s right to call for her head.
This has left me feeling sad and concerned. (And maybe at least a little betrayed.)
So far, this post on zenarchery.com seems to give the most level-headed summary of what’s wrong with what happened that I’ve read.
And this really hit home:
“I very much admire people like Violet Blue and Cory Doctorow. They both are so busy and dedicated to what they believe in, it seems everything they touch turns to gold.”
– openmediareview.com, 30 January 2008
Anyway, Joel and David, thanks for listening and weighing in.
Last!
@burnchao:
@hiram in the netherlands:
let’s get real here and dispense with the reckless metaphors.
it’s NOT rewriting history, it’s deleting links.
it’s NOT violence, it’s deleting links.
we’re talking ascii characters and hyperlinks here, not guns, murder, prisons, or even “history”. superyikes. scary that the difference isn’t obvious.
it would be re-writing history if they denied the links ever existed, but they don’t. in fact, they told us where to find them !
what do you call that ? counter-support thru anti-denial ?
but i’m losing interest in this hysteria.
peace and good day. over & out.
but Greg L if others shouldn’t evoke murder by the state to make a point about this topic (I agree), then you should not reference dead babies or military strikes
When people stop lying about what happened, I’ll stop talking about Nurse Nayirah and Gulf of Tonkin. As long as people take a non-event and turn it into something it isn’t, the comparison fits.
I’m not the one invoking George Orwell’s totalitarian 1984 state here. I’m not the one who invokes Stalin’s name here.
Guns don’t kill people, bloggers do. Seen it in a documentary on BBC2.
attention wh0re: eleventy-one
everyone else: zero
CORY, please weigh in on this.
I just want to hear your p-o-v, as I have already heard from almost every other BBer ‘cept you.
For Teresa,
I tend to agree with posts 171, 621, 622, etc. I understand that this job must be awful at the moment, but please don’t take it out on the commentors. If i worked in customer service i couldn’t say something to the effect of “Here’s your milkshake, i hope you enjoy it, you jackass.” Sure i’m just some random person, as are most everyone here, but this is the comments section after all, and this topic has proven to be a bit divisive. Go ahead and delete or disemvowel those rude, nasty posts, but, please, don’t condescend to the ones that dissent without being cruel. For a bit of encouragement: it’ll all (hopefully) be over soon.
As for the more immediate topic, there’s not really a thing that i could say that hasn’t already been said. I’ll leave the dead horse alone.
Boing Boing and VB have a falling out: >800 comments.
Bush Administration and collusional Democrats nuke the Fourth Amendment: <100 comments.
Perspective: Priceless.
Good enough it needs to be reprinted here:
“I don’t care if TNH rescues horses, runs a drop-in tutoring program for orphans, and sends every one of you $100 in a personally engraved birthday card every year. She’s a poor moderator, to the point that she’s not being a moderator. She’s throwing mud and being catty, which no good moderator should ever do, especially on a major website like this with comments.
“She’s making this conversation be about HER.
“A good moderator spends most of these kerfluffles in the background, blowing away comments, answering e-mail, and only making appearances when it’s absolutely necessary. It’s a lesson in patience, biding your time, and holding your tongue. And then, when you do speak, you need to be as dispassionate as you possibly can be given the subject.
“The best moderators I’ve seen on forums and website comment boxes are remarkably even-keeled. They know it’s not about them, and they know it’s not their job to defend anyone’s honor. They are neither in bed with the ownership nor in bed with the users. They just keep plugging away, having a sense of humor about it, and sticking to the rules of the organization and the community.
“TNH has been none of this. And I think it’s perfectly acceptable to say that. She may be a wonderful person (and everyone who knows her agrees, so I’m not going to argue). But she’s an awful moderator.”
Warning! This blog post and attendant comments is starting to reach the Dvorak event horizon.
Seriously, Freedom of the Press belongs to the person owning the press. Since they bear the cost of publishing, (Time, Effort, Cost of keeping the press/blog server running) they have full rights over what gets published/unpublished. Get your own press and you are free to put anything through it you so please.
W hp y’ll rspct r chc t kp th rsns behnd ths prvt. W d ndrstnd th cnfsn ths csd fr sm, spclly snc w fght hrd fr pnnss nd trnsprncy. W wr tryng t d th rght thng qtly nd rspctflly, wtht mbrrssng th prts nvlvd.
#770,
Check to make sure that it’s not your head. That’s been happening a lot lately.
I wrote a politely worded, relevant-to-the-thread comment, that answered a question asked by another commenter, and it was not shown. I entered the same comment a second time, and it still is not shown.
Why is that?
@Joel (#815), Totally. It’s been really hard reading a lot of this, but I’m learning a lot about what BB represents to many people and also how much our community really cares about this site and are invested in it. I appreciate that. The support, criticism, and yes, even the outrage, didn’t fall on deaf ears. And I too feel differently about some things than before.
So when are we going to talk about the fact that the unpublish line as linked in this post (“unpublished”) under the Copyright Policy DIDN’T EXIST a week ago?
Thanks to hades, here is the Google cache of the Copyright Policy as of 06/25/08:
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:uRHyslDtxi4J:www.boingboing.net/policies.html+www.boingboing.net/policies.html&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a
Now comparing and contrasting that to the post linked, the following line has been added:
“We reserve the right to unpublish or refuse to unpublish anything for any or no reason.”
WW/.D?
Personally, it bothered me way more when Joel had his stupid moment and forgot what a ‘circuit’ is.
Journalists debate the should-we-or-shouldn’t-we-publish question. Nerds flagellate themselves over errors of fact that make them look stupid.
In terms of feedback modifying editorial control, I think the reaction on ./ to a cute Youtube video post was way more important than this incident.
I read BB, and will continue to do so, because it applies the “Lesson of Usenet”–that moderators and editors are useful–in a way that makes the signal-to-noise ratio high enough to be worth my time.
How cool would it be if TNH and VB are ONE AND THE SAME PERSON HOW COOL WOULD THAT BE
PRETTY COOL
I want to ask anybody who is objecting here;
If YOU had a blog like this, and if somebody whose stories you reprinted was using that fact to pump up her public image, and then you found out that this person was morally reprehensible for some reason, would you still allow that person to use your blog as a publicity vehicle, or would you break all of her showy “look I’m a boinger” links?
Wow! Over 850 comments on this indicates that censorship and blog ownership is sensitive topic but what goes almost un-mentioned is that Violet’s blgo is about sex and specifically porn and when this content is removed in the current environment of fear and suspicion, it’s natural that it would generate more “hoo ha” than if it was just about how to make sock puppets or the latest sci-fi convention report.
Ironically, if you’d made a notice that you were going to “unpublish” those archives for practical reason, and referrenced Violets own blog it would have reduced the frisson.
Jesus Christ… can someone say “longest comments thread EVAR”?!
Disemvowelment is a form of censorship, albeit less invasive than outright deletion. This series of deletions is a form of self-censorship. I support this editorial decision, and I don’t even need a reason. Always thought Violet Blue was a bit of a boor anyway, but even if she wasn’t I wouldn’t care, and it’s not my right to make any demands.
Still, I find it curious how anytime BoingBoing gets criticized for something, a common response from the BB groupies is to lambaste the offenders into silence. “BoingBoing don’t owe you ANYTHING, so KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT!” No, BoingBoing doesn’t owe anybody anything. It is an invaluable service, and I dare say that the Internet would be infinitely less entertaining without it.
But telling others where to stick their free speech, or attempting to shame them into blind acquiescence, seems about as contrary to BoingBoing’s existential bottom line as it does supportive of an interruption in meaningful thoughtflow. I would expect that the BoingBoing crew regret the existence of any perceived secrecy to varying degrees, but I can hardly speak for any of them. I have no problem with their decision here, but it is likewise very easy to see why this has become such a big deal. A blog known for its staunch anti-censorship position should expect a bit of fallout over something like this, and its readers should be able to understand it, as well.
Telling others who disagree to “get [their] own blogs” seems a bit out of step with the realities of blogging and having opinions in general. Yes, it’s true… their time might be better spent blogging somewhere else, but, to be fair, your own time might be better spent finding more worthy candidates for your half-cocked indignation. Regardless of what anyone says, stories such as this serve to diminish BoingBoing’s credibility with certain people. In this case, quite a few people, apparently. As with print media, that sort of thing does have a measurable impact. BoingBoing knows that, and they have sought to address the problem head-on, rather than remain silent. Granted, they could have said something aeons ago, and one can only hope that this is a mistake they won’t soon be repeating, but they have every right to do whatever they deem appropriate for this particular website.
Their blog, their bandwidth, their list of allegiances and their vast sphere of influence. Wonderful things, terrible things – who cares? Their boat to sail, or to sink, in whichever manner they see fit. This isn’t The Love Boat. No reason to affix a lesson to every story.
I don’t care that much about this whole thing, but for some reason I’m really happy with Joel and David’s comments here. :)
A little late to the show. Anyways.
Blogs are archival in nature.
Messing silently with the archive is wrong, any archive.
Adjusting the archive to the reality of the time is a different thing.
Adjustments should only be done BY ADDING INFORMATION.
Anything else is re-writing the archive.
Granted that this is minute when compared with other forms of revisionism, but it is a slippery slope, and the overall feel I had was that Boing Boing wanted to avoid that slope all the time.
@ #844, Cavalier:
I mentioned that as well, but the post was deleted in this thread.
It was deleted.
It’s also currently #595 on the Moderation Policy thread.
Shawn,
We don’t normally permit commenters to post identical comments in multiple threads. Pick one.
I find all of the entreaties to “grow up” very interesting. See, I’ve always felt that grown ups care about things, feel a responsibility towards their culture. And that’s it’s adolescents who frequently meet the world with a shrug and a “who cares.”
I don’t think being interested in the ethics of the internet is a sign of immaturity. The internet will only grow more popular and more used as time goes on, and events like these that happen to forerunners like BB set precedents for others to follow.
The comment that had saddened me the most so far is Remmelt’s “It’s a blog. If you care, you lose.” Just stare at that sentence for a second. Think about it. Of course we care. If we didn’t care we wouldn’t be here commenting or even reading the site. And it’s obvious you, Remmelt, care as well or you wouldn’t be posting here. The entire internet is just a well of people caring about everything. They care enough to knit steampunk doilies, or to write Tron rock operas, or to stage livejournal protests.
What is BB if not a record of people caring very much about blogs?
Personally, I think if BB offered an “unfavorite” vote option for posts, it would add a lot. It might be fun to have some options for tagging commenters as well, such as “Annoying but makes me laugh” or “troll”
For all the complaining about deleted comments here, I’d like to point out that this thread is nearing 900 comments, and many of them contain criticism, strongly expressed feelings, arguments, whatever, stuff that doesn’t sound like whitewashing to me. Stuff I might not agree with, but that is being stated in a civil way, without including material that violates what we’ve cobbled together as our moderation policy. So chill out, nobody’s “unpersonning” or “disappearing” dissent here. The moderators are following guidelines that are posted on the site. We’re trying to keep it civil and as focused as we can.
As for the remarks about the unpublishing/deletion/takedown clause being added to the policy: Teresa linked to it in the post. We never thought before that we needed to have an explicit policy on when or how an editor might edit or take down or refuse to take down their own work (we operate pretty autonomously here, we don’t ask each other for permission or approval). We figured since some people were asking as a result of this kerfuffle, we should go ahead and have a stated policy. We debated among ourselves, figured out some wording that didn’t make everyone want to hurl, and linked to it in the post.
Is the wording perfect? Is the policy perfect. I don’t know. What do you think? We’ll probably keep changing this document as time goes on. Blogs change, people change, documents about our policies will change.
When the post went up from Teresa, we were all trying to act quickly to address something, it’s a little difficult to deal with decisions that require synchronized action from a bunch of people in different time zones with other things going on like travel and lives. We did our best here, and the fact that the change in the policy wasn’t specified in the post more explicitly was an oversight if anything, not a sinister decision to “disappear the truth.” Sorry if we made a mistake in how the information was presented, I can understand how that might lead to mistaken impressions.
XJ
Antinous:
Thank you for the explanation.
All in all, I’d have to say this is an entertaining thread and (good and bad) it points to the amazing community that has grown around BoingBoing.
The Boingers have the right to run their site as they wish, but I strongly disagree that they don’t owe their readers anything.
Once BoingBoing started taking ads (and valuing them highly), it established that there was a strong site/reader relationship — that there were standards and trust between the two parties, not to mention “policies” (see this page’s footer).
So, to suddenly turn about-face and say, “oh, it’s our personal site, and we can do what we want,” seems a bit disingenuous to me.
You can’t have it both ways.
Once BoingBoing started taking ads (and valuing them highly), it established that there was a strong site/reader relationship — that there were standards and trust between the two parties, not to mention “policies” (see this page’s footer). So, to suddenly turn about-face and say, “oh, it’s our personal site, and we can do what we want,” seems a bit disingenuous to me.
To the contrary. The personal site thing is mentioned almost every week. You seem to be arguing that the Boingers should adapt their content based on the perceived desires of readers in order to maintain ad revenue. That would be selling out. Should BB start holding focus groups and test screenings to make sure that posts appeal to the all important 18 to 49 year old male demographic, too? I don’t think so.
It wasn’t a change from a previous policy about unpublishing. There wasn’t one stated. In fact, we didn’t really have any policies posted at all until a few weeks ago. So as our policies evolve, we’ll make that known. When we commented on this matter, we linked to the policy with the additional wording. But we’ll try to be even more specific and clearer in the future with regard to changes. Thanks!
Xeni:
It was said a bit better than I could elsewhere (link: http://www.metafilter.com/72928/Boing-Boing-Finds-21st-Century-Trotsky#2168901 ), and I’ll quote him here:
“File me in with the surprised and disappointed on this front. As much as I’m willing to listen to the arguments some folks at BB and ML have made that deleting swaths of content is generally kosher and expected (willing to listen, bound to disagree), I had assumed that the policy page over at BB was at least a reliable artifact. Changing it in the last week to fit their needs is dirty pool.
Look. Policy changes. It grows. Thing happen that make you realize that your current public-facing account of what you will and won’t do doesn’t match the needs of your site. It’s something we’ve dealt with over here how many times, in Metatalk discussions and additions/revisions of the FAQs and posting guidelines? It happens. It’s understandable.
But you talk about it. You acknowledge it. You say, “okay, these things aren’t congruent. Need for action x doesn’t match up with stated policy y, and we’re going to make a change.” That’s transparency.
You don’t make an expedient change and then point to it as if it’s long-standing policy.”
That’s what people are having a problem with; it seems almost tin-ear-ish. And now, as I’m composing this reply, I see that you’ve edited your own comment again (to add more clarification, I guess), with no note that you’ve edited it!
David:
But we’ll try to be even more specific and clearer in the future with regard to changes. Thanks!
And thank you for listening, acknowledging, and seeing where you all l can approve. Your excellent and even-headed manner is pretty much what is giving me hope for BB, and keeping me here still visiting the site.
Wow, I hate that I’m starting to feel like I have to screenshot Xeni’s comments, because they’ll be different in minutes or hours than they were when I read them first.
Xeni, do you understand that when people read what you wrote, they sometimes respond? And that when they respond to what you wrote the first time, and people who came by minutes later see you as having written something different, it makes the responders look bad?
Do you further understand that it’s not nice to make people look bad in this way?
Even a little “comment edited [timestamp]” tag would serve to avoid this. Is that too much to ask?
(my first name is NOT Violet – plz don’t delete my account or tell people I never existed. thx.)
I take it with this fiasco and the recently added ‘unpublishing’ endorsement on the policies page, BoingBoing will nolonger be a champion of anti-censorship, standing against secret revisionism and standing up for journalistic integrity and ethics?
A shame, since they were the core values I identified with here.
Still, there are always the papercraft posts to keep the site in content!
(Awaits the first papercraft unpublishing Hoo-Ha with … indifference.)
Shawn, sorry, I didn’t realize that expanding my own comment, rather than adding a new post to this thread, would be problematic. I guess in this environment, given the tone of the thread, afterthoughts/additions should go in a new comment.
So: yeah, the fact that the post didn’t point to the changed policy was a screwup. Honestly. There was no coordinated decision to hide or downplay that change, I swear.
XJ
>The comment that had saddened me the most so far is Remmelt’s “It’s a blog. If you care, you lose.” Just stare at that sentence for a second. Think about it. Of course we care. If we didn’t care we wouldn’t be here commenting or even reading the site.
Don’t take it personally. I recognise and understand how you feel. My point is not that you shouldn’t care about BB (I know I do, and I would hate it if it would go offline or something), I’m only saying that in the grand scheme of things, even in the grand blogging scheme, the catfight between BB and VB doesn’t rank very high. It shouldn’t even register on the radar, and it really shouldn’t get 850 comments.
I would pleased if you don’t take my lines out of context. The context is what makes the line.
The original context was a reply to some guy on the internet who is taking this Very Bad Thing That Boing Boing Did personally. And in my book, that is pretty stupid. If you go home tonight feeling that we lost one more True Freedom Fighter, I think you may need to reconsider your priorities. That’s what I wanted to say with that line.
> The entire internet is just a well of people caring about everything. They care enough to knit steampunk doilies, or to write Tron rock operas, or to stage livejournal protests.
I don’t think I agree with that. Yes, people care about stuff. (Good examples, by the way.) They care, and then they write about it on the internet.
That makes the internet a well of information, but not a well of care. Or people, even.
(PS I’m still posting here because I hope we get to post #1984)
i just wanted to say that after a day. i feel my previous comment was probably too strong.
i’ve got different feelings on violet blue. i think shes got some good content. i appreciate that shes got a drm-free e-book publishing thing going on. “open source sex” always seemed like a horrible misuse of a buzzword and i do believe she has abused the trademark system.
however it is hard for me to believe that somebody would do something SO bad, that they would have all references TO THEIR EXISTENCE silently removed from a blog.
i want to respect the privacy of the bloggers of boingboing, but since i’m in the dark here, you gotta realize that this looks either (a) really evil (which i don’t believe,) or (b) really childish and immature.
and thats just the way it looks, whether boingboing has the right to remove things from their own server or not (which they do.)
ErosBacchus, I didn’t gut or delete or rewrite the body of my comment. Sorry, I tend to think of something I wish I’d added more clearly right after I hit “publish,” and I’ll just add a whole new comment next time. A “comment modified” timestamp would be great, wish MT came with that.
Xeni, you have done nothing at all wrong, and BB has done nothing at all wrong in keeping that terrible woman from using this site for her self-aggrandizement.
I took the Set Top Cop seminar with Cory Doctorow while he was a USC Professor – http://uscpubd510.blogspot.com/.
Throughout the class, Cory and I engaged in civil debate with a profound disagreement at its core: I felt that the A2K/CC/Free Software/Open Source projects all impacted one’s identity at a ethical/spiritual level, specifically in the way knowledge flows through a networked, global society for the first time in 2,000 years.
In contrast, Cory, specifically in an oral interview on his work in the A2K project stated (where I still have the audio from) that he and his treaty co-writers utilized “koans” and other rhetorical instruments so that the treaty appeared in a legalese, Western-American copyright-centric language. Thus, in my first reading of the treaty, I actually thought the treaty supported DRM when, in fact, its various legal clauses made the MPAA version of copyright incoherent. I would have been completely confused had I not been fortunate enough to taking the seminar with Cory.
As my final comment in the blog showed, this debate has profound implications. If one ignores the ethical/cum spiritual level, then there is no problem to “un-publish” an annoying fellow Silicon Valley celebrity blogger.
The bottom line is BoingBoingers are now media celebrities and they want to have it both ways: be activists/journalists promoting the digital commons, but reserve the right to remove or “unpublish” someone who annoys them.
I obviously believe they made a mistake, but I still love the blog; Cory is one of the most important mentors I’ve ever had; and the reaction from the BB community is revealing in that everyone is so SENSITIVE. While BB has a strong community, there are much more important issues than a feud between bloggers.
I wonder how many of the Creative Class, Echo-Chamber BB readers would show this much passion on a project that wasn’t as simple as hitting a keyboard and feeling so [over]-connected.
@ShawnStruck (#861), Thanks so much. Policies like those are very new to us and we’re definitely learning *a ton* about how to write a good, honest, and fair policy, how to update them, what’s legal, what insurance companies stand firm on, etc. There was a great discussion about our policies when we posted the first rev and we will *absolutely* take into account what the community posted there (and here!) as we continue to revise them.
Skully and Mulder looked into this whole “BB deleted it’s own posts about VB” thing.
They didn’t find anything.
Xeni, thank you. I do exactly the same thing sometimes, think of a slight expansion I ought to make on a post or comment right after I make it. With my tiny levels of traffic and low controversy, I get away with it and it doesn’t matter.
Unfortunately this was at least the second time in this comment thread that you’ve done the “silent edit of your own comments” thing, and the first time was the removal of the now notorious “piles of shit” comment that was widely seen as inflammatory and was getting quoted all over the web. When you removed that — and it was a good edit if you didn’t mean the really ugly comparison that people, including me, took you to mean — and left no indication in the comment that the comment ever read differently, you set yourself up (I think) for hypersensitivity on this topic.
The analogy between the silent edits of your comments and the silent edits of your archives is, I think, obvious. I know you feel justified in doing what you did, but justified or not, making the links go 404 without explanation is not cool for all the same reasons that making me feel like I need to screenshot your comments is not cool. It’s about trust, and whether you want it.
And a friendly reminder – this thread is the forum for this discussion. Off-topic comments in other threads will be subject to the same moderation policies as always. Comments about moderation in general can go in the Moderation Policy thread. There’s a link in gray just above Recent Comments. And, yes, we read it even though it’s an old thread. Thanks.
Xeni Jardin said (#865):
I would like to believe you. But if that’s so, then why was my comment that pointed out, before Cavalier did, that the BB ‘unpublishing’ policy is less then a week old, deleted three times?
Why should any well-formed, relevant, and politely phrased comment ever be deleted?
Hiram,
You’ve never commented on BB before. You’ve made eight comments on this subject. You’ve accused the Boingers of violence. You’ve begged to be allowed to ‘unread’ five years of BoingBoing. You can’t expect anyone to take your plaintive cries of repression seriously.
Cute, I seem my comments concerning the moderator here and problems caused by her actions (like her snide behavior) have all mysteriously been removed.
My respect for Boing Boing goes down another notch.
Al Billings,
No comment that you have ever made to BoingBoing has been unpublished, deleted or otherwise molested. I have your comment history at my fingertips. Nice try.
Hiram in the Netherlands, I’m honestly not sure what happened there, I’m sorry. Maybe one of the mods can elaborate. Maybe one of us made a mistake. This was a pretty active thread yesterday, and there was a lot of not-in-good-faith junk being posted to deal with, just drive-bys that weren’t adding value or posting ad hominem attacks. The moderators have worked really hard to try to keep this useful and civil, and I don’t envy their job.
I’ve now read the entirety of this thread.
I’m one of those who is disappointed in BB’s handling of this simply because of the double-standard it creates. BB has repeatedly railed against this kind of behavior everywhere from the mainstream media to the *potential* for it happening with a book you ‘bought’ for your Kindle.
But I’m truly appalled by the behavior of TNH and Antonius in this thread. Insulting your readers and discounting their opinions based on their post count is the very antithesis of moderation.
Post count? Really? I’ve been reading BB long enough that comments are a new thing. (Though, not long enough to remember comments the first time round.)
The self-inflicted loss of credibility saddens me, but the alleged moderation really disgusts me.
And I do moderate a mailing list myself. I think my style is about as far from TNH as possible…and guess what, it works.
There are people calling for TNH’s head. I’ll simply point out that her job performance in this case was exceptionally poor.
I think Hiram needs to go out and see some fresh air and sunlight and think about what is really important in life; Like wether successful authors ought to be allowed to ruin the lives of poor single moms with a trademark and then still claim to be “Open Source.”suit
Nice try? Excuse me? This is how you treat people who have been readers since this blog started and who have contributed items for the blog (See the post linking to my blog for Stephenson’s Anathem last week)?
I had multiple comments on this thread, including at least one critical of Teresa. I have one comment now showing on this entire page. So, whether you “deleted” them or simply hid them from the public (however we phrase it here in doublespeak), my comments have been removed.
Al,
I too would like to see some screenshots.
AL BILLINGS – Screencaps please? Prove it.
#862 ErosBacchus , Wow, I hate that I’m starting to feel like I have to screenshot Xeni’s comments, because they’ll be different in minutes or hours than they were when I read them first.
It’s not just Xeni. It’s clear that this is the accepted standard here.
To review:
About a year ago, BB altered their site, removing all old articles/links, etc that made any reference to Violet Blue. They did this covertly, without telling anyone, and without even leaving any kind of indicator that content had been removed.
When it came to light, Teresa finally posted something about it. When people started criticizing her seeming comparison of the posts about Violet to “piles of shit”, she went back and quietly edited her post, removing those bits, without any indication that she had done so, and without any response to the few people who caught the change.
During the ensuing discussion Xeni pointed to their policy, without revealing that she was pointing to a brand new version of this policy, one that had been quietly altered just recently in direct response to this incident.
When that fact was brought to light, she posted a response to the critic who pointed it out. While Within a matter of minutes, she went back and altered that post, again without indicating it had been changed.
Summary: Xeni made a retroactive, secret alteration to her comment that was discussing the retroactive, secret alteration of a BB policy that was brought up in the comments thread of a secretly, retroactively altered TNH post that discussed the secret, retroactive alteration of the site to remove any and all content relating to Violet Blue.
So yes, you apparently DO need screenshots, because it is clear that the Boingers have no compunction whatsoever about secretly changing their previously posted articles and comments.
@ Antinous #878:
First of all, the BB comment policy does not in its present form (I admit it’s been a few hours since I last looked) require commenters to write about other topics before they can comment on a controversial one.
Secondly, I qualified my use of the word “violence”. Some people chose not to try and understand that, but that’s not my fault.
Thirdly, I certainly did not “beg” to “be allowed” to do anything. I merely said I’d like to somehow ‘unread’ five years of BB.
Fourthly, some people apparently did take what I wrote seriously. Xeni, for one (her comment #877).
Will you post this comment? That would be really nice. Because the bottom line is: you had no good reason to censor some of my earlier comments to begin with.
Some people chose not to try and understand that, but that’s not my fault.
I assure you that readers are not responsible for understanding what you ‘meant’, only what you wrote.
Hoo boy.
I don’t see things improving from here out, but it’ll easily go higher that 1000 before the day is up.
Myopic Phrenologist makes a very good point.
#883 Archeaopteryx AL BILLINGS – Screencaps please? Prove it.
I rest my case.
Antinous
I’ve been reading BoingBoing for a few years, but never felt the need to comment. While I don’t have stacks of bOINGbOING sitting at home, I’ve been a pretty regular reader over the past three or four years (it helps get through the work day!). The least snarky way I can put it was I never felt it was important enough to register an account to put the occasional comment, until the other day. If you want, you can pretend I have a posting history, which would mostly be comprised of one or two posts a week saying how much I liked the entry. Would that help?
The best thing BoingBoing could do is fire the moderator and her staff. Then, they should hire someone with the ability to talk to people without insulting them – someone humble – someone who cares more about the quality of the blog than being right.
zagboodle,
This thread is long enough without you repeating the same comment five hours later.
Does anyone else think it’s interesting that Boing Boing’s “moderator” seems to operate as Boing Boing’s Chief Inflamer whenever she appears?
Those alleging that their utterances have been removed are all lying because there would be a discontinuous post count and all post numbers referenced that I have checked still point to the post that they were meaning to point to, and there are NO MISSING NUMBERS.
@ Antinous #891:
I said that I used the word “violence” in a qualified sense. If those readers had actually read what I actually wrote, they probably would not have seen fit to misrepresent it later, like you continue to do.
Aren’t you going to answer my other remarks?
#881 Antinous:
Well, someone there has certainly deleted at least one of mine. Do you have my history at your fingertips?
Well, someone there has certainly deleted at least one of mine. Do you have my history at your fingertips?
Yes. You had one comment about Violet Blue that was unpublished because it was in a different thread. We don’t delete comments.
I have been a Boing Boing reader for over a year now and honesty I did not know about this incident until I saw this post. Personally, I think this one has been talked to death, and I would rather the energy of the editors be spent more on the posts that I love than on this.
I think this gawker behavior, masqueraded as a concern for free speech, is detracting from what is most important: the quality of the posts. So unless Boing Boing starts saying something like “Comcast in the best ISP” (with out meaning to be ironic) then you won’t see me complaining.
In the meantime, I am excited for the next BB Gadgets.
#883, #889, If he didn’t know they were going to be deleted until after it happened, why would he have taken screencaps?
@Antinous:
So, rather than deal with the substance of my post, you simply delete it outright?
Why not simply answer post #802? Anyone? Anyone?
utterly ridiculous.
publish and unpublish as you please, it’s your blog fer chrissakes.
you guys were instrumental in sending my blog a lot of traffic a few years back, and that was instrumental in me abandoning it because of crap like this. people who think that because they have “been with you from the beginning” that you owe them something. you most certainly do not.
i appreciate your general commitment to ethics and transparency, and having also been in the position of diplomatic authority respect that some difficult decisions sometimes need to be made.
VB isn’t dependent on those archived posts to make a living, i am sure she will be just fine, and in fact has probably thrived due to this whole ridiculous exchange.
I still think BB are well-intended. They merely wanted to discreetly disengage from a known drama inciting blogger. Maybe the way they handled it wasn’t 100% perfect but they are dialoging with people now and keeping communication open, acknowledging where they can improve and are overall appreciative of all the comments.
That said, it’s also difficult not to react when said desperate blogger says they didn’t bring this to BB’s attention privately because they felt it was accusatory but then went ahead and did worse by mentioning it anyway on their very public mud-rucking blog. Got what blogger friends she has left to do the same, escalating what should’ve been private into a censorship issue.
Not knowing the details, I can see why BB would want to quietly disentangle from an Internet Bully such as Blue. She wouldn’t let them but in the end BB has the good sense to acknowledge where they can improve and life goes on.
In hindsight instead of unpublishing, BB should’ve just changed all instances of Violet Blue to Wendi Sullivan.
@Fnarf 894 0 yes – BB readers (whether fans or detractors) have been voicing pretty valid concerns over this issue in an articulate manner but Teresa’s posts have been full of generalized ad hominems, calling readers “stupid”, “blockheads”, etc…
It’s my estimation that she’s done more to aggravate and escalate this minor crisis into a medium-size one than anyone else.
This story is rippling through into the major news networks now finding its way through the Los Angeles Times and other major news sources.
BB had the opportunity in the last couple of days to take care of this story so as to protect the integrity of the BB brand and associated goodwill. Instead, it dug in and finds itself in what is and will be remembered as one of the prototypical Epic Fail! moments in PR history that perhaps will be taught as a case study of what not to do in the halls of prestigious business schools.
“Unpublished”, deleted, they’re all double-plus ungood. And the comment was about moderation, in the topic about BB’s moderation policy. How, exactly, was that worthy of “unpublishing”?
Perhaps you should read the Moderation Policy.
#864 – Blue
I, too, look forward to BoingBoing’s first papercraft Hoo-Ha. (I Googled for such a thing, but this is as close as I could get.)
We don’t delete comments.
Remember, the newspeak is unpublish. You have to phrase these things carefully, or else it becomes doubleplusungood.
zagboodle,
If a comment were deleted, there would be no record of it. When it is unpublished, it remains visible in the commenter’s history. Just because you don’t like something, doesn’t make it newspeak.
@myopic phrenologist #884: “it is clear that the Boingers have no compunction whatsoever about secretly changing their previously posted articles and comments.”
That’s what’s so hellish about this situation. In general terms, bloggers are used to making minor and trivial silent edits all the time, and it’s no big deal. Likewise, TNH is not wrong that whole archive posts get silently removed by many bloggers for many different reasons, some of them good. All that is routine, for some blogs and bloggers. But the good ones — into which category we all thought that the Boingers and TNH belonged — know that you get in trouble when you misuse that power and ability, the most frequent misuse being to try and hide controversy or mistakes under a rug like cat turds.
Right now I’m not willing to tarnish all the Boingers with the same brush. Xeni is acting astonished (could she really be astonished?) that anybody cares about silent edits and deletions, and TNH is lashing out in defense of that astonishment, which for me is the bigger WTF in all this. Cory has yet to weigh in, and the other guys have been attentive and non-inflammatory, which may be as much as they can do while remaining in solidarity with a friend and business partner who has made a series of epic blunders.
So, Myopic, I think “no compunction whatsoever” is too strong when applied to the Boingers as a group. And (am I being too hopeful?) I’m seeing signs that Xeni is at least starting to recognize that people expect her to have such compunctions, even if she (as yet, where there’s life there’s hope) does not yet understand why she ought to have some.
Unless that gets unpublished oh god it’s a joke don’t hurt me
Quarterly,
You have twelve comments in this thread. You can scarcely complain that you’re being repressed.
You had one comment about Violet Blue that was unpublished because it was in a different thread. We don’t delete comments.
No, you just “unpublish” them. This is the most despicable kind of sophistry.
This is profoundly disingenuous.
If you were clearing out old posts for reasons of space, sure. But clearing out specific posts to remove evidence that you and another person were once buddies is quite a different thing. No, in fact, other large active blogs wouldn’t do that.
This is, in fact, Stalinistic disappearance (and for the clue-impaired, disappearance is but one aspect of Stalinism, and you cannot now accuse me of accusing Boing Boing of mass murder, collectivization of the kulaks, or failure to meet their Five Year Plan).
It doesn’t matter whether Violet Blue is the biggest piece of shit on the internet or not. This isn’t about her. It’s about how you react to things you don’t like. You delete them. That’s extremely disrespectful to your reading public.
Just to clarify, it’s called “unpublishing” when it’s removed. Correct?
@903 – Let’s be fair. In this context — the web-facing part of the blog — unpublishing a comment looks the same as a deletion.
We definitely remove comments from public view that we deem are sufficiently off topic.
In this context — the web-facing part of the blog — unpublishing a comment looks the same as a deletion.
Yes. But when we’re accused of deletions that have not taken place, we have a record of what happened.
Quoting Antinous @881
“No comment that you have ever made to BoingBoing has been unpublished, deleted or otherwise molested. I have your comment history at my fingertips. Nice try.”
[shakes head]
This isn’t going to get better any time soon, is it?
When I bring up the silent policy change above, I hope y’all can appreciate that I’m not just trying to denigrate the folks here or cause any sort of harm for shits and giggles.
The concern here is, the way this came about, and the way this is being handled. Well, gosh darned it, if this was happening on another website, couldn’t you imagine it being a big deal here? If you take a step outside your roles and look back at what’s occurring here, it’s like, geez louise — this is what “they” do! This is what the “old media” people do!
For what it’s worth, and I imagine most everyone here is in agreement, I DO NOT want to know why or how the removal of content decision was reached. It’s none of our damned business. All you have to say is “Personal Issues” or that it was a “Private Concern” and fwoom, nobody needs to know any more about that. That post on VW is heinous and fraternity like in its adolescence but it seems no contacting of them will get them to change. So that stinks, but that’s not why this thread is 900 comments long.
It’s about how this has been handled. Transparency doesn’t mean “We removed post #49683 because Mark thought it was stupid because he doesn’t like Parakeets because a Parakeet once viciously attacked him as a child.” I made it outrageous to try to get some chuckles, but seriously, transparency doesn’t mean you have to expose any more information then you might want to when managing the content here.
Transparency means you don’t disappear old content without a statement that it’s been removed. “This post has been removed due to [our revised guidelines; our changing tastes; a personal conflict; the rising price of oil].
Transparency means when you realize, hey, we don’t have a good statement in our policy section on how to deal with this, you add it and say “Hey! We’ve enhanced our policy statement, we found it didn’t cover foo to well, so now it covers it.”
Transparency means when you want to redress or enhance your message in a comment, you redress it, and you say Hey, I edited this because it didn’t come out the way I intended it to.
I think the most vocal critics of these actions, here, elsewhere on the web, etc, are being vocal because they (we) felt that BB was one of “us.” The entire handling of this wreck reeks of being one of “them.” It’s a big shock, and so far it’s not looking like it’s coming back around.
@907 posted by zagboodle
I’m beginning to get the distinct impression that somewhere out there there’s a 1984 glossary that commenters on this thread have read in lieu of the actual book.
Yes, very clever, you said “newspeak” was “doubleplusungood”. Now the Boingers are coming to disappear you and put rats on your face because they’re a totalitarian government that has total control over all aspects of human communication. Too bad for us in the Western world! All free speech has vanished.
Hang on, that hasn’t actually happened. To quote one extremely wise man, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it does.”
#909, Antinous: “Perhaps you should read the Moderation Policy.”
Well, I did. And I asked a question, about moderation, in the comments on the article about the moderation policy, which was then “unpublished”. Since I obviously am incapable of understanding how the moderation policy du jour applies to my disappeared comment, I have asked for clarification. Your response is to “read the policy”.
Very enlightening, in many ways.
Random Bush wonk…
BoingBoing moderator…
So Antinous. In the vein of the Christopher Hitchens waterboards himself thread, maybe you and the rest of those with fingers on the publish/unpublish button should submit to having someone else moderate (“unpublish” and disemvowel) your comments for a while.
It’s sad, I really have this mental picture in my head now of this hybrid of something from 1984 and a dapper and proud NAZI. To borrow from a BBTV post, it’s time to embrace history. It’s time to remember the feel-good days of 1938. It’s time to let our real feelings out! It’s time to hug the Nazi, BoingBoing! Finally!
holtt,
Moderator comments are moderated as well. I have had comments unpublished.
If a comment were deleted, there would be no record of it. When it is unpublished, it remains visible in the commenter’s history. Just because you don’t like something, doesn’t make it newspeak.
You mean the history that visible to mods, or visible to everyone? I’m a trifle confused on this point.
You mean the history that visible to mods, or visible to everyone?
Visible to the moderators and editors. If it were visible to everyone, then this would be an unmoderated forum, or more accurately a non-existent forum, since comments were only reopened on the basis of being moderated. I’ve answered many commenters’ questions quite openly, including specifics about unpublished comments in this thread. If you don’t trust the moderators to be honest about what’s in the record, I’m afraid that adds another meta-level to this discussion.
something from 1984 and a dapper and proud NAZI
wow. you’re amazing.
The term “NAZI Moderator” has been around the internet for a long time. Like the term Troll it’s got legs for a reason.
@ Post #921
“It’s sad, I really have this mental picture in my head now of this hybrid of something from 1984 and a dapper and proud NAZI. To borrow from a BBTV post, it’s time to embrace history. It’s time to remember the feel-good days of 1938. It’s time to let our real feelings out! It’s time to hug the Nazi, BoingBoing! Finally!”
The National Socialist Party slaughtered millions upon millions of innocent people and altered the course of world history. 1984 was one man’s shout in the darkness against what he perceived as the collapse of English civil liberties.
This is a blog.
If someone can please, please, explain to me how these things are in any way linked or even vaguely related to each other, I will either sigh with relief or go stick my head in the oven in sheer despair.
I don’t really feel like her content was very appropriate or in keeping with the blog. I have not missed her one bit nor did I notice when her posts stopped. I feel like this is a really cool website for people that like to read about interesting stuff, and generally has neat stories on it to show a child.
There is more to life than sexually gratifying yourself and I think we all know there are more than enough internet sites based on just that. It’s just not needed here. I’m glad it’s gone. Very grown up thing to do in my opinion, even if the moderators catch alot of flak over it.
When it happens, do you get a private explanation or was is it unannounced with a vague “RTFM” explanation attached perhaps?
When it happens, do you get a private explanation or was is it unannounced with a vague “RTFM” explanation attached perhaps?
Funnily enough, I can figure it out for myself. My appropriate boundaries – let me sho u them.
@ #5 The “unpublishing” versus “deleting” issue is this: the posts were removed from public view while an evaluation of what to do took place.
So they weren’t removed permanently? When will this “evaluation of what to do” be concluded? Hasn’t it been a year?
@ #5 again We didn’t want to pay to host them on our blog anymore.
How much does it cost to host them? I’m talking in terms of marginal cost – i.e. not how much would it cost to make a new website hosting nothing else but rather how do your hosting costs having taken them down compare to your hosting costs had they not been taken down? I’ll chip in a few cents if it’ll help get them back up (if you don’t want to support her, there’s this wonderful new invention called a disclaimer)
And, apropos of nothing, why do all the comments load on one page? Is there any way to just show the last 20 or the last 50 or so?
Wait, it took 921 posts to Godwin this thread??
(That is, if you take this current version of the Matrix – version 2342.21 – as gospel truth. If you add in all the posts that have been dropp… er, dele… er, “unpublished” into account, its easily over a thousand.)
So, BB: Too smart to Godwin sooner, or too slow on the uptake to Godwin much faster? You decide!! Operators are standing by.
Way to miss the point, KMONSTER! We’re not talking about “sexually gratifying yourself” here.
Still waiting on that explanation…
In my experience as a loudmouth here, so long as the ratio of four letter words to honest thought is less than one, your post will stay, and the naughty bits will be dsmvwld. Ad Hominem attacks are usually gutted.
I’m totally obnoxious sometimes and I’m not aware of a single one of my comments being ‘unpublished’, so y’all who are complaining about that must REALLY be trying to push peoples buttons.
FYI – Unpublished is a word coined by the publishing software mfg, not by BB, nor Orwell, nor Stalin.
Holtt,
What about what Wendi Sullivan “Violet” Blue did?
She “unpublished” a woman’s whole career.
Antonius
It was a joke? Don’t take me too seriously until I start dropping 1984 passages.
Antinous, are you paid for your work here? If so, can you be fired?
Xeni, Joel, David, Others..
I think your moderators (well, Antinous) are trying to put out this fire with gasoline (see 751, 839, 840, 842 and 878, in particular). I believe it would be in your (and everyone’s, really) best interest if they stopped doing that.
#936 has a really good point.
Turnabout ~is~ fair play.
#918 posted by CloseReader:
Yes, very clever, you said “newspeak” was “doubleplusungood”. Now the Boingers are coming to disappear you and put rats on your face because they’re a totalitarian government that has total control over all aspects of human communication.
Indeed, because we all know that when one is comparing the similarity of one aspect between two different things, one is actually saying those two things are exactly the same in every respect.
So when one compare the waterboarding done by the US government to the waterboarding done by the Pol-Pot regime, CLEARLY they are saying that the US is exactly like the Pol-Pot regime in every way.
Your thought process here is pretty much that of a Freeper
Antinous, are you paid for your work here? If not, can I buy you a beer?
gotta admit… im a lil dissapointed.
If you don’t trust the moderators to be honest about what’s in the record, I’m afraid that adds another meta-level to this discussion.
Jeez, that’s not what I was saying at at all.
I was just personally unclear on whther you saw what *I* saw in a comment history or not.
Shawn,
I didn’t mean to imply that you said that. I was just making a general comment since some commenters seem to feel that I’m not being honest.
If it makes my comments any more or less tolerable, I used to be the head moderator of a large game forum with 90k registered users. I know what it’s like and I know how it is to moderate a community of posters in a firestorm. I actually got in trouble with the higher ups for being more sympathetic to the angry people in the forums than the “company line”
For what it’s worth, here are some things I learned…
@#941
Apparently my meaning wasn’t clear. I think it’s inappropriate to use the language of totalitarianism to comment on a blog’s editorial policy. I am offended by the use of concepts originally created to comment on human misery and suffering on what is essentially a ridiculous kerfluffle. It’s very easy to throw fuel on a fire by throwing inflammatory words and concepts around. Nothing gets people riled up by throwing around words like “Stalin” and “Nazi” and “torture”.
Thank god you made my point completely crystal clear by needlessly equating my comment to a comparison of the current US government and the Khmer Rouge.
#925 If you don’t trust the moderators to be honest about what’s in the record, I’m afraid that adds another meta-level to this discussion.
Right, because they’ve been honest about everything else, including: the nature of comments whose removal they have admitted to; the authorship of the original blog posts they removed; the content of their own policy page as it stood at the time they “unpublished” those blog posts; and so forth.
I don’t think the difference between that and the “them covering up everything they think they can get away with” bit that’s been present in this discussion for quite some time is really worth another meta-level.
So in the end, this was all about nothing more than someone finding out their ex-girlfriend was a user?
http://valleywag.com/5021288/how-xeni-and-violets-boing-boing-affair-went-sour
Oh, for the love of…
lk flff kttns, th r s ct whn thy ply wth blls f yrn. Hr fr fzz lttl ktts!
Yeah…the Nazi comments are unacceptable. It trivializes something horrific. Let’s stick to analogies that don’t insult people, if possible. I’d also like to add that, moderators aside, most of the BB staff has been very civil throughout this entire ordeal. Kudos for that, we appreciate it.
Thank you Mods, particularly Antinous and Teresa. Yours and the boinger’s comments have been the most worthwhile to read for the last 900 or so. Some of us do appreciate the wit you bring to the job.
You guys put in a lot of overtime on this thread. It got pretty repetitive after comment 20, so I was mostly skimming.
I just wanted to get one post of support for you guys in, even though I know you’ve got thick enough skin to handle this beast.
As to the “post deletion issue”, I’m pretty sure this is VB just trying to drum up some publicity and succeeding at trolling the BB community. So, I love BB, and I’m going to keep reading. Boingers, you aren’t censors, and I don’t see how you’ve broken any of your own principles. It’s your party. I’m just glad I’m allowed in.
So when one compare the waterboarding done by the US government to the waterboarding done by the Pol-Pot regime, CLEARLY they are saying that the US is exactly like the Pol-Pot regime in every way.
You’re just like Saddam Hussein.
I saw Saddam once wear a hat just like you wear. Don’t get angry if others misread me comparing you to Saddam to having something to do with Saddam’s WMD’s (or lack thereof), his genocide (or lack thereof), or his tyranny (or lack thereof).
You’re just like Saddam.
Because you wear the same kind of hat.
Yeah, there’s nothing at all loaded or emotionally charged or unfair in any way about that comparison.
Antinous:
Ah, okay, thanks. Apology accepted… I guess it was a little unclear to me that the “you” was the broad “you” and not the “me” you.
That’s because you aren’t…
I’m suprised there haven’t been any similar comments in the Monochrome Nazi Petting Zoo thread.
So, hi!
There are lots of separate but related concerns being voiced about this whole thing. I appreciate that, even when very valid points were couched in vitriol or vehemence. We weren’t being twee when we said we were listening.
I apologize for being too defensive or even antagonistic at times in this thread. It’s hard to parse criticism when you aren’t sure if it’s from concerned friends or mawkish ghouls — not that being either validates or invalidates any specific critique made — but in situations like these, we’ve got to be willing to soak it all up. We’ll do better.
In the meantime, can you guys give us a few days to digest all this? Despite what you might conceive, Boing Boing is a highly asynchronous, individually autonomous group of people. If our choices as a group are as important as many of you say they are, I don’t think it’s too much to ask to let us sync up and discuss this more.
Now I won’t promise what, if anything, will be different in a few days — we may agree that we’re fine with all our choices, at which point you may feel free to promptly reapply your boot to our ass — but we need a little space to figure this out.
@HOLTT and everyone else using the term “Nazi.”
Did you have any relatives die in the Holocaust? Did your mother and father just visit Poland with their synagogue and pray at the sites where the dead – 6 million real Jewish people — not to mention millions of other victims, including Polish resistors perished.
This thread has gone hay-wire and would be upsetting if it weren’t so narcissistic. What BB did is problematic, but to throw terms around in such a careless and irresponsible manner, right before July 4th, when my grandpa fought the Nazis so assholes who are commenting on this blog can feel such entitlement is f’in pathetic.
The navel-gazing, echo-chamber effect is real. For those of you whining about BB actions, how much human rights work like Xeni have you done? Have you gone to Europe and organized resistance to US Trade Rep and creates alliances and project were none existed.
I’m signing off after this, but the blind embrace of a wounded, creative class[less] EGO is pathetic by those ignorant and shameful enough to exploit the Holocaust for your rhetorical, digital masturbation.
@884 THIS.
@950 Inflammatory language is ment to inflame. If it upsets you then the author has done their job effectively.
I’m not thrilled that the level of shadiness by the BB staff has gone up in the last day since this was posted. I can only imagine that they can’t wait for this to get off of the front page.
#948’s link also contains a list of the entries that were removed – not quite “over 100″, but, especially considering it’s not a complete list, not quite short of it by enough to justify including “Overstating the number of entries about her.” in the list of VB’s “demonstrable lies”
#957, but we need a little space to figure this out. – Haven’t you supposedly spent this whole past year on an “evaluation of what to do”, according to #5?
The term “NAZI Moderator” has been around the internet for a long time. Like the term Troll it’s got legs for a reason.
Argumentum ad antiquitatem. Other things that have been around for a long time: sexism, racism, fascism.
Also, just because things “have legs” don’t neccessarily mean they’re aren’t the tactics of an asshole. Whipping up a non-event-that-harmed-no-one into some massive emo-echo-chamber shitstorm wasn’t invented here. It’s just that some people are following that playbook to the letter.
Because it works, not because it’s right.
See also SwiftBoaters as a recent example of “legs”
Now who wants ice cream?
#958: No need to spend you words with this guys: you just need to invoke Godwin’s law. This is what it is for.
OK, seriously, I’m done with this site
In light of recent activites on your website ‘BoingBoing.net’, I no longer wish to be associated with the site in any way.
I hereby request that you cease and desist using my comments or screenname on the site. Please ‘unpublish’ ALL of my comments and delete my ‘happy mutants’ profile, screenname: ‘sexyrobot’
thank you.
according to your policy page: “When readers contribute content to our sites, you retain ownership of the copyright, and you also grant permission to us to display and distribute it.”
so yeah, i’m invoking the first part of that, but not the second. why? because your policy page has been invalidated by this clause:
Changes in This Privacy Statement
If we decide to change our privacy policy, we will post those changes to this privacy statement, THE HOMEPAGE (my caps, your words), and other places we deem appropriate so that you are aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it.
specifically as it pertains to this recent addition NOT posted to THE HOMEPAGE:
We reserve the right to unpublish or refuse to unpublish anything for any or no reason
which, in light of recent events, I find morally reprehensible and displaying a lack of journalistic ethics so atrocious I no longer wish to have any association, however marginal, with your site ‘boingboing.net’ Please remove my profile, please remove my comments…all of them. I fully realize this may totally bork the continuity of your comments threads, but maybe you should of thought of that before shovelling posts down the memory hole.
thank you
‘sexyrobot’
@Random832 (#961): No, we haven’t. And even if we had, we obviously have a lot more information and perspective to add to the equation.
There’s ice cream in this BBTv thread
Joel:
Have you seen this (http://www.metafilter.com/72928/Boing-Boing-Finds-21st-Century-Trotsky#2169169)? I can’t say I’m an expert, but it does seem like a good plan.
If you can’t get in touch with the other BBers, maybe a front-page post explaining that you need time to do so + closing comments everywhere?
Drastic, I know. Could backfire (not an expert here). In any case, please talk to disinterested people with experience on this. Good luck to you all.
Asking for breathing space from a group of anonymous strangers who are enjoying and prolonging your discomfort shows more faith in humanity than I would have thought the situation warranted. Lets hope that faith isn’t completely misplaced.
@HOLTT, are you going to answer @936, or does that not fit your agenda?
Joel @957: That you have managed to keep such a level tone in the face of being compared to Hitler, Stalin, and even L. Ron Hubbard, is a matter of some astonishment to me. Like many of the commenters here, my initial response to this incident was dismay and a sense that BB had betrayed its principles, but you have already gone a log way toward winning back my trust. Everything I’ve read so far convinces me that this was more a matter of boneheadedness than evil, and you all appear sincere in your commitment to putting BoingBoing’s house back in order.
Many people have said what I already feel. However – my thought is that one of the BB staff should create a post about what they feel is wrong and why, rather than childishly hiding behind the “private blog” and “we don’t want to offend anyone” arguments.
Even VB apparently doesn’t know what’s wrong – which means this is some sort of high level socio-cultural experiment being put on between VB and BB, or BB has just lost a lot of the credibility for many of their arguments.
The bit on zenarchery.com (the link is in post #827) is the best thing I’ve read about this whole fiasco so far. IMHO the guy seems intelligent, experienced, level-headed and not insulting. Seriously worth taking a look at Boingers, if you haven’t already.
As someone who’s been following all this mess since the beginning, back when VB first made her post, my feelings about this whole matter have shifted in the past day. I’ve read BoingBoing almost every day for over four years and VB’s blog regularly for the past few years. In the past day I’ve come to feel I don’t know either blogger(s) quite as well as I thought. I’ve already commented twice, so I won’t repeat my initial impressions. Now, I’m a little more skeptical of VB’s intentions and a lot more sympathetic to BB’s dilemma. I don’t envy you guys having to be in this situation. Before, I couldn’t quite understand why you would ever do what you did, but now I see some valid reasons. But I think the heart of all of the drama is that no matter what anybody did, a lot of people held BB up to standards that were not met. Whether or not BB should be held to those standards is a much larger question. Perhaps this is where the making of policies for the site comes into play. I do think changing/deleting/unpublishing/whatever without any sort of notice is in bad taste and feels like it goes against the spirit of BB. It is completely within your right to do, but it just doesn’t sit well. I think a lot of people just wanted BB to be better than that. But no matter what, I still love BB and they can’t help but learn from this situation.
I would also like to say something to all the folks that complain that this post has gotten almost a thousand comments but that more important topics get very few. You’re right that there are more egregious things going on in the world that people should be concerned about, but I think the reason those posts get less comments is not because people don’t care but because people already know that those things are wrong/horrible/etc. and it’s not that surprising when someone like Bush does something to take away our rights. There’s not that much to discuss because people are mostly on the same page already. But what we have here is totally different. There is no clear right or wrong. There is no definate bad guy. There is no specified reason. There’s a whole lot of grey area here and that’s what spurns on the discussion. BB has taken actions that plenty of people didn’t think they would ever do. That is the surprise. That is the issue.
I would also really love to hear from Cory about this. His voice is strangely absent.
This thread is post-constructive. Maybe the moderators should announce that it will be shut down at 1100 comments or some such figure, so people can get their last points in. That will give us some time to claim that shutting down the thread means you hate freedom.
OTOH, maybe closing this door might just cause the zombies to stick all their arms through your windows. And then who will sweep up all the broken glass?
OTOOH, if you leave the thread open, we can claim, like Satan did yesterday, that you have just created this thread to dismiss us by letting us speak.
Whatever you do, it sure is evidence of your shocking evilness.
@965, srsly, it’s clear that that clause only applies to the “Privacy Policy” section, not the whole policy page. It even says “this privacy statement”.
#965
I’m sure you’ll find somewhere else to rant and rave. There’s no shortage of places on the internet to blather on in blindingly ignorant, self-righteous, “i’m so much more moral than you” outrage, I’m sure.
#972
The entire point was they didn’t want to turn it into some sort of public blogwar. Unfortunately what occurred got blown ridiculously out of proportion (its not helping that a large percentage of commenters appear to be gigantic self-righteous basement dwelling douchebags, either).
OK, lost my temper. Sorry, feel free to disemvowel previous post. I just feel bad you guys have to put up with this complete and utter crap. I should probably just move right along. :)
971, “more a matter of boneheadedness than evil” is par outside of government work. :-)
Yes, it’s your blog and you can do whatever the hell you want, but from the outside it looks spiteful and the spin doctor just made it worse.
@#927:
I really, really hope this whole thing has nothing to do with VB writing about sex. BB is a directory of wonderful things, and sex is certainly a wonderful thing. That’s not all it has to be about, sure, but a little sexiness here and there is great. Besides, the worst tragedy I could think of for the site is fort BB to give in to the prudish censors that want to block their blog because one out of ever couple hundred posts mentions sex or shows a tit in a piece of art.
@970: If Antinous doesn’t have to answer my question, then Holtt doesn’t have to answer questions, either. In fact, since Holtt isn’t a so-called “moderator”, he has no responsibility to anyone here.
Sigh. I think I liked BoingBoing better without comments. Fortunately it’s not impossible to go back to reading it that way, but it is very hard to resist the simple little [click].
Funny how there’s only a handful of letters difference between “Stirring the pot” and “Stirring the thought”
Are we going to make 1000?
The redundancy in this thread is important: it’s how commenters vote on what matters.
@MICHAEL BRUTSCH If I had wanted your opinion, I’d have asked you. Fact remains that BB here removed the work of a very bad human being.
BB staff should create a post about what they feel is wrong and why
Wow. Nice reframe. The only way to win, apparently, is to engage in the same make-wrong arguments that are being thrown around by the faux-wounded around here.
rather than childishly hiding behind the “private blog” and “we don’t want to offend anyone” arguments.
Yes. BB is being the childish ones here for not throwing something to the hyenas to chew on. Come on, let’s get some dirt and gossip in the arena so we can start picking on that.
@#958
The Nazis did other things than the holocaust. They were Nazi’s before the holocaust.
People calling the mods here Nazis are pretty much doing the same thing as calling someone who can’t spell “nuclear” George W. Bush. And you’re saying “NO THEY’RE NOT GEORGE W BUSH!!!!! THEY DIDN’T START AN ILLEGAL WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST!!! WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT???????????????? I KNOW SOMEONE WHO DIED IN IRAQ!!! SHAME ON YOU FOR COMPARING SOMETHING SOMEONE DID TO SOMETHING GEORGE W BUSH ALSO DID!!!”
Hopefully responses to this post will help the comments reach 1000!
This thread reminds me of the catalogue example from (Bertrand) “Russell’s paradox”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_paradox
Does the posting that claims “all the postings mentioning Violet Blue have been removed” count itself as a posting mentioning Violet Blue?
Suppose that every public blog site has to compile a blog entry of all its Violet Blue references. The blog entry is itself one of the blog site’s violet blue references, but while some bloggers include it in the blog entry for completeness, others leave it out, as being self-evident.
Now imagine that all these blog entries are sent to the national blog site. Some of them include themselves in their listings, others do not. The national librarian compiles two master blog entries – one of all the blog entries that list Violet Blue, and one of all those which don’t.
The question is now, should these blog entries list themselves? The ‘Blog entry of all blog entries that list Violet Blue is no problem. If the bloggers don’t include it in its own listing, it is still a true blog entry of those blog entries that do include Violet Blue. If he does include it, it remains a true blog entry of those that list themselves.
However, just as the librarian cannot go wrong with the first master blog entry, he is doomed to fail with the second. When it comes to the ‘Blog entry of all blog entries that don’t list Violet Blue, the blogger cannot include it in its own listing, because then it would belong in the other blog entry, that of blog entries that do include Violet Blue. However, if the blogger leaves it out, the blog entry is incomplete. Either way, it can never be a true blog entry of blog entrys that do not list Violet Blue.
I can exclusively reveal the crux of the issue that caused BB to dis-associate all dealings with Violet Blue.
Apparently she’s due to release a new line of Steam punk styled dildonics that use software with DRM restrictions. It also only works on Windows.
Michael @981: Your comment at #920 isn’t a question.
so there’s a nice distributed attack on this policy. anyone with a link from bb can use a meta refresh or a server-side 302 redirect to point that link at a ‘forbidden’ site. voila, that post must now be removed.
i’ve done this with an inbound link from bb to a site i control.
#986 Wow. Nice reframe. The only way to win, apparently, is to engage in the same make-wrong arguments that are being thrown around by the faux-wounded around here.
If you are going to engage in retribution, it’s only polite to specify what that retribution is for.
And it’s real classy of you to refer to people who genuinely feel their values – which they thought were also your values – have been betrayed as “faux-wounded”
I’m proud of you guys.
All of you, not just the 5 mainstays and some very loyal, passionate, overworked moderators; but the whole group that has made this one of the longest, most tedious,most vital string of posts ever.
The meta point is that people care about this, and with this whole web/pipeline/future-ass thing, there are no rules until shite like this happens. This is education folks.
I started out considering this whole episode as utter BS for the first hundred posts or so. A longtime reader, fan, and lurker, I hardly ever read any comments on this or any site, less still do I ever post myself. But I came to the conclusion that this thread is something else. Something potentially important for the greater unseen reasons hiding this past year. BB has inspired people with a certain spirit, a community, an education, a passion, a laugh, a vent. This is caring, in all it’s glory and pain that we see here.
Gang, don’t forget that all of this is about people’s idealism in what BB can be; as well as distrust in what it, or any new idea, can mutate into, left untended.
It gives me hope, in some strange Jimmy Stewart/Hunter S Thompson/Wavy Gravy way.
In the future, this string, and BB as a whole, will be looked back on and studied (aside from the undone parts) as part of a generation reinventing itself once more.
Keep up the good work
That being said, Untitled 1 was better.
Timefishblue I think you hit the fish on the head, even if you do have the word “blue” in your name.
am i 1000 yet?
Thanks Holt, it’s about *TIME* I got some recognition ;)
Joel, for what it’s worth, I vote with the folks who suggest a new post saying you’re thinking and listening and would like a day or three to figure out what to do next. I don’t suggest shutting down comments; let them burn out on their own. In the screaming, there have been important points made about what kind of internet we would like to have. I’ve heard and learned: I’ve deleted posts that seemed outdated in my blogs, but I won’t do that anymore.
And I’m very glad you seem to be among the folks who realize there are more than two sides to this issue.
I’m waiting for the “Just leave Boing Boing aloooone!!” video to come out.
And it’s real classy of you to refer to people who genuinely feel their values – which they thought were also your values – have been betrayed as “faux-wounded”
That’s because THEY HAVEN’T BEEN HARMED!
I’ve asked several times for anyone to specifically list who did what to whom and what damage it created when BB removed its own content a year ago.
No one can do that.
WHY?
Because NO ONE WAS HARMED.
People want to look at something that caused no harm and act as if it wounded them somehow.
Therefore, faux-wounded.
100 comments!!! yay!!! okay everybody, enough already. get a fukkin life !
Last post.
1000
@966 Joel, thanks so much for stopping by and commenting throughout all of this.
I think the Metafilter comment linked in #968 is a pretty good plan of attack — close down comments for a while, give yourselves time to process, and then come back with whatever you’ve decided.
If this post is the final word, then I think Boing Boing’s in for some tough times.
Can someone reiterate for me the insults Teresa is supposed to have used, because I’m not seeing them?
@999 – actual physical harm is rarely present in a betrayal of values. That doesn’t make it any less a betrayal, or any less _emotionally_ harmful.
“Yes. You had one comment about Violet Blue that was unpublished because it was in a different thread. We don’t delete comments.”
Is it April First in Frisco, or something? Did I mistype “boingboing” in my browser?
Think the 9/11 posts went on longer.
@ #1000
It would have been better if you’d said, “Get a clue morans”
sexyrobot (see, I’m using your name), you don’t have the right to tell people they can’t refer to you by name, even a name you invented. You don’t like it? Tough shit.
Also, good riddance. I sure hope you mean it about being done with this site, and that we’ll never see another one of your mean-spirited comments again.
fylateri, why didn’t you just tell the Boingers you objected to being linked from BB? Too friendly? Too human?
Not seeing you here any more would also brighten my day. Are you thinking of maybe stomping out in disgust, I hope I hope?
@1004 Can someone reiterate for me the insults Teresa is supposed to have used, because I’m not seeing them?
No surprise; stuff has been edited. In the original version of this post, she used the phrase “piles of shit” as part of an extended metaphor, and it was seen by some as specifically referring to VB or to the content which was removed.
The only persons harmed here are;
1. The person who Violet Blue got fired from her job
2. The person who Violet Blue sued on trumped up charges and deprived of her entire income.
AAAHHH I’m an idiut. That should be, “Get a Brain! Morans”
Because NO ONE WAS HARMED.
I think a lot of tiny minds and self-important jerks have been harmed in this thread.
At least I hope so.
actual physical harm is rarely present in a betrayal of values. That doesn’t make it any less a betrayal, or any less _emotionally_ harmful
Oh god. The only group I know of who consistently make an argument of fighting for “values” is the religious right. It’s a handy argument for them because “values” sounds like something universal, but in implementation always ends up meaning “what we like”.
OK, so barring the obvious trap of being able to define “values” to mean whatever you want it to mean, who did what, when, to whom, such that is specifically betrayed your values?
See if you can spell it out in a single sentence.
I’ve posted here and elsewhere that mass deletions of archives are destructive to the very fabric of the internet, and harmful to everyone who loves the internet, because of all the resulting avoidable link breakage.
Lots of people, smart people, disagree with that point. But shouting NO ONE WAS HARMED is not a very persuasive way of expressing such disagreement.
ah, xopher, cute! see #506.
forgive me if i find a little disappointment in the transformation of the blog i’ve read for the last nine years. there’s no sin so wicked as hypocrisy in a world of moral relativism.
the very fabric of the internet
Is that like “the american way” or something?
and harmful to everyone who loves the internet
I love the internet. I didn’t see any harm to me.
because of all the resulting avoidable link breakage
Right, because this entire FIGHT is about NOTHING but all the 404 pages everyone has been getting FOR THE LAST YEAR when trying to surf to some BB page about Violet Blue.
Gawds. Do you actually believe the stuff you write?
Holtt 1012:
First thing you’ve said in this thread that I agree with. Mod the spelling, of course.
eros, I”ll believe your story if you can show me a history of you going around fighting 404 error messages anywhere else on the internet before this thread. At least as many posts here by you should be visible on other threads elsewhere showing you ANGRILY ATTACKING the deletion of content BECAUSE OF THE RESULTING 404 PAGE ERROR IT WILL CREATE, and the damage it will inflict on the VERY FABRIC OF THE INTERNET.
Otherwise: bullshit.
@Joel et al.: Thanks for listening constructively. Your comments help to refuel my trust in BB a bit.
@Antinous: You do understand that from the point of view of a mere reader/commenter, there is no difference between “deleting” and “unpublishing” a comment? I see that there is a difference in the back-end of MT, but from here, the disappearance is just the same.
I do care, Greg. I care passionately. Or I wouldn’t be posting at number one thousand twenty-something in this sewer-thread.
I do not, however, believe as you do that shouting contradictions at people is useful, not even as a way of supporting one’s friends in a difficult hour.
LOL at your bullshit call, Greg. The archives of my blog are full of me attacking the deletion of content. This is an old and passionately-defended issue for me.
Bullshit right back atcha!
Moral(s) of the story:
TNH as BB moderator is EPIC FAIL !!!
Some things are best left alone, in the dark recessed tables of the dusty RDBMS.
And the WINNER is: Violet Blue!
Rest of the BB staff: use a rein on that TNH lady next time she has a damn bright idea such as this one.
I smell Jason Fortuny
and how many people were looking for these BoingBoing threads and couldn’t find them over the course of the twelve months the content was down?
Who gets to make comment #1337 that would surely be the definitive statement on the matter?
(Or does BoingBoing skip from 1336 straight to 1338, in the same way skyscrapers omit the 13th floor?)
The gauntlet has been cast down…
Hiya Greg of “and how many people were looking for these BoingBoing threads and couldn’t find them over the course of the twelve months the content was down?”
…and how is that supposed to make everything fine-and-dandy about this “unpublishment”?
@1025 The thing that pissed off Violet Blue most is that nobody noticed AT ALL.
As another long-time reader, first time poster, I think the aspect of this that leaves a sour taste in my mouth is that Boing Boing have apparently never heard of what economists call Moral Hazard: “the prospect that a party insulated from risk may behave differently from the way it would behave if it were fully exposed to the risk.”.
Given that Boing Boing provides one of the internet’s foremost critiques of those situations where people / companies / etc act within their legal rights, but in a way that is against their moral duties, then who is left to criticise them when they may have done something wrong themselves. When you’re in that position, it might be the best thing to make sure that you’re holding yourself to exactly the same standards, if not higher, than the ones you hold everyone else to. And perhaps the saddest thing of all is that the quote above comes from a Cory post from yesterday.
I completely agree that it’s impossible for anyone who holds strong views to always be a paragon of virtue. But they should expect those who stand with them to remind them of those standards, and they should be expected to admit when they falter.
How many people? I don’t know. Even one would be harm, though, as I measure these things. Modest harm to be sure, but harm.
I’m really really tired, have been for years, at the hoary “links break all the time, so it doesn’t matter if we smash them” argument. Nor do I think that the measure of a link’s importance is how many people follow it.
This is an old and passionately-defended issue for me
could it possibly be that the level to which the “passionately defended issue” is attacked at all out of line with the actual damage inflicted? Or does the “very fabric of the internet” know no such thing?
If a tree falls in the woods, and no one knows for a whole year, was it really that tragic of an event to deserve a thousand flaming comments?
Just to spell it out, what follows is an attempt at self deprecating humor in the interest of giving this thread a bit of a laugh. Past attempts didn’t carry this forward but should have.
So for that, you’ll publicly defame Mark and Xeni and Cory and David?
——-
No, they have brought all this on themselves and they have only themselves to thank for the shocked reaction of their once loyal audience.
how is that supposed to make everything fine-and-dandy about this “unpublishment”?
It doesn’t. But whatever REAL DAMAGE people suffered over the last twelve months, it certainly isn’t in line with THE OUTRAGE that some pyros are bringing to the party under the guise of “I just want to defend the fabric of the internet”
Can someone reiterate for me the insults Teresa is supposed to have used, because I’m not seeing them?
It shouldn’t be surprising the comments are no longer around. For at least a year now they’ve been altering content of their published statements. Obviously they’ve unpublished the comments and are now pretending they never happened.
Greg, of course it’s possible that my passion about this issue is disproportionate to its importance. Some people are passionate about art, or puppies; I’m passionate about the internet and hostile to those who attack it with metaphorical pickaxes, even though the effectiveness of their attacks is usually very low. Hell, I think I called the internet “humanity’s greatest flower” sometime in the last 36 hours, I’m still waiting for somebody to mock me for it. Would you like to volunteer?
All that said, though, I haven’t posted a thousand flaming comments, or even one. I can’t be held to account for the passions of others.
1023 OdeJoy (now there’s a caconym): Are you under the impression that Teresa made the decision to delete the VB posts? Have you been paying attention at all? Or do you just enjoy attacking Teresa?
I’m afraid the moral of YOUR story is that you’re a flmng jckhl.*
*pre-disemvowelled, in case you were wondering.
Xopher,
Teresa gets a lot of flak simply because she’s a woman in a position of authority, and that incenses many people.
Defenders of the unbroken links, UNITE!
#1031 Hiya again Greg:
“If a tree falls in the woods, and no one knows for a whole year…”
…first of all VB is not a tree…though sometimes her dehydrated limbs may give this confusing impression
…secondly, the so called tree did not fall…as you would have us believe… but it was FELLED…by the axe of no less the high-and-mighty TNH
…thirdly, BB needs to grow a SPINE and SUCK IT UP!!… be prepared to be held to the same standards you disseminate from your HTTp servers.
COME ON CORY, speak up!!
Does nobody here care at all that Wendi Sullivan Blue used intellectual property law to deny somebody (Actress Violet Blue, now known as Noname Jane) of her entire livelihood and not even admitting to the court that she was not Violet Blue until recently?
Does nobody care?
And if you don’t, how can you post here about being offended by the removal of an interview and a few links?
Sure at first, I wanted to know the facts behind the drama. The real issue however shifted from “what did Violet Blue do?” to the ethics behind BB’s present stance. The ethics of treating Violet Blue properly, the ethics of treating BoingBoing’s brand and hard fought goodwill properly, and the ethics of treating its readership properly.
Many have rightfully dismissed the “censorship” strawman arguments because yes, we get it, this is about a private blog acting on its own blog, not a government repressing communication.
That being said, even private parties and civil actions among non-government agencies can have destructive and chilling effects on speech. This doesn’t affect the first amendment right to free speech but it affects and compromises the idea of an open marketplace of ideas nonetheless.
I’m talking about the idea of people being “blackballed”. Actors, directors, writers, journalists, and myriad of content-creators sometimes fall out of favor from the content-distributors – movie studios, publishing houses, newspapers. Even movie studios and magazines do not go back to torch their own archives of past works to exclude certain players from greater public view.
Since we’ll never know Violet’s transgression and whether it merits the treatment given to her name and work, that’s a judgment outside this scope. However, the idea of ethics is not to judge within the mere narrow limitations of what is allowed by the law or forbidden by the law. There is no question as to BB’s right to unpublish VB. As many prior posters commented – it does boil down to what is the right thing to do.
The popular tide is rightly turning against BB because it is perceived as the larger, more influencial entity, bullying an as of yet presumed innocent Violet Blue and giving the audience no real explanation for a public demonstration of its power to unpublish someone.
BB set up high expectations for itself and from its readers. We expect the classless pundits on political forums to pull moves like this but not you.
We’ve seen colorful spicy language from moderators and articles before but now it has turned ugly and hostile. We’re being called “stupid” and “blockheads” for questionning your actions. For many, the questionning is as much a benevolent attempt to prevent further ruin on BB’s name. It may be confusing to distinguish that from the others who come by to pick up rocks because they merely enjoy doing so.
Only you can prevent forest fires. Well, we’re past that, we have a fire. Only you can put it out. That is if you even desire to.
Greg #1038, that’s the first thing you’ve ever posted on this blog or at Making Light with which I can agree unreservedly! I’m glad we found common ground, even if you may have been attempting mockery.
Oh, and as for outrage? You’ve been demonstrating a lot more of it than I have.
Xopher, Greg London, and Antinuous, I’ve noticed in the past that when you have nothing to support your positions, you insult people. I understand that: it consoles you. It wins applause from those who agree with you. But it adds nothing to the discourse, so I suggest you try another way.
Lest you object that people who support some of my causes can be insulting, I’ll admit that’s so; people on every side get carried away. But you don’t have to respond in kind. There’s nothing wrong with taking the high road.
As for who’s hurt here, one’s Cory. He has been a strong supporter of the open internet–see his post about Apple deleting comments. His rep will survive if he sticks to his position, of course. Like everyone else, I assume his current silence comes from a great deal of private discussion about how to handle this goof-up.
The other folks hurt are the rest of the boingboing board and staff, simply because they haven’t figured out how to handle the goof-up yet.
But the greater body of folks hurt are those of us who thought Boingboing’s standards were higher than the rest of the corporate world’s. I’m not talking here about boingboing’s right-wingers who say companies should do whatever they want that isn’t illegal: to the rest of us, morality is not defined by money.
Right, Antinous. It’s sexism. *rolls eyes*
Antinous 1043
Teresa gets flak because she brings the hostile tone to this thread by using ad hominems of “stupid” and “blockheads” among other epithets.
It has nothing to do with the fact that she’s a woman for one and it belies your own judgment to try to insinuate that it’s a factor. It doesn’t have anything to do with the fact she’s in a position of authority either because we accept that BB is not just one person but a community. However, we do expect whatever authority or access she has to be handled in a manner that is consistent with our values of right and wrong when it comes to treating people with fairness. So far, the criticism have squarely been on her actions and words, not her identity, gender, or even impugned authority within BB.
To understand “moderator” as “position of authority” (and not as something akin to community service, as faciliator) may be one of the reasons why many people here are disappointed by the moderator’s practices.
it’s possible that my passion about this issue is disproportionate to its importance
I think that may be the biggest understatement of the year.
If your passion is broken links, I think the importance relative to the actual damage suffered by real people over the last twelve months or so is probably pretty small. I’m only guessing based on the fact that apparently no one complained in the last year until a week ago or so, except, maybe VB herself.
But, certainly, one could argue that broken links are “damage” or “harm caused”. Apparently small enough harm that no one noticed, but still, there’s theoretical possibilities of harm from broken links, (measured in wasted manhours, I supposes) which you are completely valid to chose as your mission in life to hunt down and destroy.
But I think it’s also probably safe to say that the rage here has nothing to do with broken links, so if I ask for specific examples of “damage” in the future, your “broken links” probably doesn’t actually apply to anyone but yourself.
But good hunting in your quest against broken links.
Burnchao #1035: No, come on, why should I trust random anonymous internet person more than I trust the moderator? If you can’t provide me an example why should I believe that it has happened at all?
Random832 #1010: I think you’ll find that was Xeni. Pay attention, there’ll be test at the end of the thread.
Yeah Cory, grow a spine and cave in to Odejoy’s demands. She’s merely gesturing with the pointy farm implement to illustrate a point. She would never stab anyone with it!
Also, as a loyal and outraged reader, I demand that you include me in your next novel.
Holtt 1032:
(emphasis added)
In what fashion is that SELF-deprecating? It compares Boing Boing to a spoiled, drug-addled pop-music idiot, and its defenders to a weepy, (possibly) drug-addled, annoying nutbar.
You are not Boing Boing.
You are not one of its defenders. In fact, you’re one of its attackers.
Your attempt at “self-deprecating humor” is neither. Please let me know when you’re going to start real self-deprecating humor, because I’d be happy to join in deprecating YOU.
#1048, please stop trying to act like you are the sole arbiter of what constitutes “actual damage”. You really don’t seem to be very good at convincing people that this is the case.
#1049, in my defense, I didn’t see it personally, and I was going based on #884’s account. But now that history’s been changed so no-one said it, I guess it really doesn’t matter which one of them didn’t say it.
The point being, it’s hard to double-check these things when IT’S BEEN DELETED!
But the greater body of folks hurt are those of us who thought Boingboing’s standards were higher than the rest of the corporate world’s. … to the rest of us, morality is not defined by money.
So… BoingBoing deleted content pointing to Violet Blue because of the GOBS OF MONEY it would make them???
rrrriiiigghht.
What was that about not having anything to support a position?
please stop trying to act like you are the sole arbiter of what constitutes “actual damage”
OK, what damage did you suffer?
emotional distress?
a theft of your dreams?
unlawful draining of your wishes?
How do YOU define what it is that you’ve suffered here?
@1033 – Neener,
“…their once loyal audience”
Really? I’m a -lot- more loyal after this.
They told us all where to find the stuff they didn’t feel good about publishing anymore. They apologized for the opacity. They laid out the facts to the extent they’re public business (rther than dirty laundry) and then they actually asked our opinion.
And becuase of the occasional BB feedback (Xeni, Joel, David) in the thread, I know they’re listening.
Even to your tantrum. I’m willing to bet that they are laughing at you Neener. Laughing at your hyperventilation and inflated…. meh. whatever.
Just. Laughing.
But anyway, back @#1004 who asked what insults TNH in particular has used. Well, she called VB a liar in #553. She said in #581 that VB “has no such compunctions” (regarding “trashing” people), and no evidence of this has been produced to date.
#1055, it’s been pointed out numerous times that this does a lot of damage to BB’s reputation, and to the reputation of the blogosphere as a whole, by making it substantially more difficult for any blog to gain any credibility as being “real” journalism.
BB as of right now has no journalistic integrity. And, yes, maybe your position as a whole is “we don’t NEED no stinkin’ journalistic integrity” – but you had it before – people put a lot of trust in it, and now it’s gone.
Random832 #1057: I should have been more specific; the complaints were that Teresa had been insulting to bb commenters. As I said, I’m not seeing it.
random832, do you know VB or something? Because I asked what damage did YOU suffer, not VB. I ask, because you never posted on BoingBoing until this thread and you’re posts were on the attack from teh beginning.
So, did you suffer something personal from teh deletion of BB’s content about VB a year ago? Or did you suffer something personal from Teresa saying VB lied? Or what?
You don’t want me to act as sole arbiter of what constitutes actual damage, then maybe you can pony up what personal damage you suffered at the hands of BoingBoing.
@RANDOM832 Don’t pretend you were ever here before Violet Blue’s lies sent you here.
Wow. I saw 300 comments yesterday and though oh boy and then 1048 and counting now. I wasn’t going to say anything but then as I read I realized you guys (boingers/moderators) have been reading all this and I have to say I’m really impressed.
I’m not entirely sure how I feel about taking old posts down – but I can totally imagine circumstances where I would feel it was wrong for me to show support for someone else. Since your website supports people I totally see why you would want to take something down. However, the unpublishing has also give her a tonne of PR – but it’s a rock and a hard place.
I also can imagine the need for discretion regarding reasons. I mean really – everyone who’s all curious – can’t you imagine a situation where it would be way more graceful to keep your mouth shut? I’m sure it would be less exciting if the boingers just said what was up with VB, but sometimes it’s just plain mean to tell the whole world what someone did to make you mad. Just let it go. Give the people some privacy. Anyway. That’s my two sense. Thankyou for caring so much and reading all this and being really good conscientious people. I appreciate it.
Actually, Greg, I agree with your “pretty small” characterization of the harm resulting from the archive deletions at issue here. I, for one, never said it was huge.
My interest in this controversy stems from my initial belief that as “internet good guys”, the Boingers would share at least some of my passion for not going out of their way to break links on the internets. The deletions at issue called that belief into question. It remains unclear how many of the Boingers I was wrong about — perhaps as few as one – – and I plan to heed Joel’s request to let them hash these issues out. Even Xeni might yet decide she was wrong.
But meanwhile, Teresa, supposedly in a moderating role but being uncharacteristically immoderate, attacked my argument quite vigorously in her #691, calling it “nonsense” and claiming, for reasons unclear to me, that my concern was a pretense rather than an honestly-held opinion. I remain hopeful that this was an intemperate outburst inspired by loyalty to her friends. She’s known for leveling the barrage at deserving targets, and none of us has perfect target identification skills.
random1058: this does a lot of damage to BB’s reputation
so, you’re mad at BB for trashing its own reputation?
clarification for Neener @1033 –
I am laughing because some 500 comments ago (after talking about your long relationship with BB (longer than mine to be sure)) you were ‘done with this blog’.
Is that productive? Or histrionic?
Will Shetterly 1044:
The others can speak for themselves, but I don’t think I’m guilty of this. It’s not when I don’t have any support for my positions; it’s when the statement I’m responding to has been refuted over and over, and the person just keeps spouting off the same crap, like a broken record or a little child going “Neener neener neener.”
Oh, also when a person claims “humor” as an excuse for being insulting.
Will, I’ve noticed that when you really want to piss someone off, you post some smarmy, faux-concerned comment like this one, with a barb in it more designed to hurt than inform. It’s actually fairly effective, but it’s not going to win you a lot of friends.
Or maybe it will, if most of the people here enjoy seeing me and Greg and Antinous shot at. But the rest of us know that implying that Boing Boing’s morality is defined by money is an attack on them; that it’s entirely gratuitous given that their concerns about VB had nothing to do with BoingBoing’s revenue stream; and that your air of calm concern is feigned.
Now you’ll claim that my last two paragraphs are insulting, no doubt. But as they’re largely paraphrases or reflections of things you just said to me, you are hoist with your own petard (that is if you want to claim that YOU are not being insulting).
@random832:
journalistic integrity ? give me a break and speak for yourself.
BB isn’t journalism, it’s infotainment. it’s a blog of wonderful things, not a freakin newspaper. it’s opinions, stories, links, fun stuff, oddities, a directory.
journalistic integrity’s got nuthin’ to do with it. what a laugh.
#1064 so, you’re mad at BB for trashing its own reputation?
If I said “yes, it’s a bloody waste” would you drop it? You asked “what damage was done”, not “what damage was done to you personally“, so I pointed out an example that had already been explained by others.
I’d never heard of VB before this – I came here from a thread on a forum (the link, incidentally, was to metafilter, but I didn’t even click through it, the first link that I clicked was to this post, and my opinions have been overwhemingly shaped by directly reading this post and people’s responses, rather than by any outside site’s characterization of what people are saying)
Actually, Greg, I agree with your “pretty small” characterization of the harm resulting from the archive deletions at issue here. I, for one, never said it was huge.
Hold that thought…
Teresa, supposedly in a moderating role but being uncharacteristically immoderate, attacked my argument quite vigorously in her #691, calling it “nonsense”
Er, but your argument was that you were here to defend the broken links.
ErosBacchus @186: As several other people have pointed out, “unpublishing” something (because you don’t want to pay to host it any more) breaks all the inbound links to that content.
Teresa@691: Nonsense. Most large, active blogs take material down, for a variety of reasons. Some do it more than others.
So, you admit that your reason for arguing is to fight broken links, and you admit that the damage from those broken links is “pretty small”.
Could you also consider that given that a shit storm was blowing, someone using a minor excuse like broken links to enter a shit storm debate might occur as being slightly … out of proportion … by the people being attacked?
I don’t think that Teresa would begrudge your fight against broken links per se, just that given at the time a seemingly endless line of trolls were flaming BB over the whole violet blue thing, that maybe the middle of a shit storm wasn’t the best time to bring it up.
random832: If I said “yes, it’s a bloody waste” would you drop it? You asked “what damage was done”, not “what damage was done to you personally”
I said @1055: OK, what damage did you suffer?
Which was in response to your rather vague allusion to damage in #1005: actual physical harm is rarely present in a betrayal of values. That doesn’t make it any less a betrayal, or any less _emotionally_ harmful.
OK. so again, what damage have you suffered as a result of BB’s actions? How have you been betrayed by BB? How have you been emotionally harmed by BB?
Greg #1069, I think you are being blinded by your loyalties. You see a shit storm and a “seemingly endless line of trolls” and so you take me to task for entering the debate while people are being attacked.
I, on the other hand, see the usual proportion of trolls in the BB ecology, plus a huge number of people who have genuine and honest concerns about what BB did, bringing this up now because now is when we learned about it. I believe that both you and Teresa currently (well, “yesterday” for her) have misfiring troll detectors.
I don’t view my concerns as an “excuse” to jump into a shit storm; I view this as a shit storm into which all of the usual trolls have jumped, as they will every time. One of the major errors in the handling of this matter is to assume that most or all of the critic commenters are trolls, and to treat us as such. There is a reason for this shit storm, or several of them, and you shouting at people in denial of that fact is not helping. (Full credit for dialing back the shouting in your last few comments, it is appreciated.)
ErosBacchus,
Once again, the majority of critical comments in this post are from first-time commenters. You yourself are a first-time commenter who has seventeen (17) comments in this thread, all of which are completely intact and visible. BoingBoing regularly posts about repression, torture, loss of civil liberties, global warming, deforestation and other matters of the gravest consequence. Yet half the comments in this thread are from users who have never bothered to weigh in on any of those matters, saving their outrage for this instead. Torture: no response. Year old post removal: explosion of fury. The facts speak for themselves.
@GREGLONDON – The real betrayal here was when Wendi Sullivan Blue decided to abandon information freedom and become part of the Patent and Trademark system to slap down an impoverished single mother. Its also really clear that her reason was not because of any real confusion between the two, but because she could not stand the thought of being thought a *gasp* whore.
Holy crap! People still care about this? How about you folks get worked up about something that matters? Maybe help out folks struggling to make their lives better. Something like Kiva (Featured before on Boing Boing) http://www.kiva.org/index.php
How about everyone takes their self-righteous indignation about this molehill and instead turn it into something positive? How about helping those in need instead of self-aggrandizing complaints about something that is…nothing.
Xopher, I came across a sentence today that I love: “Tribe trumps truth.” We’re seeing a lot of that now.
I don’t want to piss you off. I want truth. I’m sorry you think that’s an attempt to piss you off, but I’ll keep after truth.
I don’t know if BB’s morality is defined by money, but my point was simpler: BB is a company that makes a great deal of money from ads. It has policies. Many of us have thought BB proved that companies can behave ethically. To us, erasing someone from corporate memory is troubling. Whether VB’s offenses have anything to do with BB’s income, I don’t know or care–my suspicion, which I’ve mentioned, has been that it has more to do with her abuse of trademark law, something that bothers me at least as much as it bothers Cory.
@Joel Johnson #957
I apologize for being too defensive or even antagonistic at times in this thread.
Maybe I missed it, or maybe you’ve unpublished them, but most of your comments haven’t been that antagonistic. In fact, I think you’ve been the most cool-headed of principal Boingers that have gotten involved. But again, that’s assuming comments haven’t been unpublished to make you appear cool-headed.
It’s hard to parse criticism when you aren’t sure if it’s from concerned friends or mawkish ghouls
There may be some BB-haters and some VB-huggers here, but I’m pretty damn sure the majority of the people here that are bothered by all this are, or were, BB-huggers. It’s not what you did to VB, but what you’ve done to BB, and have been doing for at least a year.
We’ll do better.
I can see that you’re trying but…
In the meantime, can you guys give us a few days to digest all this? […] If our choices as a group are as important as many of you say they are, I don’t think it’s too much to ask to let us sync up and discuss this more.
Dude, you’ve spent over a year trying to sync up, as has been continuously pointed out by Xeni, TNH, Antinous, et al. (Well, last time I looked, they were pointing it out, but I don’t know if anything’s been unpublished since then)
Come on. BB knows how properly handle when they publish something they regret. You do it all the time. You one-line it and update in red font. That’s the way you’ve been doing it for years. Unpublishing isn’t the way you handle these things. (Well, I guess it is the way you handle things, at least for the last year. I don’t know when the unpublishing started, but I hope it only been a year)
There is a reason for this shit storm, or several of them, and you shouting at people in denial of that fact is not helping.
Except I asked for your reason, and you said it was broken links. And it was the first stated reason in your post at #186, which is your first post in this thread.
You don’t get to handwave the passive voice “there are reasons for this shitstorm” to distract from YOUR reasons, which seems to come back to “broken links”.
Reading through your post at 186, this seems to be your cause in its entirety. But the thing that appears to have made it sting was having it called “nonsense”.
That’s the personal injustice you mentioned, the one that was pointed directly at you.
Which would sting if its important to you, but dismissed by the folks at BB.
But you seem unwilling to look at it from BB’s view, to look at the possibility that BB was dealing with something more than just some normal everyday shitstorm “into which all of the usual trolls have jumped”.
If you think this is “normal”, how does the 1000 plus comment thread and the massive comment list over on metafilter compare to a “normal” BB thread?
I don’t think BB has a problem with fighting broken links, but this is something slightly more problematic than just broken links.
#1074 Will Shetterly , #1075 burnchao
If I’m ever on trial, I pray to Eris you people aren’t on the jury.
As I’ve said before, there is a debate throughout this thread as to whether what they did is ethical or not.
It has not been established what is ethically correct.
Without that, you can’t move on to your conclusion that BB behaved unethically.
And without the presumption of unethical conduct on the part of BB, the characterizations of their motives in subsequent actions are at best wild-ass guesses.
Will Shetterly 1044: when you have nothing to support your positions, you insult people. … (I) thought Boingboing’s standards were higher than the rest of the corporate world’s. … morality is not defined by money.
Will @ 1074: I don’t know if BB’s morality is defined by money
OK, so, do you or do you not have anything to support your position that the issue here is that BB’s morality is defined by money? Cause right now, I’m now wondering if I should be insulting you, or if you were insulting me somewhere.
Whether VB’s offenses have anything to do with BB’s income, I don’t know or care
So…. it’s NOT the money. OK…. Lemme start over with the original question: In what way have you been harmed by BB in deleting it’s own content about VB?
The shitstorm is not normal. The shitstorm is a reaction to behavior by BB that is perceived to be 100% out of character for them and at least somewhat contradictory to their expressed ideals.
Broken links are only one part of this; they happen to be the part about which I personally care the most. That doesn’t make them the most important part, but it doesn’t make them irrelevant, either.
It’s not a normal shitstorm because the behavior was not normal for BB, despite contrary protestations by Teresa and others.
I kind of admire the audacity of your rhetorical approach, however. First you shout YOU ARE ALL TROLLS and then when somebody says “I’m not a troll” you admonish us for speaking up while there’s a trollfight on. Except, it’s not actually a troll fight, it’s a real fight that’s got trolls in it. As all real fights in internet space do.
Will
“Many of us have thought BB proved that companies can behave ethically. ”
Companies are Soylent Green – they’re made of people. Rely on people too much and they will always let you down.
Have you considered managing your own expectations better?
Antinous, I consider you a figure of humor at this point in the thread. Not going to engage you just because you disagree with my choice of things to be passionate about.
Hi Antinous,
You said this:
Once again, the majority of critical comments in this post are from first-time commenters. You yourself are a first-time commenter who has seventeen (17) comments in this thread, all of which are completely intact and visible. BoingBoing regularly posts about repression, torture, loss of civil liberties, global warming, deforestation and other matters of the gravest consequence. Yet half the comments in this thread are from users who have never bothered to weigh in on any of those matters, saving their outrage for this instead. Torture: no response. Year old post removal: explosion of fury. The facts speak for themselves
I think this can be easily explained. When BB writes to condemn torture, repression, loss of liberty and no one comes out of the woodwork to comment it’s because people agree with and enjoy the articles. What point would commenting serve? We could just say, “nice job!” But that seems like a waste of time. It’s when BB does something that surprises and perturbs some readers that they show up in the comments to see what is going on and to express their support/condemnation/whatever.
It’s precisely because this is seen as being unlike BB’s usual behavior that it draws so many comments.
Broken links are only one part of this; they happen to be the part about which I personally care the most. That doesn’t make them the most important part, but it doesn’t make them irrelevant, either.
OK, keep fighting the broken link problem. This isn’t one of those problems.
It’s not a normal shitstorm because the behavior was not normal for BB, despite contrary protestations by Teresa and others.
How would you know what’s “normal” for BB if this is the first thread you’ve ever posted on? Are you claiming to be a lurker for years and this is your first post?
And what damage does that do you you if BB is not “normal” all of a sudden? How does that harm you?
What harm does BB foist upon you for suddenly changing from its “normal” ways especially if you were never around when it was “normal”?
What damage to you?
One more “puppy post” and this “violet thing” will be out of the front page… more kitties, more circus!
Antinuous, boingboing isn’t known as an important site for “repression, torture, loss of civil liberties, global warming, deforestation and other matters of the gravest consequence.” It’s known for boingboingy things–its most serious issues are about how governments and companies should behave on the internet. I suspect that’s why lurkers like ErosBacchus are speaking out now.
I’m going to work really, really hard to keep from saying “The facts speak for themselves” from now on. Facts are just facts: they require context.
And amazingly none of these people who care so much about these links care at all about what Wendi Sullivan Blue (VB) did to real flesh and blood human beings that deprived them of their livelihood?
Don’t care. Move along. Nothing to care about here.
@Will: the one part BoingBoing has indeed a bit reputation in is the topic “loss of civil liberties”, i.e., how governments and companies should behave (on the internet, or elsewhere). At least that’s my impression. Otherwise, you are right ;-)
@GregLondon: What’s so funny about long-time lurkers starting to post comments exactly at the moment something seems to go wrong? I’m more or less one of them, too. Poorimojo did explain the reasoning behind that really well. Not every person posting for the first time, and with fury, in this thread, is a troll.
@all: Is there a graceful way to say “you just don’t get it?”. If so, some of the last comments would surely demand this. (And I’m also sure that “you” — that are not “us” — must have the exact mirrored feeling for quite some time).
Will,
Nobody has said BB was an important source of anything, just a regular source. Antinous was accurate in #1077, and you have chosen (#1086) to slightly mischaracterize his comment to score a semantic win.
Is that ethical? Is it wonderful? Is it a willful mischaracterization? Or just Will-ful?
You decide.
Greg, you’re smart enough to know better than to equate posting behavior with reading behavior. Lurkers, perhaps you’ve heard of them?
(There’s also the purely technical aside that I don’t take care to track all my trivial net logins. I’m pretty sure I once had another commenter account here, but I seem to have lost access to it, or perhaps forgotten the screen name I chose. In any case, I have commented here before — not that it matters or affects my credibility in any material way.)
As it happens, I run a modest sex blog that’s got a very short list of “Daily Reads” non-sexblogs on it, the few I really do read every day and recommend unreservedly to people. Boing Boing has been on there for four or five years now. So, yeah, I think I’m minimally qualified to comment on what’s normal for Boing Boing, and I’m sure as hell qualified to comment on my own perceptions thereof.
Anyway, I’ve shot my wad in trying to explain to you that your disrepect for the motives people bring to this discussion somehow invalidates their participation. And I’m outta here for a few hours at least. Have fun impugning people’s motives while I’m gone!
will@1086: I suspect that’s why lurkers like ErosBacchus are speaking out now.
uh….
will @1074: “Tribe trumps truth.” We’re seeing a lot of that now.
You think that maybe it has more to do with the fact that ErosBacchus’s website erosblog.com is a blog about sex and related topics and that maybe ErosBacchus has identified Violet Blue, noted sex talker, as being on her team????
Or does that “team” thing only work one way?
YOu wanna know why I got involved in this nonsense? Because nutjobs kept insisting on pushing my button which is using language to misdescribe violence, making references to 1984 and Stalin and other nonsense. And then they went on to push my other button, which is using language to misdescribe… reality.
What really happened here? Compare that to the outrage running rampant among certain folks. You think ErosBacchus is describing reality when she argues that the reason she is here is solely to fight the fight of broken links? Or do you think a bit of “team versus truth” might be involved?
All I know is I can’t get anyone to give me a completely straight answer as to what BB really did to them, really, as in in reality, without invoking vaguities like “values” or some such spongelike concepts.
Antinous @1077
I’m a first time commenter (weighed in a couple times yesterday) who has read this blog for several years, daily. I’ve never been moved to comment on ‘matters of the gravest consequence’ because, well, I didn’t really have anything to add that didn’t seem obvious. I come to this blog because I generally appreciate and agree with the thrust of the editorial content.
The reason I was moved to comment on this issue is because it seems, and still does, that the boingboing crew are missing something very important. I saw a spot where I could be helpful (along with hundreds of other posters who may or may not regularly post comments).
You seem to be hell-bent on trivializing your audience’s reaction to this debacle. I guess that’s your job.
Like many others, I’d appreciate Cory’s take on all of this.
Also, those of you falling over themselves trying to paint VB as WORSE….are missing the point. Whether she lied, whether she brings unfair litigation against defenseless sex workers, whether she is ‘evil’, or a ‘pile of shit’….is really neither here nor there for me, and I suspect many others weighing in on the issue. The issue is all about boingboing’s actions, and there willful disregard of their readership’s concerns about transparency, fair play; and how, in the aftermath of the unpublishing, exasperated character smears, insinuation, and both active and passive aggressiveness have been the order of the day to try to ‘handle’ the crisis.
It’s been depressing to watch this unfold. BB has been one of my online homes for far too long not to care. This would matter a lot less to me if it happened elsewhere. I put boingboing in a rarified spot and expect better.
Antinous, you do a disservice dismissing first-time poster’s reactions.
The longer this drags on without resolution, the more trashed BB’s and VB’s reputations become.
Maybe this comment is going to be immediately discounted because I don’t leave a lot of comments, and maybe there are more than enough people speaking their minds in this thread already, but I am mildly upset by this action which contradicts what I thought were Boing Boing’s core values.
Greg @1079, for a simple example, I can no longer trust BB’s archives. Suppose I wanted to find the Top 10 Sex Memes from 2006 that VB wrote and Xeni posted–it’s gone. What else is missing? Should I even bother to look for things here, since they can go without warning or explanation?
Mdhatter, it’s true that if you have low expectations, you’ll never be disappointed. But I don’t think “lower your expectations–we’re business as usual!” should be boingboing’s new motto.
I’ll try to disengage from this debate now.
I don’t care at this point about VB or what ever she did/did not do. I love boingboing and as a directory of wonderful things I think it is totally permissible to change your mind about linking or posting to something.
I for one know that I’ve gone through and made posts private or friends only after thinking twice about it.
I applaud BB for letting us know they removed the content and also where to find it.
As for journalistic integrity this blog shows much more integrity than your average livejournal.
1091: I’ve shot my wad in trying to explain to you that your disrepect for the motives people bring to this discussion somehow invalidates their participation
Your “wad” consisted entirely of fighting broken links. That’s is. That’s the only claim you have in this thread. I”m not invalidating your position, because that’s the only position that you would claim for yourself. Everything else is wrapped up in passive voice stuff like “there are reasons for this shitstorm”. Well, I was asking you what YOUR reason was. If you’re just here because everyone else is, then you’re just partaking in a pileon. If you have some other reason that YOU are here, you haven’t stated.
The only other thing that you mentioned was Teresa saying your point was “nonsense” which seems to have made it personal for you. And you seem inconsolable on that, so, not much I can do other than try to get you see it from BB’s point of view, but since you’re not willing, I don’t know what else to tell you.
I gotta defend Antinous here – he’s pointing out that many of the most negative, most vitriolic statements in this thread have been made by first timers, and isn’t that interesting.
I didn’t read it as being the other way around. Truly, most of the angriest least productive comments are from people who have made no positive suggestions here, or other comments o other posts, and are acting like their eyeballs will be missed. I doubt they will be. I doubt most of them were readers in the first place.
tillwe@1089: @all: Is there a graceful way to say “you just don’t get it?”.
Yeah, tell me what harm BB did to you by deleting its posts about VB? That’d be a start. Put this into real terms, rather than having first timers posting with “fury” that no one “gets”.
If it was emotional harm, try to be specific.
If you can’t explain it directly, I’m not sure how you expect people to understand. Who did what to whom, when, and the damage/harm it caused YOU.
Will, again, I didn’t say lower your expectations.
I said manage them.
Please, words are used for a reason. If you will-fully substitute what I say for what you want to hear, then you’re not engaging with me – but instead with a strawman you put in front of me.
Please consider my advice and manage your expectations.
My expectations have been raised by this s-storm.
I just stopped in to say:
“Pizza’s ready … come and eat before it gets cold … dammit, put that keyboard away right now, you do NOT know where it’s been.”
Thanx, I feel better now.
@archaeopteryx: I don’t really give a damn what you want. You’re obviously a shill account, spewing anonymous vitriol from behind a pseudonym, and frankly, I don’t see anyone asking for your opinion. The “moderators” are too chicken-shit to defend their own policies in public, even when they have the luxury of secretly modifying those policies after-the-fact to suit their agendas. I’m sure this blog will continue after this, but its reputation, and the reputation of those who run it, have been forever tarnished by this debacle. Now howzaboot you take a timeout, and stop acting like TNH? This discussion doesn’t need any more prima donnas defending the scurrilous and dishonest actions of BB and its crew.
Gee. I walk away from the net for a few days to do some work outside in the big blue room, and come back to a big kerfluffle…. on boing boing? With conspiracy theories and all???
I’m heading back to the big blue room with my kids. We’re launching model rockets– more worthy of time and attention than worrying about who did what to who, causing what manner of hurt feelings, etc, etc, ad nauseam, und so weiter.
On second thought, my son wants to try and talk to people on the radio tonight. We’ll be on 10 and 20 meters, having a blast.
I sincerely hope all you take the opportunity to step away from the computers and do something fun and entertaining, personally rewarding, or the like— life’s too damn short to take this stuff seriously.
GregL said…
Speaking for myself, I have zero interest or concern about VB, internal BB politics and so forth.
What I care very much about is whether people (bloggers, politicians, individuals, companies, etc.) can espouse a certain philosophy or belief, and then stick to it when tempted by unforeseen circumstances.
If they can’t stick to their beliefs then they need to rethink them or their commitment to them.
Okay, everyone. Despite thinking we might be able to beat Metafilter’s own comment count on this subject, I don’t think we’re really moving forward anymore in this thread, so I’m going to lock it down. For the evening, at least, but perhaps for good. I can promise this won’t be the last we have to say on the matter, but as I said above, we’ve got to get everyone together and think this through and we’re just not built that way by default. Half of the editors are on vacation with their families, but they’re still checking in as they can.
I’m going to leave comments up on the rest of the site, but I’ll be removing any comments that are wildly off topic. Given the nature of the whole situation, you can be sure I’m not trying to stifle conversation, but after over a thousand posts I’m issuing you all an executive break. And us, too.
Thank you all for getting into the thick of it with us, even if it’s only been to criticize. This has been a crash course in whatever it is we’re doing here.
Update: Added a “the” and highlighted the top in bold to draw attention to it.
@GregLondon: “Yeah, tell me what harm BB did to you by deleting its posts about VB?”
Simple: I trust BoingBoing to be a trustworthy resource that fights for transparency and empowerment of internet users, and find them doing something I perceive as going against their own ethics, so this lowers my expectations and my trust into BoingBoing. That is something I don’t like, so it’s “emotional harm” — and I really don’t want to feel “cheated” (to big a word) by a blog I link to frequently because I have high opinions about it.
I’m not sure if this simple explanation (and I read many others as feeling a similar harm) is understandable if you don’t share the same assumptions about how social networks, blogs, trust, reputation and attention works.
Also, I’m going to try to shut down the comments but I hope it doesn’t accidentally remove them all. I only wish I were joking.
But if they blip I’ll bring them back.
Heh, I guess I may not know how to lock the thread.
will: for a simple example, I can no longer trust BB’s archives. Suppose I wanted to find the Top 10 Sex Memes from 2006 that VB wrote and Xeni posted
But you didn’t. Apparently no one did. It was a year, after all.
it’s gone. What else is missing? Should I even bother to look for things here, since they can go without warning or explanation?
OK. So, first of all, you realize that’s a slippery slope argument, right? If they delete these specific posts, the whole archive is forever tainted and suspect, is basically what you’re arguing. It doesn’t prove BB’s entire archive is tainted, but it argues it.
And what you’re arguing for is “trust”, and there’s no objective way that anyone can guarantee that they are trustworthy. So, if you’re looking for some rock solid proof that you’ll always be able to trust any site or any person, I don’t know what to tell you.
I think the one thing that is clear to me about this whole mess is that it doesn’t seem to be done out of malice, no harm was intended. Hindsight may say it could have been done better/differently, but at the time, I don’t think malice was the goal. I don’t think the goal was to increase advertising dollars, either. And I don’t think any harm was meant to VB. And I dont’ think this was intended to thwart the battle against dead links. And I don’t think this was intended to rewrite history, start a totalitarian 1984 state, or begin some Stalinistic revolution.
So, I think you can still trust BB to have the right intention. I do.
If you want to be able to trust them to execute it properly for all eternity, well, I can’t help you, and good luck on finding anyone who can.
Last post in an epic thread!
@Joel
This is the saddest part … it is obvious that you have learned nothing from the original mistake and our obvious (though possible misdirected)outrage.
Well I’m finally done. I came back once for the Canadian copyright nonsense, but I can get that info straight from Geist’s blog. I’m not making the same mistake twice.
I honestly think there would have been less controversy if BB has just flat out said what the deal was.
THN has created more drama with her antagonistic behavior than whatever the reason for this whole mess could have possibly generated.
All that was missing was accusations that some of the commenters that disagreed with her were suspected sockpuppets or corporate droogs sent to undermine the website, like I’ve seen way too many times in the past.
The best thing BB could do is “unpublish” her role from this website along with her Making Light assistants, and hire some professionals who can do the job properly; without the snark, insults and similar nonsense.
Cheers.
To quote Rodney Dangerfield; “That’s it. Show’s over. Now get the hell out.”
I’m sorry that’s what you’re taking away from my comment, GabrielM. I feel like I’ve learned quite a bit.
Also, it looks like comments are still open!
@ #1084 – How would you know what’s “normal” for BB if this is the first thread you’ve ever posted on? Are you claiming to be a lurker for years and this is your first post?
I didn’t want to post here yesterday when this all blew up, because it seems fairly clear that it’s all about something unpleasantly personal. It’s been bothering me all day, though, and some of the things said by mods and extreme BB enthusiasts in the comments thread in particular are really disquieting.
Antinous, among others (is GregLondon a mod or just a TruFan? He seems very personally invested in the whole thing), have expressed the opinion that those who don’t comment here regularly can’t possibly be familiar with BB or have a sense of the ethical values that the site has espoused in the past. Teresa has just descended to ad hominem dismissal of people making comments as “nonsense”, “stupid” and “blockheads” – it’s a form of rhetoric she uses distressingly often when someone disagrees with the status quo, and in threads other than this one. I don’t comment here often; the moderation policy and the choice of someone with such an abrasive tone as chief moderator it has, in particular, made me feel uncomfortable. That said, I’ve been reading daily for long enough (I’d estimate six years or so – you’ve published some links I’ve sent in on occasion too) that the comment section still feels extremely new to me. (I also notice that among the mods, Takuan seems pretty much absent from this thread; and that among the contributors, Cory has also been very quiet.)
All this – the general comments policy, the mistake (you can’t deny, given the number of people who have felt moved to post negatively here, that it *was* a mistake) that sparked this discussion off, the sense that those who don’t comment aren’t welcome – simply makes me feel more and more disengaged from a site that I used to read daily. It also feels disingenuous to represent BB as a simple personal blog; you’re the third most popular blog on the Internet, you attract some big-money advertising and you’re looked to as a good example of how to manage a certain kind of really important, *good*, liberal content. Readers do have a stake in BB outside the free milkshake analogy, given that (more) advertisers are (more) willing to pay you (more) if they see you have a large readership. (My own blog recently grew a Google PageRank point, and I’ve watched the queries from advertisers and revenues grow as a direct result.) Some people here have been very dismissive of the notion that breaking backward links is against the whole sense of a wonderful networked, searchable Internet world that readers here like to imagine we inhabit, but I find the breaking of those links to be a really uncomfortable precedent, especially here at BB. We all have a sense of what this site stands for.
I think it’s absolutely delightful that BB has fans who are dedicated enough to post such impassioned defences of policy to those who have disagreed with what happened over the Violet Blue thing. I wish I could feel the same, but my own engagement with the site has been dribbling away in recent months, especially given some of the moderation decisions I’ve watched being taken. The Violet Blue disaster and the generalised snippiness about the value of discourse with people who aren’t regular commenters just alienates me a bit more (the mods’ opinion and attitude here is, for me, intimately associated with the opinion of those who write the blog and with my understanding of the blog as a whole – I can’t possibly be the only person who feels that way). I feel a bit like someone who is arranging to gradually see less and less of a friend she used to get on with but doesn’t really want to see much any more; it’s a shame. What happened to whuffie?
tillwe@1106: this lowers my expectations and my trust into BoingBoing.
same thing I said to will shetterly. I see nothing that says this was done out of malice. Non one can report any damage OTHER THAN their sudden lack of trust in BoingBoing. I see no harm directed towards VB. I see no harm intended towards Eros’s battle against broken links. I see no harm intended towards making more advertising dollars. I see no intention towards making BB’s archives universally unreliable. I see no intention to institute a totalitarian state.
Oh, and Will? did you mention on this thread that you yourself had deleted entries on your own blog up until reading this blowout? Nice thing to commit the same crime and end up on jury duty.
I remember when the comment function was reinstated a while ago that there was reference to what happened “last time” there had been a comment function on boingboing, leading to hesitancy on the part of bb editors to have such a function… I think bb should go back to its commentless form. Commenting is entertaining, but I want boingboing to survive, and people are being ingrates, and I’d prefer a boingboing with no comments to a boingboing that dies because the internet public finally draws enough blood.
Boingboing was great without comments. It can be that again.
@Joel (#1108), Let’s just let the conversation continue and maybe some new insights and observations will emerge. Or the thread will implode and catapult us all into another dimension where Yetis reign supreme.
Seriosuly though, this is a lot to parse and we’re just trying to keep up. As I said earlier, the comments here have had a big impact on me and also how I think about Boing Boing and its place in the world. The voices we’ve been hearing, both critics and supporters, have raised a lot of questions that all of us at BB have to think about very seriously. I personally don’t have answers yet. But I promise that as soon as we make sense of this whole thing, we’ll share what we’ve learned. Thanks.
Hooray for that!
The “real lesson” that I was hoping the editors would come to was: Suppression is not an appropriate response to conflict.
is GregLondon a mod or just a TruFan? He seems very personally invested in the whole thing
Not a mod. sorry. I got in after the umpteenth post taking the deletion of some blog posts and comparing it to 1984, stalin, and other absurdities. My personal investment is a dislike for people using language to misdescribe violence. Normally, it’s people trying to play down the cost of war and such, but in this case the absurdities of file management being compared to stalin’s revolutions just got to be too much for me to let it pass.
And with that, it was down the rabbit hole chasing one handwave after another.
@GregLondon: As I said — I don’t think it is understandable if you don’t view a lowered trust as something harmful. (And to make this point clear: I do not say BB intended to harm anyone — they just did something with consequences they have to live with, and a somewhat bad handling of this consequences, further decreasing trust). I’m quite sure Apple, to take only that example, doesn’t want to be unhelpful, but has other good reasons for unpublishing critical comments about products. Intention and consequences are two things.
But maybe we should be good commenters and enforce Joels EOT voluntarily — at least those of us wanting to get some sleep on this side of the Earth.
@1119: Well, there’s suppression and then there’s knowing when to take a breath. And in fact, I’m going to take that breath whether the comments are open or not. :)
Oh, and the other important lesson:
You need to set up RSS for the comments … So that I don’t have to keep hitting refresh!
And – I would really love to see the analytics for the past few days!
@GregLondon – ah, I see. This sort of situation is what Godwin’s for. ;) (Oo – look. I seem to be engaging again.)
Gabe, babe, it’s 1120 posts in. We hit the Godwin and we hit the Ramblin ends. What more do you want to put in that hasn’t already been said? They didn’t say permanently, they said just for a bit. Gives everybody a chance to chill and read.
@Joel
Good idea. As David suggested, you might just want to step back and let this thread eat it’s own tail for a while.
Yeah for Yetis!
I’ll mentally buy you a beer.
cheers.
Greg, see #997.
unpublishing critical comments about products
There’s nothing that indicates that’s what happened around deleting the VB related posts.
We can debate whether some comment or another was trolling and deserving of deletion or a calmly expressed concern in the midst of a shitstorm, but that’s not what started the shitstorm.
And there’s nothing that anyone has pointed to that says BB deleted the VB related posts to pull one over on its readers or to make money by hiding bad posts.
We can talk about trust all you want, but in the end, you don’t trust because you dont’ trust. I trust because I trust. And there’s nothing objective that can completely justify either one.
So, all I can do is point to the bits I see that form my opinion, and say that you haven’t shown me reason to distrust BB the way you do. And unless you’ve got some new information I didn’t know, we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
lizzle@1024: This sort of situation is what Godwin’s for. ;)
If it were that easy, I would have shouted “Godwin!” back in March of 2003 and stopped the invasion of Iraq. Oh well…
Mark / Cory / Xeni / David,
I believe your moderators are doing you and this website a disservice, particularly Antinous, for being consistently hostile to commenters, even to the point of bringing up that there are many “first time commenters,” and therefore implied that their comments were less worthy of consideration.
I have been a very long time and regular reader of Boing Boing online, and bOINGbOING in print even before that.
I’m not going to speak on the whole situation that has caused this thread to begin with, but I do not feel your moderation staff has been successful in doing what moderators should: promote positive discussion, delete profane and needlessly inflammatory material, and be a good representative of Boing Boing on these discussion boards.
Insults and semantic quibbling is simply beneath what a moderator should strive for, and their behavior, most specifically that of Antinous, has resulted in polarizing the discussion and ultimately making you as an editorial staff look bad.
Your moderation team seems to be lumping all thoughtfully critical comments in with the trolls, and that further degrades the thread. I ask that someone with authority intervene and remind the moderators that it is unbecoming of their role to be party to a flame war.
will@401: This is going through the photos and taking out Trotsky.
will@997: I’ve deleted posts that seemed outdated in my blogs
May the world be far more forgiving of you than you’ve been here.
Middle Post!!!1!
Are things going quiet? It’s been fifteen minutes.
What am I going to do with the rest of my life?
@GregLondon – please see http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/010397.html#278385 – it’s the end result of one round of the “where’s the harm?” argument you’re putting forth.
I don’t know about all of you but when things get all tense I need to look at some ducklings in a bathtub.
Test post.
BoingBoing:
You guys have compounded your problem by allowing this to fester for two days rather than responding immediately on your front page to this ongoing controversy.
David and Joel have both displayed appropriate contrition and humility in their comments, but the moderators are widely perceived (including by me) as unfriendly and snarky. They have not helped to reassure the legions of faithful readers who feel BB screwed up and are awaiting a decisive response.
You won’t earn yourself any breathing room by responding individually in the comments. You need an official response in a new post. Until such a response is forthcoming, expect the ongoing erosion of goodwill you’ve built up over the years to continue to slowly erode.
This isn’t fatal to BB, and most of us assume your intentions were perfectly noble. But many of us feel you messed up big time and need to respond in an official capacity immediately.
This is the most hilarious comment thread ever. I started reading it last night when the comments were in the low 500s, then I came home from work tonight and was shocked to find over a thousand.
I am not sure why people feel so entitled around BB, as in, “we gots a right to hear the juicy dirt behind this story,” or “Teresa has no right to disparage ‘customers’. Everybody knows that the customer is always right.” Look, asshole. Just because you read a blog that is on the internets for free does not mean that you are a customer. Even if you have purchased a shirt or something, that does not give you carte blanche to run around like a ninny and try to show off the fact that you saw an old Richard Burton film and read the Cliff’s Notes for 1984 in high school. Crowbarring the word “Orwellian” into your shrill, angst-ridden posts does not make you sound smart. Sorry to burst your bubble.
I am also dismayed at how many commenters take special exception to Teresa. Male moderators also take flak, but it seems that too many of the posters just bristle and chafe at the thought of a woman daring to emasculate their precious, precious posts. Get over yourselves.
I cannot believe how many people couldn’t read between the lines and see what a pageview-whoring-coup this was for VB. Maybe you guys could try being a little more shrewd next time?
It looks like they are trying to give this thread an artificial death by bumping it off the front page, rather then a posts natural slow decline to the second page.
Forgive me if I am wrong about that.
Greg @1131, I’ll start by reminding you of your comment @1116: “Oh, and Will? did you mention on this thread that you yourself had deleted entries on your own blog up until reading this blowout? Nice thing to commit the same crime and end up on jury duty.”
First, I had posted it at #997. You really need to learn to read more carefully.
Second, you pulled “up until reading this blowout” from, well, wherever you pull things. I can’t remember when I last deleted a post; it certainly wasn’t yesterday.
Third, the posts that I deleted were minor, news that seemed to be irrelevant a day or two after I posted it.
Fourth, I didn’t delete any posts that had significant comments on them. My commenters’ online history should belong to them, not me.
Fifth, and most importantly, I don’t believe I deleted anything that could be seen as rewriting my history. There have been times when I wished I could delete my online history–I’ve made many mistakes in my time on the web–but I’ve never tried to hide the past. You can’t. If you try, things just look worse when you’re caught.
What’s with all the people asking “what happened? what happened?” Are people incapable of using Teh Google? I found the story in 5 seconds flat.
Hello, boingboing.
If you guys are deliberating about whether or not to resurrect the removed content, i’d like to note that in the past y’all have always been champions of the permalink-as-vehicle-for-integrity-of-the-internet-archive.
For example:
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/01/27/defining-a-perfect-b.html
Also minor content edits aren’t the same as page removal, and the wayback machine can’t be counted on as a definitive archive.
Good luck deciding what to do.
Travis08 (#1139), You are indeed wrong. We’ve kept the number of posts on the front page to 30 for at least a year as best I can remember.
Seriously. Strongsad.
1137 “peace” “love”
This is just the same gambit again. You are also being disingenuous.
You demand that they respond immediately on their front page, but this thread is in fact attached to their immediate response, and it was on their front page.
You demand that they respond, but they have responded.
When people are fighting and not dancing, they look for weaknesses and attack. Given that you are attacking, it is logical to deduce that what you demand is for the purpose of looking for further weakness.
There is a small, tight cadre of people left here who are fully invested, as you are, in the position that BB needs to be punished. Literally everything they say, do, don’t say, or don’t do, is an outrage.
Why then does it make sense for any Boinger to respond to your demands? What possible good could come of it?
Why, oh why, do you hate peace?
“He said;you said,no,but she said…This is gettin frikkin stupid.Go out see friends,family,loved ones have a meal,share. Get over this.dry your eyes.
This is not a(comment on a) directory of wonderful things,this is becoming boring,like walking into a party,late,just to find a bunch of bitter,prissy little,fucks arguing about shit no-one cares about.
Which is rather dull.
Get over it.
Most of the Planet doesn’t even care,got a few more important things to deal with…
I’m tempted to point at Joel’s & David’s exchange just above and snigger at the idea that the boingers are any kind of evil conspirators.
Instead, I’ll snigger at the idea that a group of free-thinkers can be expected to come up with a bullet-proof change of policy in only a couple of days, let alone the instantaneous response that some commenters here seem to expect. (Especially if half of the boingers are on holiday.) Heck, just keeping up with reading this thread is a full-time activity. I’d guess it will take at least a fortnight for them to thresh out a decision on what to do about the Violet Elizabeth Bott, sorry, Blue situation, and another fortnight to generalise the action into a policy document.
I’d like to stick my oar in and offer some unsolicited advice myself, but I’d think they’ve had enough of that.
I think that they should be punished. The only way we can reasonably settle this whole debate would be if Xeni Jarden finally reveals all for the camera.
Come on, Xeni! Show us your shame!
I think that dismissing users as less valuable because they’re first time commenters is a bad policy to take. I watch a lot of webcomics and only check the forums when there’s something really exciting happening in the comic; there’s almost always a long thread of people who registered purely because the comic had finally gotten them passionate and inspired enough to want to participate in the discussion. (This happened a couple of times on Questionable Content and Dominic Deegan– if you go in their forums during the QC suicide storyline and the Dominic Deegan homosexuality and rape storylines you’ll find a ton of people who say, excitedly, that they de-lurked and registered because they just had to say something about that comic.) If someone de-lurked to post a comment, it probably means the topic means a lot to them, not that they’re an inherently less valuable reader.
Also, I think the commenters here and the moderators are attacking each other for similarly misunderstood reasons. Commenters only see moderators when they do something “visible”– make posts when they’re still passionate and angry or delete/disemvowel their comments. Moderators notice the vitriol in comments far more than they notice the attempts to make peace for the same reason we all notice the one asshole driver we interact with every day and not the ones who don’t cut us off.
To throw in my opinion about the whole thing: I read Violet Blue on occasion. I learned about her through this site. I listened to the BoingBoingBoing interview with her a while ago and enjoyed it. I don’t know if she did something bad enough that I should avoid giving her money and/or traffic in the future. I feel like BoingBoing is withholding information that I could use to make informed decisions about consuming what she produces.
Boing Boing people
I suggest you put it to a vote: “should the unpublished content be reinstated or not”. It obviously matters a lot to your readership.
My vote is for reinstatement.
@NelsonC (#1148), You’re absolutely right. This is much to important to just whip out some random policy. We really want to think this through, individually and then as a group. Also, if you do have advice, please share. We’re all ears. Thanks.
Instead, I’ll snigger at the idea that a group of free-thinkers can be expected to come up with a bullet-proof change of policy in only a couple of days, let alone the instantaneous response that some commenters here seem to expect.
That’s cute, after they’ve constantly pointed out that they’ve had over a year to do it.
@878
Antinous, I really appreciate the humor you bring to this discussion. But in this case, you didn’t answer the question. Your post is a complete diversion.
@895
The posts are automatically renumbered. That’s clear also in the Untitled 1 thread.
Yet another long time reader, first time poster here. I’ve read BB for years, linked to its articles from the group blogs I belong to, and emailed more links than I can remember. But as is apparently the case with other commenters here, I have become increasingly troubled by the — well, I’ll just say it — churlish behavior of the mods.
If the site owners either aren’t up to the job of maintaining the comments or can’t find some more civilized, mature individuals than the current crew to handle it, I’d suggest going back to not having comments at all. TNH’s behavior, in particular, reflects very poorly on BB.
@1150 Nora, thanks for this comment. We’re learning things about how we’d handle this sort of a huge, fast-moving comment thread, too. I don’t think any of the mods here meant to disparage the value of first-time commenters, and that’s not how any of us feel.
@1151 Rodbod, maybe that’s a good idea, I don’t know.
Part of what’s at issue here is how we deal with the fact that sometimes people who create something may later want to alter or no longer continue to publish that thing.
For instance, a couple of BB commenters (indeed, one on this thread) have written in to demand, very passionately, that we delete their accounts, and scrub any record of them ever having commented on Boing Boing ever from our archives. In other words, “please unpublish me, those are my words, I no longer want to be associated with them, remove them.”
They have a point.
So might a blogger who wants to go back and change or take down something, for whatever reason.
So, with regard to the commenters who want to be unpublished — We’re not sure how to handle that, either. Technically, or procedurally, or what the right thing is to do. Do we come up with some way to flag what’s been altered in an explicit way? How much of that is helpful, from a user interface POV, and how much is just extraneous detail?
What do you think? Seriously, I’m asking. I don’t know. We don’t have a policy for it yet.
XJ
@#1152 Burnchao,
they’ve constantly pointed out that they’ve had over a year to do it.
That’s kind of unfair, and I think you’re kind of missing the point. The posts were unpublished about a year ago, but nobody noticed. People ping us all the time about old posts they’re interested in — links that have gone out of date, new additions to stories, corrections or clarifications — I don’t think I ever received one piece of email or one web submission about a single one of these posts, in all that time.
So, until this became a public kerfuffle this week, there really wasn’t an issue. We’re not a big corporate behemoth, we’re a relatively small crew of editors (what are we, like 7 including all the BB gadgets guys?) and a handful of business and tech folks, some of whom are part-time, managing a moving thing together.
It’s not the kind of organization that stamps policies in stone, then acts. Does that make sense? So, it’s not like we were sitting around on our butts for a year avoiding the urgent need to make a policy. When we realized we needed to do so, and share it publicly, and in fact take input from all of you in the construction of that policy — we did, and pretty fast, I think.
Oh, and PS, this is one huge fat goddamned thread, it takes forever to reload. — #1157
First!! Uh… oh…..
#1158th!!!!!
Shit, I mean #1160th!!
@1077
People may not feel the need to post on an article about torture or loss of civil liberties because they’re basically in agreement with the article. The article is reporting reprehensible actions or events, drawing attention to them, and calling them reprehensible. A lot of readers might say, “Oh dear.” Some of them might do something about it. But they’ve basically got nothing to add in terms of a comment. They’re in agreement with the article.
They might also realize that posting to BB in itself will probably do nothing to change the underlying event which prompted the article.
Some of those same people might post repeatedly here, not because they’re more upset about BB’s undeletion than they are about the tortured babies. But because they don’t agree with BB, and perhaps because in this case they’re directing their comments at the source of the disagreement.
Xeni@115 said: [i]So, with regard to the commenters who want to be unpublished — We’re not sure how to handle that, either. Technically, or procedurally, or what the right thing is to do. Do we come up with some way to flag what’s been altered in an explicit way? How much of that is helpful, from a user interface POV, and how much is just extraneous detail?[/i]
I think it’s a debatable point whether creators (and commenters) have the right to unpublish their earlier works/statements. Once something is released to the public, in some ways it belongs to the world.
That issue aside, removing comments does damage the thread of discussion. If it does (whether for moderation or because the commenter is deleting the comment), I think the comment number should be left in place with an indication that the comment was removed. That way, at least, people will realize that there has been a disruption… Also, I believe that the comments are re-numbered when one is removed (am I misremembering or has this been changed), which can cause all sorts of confusion… so leaving in a stub would solve that issue as well.
Haha, nice Xeni, glad to see you in good spirits.
@Travis08 (#1139), what Pesco said, above: there’s a fixed number of posts on the front page (30? 40? whatever it is, it’s fixed). I’ll “Feature” this thread, so it shows up in the “Featured Posts” section and stays easily accessible, obviously people still feel like there’s something to say here (said the person adding comment #1160whatever).
Also, if you do have advice, please share. We’re all ears.
It’s pretty simple and obvious. If you want to stop supporting someone, then just stop doing it.
If you are embarrassed about previous support you showed, the right thing to do is NOT unpublish it all and pretend it never happened.
BB already has a long-standing policy in place on how to handle published posts that you want to alter for clarification, correction, or to distance yourself from:
1) Strikethrough the appropriate part of the publication.
2) Publish an update on the same post (usually you seem to do it in red font)
2a)The update can, and has been, a disclaimer distancing yourself(ves).
I don’t know what the disclaimer should say, because I don’t know what happpened and what is really going between VB and BB. Some possible examples:
“due to a personal and private incident, bOINGbOING regrets this example of association with VB….”
“due to professional and business reasons, bOINGbOING no longer associates with VB….”
“due to legal reasons, bOINGbOING can no longer recommend following these links….”
“due to someone bringing their personal baggage to the workplace, now everyone employed at bOINGbOING is forced to pretend we’ve never published any content about VB”
Sorry, the last one is snarky, but the first three examples show the many ways you can distance yourself from VB without pretending there never was one. You guys can do it better since you know what happened.
And some general advice? Come clean about any other silent (un)publishing revisions. How long have you guys been publishing one thing, then altering it to appear as a completely different stance?
@Ethan #1162:
I think it’s a debatable point whether creators (and commenters) have the right to unpublish their earlier works/statements. Once something is released to the public, in some ways it belongs to the world.
Yeah, I know. That’s the question. It’s an interesting one, and we’re thinking about it out loud here. That isn’t corporate-speak or me being cute, it’s an honest statement. Clearly there are all sorts of reasonable factors that might cause anyone to edit or no longer publish material you’ve posted previously. What are the guidelines, how much do you (we) need to discuss and draw attention to when we do so, or are we never ever to remove or alter anything we publish ever?
removing comments does damage the thread of discussion.
Right, I can see this, also. But then, the commenters have no rights to the creative input they’ve authored, one might argue. What if a commenter (and this is an actual example we have on the plate right now) used their real name and is freaked out about all the traffic and googlejuice? Do you alter their name? Remove as requested? I don’t know.
gawddamnit! are u peeps quite insane?? 1165 comments? gotta be some kinda record. Teresa, man, there must be the smell of blood around you as the hyenas are circling. never seen a moderator get verbally pimp-slapped before. and, because i want everything to be better, Hollt: get a clue, morans! or, get a brain morans! or my fave: get a brian maroons! ho, hum.
For a while I had a thing for Erin Moran, but those were happier days.
@1165 Burnchao:
How long have you guys been publishing one thing, then altering it to appear as a completely different stance?
Well, never. C’mon, chill, you know that entire graf isn’t a fair or reasonable thing to say, though I understand why it might be an appealing thing to say in this thread, given the high sense of drama at the moment.
Everyone who said Teresa is not insulting the posters is invited to read #553, which my friends and I have titled, “in which Teresa announces that she is tired of her job as moderator.”
@#1156 Xeni
That’s kind of unfair, and I think you’re kind of missing the point… We’re not a big corporate behemoth, we’re a relatively small crew of editors (what are we, like 7 including all the BB gadgets guys?) and a handful of business and tech folks, some of whom are part-time, managing a moving thing together.
It’s not the kind of organization that stamps policies in stone, then acts. Does that make sense? So, it’s not like we were sitting around on our butts for a year avoiding the urgent need to make a policy.
That would make sense, but you yourself said “the posts were removed from public view while an evaluation of what to do took place“, which means 7 people spent the last year “evaluating what to do.” (If it gets unpublished, that quote came from #5)
#1171Burnchao,
which means 7 people spent the last year “evaluating what to do.”
No, it absolutely does not, though I can see how that might have been stated more clearly, and understand the confusion as I read your comment here.
Many of us have been dealing with trolls for 20 years now. Some of us never got good at it.
However, TNH is darned good at it.
I don’t believe the moderators have been out of line at all, but we would all do well to remember that third parties (especailly those who haven’t been dealing with trolls for 20 years) can easily believe you are referring to them when you’re trying to take some other fool down a notch.
As for particular users and their desire to be unpublished – do it for them, but maybe leave a link to the wayback machine so their foolishness can be fully appreciated by future tecnho-archaeologists.
@Xeni #1166
What if a commenter (and this is an actual example we have on the plate right now) used their real name and is freaked out about all the traffic and googlejuice? Do you alter their name? Remove as requested? I don’t know.
Presuming that the commenter is an adult, they ought to understand that they must take responsibilty for their actions, and they ought to have known that their comment was a public utterance; I can’t see any reason why you would be obligated to either anonymize or remove their comment. That said, if you have a reasonable assurance that the request is coming from the original commenter, I see no reason why you couldn’t remove the comment if you (meaning the admins as a group) see fit.
This is your prerogative, since BoingBoing is your website.
And of course anyone with the capacity to post comments to BoingBoing has the capacity to obtain their own public space, and administer it any way that they please; if they are sufficiently good at it, they too will eventually have a popular and high-traffic site (and perhaps even a comment thread this noisy and long ;)
Bill, posting under his real name, Owens.
@1161
unpublication/deletion/simple sql update query/whatever. The point at which BB figured (apparently erroneously) that it could pretend something never happened and no one would ever notice (in which case, seriously, why bother?) or see an apparent double standard (which has got to be wishful thinking of Hoover Dam proportions).
There is, incidentally, a reason some are clamoring for Cory to weigh in on this. Of course he isn’t required to, and of course he’s allowed to take his time considering any response he may wish to make. Rightly or wrongly, we see him as the soul of BoingBoing and the leading copy fighter. It’s the “apparent double standard” thing. How does he feel about it?
@#1169 Xeni
Well, never. C’mon, chill, you know that entire graf isn’t a fair or reasonable thing to say
Well, someone has been quitely altering the archives, the FAQ, and even some of you comments published in this thread. And apparently, it has been going on for at least a year.
But that not the main thing that prompted the question. I read elsewhere of other unpublishing incidents, about posts that have no mention of VB, and so presumably been unpublished for some other reason.
I don’t know how reliable these reports are, so I asked if there has been any other unpublishing going on. It seems believable and plausible considering that unpublishing has been going on, and that unpublsihing ain’t a new thing, but has been going on for at least a year. So it’s an entrenched belief/policy.
Xeni..just stop spinning…
The amusing stuff are posts like this where you posted a complaint about Google disappearing sex blogs from its index without notice or explanation. Violet Blue is one of a number of people mentioned there, and you really expect us to believe you had to unpublish the entire post just to stop “supporting” her? Seriously?
This used to be where we’d come to see Cory or you rip into the sort of corporate shills that would silently remove content that was about the evils of silently removing content.
There is one gripe about BB I’d like to get off my chest. I can’t seem to change my profile photo! Seriously! I put this dumb placeholder image from long ago UT clan days up when I signed up, and now I can’t replace it with my picture!
If I pretend that I’m angry enough about this, will my post seem on-topic?
Grrr!
This all seems like a bit of a tempest in a teapot. So BoingBoing “unpublished” some old posts. It’s their blog, it can edit its content however it likes. I personally think that the deletions run counter to the spirit of openness and transparency that characterizes BoingBoing and were a dumb decision on their part, but I don’t know the whole story. That’s a shame, but it does not violate any sort of mystical covenant with the readers.
Am I damaged or hurt in some way? No. It’s not even like any information was lost, since the Internet Archive still has the content. I, and I suspect most BoingBoing readers, will continue to regularly check the site because I enjoy the content it provides.
-longtime reader, first time commenter
On the “deleted comments” question, Antinous, are you playing word games with us? “The comment was not deleted/unpublished/scratched off the marble edifice of our site — it was simply never approved in the first place.”
I’m not trying to be as accusatory as that question makes it sound. I’d just like to point out that questions about deleted comments have arisen here several times and they have for the most part not been answered. They’ve been brushed aside. (There have been a couple of comments giving numbers of comments which were deleted, it’s true.) And while I was thinking about that it occurred to me there might be a difference in semantics between the posters claiming they’ve been deleted and Antinous’s answers.
(Under normal circumstances I might agree that it could be a good idea to brush aside a question of why a comment was deleted/never published, at least on the public forum itself. In the current context, I think it only adds to the feeling of hostility.)
Okay just to add to this huge mess. This seems to me similar to a situation that happened to me albeit much less public. I am a graduate student and my thesis advisor jacked me bad. I was on the final revision of my thesis and he basically told me that I just wasnt going to graduate and that my thesis sucked even though he had been reading drafts of it for like 5 months and should have told me, he always said it was coming along and was almost done …obviously we disagreed on what should happened next and I decided after some attempts to make it work to just change to a new program and let it go. So I moved from one sub-field to another but within the same department. I would always try to not really talk about what happened w/ others since they were in the same department and I felt it would have been really tacky to just attack them when being very very generous I could conclude it was a miscommunication. When I tried again to apply for my new degree they attacked me and I looked bad because I had never said anything even though I was just trying to keep them from looking awful and incompetent. I told a few professors what had happened that they had basically jacked me, but until that point I looked terrible because I was just trying to do the right thing. Sometimes when you try to protect the reputations of others you come off looking terrible. Thats my 2 dollars and 48 cents. I think the same thing is going on here…although I might be wrong…but being classy sometimes makes you look like a douchebag especially when the other side is taken advantage of your tack.
I’ve been watching this thread grow with a sort of morbid fascination. I mean, Holy cow! 1171 comments! We really are obligated to keep it going, just so someone can have the dubious honor of being 1337. ;)
It’s an interesting dilemma, this question of whether to “unpublish” or not. And I don’t envy y’all (VB included) for having to sort out this question in such an extremely public manner.
Right now, the way I see it is this: I have a few ex-girlfriends. Some of them I don’t talk to any more. Some of them I’d rather forget. But I never did throw out any of their pictures or letters. Why? Because they’re a part of what makes me who I am. I don’t necessarily go back and look at them much, but they are there.
Who knows – maybe I’ll change my mind tomorrow.
As I understand it, part of the reason for taking down the posts is because the links generate revenue for VB. Setting aside for the moment the ethical questions that brings about, perhaps one way to reinstill confidence in your blog and still show your disapproval for her actions would be to put back the posts, but disable any clickable links in them. (Sorry if I’m misunderstanding the issue, but I don’t think I can wade through the umpty billion comments and linked articles looking for that proverbial needle.)
Anyway, if nothing else, this controversy has definitely generated some interesting discussion on the ethics of blogging.
@1182. Get married. You’ll throw them out …
@#1172 Xeni
No, it absolutely does not, though I can see how that might have been stated more clearly, and understand the confusion as I read your comment here.
I’ll accept that. Now before conversation can continue, I guess I have to wait for you to alter #5 to look like it always read more clearly. Then I’ll get to point out that that’s the whole problem, altering previous statements to look like they’ve always been right.
(I apologize if that’s too aggressive, I hope the reasons for saying that way it is understood.)
#1181Ulor: yes, I believe the moral of your story is a true one.
#1175 oheso, Cory’s actively engaged in this, but he’s on vacation with his family, and mostly offline.
#1180 oheso, I’m still confused about the claims of “deleted” or un-approved comments, I’m not clear on the specifics of what you’re referring to. But I know the mods are doing their best to keep this unprecedented thread civil and adhere to the loose but good-spirited guidelines we follow, and I don’t doubt their good intentions and hard work here. I’ll let them reply as soon as they can (it’s late at night where some of them are, please be patient).
#1179 locolobo729 and other first-time commenters, thank you for weighing in.
@#1176 Burnchao:
I read elsewhere of other unpublishing incidents…
So it’s an entrenched belief/policy.
Well, no, and you might do well to consider the source/s.
There is no secret sinister plot to whitewash large batches of our archives, nuke unfavorable reader comments, or sneakily tweak our policies or FAQs.
As you can see from the extremely large number of comments in this thread, a number of which are critical of one thing or another, we’re not afraid of open dialogue.
I’ll try to stay engaged in this thread a while.
“Unpublished” – what delicious doublespeak.
A little bit of the “do as I say, not as I do” hits Boing Boing.
@Burnchao, if your intent here is to have a reasonable, civilized conversation, I’m very happy to engage. If your intent is to insult or be snarky for the sake of pixels, I don’t think that is a good use of your time, or mine.
@1181
but being classy sometimes makes you look like a douchebag especially when the other side is taken advantage of your tack.
That. Is. A. Pearl.
As far as ideas needed to move forward from this imbroglio, consider it for simplicity sake a printed newspaper, rather than a blog. Once its posted, warts and all, it stays for posterity. Identify and annotate edits and corrections for transparency. Basically follow the best practices in online reporting, and follow them.
Having control over both the content and the CMS gives you a significant amount of control, and temptation. Maybe once an item is published, only another BBer can make edits, so there is at least one other hand in the pie?
Good luck, Im sure you will figure this out. Giddy up!
Xeni: with respect to people who ask that their comments be removed from the site: 1) I know it’s corporate, but who owns them? (Yeah, I’m a new commenter) How do they license them, and to whom? Do they have a leg to stand on if they want to revoke that license?
2) The approach at MeFi seems most reasonable: if there is a legitimate reason (danger to someone’s reputation or livelihood, for instance), remove the appropriate comments/details (you could anonymize if , say, someone just don’t want their name associated with a certain comment). In the cases where people want their contribution memory-holed, try to reason with them to keep the content, but if they’re threatenin legal action, bow (not worth your time, even if you did nothing wrong).
@#1186 cprincipe, we’ve already explained in this thread a few times I think, but maybe you missed it, it’s a long thread.
unpublish is the precise term (on Movable Type, anyway) for removing a post from public view and traffic, without destroying its record in our internal archives. unpublish means one thing on MT, delete means another.
@1185
Xeni, thanks for your response. I’m looking @840 and @874 and @877. I see you’ve already responded to Hiram in good faith. Antinous’s response was not what I’d have liked to see in that circumstance. Not that I’m anybody, but Hiram’s question seems reasonable to me and is couched in reasonable terms.
can i haz 1200? i like turtles!
Glad to see real boingers (yeay xeni!) on this thread rather than snarky proxys (boo teresa!)
did she really steal the lindbergh baby… what’s the scoop?
really, my head hurts, where is the unicorn chaser – and it better be good
#1189Yannish: That’s the thing, though. It’s not a newspaper, and never will be. BB is evolving into something bigger than it began, but there’s no blueprint for exactly how to manage those questions, so we’re figuring them out.
@#1190 hpr122i, with this question about commenters who want to be unpublished/deleted/scrubbed from our servers, our approach has been — as it is with every new thing like that — not “what would lawyers do,” but “how can we not be douchey here.”
I think we’re leaning toward a policy like MeFi’s.
#1185 Xeni
Well, no, and you might do well to consider the source/s.
Um, it sounds like you think it’s VB. I don’t even know the name of her site. It was probably at either making light or metafilter (I’m not a member/participant at either of those sites, I’ve just been following those places the most, regarding this action)
As you can see from the extremely large number of comments in this thread, a number of which are critical of one thing or another, we’re not afraid of open dialogue.
This open dialogue only happened after you* got caught. There hasn’t been any open dialogue about these actions for more than a year after the fact. I am sure that we wouldn’t be having this dialogue if your hand wasn’t forced.
* you being BB in general, not you, Xeni, in specific. I don’t know whose policy it was, or who performed it.
I’ll try to stay engaged in this thread a while.
That’s good to hear. You, David, and Joel have done a much better job at keeping it civil than your paid mods have.
Oheso @1170: You mean “Some of these comments are stupid” and “If you think… you’re a blockhead”. The first is a simple statement of fact that carefully avoids naming names. If you’re insulted by that, then you should add another resistor to your outrage meter. As to the Charlie Brownism, it’s hardly an occasion for anyone’s seconds to meet Teresa’s seconds.
Maybe it’s my unsheltered upbringing and uncouth manners, but I’m not seeing much cause for outrage there. Surely you have more reason than that for seeking Teresa’s dismissal?
@#1194 priyanga, please don’t trash Teresa or the other mods. As far as I’m concerned, they’re 100% real Boingers too. They have a job I would not want, and would suck at after a few days anyway, I’d lose my patience. Please try to understand.
@Burnchao, I don’t know what “disappeared comments” you’re referring to, I just know that I’ve seen some complaints of this kind by commenters who knowingly violated our stated moderation policies by posting off-topic stuff in unrelated threads, knowing the comments would be nuked, but being jerks about it. So, consider the source. I don’t even know exactly what you’re referring to, I’m just saying it doesn’t add up.
you* got caught
The posts were down for more than a year, nobody cared, one person started a shitstorm over it, this isn’t a “gotcha” moment but it’s something that makes sense to think about collectively now that it’s become such a huge frakkin’ deal.
@Burnchao, if your intent here is to have a reasonable, civilized conversation, I’m very happy to engage. If your intent is to insult or be snarky for the sake of pixels, I don’t think that is a good use of your time, or mine.
I did apologize if I was sounding to aggressive, and I’ll do it again. I’m sorry if I’m starting to come off as snarky for the sake of pixels. I couldn’t think of a better way to convey an important point, and I should’ve waited until I did find a better way.
I do recognize that you and some other principal Boingers have been trying to bring the level of discourse down from the antagonizing level that your mods brought it to, and I appreciate that someone is finally starting to have an open dialogue with us.
So again, I’m sorry. I’ll try to sound less snarky.
The question is not what BoingBoing may do, but what it ought to do.
Obviously, this is a private site and the editors are at liberty to delete whatever they want, whether it’s all the vowels on the site, every second post, or all content written by Scorpios.
That said, BoingBoing’s autonomy shouldn’t immunize its decision-makers from the questions and criticisms of its readership.
If BoingBoing does something rash or stupid, readers who care about the site ought to voice their concerns.
My friends are adults, and I can’t order them to do anything. That said, being a good friend sometimes requires me to give my honest opinion, even if it’s not what my friend wanted to hear. Doesn’t mean they have to listen, but I hope they will take the advice in the spirit it’s offered. Ideally, readers and bloggers are like friends or colleagues. Constructive criticism isn’t a sequence of orders or complaints from the top-down or bottom up, it’s a conversation between people who respect each other.
Here’s what bothered me about the way BB handled the Violet Blue situation: i) Deleting posts without warning or explanation; ii) Implying that Violet did something wrong without explaining what it was. If BB doesn’t want to air grievances in public, that’s fine. However, if that’s their position, they should refrain from implying wrongdoing on Violet’s part as well. BB has said that it didn’t want to be associated with Violet because of something she did, but it didn’t explain to readers whether that misdeed had anything to do with the quality of the work she’d done for BB in the past.
If BB believes that Violet’s posts were plagiarized or fabricated, or otherwise not up to BB’s standards, it’s only fair to tell readers so that we can discount that information accordingly. If BB has no problem with these posts, qua posts, then why have they been taken down? BB said that they don’t want to “lend credibility” to Violet, but if she gave them otherwise good material, why are they depriving themselves of whatever credibility she lent to the site by contributing BB-quality work?
Boingboing doesn’t have to listen and it doesn’t have to publish these comments. So, thanks, guys, for hearing us out and hosting this public discussion. I predict that a lot of good will come out of this forum.
@Burnchao, I appreciate that, but please also try to have a little empathy for the difficult job of Teresa, Antinuous, and the other BB moderators here who have the unlovable job of being cops/traffic guides/insert your analogy here, but it doesn’t always involve hugging and kittens. Nobody likes the cop. They’re people too, not just nyms, and everyone here cares a lot about Boing Boing or we wouldn’t be at 1200 comments in this daggoned thread.
Mostly what I’m still kind of baffled by was the notion that we’re censoring someone else’s voice, or flipflopping on our ethics. I made a choice to remove a small amount of my own work from public view a year ago, and nobody cared. Yes, we understand that BB 2008 isn’t the same thing as the personal blog that launched in 2000, and we’re thinking all of this through, to see what can be learned. But nobody likes to be bullied, and we want to take time to think about what’s best for this thing we love so much, and for readers we respect, and those we have yet to meet.
I have only been reading boing boing for a short while and I must say I enjoy the somewhat slapdash and yet sometimes erudite nature of the subjects reflected upon in the various posts. That said I have at no time confused boing boing for a news outlet! I go to a news outlet when I want to get updates on Darfur, the latest Obama update, the progress of bills through Congress, etc. boing boing, the way I have read it thus far, is more along the lines of a diversion…a well read, well informed diversion, but i certainly wouldn’t put the weight on it that I would say pbs.org or an outlet of that ilk. So, to all of you so flamed about this whole Violet Blue deal…am I missing the whole point of boing boing or are you?
Xeni, thanks for bringing up the question about what to do when people want to delete their profiles and/or specific comments. Folks, we’ve been trying to figure out the right thing to do with regard to that long before this situation. I appreciate any good suggestions or pointers to best practices in that regard. In fact, I think we might want to raise that in a separate thread later on too.
Xeni #1198, serious question: How does one person start a shitstorm?
To put it another way, how can you hold any one person responsible for the passions of thousands?
A shitstorm by definition consists of a great many unhappy people. One person cannot start that — unless they are the person who made all those people unhappy.
And nobody cared a year ago because nobody knew. That, indeed, goes to the heart of what BB is being criticized about, and it’s disturbing that you still don’t seem to get that part. Deleting stuff from your archives? Meh, I wish you wouldn’t, I think it’s bad for the internet and I have you guys in my “good for the internet” mental categories. Moving you would be a pain. But deleting stuff from your archives and hoping nobody will notice? Then using how long it took us to notice as a justification for doing it in the first place? Now we’re getting into shitstorm territory.
People did care as soon as they found out. As for me, I cared from the first day I learned about it, after confirming by checking the broken links in my own archives and watching with astonishment as they 404’d on me. I never thought I’d see a 404 at Boing Boing, or if I did, I thought it would be a technical glitch resulting from CMS technology changes over time.
I don’t see how you’re going to find a way forward through this shitstorm while you continue to blame somebody else for it.
#743 posted by Takuan , July 1, 2008 10:50 PM
sometimes people in my life do things I think are foolish or even stupid. If I love them anyway, I don’t really notice.
Hide your skirt, your double standard is showing.
@1200 (!!!!!) Lindsay Beyerstein: Thank you for the thoughtful spirit behind your comment, but I have to point out that your arguments are predicated on the misunderstanding that this person “did work for” Boing Boing, was an editor or author for Boing Boing. This is not correct. The posts that were removed were posted by me, at the time (about a year ago) I considered them representative of my voice and my work and my person, and felt it was within my right to do what I wanted with them. I do hear and understand all that has been said here about BB being a bigger thing than a personal blog, and I get that. I’m just trying to explain the initial context, and point out a frequently-repeated misunderstanding about the nature of what was unpublished.
@1197
Nelson, thanks for the dialog. First, I wouldn’t consider Teresa’s language “fightin’ words” … if they weren’t coming from a moderator. My impression on reading #553 was that while she may have been attempting to moderate (i.e., lessen the intensity of) the discussion, her tone was (as others have said it) pouring gasoline on the fire.
As to seeking her dismissal, I’m not. I understand how you might have inferred that from my comments, but it’s not what I said.
I can appreciate it was a very bad day at the office for Teresa.
Wowzers. 1200 yet? I have to admit, as a blog of self declared wonderful things, this thread certainly belongs. Sure, some folks are being berserkers, but more than half (gods, i hope) of the posts are genuine and passionate. I feel as though we’ve all been attending a town hall meeting for the past couple of days…and while we may be moving in circles from time to time, some of us (myself included) are having a blast discussing this with even-headed individuals. Thanks to Joel, David and Xeni for participating – without your participation this thread would mean one hell of a lot less. Personally i’m still unsure of what i think of the whole thing, but damned if i don’t find it interesting to hear others weigh in.
As an afterthought, i’ve still got that ice cream for everyone that i mentioned earlier. Mint chocolate chip or cookie dough, take your pick.
@#1198 Xeni
@Burnchao, I don’t know what “disappeared comments” you’re referring to
Um, I haven’t been talking about “disappeared comments”. I’ve been talking about (asking about, actually) posts, published to the BB homepage, by you, Cory, David, Mark, et al. Posts that don’t mention VB, but gets unpublished for other reasons.
How much else of BB has been silently unpublished? Has there been other unpublishing? What was unpublished? I don’t know how to be clearer. I’m not asking about comments from readers, I’m asking about posts from editors. Has anything else been unpublished?
I for one hope they don’t operate their blog with rules suggested by 1193 or so comments. Boingboing is a blog about the latest wonderful things, it’s not wikipedia. Web content is ephemeral. Is anyone still wincing at 2 girls 1 cup or LOLing at LOLcats? If you really wanted to find it you’d go to Google not BB.
What’s at issue seems to be the surprise upon realizing that BB isn’t the CMS of the web. It shouldn’t be. People momentarily fell for the censorship/transparency hype incited by drama mongering. Once more people realized they’d been ‘had’, the topic switched to moderator bashing. All mobs demand a sacrifice. Someone must be made a scapegoat even if in this case it’s really not warranted and the editors have been incredibly humbly responsive. Hopefully reason, detachment, and common sense will descend upon the angry mob and we all put down our pitchforks and spare the hunchback another day.
As a regular reader of Boingboing, I trust the judgement of the editors. Just because their motivations are private, if they feel the need to withdraw support from someone, then so be it. Boingboing is not the PR service of other bloggers and in fact if they have information that results in them withdrawing support from someone, then they should stay true to that opinion. Unpublishing is a more honest, transparent, and legitimate act than leaving things as is. If a store starts selling you shoddy goods you communicate your disapproval by no longer patronizing that store. Discretion was not to hide but to avoid embarassing someone. Who knew that public blog war was exactly what they wanted!
It’s like back when you were in the closet your room looked like a frat boy’s locker room and now that you’re out you have to tear the chick posters off the walls, burn all the Meatloaf and whip out the Barbra Streisand. Let them!
Does Boing-Boing’s decision to “unpublish” VB posts mean that some action of hers was more objectionable — more contra-Boing-Boing — than the vile behavior of the Walt Disney Corporation?
Or will the myriad Disney posts be “unpublished” as well?
Or is Disney too big to try to control and/or punish in this manner?
Just curious.
— SCAM
1199 Burnchao
I have to take exception with your characterization of what happened:”I do recognize that you and some other principal Boingers have been trying to bring the level of discourse down from the antagonizing level that your mods brought it to, and I appreciate that someone is finally starting to have an open dialogue with us.”
I’ve read the entire thread, and participated in much of it. The moderators did not bring the level of discourse to the level that it reached. It was there already, and it was going where it was going, and it took some time to burn out. Reread the whole thread if you don’t believe me.
So many bytes devoted to this issue and no end in sight. I never thought I’d look back fondly on the squabbles over Little Brother book signings.
C’mon, Cory! post the bestseller rankings or something. Anything to yank us out of this terminal rut.
@Xeni
Maybe I’m misunderstanding how the Violet Blue material ended up on BoingBoing.
Were the posts under a VB byline, or under your byline?
If the deleted posts were your bylines about her, then I don’t see a problem. I figure bloggers have the right to delete their own material–unless there’s some overarching institutional policy, or stated individual commitment, to maintaining a more comprehensive record.
The only other posts that I personally know of that have been unpublished have been dupes, like when I post about something that, say, Mark blogged about two years (or two days) previously and I forgot about. I can’t think of any others at all.
@p00pyhead I wish Movable Type allowed us to stick kittens next to comments we felt a fondness and enthusiastic agreement toward. I would give you a lot of kittens.
@Lindsay Beyerstein, they were under my byline, some of them were about her work, others were not but included a reference and a link as thanks for a tip.
@everyone, +1 to what Pesco said about the nature of other deleted or unpublished items. We’ve made many errors, addressed them publicly, and left posts intact; we’ve changed our mind about things, and left those posts intact, too.
Part of the issue here, as we’re realizing, involves the power of a link — which, if a blog has large enough footprint, can involve money.
Xeni,
Can you comment on how BB, or at least you, feel about the trademark litigation against the porn actress now known as “Noname Jane?”
Thanks!
Xeni: “I considered them representative of my voice and my work and my person.” (1206)
So could you say that, at the time you decided to unpublish those post, made by Xeni0 at a certain time, were not reprentative of Xeni1 a couple of months/years later?
I may be wrong, but I think many people would have cut you a lot of slack if you had replaced them by somthing like “The post you are trying to access has been removed. For personal reasons, I no longer consider them representative of my voice, my work and my person — XJ.”
At least I would have.
But then yeah, the jackasses at ValleyWag would have gone “OMG Xeni Violet OMG”. But we already knew we can’t have nice things.
Is anyone still wincing at 2 girls 1 cup or LOLing at LOLcats? If you really wanted to find it you’d go to Google not BB.
On the contrary I remember specific BB posts and try to look them up again when I think the subject matter should be passed along. In other words it fucks me up when stuff winds up missing as has happened. Obviously they’re not here to cater to my needs specifically and if they did it would be a more boring place, but the understanding of what this place means to the non-proprietors is a little off.
All newspapers, for instance, are private concerns and you can count on an uproar if they suddenly decide to purge their archives of mentions of X guy, regardless of whether or not it’s within their rights to do so. The pretense that blogging is somehow more ephemeral than news is rendered false by the number of people who archive stuff or link to stuff from years ago.
I don’t care much about the subject matter here, but the policy debate is interesting. Nice to see the bosses mixing it up.
#1201 Xeni
I made a choice to remove a small amount of my own work from public view a year ago, and nobody cared.
This is the first direct confirmation (I’ve seen)of who did what. This does help us have a dialogue without thick language, so thanks.
Nobody cared because nobody knew. Nobody knew because there wasn’t an open dialogue about it.
I understand that maybe you didn’t have the open dialogue about it because you don’t want to air dirty laundry. I suspect everyone understands and accepts that. I know that I don’t want to know why (although it probably is important to know if happened because of personal, profession, or legal reasons).
If you want to stop supporting someone, that doesn’t involve dipping back in time to make it look like you never did. There’s plenty of authors (though I can’t think of a single name of one right now) who’ve ended up regretting some belief they’ve published. Some respond by publishing new material counter to the old belief, some respond by doing nothing. I’m sure there’s other kinds of appropriate responses that I can’t think of right away.
But unpublishing your work in away that makes it look like you never did {have belief X} when you did {have belief X} is dishonest.
A very good example: Suppose one day Cory outgrows his Mickey Mouse crush (I’m saying that in a light-hearted jestful way, not in a mean, snarky way (my wife has the same crush)). If he just stopped posting about Disney, no one would complain (except my wife). If he updated his old posts with a disclaimer like “Update: I’m so ashamed that I used to make all these posts about MM. It’s embarrassing”, everyone would understand, and agree (except my wife). But he unpublished every Mickey post, we’d be pissed off that he’s trying to present himself as someone who never was that into Mickey, even though no one gives a damn about Mickey (except my wife).
please also try to have a little empathy for the difficult job of Teresa, Antinuous, and the other BB moderators here who have the unlovable job of being cops/traffic guides/insert your analogy here, but it doesn’t always involve hugging and kittens. Nobody likes the cop. They’re people too, not just nyms,…
Their unlovable job is being a Customer Service Rep. I’m one too. I have to handle angry people, some of whom have lost thousands of dollars for sucky reasons. Yet I manage to talk with them without any name-calling, ever. And I’m sure your mods are paid better than I.
Hi Xeni,
As far as best practise on removal requests, I think Linus Torvalds has the right approach. If someone requests that their contribution to the Linux kernel be removed, then that’s what happens, even if it breaks things. So I think that granting people’s requests to be removed completely to the best of your technical ability is the right thing to do.
One small suggestion: Teresa already has “Moderator” in her nickname. But her helpers do not (and they might not always have their “moderator hat” on). It may be useful to add some kind of marker next to their comments so that people can know who they are. I was confused earlier in the thread because I thought someone with a position close to Antinous’s in the debate was a mod, which he or she wasn’t. For a moment there I thought there were two mods having a metatalk-style flameout (but my perception was wrong, fortunately.)
> I know the mods are doing their best to keep this unprecedented thread civil
Really? You’re serious? They’ve been openly rude and inflammatory. They’ve made things worse. They’ve insulted posters.
I guess you may well consider this “doing their best” but, wouldn’t that mean you have a low opinion of them?
The salient point in all the criticism of Boing Boing’s actions regarding this subject seems to be that BB doesn’t own, manage, edit, etc. their own blog, especially after any sort of content has been posted for all the world to see – it is now set in amber, for anyone to examine at their leisure at no cost and no responsibility to the readers, and any changes, unless approved by said readers is a no-no and betrayal of trust, regardless if it was possibly done in even an altruistic manner. Yeah, I get the whole broken linky thingie, but there are always exceptions to any rule.
I see that the misconception that parts of BB being a set, immutable experience is implicit in that argument, and it is wrong – blogs are a bit like living things, and on occasion one must scratch a few annoyances out; there’s no rule that bloggers must suffer fools and fleas, and it’s their right to correct things even if they do so well after the fact. At present, we have no way of judging right or wrong on this one.
There are no public “rights” to any links and comments here, it’s the BB’ers blog, it’s certainly not anyone else’s, and they have the right to do as they see fit. You are certainly entitled to an opinion and it’s nice they allow us to express that, but once again, it’s their blog. They have no responsibility to keep anything they feel has been compromised as part of their blog history, and I don’t think they should, either. We have no real info on why this happened a year ago, so criticizing without the facts is unwarranted and a waste of bandwidth. They have stated it was a consensus private and obviously personal decision, and they owe none of us an explanation.
Yes, they have a general policy of transparency, which they seem to adhere to quite closely most of time, but it is their blog, and they can do as they want – if you feel this subject is a betrayal of trust, then so be it, but you are basing your judgment on incomplete facts. They’re asking you to trust them, and maybe that’s too much for some, but I’ve been trusting their judgment for while now, just in visiting their site, and as of yet I see no violations of it. Personally, I don’t care if I ever find out, as it seems the argy-bargy on this one is an artificially induced situation by outside elements.
mmmmm, yawn, smack-smack. ? Did I miss something?
@hpr122i:
It may be useful to add some kind of marker next to their comments so that people can know who they are.
Totally, I think we’re already in the process of modifying things so that this is the case. you’re absolutely right.
Oh, also regarding my comment #1215, I vaguely remember deleting a quick post about something when I was unaware that another one of us was working on a longer or more informed post on the same subject. So I might have taken down my post as a courtesy and to “make way” for the more thorough post. I can’t think of any specific instances of that but it did pop into my mind just now.
#1219 Righteous Bubba
Regarding wanting to pass old stuff along that’s missing. But that’s why you have Google! I see BB as a reflection of the zeitgeist of the web on any given time and if someone is no longer cool, BB reflecting that is also valuable information in itself. I can see maybe still linking to something that’s a week or maybe even month old but definately not something from a year ago, That’s downright pre-cambrian in web years!
I see that the misconception that parts of BB being a set, immutable experience is implicit in that argument
They are certainly a set and immutable part of my experience; one of the hobby-horses here is the ownership of culture, that your memories are someone’s toys they can pick up and go home with. Is this not culture?
Crap, I’m actually addicted to this thread. I’m sitting here hitting “refresh” instead of trying to sleep because I have to be out of bed in less than 7 hours.
Damn, people.
And now I just added to it. Feel free to delete this. Sorry to clutter. I’m just… damn. Too many posts. I got hooked.
#1220 Burnchao
Hmm, I also don’t agree with your characterization of blog moderator as customer service rep. Perhaps variations in this perception is what causes different reactions to moderators talking back (as someone mentioned earlier).
I can see maybe still linking to something that’s a week or maybe even month old but definately not something from a year ago, That’s downright pre-cambrian in web years!
Speaking as a pre-Cambrian, this is simply the way we creaky bastards do things; in another of the running themes of the site, it turns out the fancy tools we think are for one purpose are being used perfectly well by others for a different purpose.
I hope moderators get an avatar of a cute fluffy rabbit and a LOLcaption that says “Just look at the bones!”
Repost the stuff, but make all the links point to this thread.
Bwahahah.
If Xeni, or David or any of the BoingBoing crew are actually going to come here and read and reply to posts, I think that’s great.
Please reply to this one.
1) A lot of people are simply REALLY SHOCKED you did this.
2) A lot of people think it’s REALLY HYPOCRITICAL for you to do this.
3) A lot of people think you’re suffering a COMPLETE DISASTER in terms of your public image and credibility.
4) A lot of people think that your actions since this got noticed have made the original PR disaster MUCH WORSE.
Please comment.
Repost the stuff, but make all the links point to this thread.
Heh. Needs more dildo.
obviously nothing. I’m going back into the water.
Later.
please, somebody tell me how i can blame this thread on either bush or cheney. or both. xeni, u rock! you have eggs of steele to come on this shitstorm and be gentle honest and patient. definately changed the tone of this uncleen thread! takuan, oh High costello, you missed the moderator smack-down, balls out,fisticuff, down-and-dirty-in-the-mud! teresa was actually taken off in a black ‘copter for ‘retraining’. not really, but almost 1240 comments! holy shit! err, i mean OW shit!
@1224 Vanwall
I’m sure you could point to extreme examples that support your reading of the central issue, but to summarize “the salient point in all the criticism of Boing Boing’s actions regarding this subject” as “BB doesn’t own, manage, edit, etc. their own blog” strikes me as a severe misprision of the case at hand.
The general question I see being asked is whether it is preferable and in accord with BoingBoing’s own apparent ideological stance for a media outlet to “edit reality” in typical PR hack mode–i.e. stealth edits and silent unpublishing of meaningful things people thought they remembered reading–or else to leave a trail of thoughtful annotations so that no one needs resort to screenshots or independent archives to track how the content has been manipulated.
BoingBoing staff can obviously edit the content any way they like. Their audience is mostly just asking that they be good editors–not corporate publisher type editors with a sense for PR and a facility for making prose more readable, but more like good academic critical edition editors who leave the strikeouts visible and footnote textual variations.
We thought BoingBoing was already doing that to a reasonable degree. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen red strikeouts on the main page as a story breaks and requires some retractions. Updates marked as such are common. But stealth unpublishing is definitely a step in the opposite direction.
Content owners have every legal right to go that way if they like. Yet I have rarely seen BoingBoing shy away from telling content owners what they *should* do.
haven’t commented on much of anything for a while, mostly because of a faulty keyboard, but i wanted to say, in hopes of adding another reasonable voice to the discussion, that when i first heard about this, my only real reaction was wonder over what the BB side of the story was. Literally a day later, BB came in with a post, which was good enough for me. I’m not a massive fan of people airing their dirt laundry in public, so i dont particularly care why VB was unpublished. Perhaps if the number of posts was as large as some sources suggest, it could have been mentioned at the time, but as it is, BB must have such a huge archive that posts are taken out for whatever reason, from time to time, and its just the name of the game. I think it lends BB a lot of credibility that the BBers are not only involved in the comments in this post, but willing to argue and listen.
I suppose the interest some people are taking in this demonstrates how in some cases people are not as apathetic as they appear, and when there are effective channels for expressing dissent, they are exercised to the point of excess. Now if all these people were equally willing to put an effort into stopping what tends to be called corporate censorship we will all possibly be in better shape. Just because it wouldn’t be one of my comments without a bit of marxist analysis thrown in.
#1239 Tarasbulbasaur
Given all we know about BB from reading their writing, isn’t it just possible that what they did in this case was because of some extraordinary circumstance? Isn’t it possible that there is some circumstance where doing it all openly might make a situation worse? Isn’t it possible to give them the benefit of the doubt? (that’s rhetorical, because clearly a lot of us did).
I had to fire an employee once for cause. For a full year afterwards, his regular customers demanded an explanation from me. They really liked him, and didn’t see why I didn’t bring him back. But it would have been highly inappropriate for me to air the company’s grievances with him before our customers. I never even told them he was fired. I simply told them he didn’t work there anymore, and he would not be coming back.
So I know from experience that there are real-world situations where laying it all out is not appropriate at all, as unsatisfying as that may be to people who feel they deserve an explanation.
And if this were an analogous sort of situation, can you not imagine that it might be really really hard, if not impossible, to craft a public statement, or a redirect page, or anything, that would make EVERYONE who came across it go, “Oh, OK,” rather than, “Tell me more!”?
Maybe just maybe this is a special case where conflicting values could not be reconciled, and a difficult choice had to be made. Isn’t that possible?
#1239 Tarasbulbasaur –
Your are proving my point – you are positing that many readers, among them yourself perhaps, want BB to follow the reader’s approved method of editing, which may or may not be BB’s best method in this case – is this not an implicit imposition of non-existing public “rights” over the blog owner’s right to “own, manage, edit, etc. their own blog”?
The manner of how it was done isn’t germane to this entire subject yet – as I said, it’s their blog, and we still don’t know the reasons why it was done in this manner, so readers shouldn’t make assumptions as to the extent of transparency required in this particular matter.
How to deal with comments on sites that I’ve moderated when people ask me to take them down is something I’ve struggled with, too. It seems like it ought to be the same policy that ya’ll have– if you retroactively take down your own posts, commenters should be able to do so too.
Also, I think it should be noted that how this kind of thing is handled on a blog like this is, well, uncharted territory, and there are going to be a million blogs and communities like BoingBoing in the future who’ll be looking to you guys as a model for how to run a site like this smoothly. So, uh, no pressure, guys.
Xeni and David Re people wanting their accounts/comments removed- I’m not sure but I think that annonomizing might work if people are really concerned about their names. That way discussions would still make sence but there would be no google proof. I guess it’s also good for all of us to remember what you put out in public – especially on the internets – is there forever. I think I heard Cory compare it to food coloring in a swimming pool.
I’d also like the comments not to renumber when something is unpublished – it makes conversations hard to follow.
thanks!
Suppose Bob (his mother calls him Bobby), who’s also Mr. Tables, a computer security expert, posts here, with some comments reminiscing about his childhood and others about SQL injection attacks.
One day, Bob realizes that he might not want his mother to read some of the comments he made here. They seem completely innocent: he was just joking about how he was nicknamed “acid” in high school because his middle name is “drop”. They were good comments in that thread about nicknames and they started a very interesting conversation. If they’re deleted, many other comments just won’t make sense any more. What should the moderator do?
After spending hours here over the last 2 days (something I haven’t done with a troll laden meta-thread in ~years~), and then reading the LA Times pieces Xeni added to the post, well, I’m really glad I spent the time.
Now, back to wonderful things!
For instance, do you have any pics of unicorns chasing unicorns? We could all use a double.
This post has no purpose except to add to the thread count, because it needs to reach #1337.
Don’t ask why, it just needs to.
I know this is probably a minority opinion, but I have to say that I am actually encouraged by the dialog in this thread. I think it is a great thing that so many people feel passionately about open editorial policies in emerging mass media on one hand, and the right of authors and editors to exercise reasonable control over their work and endorsements on the other. It is an interesting discussion, and I would argue that it is also an important one.
BoingBoing is not the NYT, and it isn’t a personal blog. BoingBoing is a Mass Media Blog, something so brand new in our society that we haven’t even finished unwrapping it. There aren’t any time-honored traditional Mass Media Blogging standards to measure BoingBoing against. Yet. We have the unique opportunity to influence and inspire those standards right now.
One of the things that I admire so much about Cory Doctorow is his ability to think through the far-reaching implications of modern-day choices. I know that he is someone who can envision a society where power is wielded by “ad-hoc†groups and public respect is literally the only currency. What could the mass media of such a society look like? What should be the highest standard for openness in editorial decisions? What should be the highest standard for moderating community interactions? What values does BoingBoing want to model now for the mass media of the future? I sincerely hope that questions of this scope are being grappled with in the editors’ chatroom.
Personally, I feel that Xeni made a mistake in removing the content, but also that it was a completely understandable and well-meaning mistake. If she was still thinking of BoingBoing as a just personal blog, she did nothing out of the ordinary. She merely removed her own old posts for her own personal reasons, as bloggers do all the time. I don’t think it was either sinister or intentionally hypocritical.
However, I do think it was short-sighted. It doesn’t take into account the real influence of BoingBoing as one of the top five blogs on the planet. It doesn’t take into consideration the fact that mass media blogging is an emerging power in the world, one that will only increase in reach and scope. And it doesn’t take into account the high-esteem and reputation that BoingBoing has with an entire generation of bloggers/ activists/artists/readers who want radical openness in our societal institutions.
Like it or not, BoingBoing is a leading institution, just by virtue of its massive audience and influence. As such, I personally feel that old posts should not just disappear from public eye without a trace. I do have sympathy for Xeni’s position of wanting the ability to withdraw her perceived public endorsement from a person she later found to be objectionable, but I think it needs to be handled another way.
My suggestion would be to replace the original posts with pages that read **This posting has been removed by the original contributor, in accordance with our editorial policy as listed _here_. To view an archive of this post, please visit _The Way Back Machine_. **
Make sure that those pages have the ability to leave comments. Also, I would suggest keeping of public log of all retroactive edits on a webpage or even a Twitter feed. This would give contributors the ability to step back from their past work without removing it from the public eye or trying to keep it a secret.
To the team at BB: I respect that you guys are taking some time to think all this through, as these are weighty issues with long-term ramifications. When the dust settles, if you do decide to stay with a closed model that borrows its standards from personal blogs, I will probably remain a reader, but I will lose some serious Whuffie for you. Whatever that’s worth.
Boing Boing team: It’s your blog. Do what you will. Don’t lose one second of sleep over this nonsense. It’s nothing!
One of the broader implications of this situation is what it means for blogging as a whole.
Before I go further, I think it is deeply disingenuous to claim that what goes for Boing Boing does not make a statement about the reputation of blogging in general – as the third most widely read blog on the internet, what happens here does have a much greater impact than on just these specific readers and writers.
Blogging as an activity is in a critical stage right now. With court cases and legal situations happening all over the world, from protestors in China to what happened to Josh Wolf not long ago, what it means to be a blogger is currently being decided. We have legal expectations of and protections for journalists, and whether these get extended to bloggers is currently up in the air.
In particular, I feel like the BB crew here is saying that they are not journalists and thus are not beholden to the public record (whether or not they choose to allow one they are claiming is at their own discretion). If that’s what they have chosen, that’s fine… but I also feel that if we are not allowed to expect them to behave like journalists, then they are also not due journalistic protections like the ability not to name sources should they find themselves with legally controversial material.
Where I find this to be of concern is how this will influence the history of blogging in the future. As prominent bloggers, making a very public statement of subjectivity and artistic whim influences public and potentially legal opinion of blogging as a whole. Whether this is good or bad remains to be seen, but I hope that the authors and readers of this site will think about this as a meta-issue.
A professor I once knew speaking about conflicts in academia: “The conflict is so bitter because the stakes are so low.” Couldn’t get that thought out of my head scanning through all of these comments.
Also, regarding commenters retracting old posts- on Tribe.Net, a commenter can edit his/her post only until another person posts in the same thread. After that, the comment is fixed and cannot be edited or removed. However, if the commenter deletes his/her profile, then the name is scrubbed from all the posts and is replaced with Unsubscribed.
@ Xeni
I read both the articles, and it’s very nice to see open dialogue happening. It also gave us (or me, at least) more understanding to your view. Thanks.
Now, with more understanding of your view, I have to comment: You have a personal blog at Xeni.net. David has one at Pesco.net. Everyone has their own personal blog, and it ain’t BB. BB is your job. At BB, you are an editor, you receive a paycheck for it, yada yada. It obvious from the terminology used that BBoingers are pretty aware of this. You don’t call each other bloggers, you call each other editors. You don’t delete, you either publish or unpublish. You receive paycheck for the work you do here.
At your blog, I don’t think I’ll ever care what you delete. But what you do at BB reflects the entirety of BB.
It’s the difference between Wil Wheaton saying on his blog that he dislikes Speed Racer, and Wil Wheaton going to his employers website at Pokerstars.net and making a claim that Pokerstars.net dislikes Speed Racer. Even if it’s true, it’s messed up for him to mix his personal stuff with his workplace
I inadvertantly posted that instead of previewed it, but the basic gist is there, so…
I just never would have expected that you would remove posts simply because of a falling out with ‘this person’, that you and others would go out of your way to ‘protect’ ‘this person’, all the while insinuating that she was horrible, a pile of shit, a liar, etc.
I do appreciate that boingboing, as a team, seems willing to deal with the aftermath. But it’s been handled very badly, imo. The biggest bummer of the whole thing is that it has inspired other haters of ‘this person’ to shake out and further impugn her reputation.
It just seems petty, mean, and spiteful, at the expense of the boingboing community at large. Which in itself is understandable, we are all human and make mistakes. I had sincerely hoped the mistake, even though a year old and ‘no one’ noticed (but that troublemaker!), would be set right.
I’ll keep hoping, but with much less optimism.
Nice to see the update on the post itself.
About long threads and community-driven conflicts in web 2.0 environments: did I say this all reminds me very much about the Yahoo-Flickr-SafeSearch-disasters (see here, for example). Very long thread, polarisation between two groups (“us” and “them”), long-time silence by the staff, very very long thread, a lot of guessing and explaining, rude mods, not so rude but essentially silent staff members … maybe “internet drama” is really a new genre of interactive entertainment (or more seriously, of trying to handle conflicts in an interactive, relatively anonymous environment where the participants have high moral/emotional stakes and low/none monetary involvements).
Or to put it another way: for “real-world” conflict resolutions society invented lots of rules and institutions. For “internet drama”, this process of invention is still on-going.
Um, since we’re posting animal thingy’s could you please post the dog humping cat video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=2sq7mHHncxw
@JJ, nothing would make me happier than to see this thread degrade into a bunch of links for YouTube videos with dogs humping various things that ought not be humped. I salute you.
Hey, @Burnchao, you’re totally wrong here:
You have a personal blog at Xeni.net. David has one at Pesco.net. Everyone has their own personal blog, and it ain’t BB. BB is your job. At BB, you are an editor, you receive a paycheck for it, yada yada.
BB is very much our personal blog. We each have vanity sites where people can see our bios and stuff, but that’s not a blog, dude. I don’t happen to maintain a blog anywhere else, nor does Pesco.
This is our living, but it is also absolutely personal, this is our home base.
Wow. This all, has just got to stop.
“Violet behaved in a way that made us reconsider whether we wanted to lend her any credibility or associate with her.”
BoingBoing, as an organization, was well within their right to act as they did- citing the above reason, and providing no further details.
For the hordes who, after years of credible blogging and journalism (and please don’t pick apart my use of either or both of those words- because this isn’t about that), have chosen to flip over BoingBoing exercising their right to make this decision that I am speculating was extremely difficult- I am happy to lend some insight into Violet Blue’s behavior over the last couple of years, from my own personal and professional experience. Why? Because Violet has already made the choice to make these situations public- and if by finally telling my story, I can shed some light on her poor professional choices that many credible professionals would quite reasonably wish to distance themselves from, and if it could potentially offer some insight into the character that perhaps directed BoingBoing’s choice- I’d finally like to.
Since 2003, Violet and I shared a close friendship. In 2007, we had a falling-out; and rather than discuss our differences in even a single attempt at a conversation, she disclosed the full situation- my name and plenty of details excluded, with much drama and exaggeration included, in a lengthy post on her blog.
Poor Behavior #1) For a professional blogger, the above is not credible behavior- is a major abuse of the audience they have with their readership- and, well- is just somewhat 4th-grade. Not opening the can of worms with regards to the blogosphere’s longstanding grassroots effort to clearly delineate “personal” blogs from “professional” blogs, and the ethics/standards which distinguish each (beyond the obvious)- and, well- Violet crossed some lines.
Violet continued to slander me among friends and colleagues, and characterized my efforts to contact her to initiate a dialogue, as “stalking.” So at that point- I just stopped. The very deep personal pain from that situation alone, was huge- but no, suck as it did, there was only one mis-step in professional judgement made that constituted “poor behavior” as the professional community might see fit to recognize, and that was her public blog summary of our private (and messy) situation.
The next chapter: Violet posted in her blog, a request for readers to tend to “her” Wikipedia page:
http://www.tinynibbles.com/blogarchives/2007/07/dear-lazyweb.html
This of course, erupted a major shitstorm, which is clearly evident looking at the history and discussion on the Wikipedia page that now best documents Violet in it’s history, and not in what should be a concise and accurate encyclopedic article.
Poor Behavior #2) Wikipedia is not a PR tool. Wikipedia is not a vanity device. Wikipedia is not a place to brag, to display celebrity connections, nor a place where users document themselves- or ethically, are to in any way become involved with their own documentation, lest personally correcting occasional factual errors or disputing through Wikipedia’s systemic dispute system, potentially slanderous claims.
I made 3 contributions, in total, to the Wikipedia page about Violet Blue, and all 3 were in the beginning. One, stated: “Ms. Blue’s boyfriend is not an objective contributor to her page edits.” The second edit, said “… seems to be more a subject of debate than one of fact- omitting, altogether, as it also seems to be somewhat irrelevant to the rest of Ms. Blue’s work.” The third, was a deletion of information regarding the subject I questioned in the second point, as being of relevance/significance for a Wikipedia article on Violet Blue.
At this past year’s SXSW conference, Violet formally “outed” me, as “her online stalker.” Violet’s boyfriend, Jonathan Moore, sat on her Sexual Privacy panel, and in her PowerPoint deck and in the MP3 AudioFeed, Violet makes the claim- that Jonathan then substantiates, using a screenshot from Wikipedia, that displays a coffeehouse WiFi’s IP address that I’d made the 3 Wikipedia edits from (as well as I suppose, sending emails to his account on, months prior- good catch).
The SXSW Panel “outing” aside, Violet has referenced me as “Ninapedia” in her blog, as “her stalker,” and has done her best among the Bay Area’s tech community to smear my name, with her baseless claims that I’ve not only suffered a great deal emotionally from, but as well have lost business from. Her verbal claims have been that I’ve been the sole- or one of a few, very active participants, in “vandalizing her Wikipedia page.” Well for one, it’s not hers. Secondly- yes, it has digressed into quite the shitstorm… but vandalism as a label, is a stretch.
Poor Behavior #3) Slander. Plain and simple. Tarnishing the professional reputation of a person, for personal reasons rooted in hurt, and not at all in the pro-ported “facts.”
Poor Behavior #4) … and this one is minor respective to the situation; but stealing images, photos that I have shot of her, photos that I have shot of events we’ve both attended, and photos that other people have shot of her. Taking these photos that we exchanged with her as friends, and re-posting on her Fotki and Flickr sites, un-attributed- but Violet is careful to properly attribute folks with whom she is currently on good terms with.
Personally and professionally, this has been one of the toughest years I can remember- for many reasons. Violet’s contributions to those hardships, have been significant. And unfortunately, I’m not alone in this unique ‘club’ of “Violet Survivors” of sorts.
I don’t know why BoingBoing made the choice that they did: I’m acquainted with 2 of them, haven’t corresponded with either in a while, and I don’t believe either know details of what my situation with Violet has been- nor of many (or any details at all) of the others. It’s been difficult to distinguish personal/professional damage in this whole mess- but the bullet-points of clear professional ethics violated that I outlined in my situation alone, are I think rather significant.
So, there you go: that’s my story. Mine, not BoingBoing’s- but a peep into the questioned poor behavior of Violet Blue, that so many have demanded insight into.
There is a time and a place for “full disclosure,” and there is a time and a place to just shut the hell up, be human, and hopefully be respected for that. I ask that folks please step-back, and respect the BoingBoinger’s for their decision. They’ve been doing this for years, and have done so much to pave the way forward for integrity and ethics in blogging, and re-defining the ever evolving media-scape. To deny a human element in any of the above, is perhaps the greatest mistake that many make- so, just please.
I need peace, these guys/gal need peace. Violet also needs peace- and to her, I ask that she just pick up the phone, have a conversation with one or all of the BoingBoinger’s, and find that peace- and stop searching for that elusive peace that a public platform and batted eyelashes with a few slips of the truth, will never provide.
– Nina Eleanor Alter
Xeni, you have succeeded in making Violet look reasonable.
I guess i’m willing to accept the Boingers’ and Moderators’ decision here to have removed the content from the site. I would like to clarify however, that when i say im disappointed i mean with the way the situation was handled. Certainly the content is yours and therefore it is your decision to leave it up or take it down as you please. I am still curious however as to why ya’ll wouldn’t just refuse to post anything related to Violet Blue in the future. The decision to take all previous content down as well is what really intrigues me. whatever happened it must have been a doozy!.
@Paul: Together with Nina’s story (and the LAT interview), I actually find I can understand why Xeni did what she did. I still think it was wrong, and I still think, replacing posts with disclaimers, unlinking etc. would be a way better move than “unpublishing” things from the public, but I guess there really is a human side to this. So I hope BB finds a way to get out of the storm and into clear view again.
That said, there are still two or three things I find somewhat strange about Xeni’s behavior and reasoning:
1. The one post with the list that seems to come from VB and was only posted via Xeni, not her work.
2. Claiming that there is a difference between “unpublishing” and “deleting”; in the consequences for the wider web, there is no difference.
3. I also think BB has developed into something more than a personal blog, and I’m not sure if Xeni actually sees this change & the responsibility that comes with that. (Or the difficult small line between corporate hell and an corporate entity with lots of personals quirks).
4. Defending the so-called moderators, and describing their role as “cops” (they act like cops, but moderators shouldn’t be cops).
5. Not seeing the problems with silence in deletion.
Finally, I still think this discussion has two levels: the actual happenings (and the reasons for or against removing post referencing VB), and the larger implications for web content services with a strong community aspect and “net culture values”.
So- now that I’m reading thru some of the comments, this has actually blossomed into quite a dialogue- which perhaps, can be a positive takeaway from everything, disagreements and expressions of support, aside?
A few fix-its were requested to my earlier comment, from a friend who read it (and yep, got a fire up her ass that I wasn’t clear on 3 points):
1) Violet identified me by my name, in her blog-post that initially brought our situation to her public stage.
2) The stolen images, were both re-posted without attribution, and copyrighted by her, under her ownership. I personally could give two hoots- but professionally, it’s a pretty big deal to steal another person’s work- copyright it as your own- then get on a high-horse about DRM and other “free media” issues. Myself and a number of other photographers, are in this boat- and none are too happy.
3) Slander is one thing. Abusing your chair on a panel at a professional conference (SXSW), to slander your target in an effort to bring both credibility and empathy to your own ‘situation’- or for whatever reason- (nuff said).
Reading the LA Times articles, it also really sounds like these guys & Xeni have been thru the wringer on this one. They’re human- and amazingly it seems, have read all the comments. At a minimum, do applaud them for that- and for listening.
so i like many disagree with the decision to remove violet blue related posts from the website. even if the posts are still are reachable via wayback machine archives, censorship of even a slight degree reeks of hypocrisy when coming from a blog that so often preaches honesty and transparency.
that said – i commend xeni and company for not shying away from the ensuing shitstorm. i’m not sure i’m entirely comfortable with the justifications concerning editorial consent, but i do feel assured from what i have read on this site and elsewhere that boingboing takes this issue seriously, is listening to our feedback and will use this incident as a learning tool.
this blog brings me much delight and intrigue 3, 4, 5 times a day and i expect it will continue to do so.
phew, if anyone else has posted pretty much what i’ve just stated, my apologies. i only made it through the first 400 or so comments.
Good reading in the L.A. Times. Thanks for taking the time to chat about your thoughts and “feelings”.
Thank you Nina.
@Xeni
Hey, @Burnchao, you’re totally wrong here:
Yeah, as I said, that was posted while still refining to say exactly what I meant.Even if you disagree with the basic gist, I think it should still give you more understanding to why (some of us, at least) we reacted the way we did.
BB is very much our personal blog.
I just realized how many different definitions the word “personal” has. There personal vs. business (is that a personal phone call or is it business?), personal vs. corporate (mom-and-pop vs. big company), personal vs. public (property), personal vs. group, and some others that I can’t state as brief. Like using the word “our” before “personal blog” makes me have to cycle to a definition far the one I believe is normally used when someone says “personal blog”. If you use “personal” to mean a collection of persons to be treated as just one person, “corporate” would be a much better word (that’s actually how the term “corporation” originated).
When you say “… it is also absolutely personal, this is our home base, it sounds like you are using the definition like “This means a lot to me, it’s personal”. But using the term that way makes BB my personal blog too, along with countless others. So that seems to be a very dishonest way to use the term “personal blog”
Here’s the best metrics I can come up with, using the most intellectually honest definitions (that I can think of) of the terms involved.
Do it exist before your involvement? Can/Will it exist after your involvement? Can someone else claim it as theirs? If yes to any of these, then it’s not your personal blog.
Is it a collabrative effort? Is it a business or company? If so, it’s not a personal blog.
Does it have editors rather than bloggers? Does it have publications and unpublishings rather than posts and deletions? If so, it’s not a blog at all; it’s a zine, or some other publishing kind of agency.
If these metrics distort the common vision of the term “personal blog”, please enlighten me.
It seems like you think of BB as a livejournal with a very exclusive membership. Even if that were the case, BB still wouldn’t be a personal blog. It would be a collection of blogs. I’m sad to say that (in my eyes) being a collection of blogs would prevent it from being a directory of wonderful things.
Hey;
Having read most of 1200 comments I feel like I’m entitled to comment myself, even though I’m only going to say how I personally feel about this (and repeat what several others have said).
Boingboing messed up by removing the articles without comment – hoping it could be done quietly to spare blushes was, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, never going to wash.
The removals were for a personal reason, not simple house-keeping, and I guess the furore has highlighted the need for a short statement of explanation when that kind of thing is done – it was this absence that gave wind to conspiracy theories and ammunition to detractors. The same applies to a lesser extent to comments edited in place.
It is important for a blog that champions free speech and transparency on the web to maintain, and be seen to maintain, free and transparent policies.
Perhaps some of the first time commenters here, who have previously been silent on articles detailing free speech concerns, felt then that in those cases the boingers were expressing their opinions for them. In my case I feel moved to comment on this post about what BoingBoing is more than I’ve ever felt a need to comment on articles it has presented.
Nothing has made me feel better about the whole incident than the LAtimes articles now linked to at the beginning of this post, where the Boingers accept that the removals had unforseen and unitended consequences, and seem to accept the need for transparency in the future. In particular, they’ve each stated that they are listening to the comments and will look at the need for policies in the light of them. What more could we possible ask for?
The details of the issue between Xeni and VB are rightly private (though there will always be some claiming otherwise, hankering after gossip), but I for one hope that the lesson learned from this is that on a blog as huge as this one, protection by obscurity is not an option and protection by transparency is the only way to go.
I believe absolutely that the Boingers have acted in good faith throughout, and I thank them for it and for maintaining one of my favourite interweb destinations.
Cheers :D
What a thread! I’ve followed the fracas for a few days while shaking my head in amazement and learned a lot of things about the Intarwebz. And about humanity. I’m not going to weigh in on this debate, but I just want to send a little sympathy to the Boingers & BB moderators.
Herding cats is a picnic in comparison.
On several occasions, you BB fellas stood out against attitudes like the one you just had.
Unpublishing is a bad bad thing, despite all the personal and ethical discussion, this being a blog and not a newspaper…
Disappointed.
Cheers
Has anyone picked a spot to touch down yet?
I only ask because this topic is so close to being run into the ground it might be a good idea to start scouting out landing zones and securing mineral rights.
Aww who am I kidding?
Look at how long the fuss continued over Gizmodo’s CES foibles!
(Some of the mouth breathers are still panting. I’m not a mod so I can be insulting . :p )
I’ll have to check in here every week or so to see what iteration of what argument is being repeated though.
My final word on this before I delete the bookmark to this post is that I forgive Boing Boing for it’s trespasses.
Humans screw up. It’s how we learn.
Just don’t do it again, okay?
I love ya, Boing Boing.
C’mon, let’s go play some Frisbee.
Dinner’ll be ready soon.
poopyhead@1210: People momentarily fell for the censorship/transparency hype incited by drama mongering. Once more people realized they’d been ‘had’, the topic switched to moderator bashing. All mobs demand a sacrifice. Someone must be made a scapegoat even if in this case it’s really not warranted and the editors have been incredibly humbly responsive.
That about nails it. Some people bought into the hype, saw an opportunity to make themselves “warrior for a great cause” and attacked BoingBoing based on nothing but hype.
I think Nina’s story supports the idea that BoingBoing was right to NOT try and engage VB, to NOT try and make the withdrawal of support to be a public airing of grievances with VB, because VB might not be the sort of person to stand for something like that without raising a shit storm.
Seriously, some of you people act like you’ve never been on the internet before. BB wanted to keep somethign private to avoid a fight, and you yokels want to make it a public inquisition? As if airing every grievance against every internet crazy person will somehow result in rational results. Have you seen how well that works on Wikipedia? The nutjobs not only win, they get put on arbcom. Did you people just get internet access last week or something?
And now that the mob of flying monkeys realize that they were working for the wicked witch all along, rather than tuck tail and scurry away like they should, they want to throw poo at the Lion for roaring at them or the Tin Man for not answering their every demand or the Scarecrow for getting straw all over them while they were trying to rip his head off.
If you were in the flying monkey squad over the last few days and Toto peed on your little red hat in self defense, the point is not to now register your complaint in order to recover proper compensation for the dry cleaners, but rather, to remember you were part of the flying monkey squad working for the wicked witch.
Once again Greg, you cause damage to your statements by using insulting language. It’s hard to read you when you do that. Just state your beef in a calm way and you won’t sound just the same as every other angry commenter.
The situation here has been pretty well distilled by now. Many people have registered their initial disappointment over the issue, or decided it didn’t warrant all the attention it has received. Despite quite a bit of ugliness I have noticed a lot of genuine dialogue showing through. Using inflammatory language stirs up the knee jerk reactions and bruised feelings. That’s how you start a fight. I don’t want to fight, I want to read some more well-reasoned statements, questions, and conversation that leads to a solution.
Joel, in the interview: The community expected us to react with the speed that they reacted.
You. Had. A. Year.
I like cake.
1337 is the landing spot — only 60 posts to a solution.
@1277 ACX99, we are definitely in agreement.
Random832 @1276: They did the thing and nothing happened for a year. Maybe there were thoughts of doing more, especially if they anticipated a reaction from VB, but nothing happened for a year, so I’m guessing they did the normal, human thing, and procrastinated for a while, then forgot about it. The shitstorm didn’t erupt until last week, when half the collective were away. This post is only a couple of days old.
For a year, nothing happened. All the outrage has happened in a few days. With all the belated input, they need time to sit and cogitate and argue with each other.
It would be nice if all members of the boingboing collective were post-human and properly able to anticipate your outrage a year in advance and come to an instantaneous collective decision, but they aren’t, so they didn’t. You’re stuck with meat-machine editors, who have to work at meat-machine speeds. They aren’t going to work any faster just because you bolded your outrage.
Longtime reader (~5 years), BB T-shirt owner/wearer, RSS feed on my BlackBerry, etc.
In my eyes, both VB and Xeni do neat stuff and make the world a better place. I don’t know either of them personally and have no basis for an opinion of them as people. But then, I don’t interact with them as people – they publish, I consume. This seems to be mutually agreeable. As content creators, I dig them.
Much like actors, musicians, etc, I’d rather not know about their personal lives. It’s always a letdown when you’re forced to acknowledge that your favorite artists (of whatever stripe) are not only human, they’re flawed… often in ways that might put one off. I’d rather remain ignorant and enjoy the naive conception of them as perfect, holy bastions of cool and defenders of righteousness.
The thing that weirds me out the most here is the notion that by linking up something on your blog you’re implicitly “endorsing” the author in some all-encompassing way. It would never occur to me to think that. Say VB does cool thing Y and blogs about it, then Xeni links that up here. To me that says, “Xeni liked/appreciated/was amused by thing Y” and that’s it.
This makes the act of “unpublishing” past blog entries related to VB seem petty and spiteful. I didn’t perceive any endorsement of VB in those posts, and the neat stuff she’s done isn’t any less neat, even if she is a jerk in a personal sense. It doesn’t seem like an effort to distance yourself – it seems like a grade school shunning.
And just to add my vote to a few recurring issues:
* “Unpublish” is a weasel word you’d do well to abandon. I don’t care what the button on your interface is labeled. To the outside world, the content becomes inaccessible. Quibbling over verb choice only makes you seem disingenuous.
* The BB moderators are unpleasant and combative. I’ve moderated on several sizable boards and yeah, I know it’s a pain in the ass. Doesn’t matter – as moderators go, they suck, and by defending them, you’re sucking with them. Maybe they’re your friends, I don’t know, they’re probably cool in other ways… but maybe you could give them some job that doesn’t involve interacting with people.
* This business feels hypocritical, petty and juvenile. C’mon, you’re better than all that, aren’t you?
So tell me, after inviting the LA Times to interview you, did you also call them astoundingly stupid, having less guile than hamsters? Or is that reserved for BB readers?
Is 1337 prime? no. it’s 7*191
31337 is prime, though.
@Random832 (#1276), The unpublishing of the posts wasn’t discussed among the group of us internally until a week ago.
@Randomo832
I’m sorry, could you repeat your comment? I think the stratospheric winds are obscuring your words on their way down from your impressively high horse.
A year has passed since they deleted the posts, but they didn’t think it was going to be a problem with anyone (mistaken as that might be) so they didn’t plan what to do if someone did think it was a problem. Hence being taken off guard and needing time to react. Perfectly reasonable, and something which I’m sure you can see as easily as me, but for whatever reason you’re choosing not to.
@Greg #1115: I see no intention towards making BB’s archives universally unreliable.
Whether or not there is an intention, that doesn’t change the fact that they HAVE DONE SO. The archives as of right now are unreliable. Anyone who wants to save something they read here from now on is, if they remember this, going to think, if only for a second “Should I make a bookmark, or maybe I should better take a screenshot instead?” This is not only due to the original “unpublishing”, but also – maybe even more so – the edits people have made to their own comments in this thread, and to the policy page. There has been no word of a commitment not to do those “next time”.
@Xeni #1155: There needs to be, at the very least, basic transparency in EVERYTHING. “A comment was removed here”, “This comment was edited” (yes, maybe you did regret saying “piles of shit”. I know I would. But it did come across, especially in the context, as if you were trying to make-believe you’d never said it). “The policy page was last changed on such-and-such date” [and, for something as important as that, a proper changelog would be beneficial as well]
@#1156 (and #1284, etc.) [#1152 they’ve constantly pointed out that they’ve had over a year to do it.] #1156 That’s kind of unfair, and I think you’re kind of missing the point.
You [Xeni #5] are the one who said “the posts were removed from public view while an evaluation of what to do took place.” Are you now saying no such evaluation actually took place? Or that this meant something other than what people thought it meant? What did it mean then?
#1166 – I got the impression that at least some of the people demanding their posts to be unpublished were saying it to make a point on how ridiculous the idea is, rather than actually wanting it to happen. I really don’t have an opinion otherwise, but if you in fact intend to act on these you should at least contact them to ask if they were serious. (and, like #1162 said, make sure the comment numbering is preserved, _whatever_ you do.) Or, in other words for #1195 “how can we not be douchey here.” the answer may be “don’t use the monkey’s paw as a role model”
#1170 and others have a good point – I think you should take some time to seriously evaluate what sort of moderation style you want to be in place here, and discuss that with the moderators. I don’t think anyone should be dismissed over it because it’s possible they haven’t actually had any guidance on this issue.
As an aside, my initial anonymous comment yesterday asking why VB hadn’t personally been told the reason was never approved, and I would like to know why. The fact that there are only 12 anonymous comments (and all twelve are taking your side) standing in a thread of over 1200 total posts that has generated massive external interest seems strange. It’s as if people felt they needed to be registered to be heard since anonymous comments were not generally getting through – I know I did. Do the moderators feel they can/should arbitrarily refuse any anonymous comments for any reason or none at all? What has led them to think this? Is this a practice you want to continue in the future?
#1177 has a good point as well – why did you have to remove the whole posts? It would have been less damaging (and, cynically, you’d have been less likely to get caught) if you’d simply removed the references to VB in particular rather than whole posts.
#1285 Could we at least get the terminology straight? Unpublished is not deleted. By this point, at least that one point is completely clear.
Wow, I think I’m in disbelief of all this.
I’ve been reading through a lot of these post (well the ones of any merit at least) and I don’t really see why everyones undies are in a bunch.
Boingboing is a personal website, and not affiliated with published media (or legally speaking). So if your only source of news is boingboing, then that’s your issue. Because when I see a unicorn chaser I totally think, “OMG they are so cute, where can I buy one?” Really, seriously?!…
I completely understand that the instigating factors are personal and do not need to be shared. And this is a personal blog that they can do with as they wish. Somehow the rest of the world doesn’t get this. If they decide to stop boingboing tomorrow then it goes away, period. No amount of whining will fix it.
And the real reason I posted:
Personal boundaries: Look at VB’s website, you get a feeling of what she does. Look at BB. See many similarities? There are basics, like personal freedom and such, but in general the themes are different. It’s VERY possible VB has been taking her career and publishing path in a direction that differs from the direction BB should be on. Yes, yes, “They simply could have not published any more of her posts.” Yeah they could have. Or maybe that (VB’s direction) was just something they didn’t need to be associated with anymore.
This is a directory of wonderful things, not the diary of the members of BB. This is the positive things they want to share with us, not the good and the bad and the ugly. Just things they find interesting.
I’ve been reading BB for several years now, and will continue. In my opinion the members of BB have not damaged their reputations or done anything that damages anyone else. There is no wrong here.
Even though you don’t want to reveal actual details, I think it would help get the discussion on solid ground if you would go on record as characterizing the reason as one of the following: Personal, Legal, Ideological, or Money (advertisers etc).
Even to your tantrum. I’m willing to bet that they are laughing at you Neener. Laughing at your hyperventilation and inflated…. meh. whatever.
—–
This is where I draw the line.
No one is having a “tantrum” here except you. I am not hyperventilating in the least and nothing I wrote should give anyone with a critical eye the idea that I am. I mean really, [ROLLS EYES]! You are grasping at ways to rationalize this.
A Journalist I know is pitching a story for his print magazine as a story of hypocrisy between bloggers who want corporations to do as they say, not as they do. They have, quite literally, made a mockery of their ideals and the vultures are ready to go. Things I long suspected- that their ideals were only skin-deep, are pretty much laid bare here. I’m sure this will work out in their favor somehow, but you can’t really take what Cory says about RIAA communication seriously now that they’ve done this. I mean, to take their articles seriously would just make the reader look silly.
“nothing would make me happier than to see this thread degrade into a bunch of links for YouTube videos with dogs humping various things that ought not be humped. I salute you.”
I submit that they should be *USB-powered* humping dogs.
#1076 Antinous: Once again, the majority of critical comments in this post are from first-time commenters… half the comments in this thread are from users who have never bothered to weigh in on any of those matters, saving their outrage for this instead. Torture: no response. Year old post removal: explosion of fury. The facts speak for themselves.
I can’t decide if you keep on harping on the post count of various users because you think it somehow demonstrates something meaningful (thus your sadl misplaced and incorrect “the facts speak for themselves”) or whether is is out of a desire to attempt to refute, nullify, or otherwise lessen the impact of their arguments by pointing out that they have never posted before.
If it’s the former, perhaps you could enlighten us with what exactly you think the facts are saying. If it’s the latter, this is an absolutely classic (though subtle) example of a true ad hominem argument. if that’s the case, please save your “my BB posting dick is bigger than yours” for a discussion where it is relevant.
@Johne Cook: unpublish means “delete from public view”. Straigth enough?
One of the things I’ve liked and respected this group of folks for is the clarity and honesty with which they’ve treated a number of subjects. Nobody makes you disclose who is giving you money or who’s board you are a member of. It’s the right thing to do, but there is no blog authority that makes you do it.
So you kinda fucked up by doing something that was against the pattern of good things you typically do. Oh well. I’ve done way more nasty things in my life, so I guess I’ll cut the BB folks all in all some slack.
Go forth and do good.
I too am hoping to snatch post #1337.
#1287 To the general public, those posts were deleted. When you load the url you get a 404 error. Apparently those with edit privileges are the only ones able to see what was once there. The use of “unpublished” was ill advised and in this context just sounds nefarious and muddies the water. It doesn’t matter if that is what the button is named in your back end software. The posts were deleted from view or removed from the site. If they were unpublished that would mean they written but never added to the website.
Wow. I appreciate Xeni addressing so many different people AND managing to stay positive through it all.
Fellow Boinglings,
I may be in the minority, but I think that this thread has not yet outlived its usefulness and is still serving a productive function.
Xeni – Thanks for taking the time to engage this comment string. Even if I thought you deserved all the invective hurled in your direction, I would still respect you for wading into it. Your active participation is deeply appreciated.
Nina Eleanor Alter – Thanks for putting our hosts’ choice/actions into context. I still think it damages the valuable transparency/openness aspect of the Boing Boing brand, but your post makes it much more understandable.
But some of the moderators have let the righteousness of their task — taking up arms to defend Xeni’s honor would certainly go to my head — devolve them into enflamers. Challenging the legitimacy of BB lurkers and irregular commenters reads like, “If you don’t truly love Boing Boing, your opinion doesn’t matter — and if you truly loved Boing Boing, I’d know who you were.” Although it is understandable, it is unseemly.
Which, now that I’ve typed it, sums up my feelings on this entire “Violet Blue/’Unpublishing’ controversy”: Unseemly but understandable.
Always all the best, etc.
— SCAM
#1155 Xeni Jardin: I don’t think any of the mods here meant to disparage the value of first-time commenters
#653: Single-serving commenters who’ve shown up to stand in a circle chanting, “Fight! Fight! Fight!” won’t know this, but regular readers will…
“single serving”? A nice snarky put down, that.
#838: “Coming from someone who’s never posted before his dozen posts in this thread, we’ll take that for all that it’s worth.”
Honestly, are you telling us that this isn’t a condescending , dismissive put down implying that this comment from a first time poster has little or no value?
#877 You’ve never commented on BB before. You’ve made eight comments on this subject. You’ve accused the Boingers of violence. You’ve begged to be allowed to ‘unread’ five years of BoingBoing. You can’t expect anyone to take your plaintive cries of repression seriously.
#1076 Once again, the majority of critical comments in this post are from first-time commenters. You yourself are a first-time commenter… half the comments in this thread are from users who have never bothered to weigh in on any of those matters, saving their outrage for this instead. Torture: no response. Year old post removal: explosion of fury. The facts speak for themselves.
Snarky, condescending, dismissive, repeatedly implying that comments from first time posters are worth less than regulars, that they shouldn’t be taken seriously, that they are somehow not interested in the serious subjects and are just here to participate in a brawl.
And every single one of these is from a moderator. A person who has actual, official authority on this site, telling poster after poster that their contribution is worth less because of their low post count. Way to attract new commenters, Antinous.
“I may be in the minority, but I think that this thread has not yet outlived its usefulness and is still serving a productive function.”
You so just want to make it to post 1337 ;)
random832@1276: You. Had. A. Year.
You need to sit down, eat a banana, and maybe take a nap. All that flying has made you cranky.
random832@1286: The archives as of right now are unreliable. Anyone who wants to save something they read here from now on is, if they remember this, going to think, if only for a second “Should I make a bookmark
I’m truly glad to see heartfelt concern for all those nameless people in the future who might, only for a second, wonder if a link from the internet might go away at a later time.
Why, people have been lining up for a year now over the missing BB posts and you can see the line goes all the way… around… this keyboard.
So.
here’s something you keep arguing and I just need to point this out. You’re arguing for worst case hypothetical damage. Which is fine, if you’re designing combat aircraft or space vehicles. I’ve done both. This isn’t that. You need to stop.
I will point out that in recent history, the folks most well known in the world for arguing for the worst case hypothetical damage is George Bush and the “oh my god a million 9-11’s could happen here tomorrow!” at which point they use that hypothetical damage to launch a war against a country who actually had nothing to do with 9/11.
There is not a little of that going on here, which is why I keep asking for real, actual damage. You know, like asking how the deletion of these posts harmed you personally. I’ll guess the actual damage you’ve suffered is actually zero, which is why you have to keep focusing on future potential, hypothetical damage, just to keep people from noticing how undamaged you actually are. If the sole extent of the deletion of those posts is that you have to “think, if only for a second”, then I”m afraid that doesn’t justify the army of flying monkeys you’re flying with.
There needs to be, at the very least, basic transparency in EVERYTHING.
You need to get your own blog, get an insurance company, get some paying advertisers, and then maybe you can start handing out advice on how other poeple actually doing it should conduct their business.
Right now, you might as well be telling someone how they should defuse a nuclear bomb based on how you think they should operate.
I think you should take some time to seriously evaluate what sort of moderation style you want
Said the flying monkey to the tinman.
Just so you know, you got caught up in a mob. You had pitchforks and torches and had done a good job on starting to burn the place down. Now that folks have started to realize that they were part of the mob, rather than part of the solution, some have quietly gone away realizing their mistake. Others can’t accept they they could be wrong and so end up trying to find something to be right about.
“OK, so we burnt your house, razed your crops, and you didn’t really do anything terribly wrong to deserve that. But that’s no reason for your moderator to delete all those posts. Some of them had valid complaints. I want justice!”
Please. Get over yourself.
You made a mistake. People do that. BoingBoing isn’t calling for your head for it, because they understand poeple make mistakes. Its the people who were calling for BoingBoing to be perfect that are now unwilling to see their own mistakes, and trying to find some grievance in the wreckage. Something that will let them be right and make BB wrong.
This is getting absurd.
#1300 You need to get your own blog, get an insurance company, get some paying advertisers, and then maybe you can start handing out advice on how other poeple actually doing it should conduct their business.
She asked. #1155 What do you think? Seriously, I’m asking.
How about you stop complaining when PEOPLE PROVIDE SUGGESTIONS WHEN THEY ARE REQUESTED. Can you do that? Even if nothing else, that was a bit over the top.
@1155 Xeni:
I think there’s a slight adjustment to this sentiment that needs to be considered here. Consider “Those are my words, I no longer want them to be associated with BoingBoing, please remove them.”
@1173 Mdhatter:
I couldn’t disagree more. Were it not for the ‘moderator’ in her username, I’d have considered her to *be* a troll.
And not a very good one.
I don’t mind the unpublishing, and I don’t mind the attempt to be discreet. But when someone claims you have hurt them in some way, and you acknowledge the action but refuse to tell that person why, it makes the world really Kafkaesque.
In addition, none of us know exactly what sort of actions constitute “behaving in a way that makes BB reconsider associating with you.” We just know BB will take actions against such behavior.
Uncertainty can generate chilling effects, as everyone guesses at the sort of conduct they should avoid on or off the blog.
You asked us to respect your decision to keep the reasons discreet. Respect for an action is not something we can choose, though, it depends upon whether or not that action is justified, all things considered. Here I am scratching my head as to what could justify this FISA-level obfuscation. But since I read you all because you routinely give me such great guidance on issues of speech and technology, I’m sure you’ve weighed all these issues, and I can’t help but give you the benefit of the doubt.
Just remember, you guys are kinda my heroes, and it’d proper suck to find out two years down the line that VB was just kept in the dark out of spite or something.
I’m convinced that Mr. London is here simply to argue with someone. Please don’t slay me.
Yet still, ice cream…
myopic@1298: Way to attract new commenters, Antinous
So… lemme get this straight… you attack BB with a list of grievances because… you think Antinous harmed BB’s new commenters recruitment program?
You attack BB in defense of BB as a friend?
YOu think maybe you could either tone down the attack… or stop being so “friendly”?
@1155 Xeni: What do you think? Seriously, I’m asking. I don’t know. We don’t have a policy for it yet.
OK, here’s my take:
Once someone publishes something they should never unpublish it. You can remove links to prevent pagerank support. You can add statements saying “OMG, WTF was I thinking?”. But never unpublish.
On the flip side, what should you do when someone wants their comment(s) unpublished? That’s harder… especially if they’ve decided their comment needs a “OMG, WTF…” supplement (they can’t edit that comment to add it). I tend to feel that when someone posts on on my blog their words are still theirs, so I’ll delete but replace the comment with a “comment removed at the request of the commenter”.
Of course, I don’t think anyone should try to unpublish anything. It just compromises trust.
Once upon a time I wrote Cory. I don’t remember the original topic, but I remember that he had addressed a mistake. He stood up (figuratively) and said “Doh! I screwed up!”. I wrote him simply to say “Cool. Nicely done!” My respect for Cory skyrocketed because he pointed to his mistake and said “Hey everyone, ignore my steaming pile of poo over there. I’ll try not to do it again”. No unpublishing, no vanishing of his error, just an addition to say “my bad”.
I think Cory has the right philosophy.
Are we there yet?
random832: that was a bit over the top.
From someone who repeatedly invokes hypothetical futured potential worst case oh my god the end of the internet as we know it damage that amounts to someone thinking about a link for a second, it must take quite a bit of muscle control to type that with a straight face.
I apologize for posting after Nina explained the situation, it’s hard to catch every comment in a list of 1200.
Thank you for clarifying the situation, and please be kind in disregarding my embarrassingly belated post.
I find it interesting how many people are furious about the “unpublishing” of the articles in question and they use the NYT, LATimes, etc… as examples of how BB acted inappropriately.
This seems odd to me because it seems to ignore that fact that even newspapers have engaged in a form of unpublishing by often times making it difficult (or harder than absolutely necessary) to find their material at all, or online. The NYT’s former policy on charging for online access to archival material would be an example of that.
We seem to take for granted that, today, we can edit for spelling or grammar mistakes. Fix or even change coding and actually change the entire look of a site, CHANGE content (as was done in this post), and do any number of things that couldn’t be done before in print media, and as was demonstrated in this situation, we can also remove something from the public eye (i.e. “unpublish”).
While I hope that BB doesn’t start to make a habit of mass episodes of “unpublishing” I do think that the complaints from many people feel a bit disingenuous. If we look around us it’s apparent that we are absolutely used to dynamic websites. No one would think twice if the most popular MySpace or Facebook user/group/band changed friends lists, added or removed comments, screened posts, etc… They could easily “rewrite history” by deleting someone from their online presence and even if they had 100,000 friends we wouldn’t really begrudge them that.
Clearly BB isn’t quite in that situation, but it’s not so far from it. One of the things that makes BB special is that it does post whatever grabs the attention of the editors/publishers and nothing is given more or less attention. It has a pleasant stream of consciousness to it that is a pleasant change (combined with the content) from your standard sites (particularly news sites).
However, BB is not the news (I’ve always seen it largely as entertainment). Steampunk, unicorns, funny videos, etc… it’s interesting stuff, but it’s not some crucial archive of “history” or “culture” the way that a newspaper might be. Furthermore, even newspapers have had to evolve and I see plenty of examples where they’re still trying to figure out what works for them AND their audience (so it’s not just about what YOU want ;-).
Sometimes I think we forget that “publishing” online is still a relatively new concept that is still evolving and that doesn’t have the same restrictions that existed in the past (and that can be good and bad). Did “journalistic integrity” arise from a noble desire to preserve what was published in it’s exact form, or was that a function of the print medium which didn’t allow for easy editing after distribution? I don’t know, but looking at what happened here, I don’t think that BB did something terrible or unforgivable.
If the editors are still reading all these comments, I would just like to ask that you consider comments and access to them and the discussions that they consitute before deciding to “unpublish” anything in the future. The collaborative nature of posts is something special and I think that should inform some of the decisions about what to keep or remove. So, I won’t say, don’t ever do it again, I just ask that you keep in mind that unpublishing a post with comments is not just affecting something of _yours_. You opened posts up to comments and in doing so you give up some degree of possession, certainly not all of it, but some. I hope you can respect that and perhaps raise the bar (if necessary) for what will warrant being unpublished.
@1260 @Nina – I have made a Wiki Admin aware of your posting and have referenced it on the talk page for VB’s article. That is just an amazingly bad thing you say she did to you. This person (VB) appears to have some serious boundary issues. I’m sorry this happened to you, but given what people have been emailing me about their own alleged experiences with her, I am not surprised in the slightest. You are not at all alone.
Oh hi. Did I mention that I liked cake?
@1312 Oh hi. Did I mention that I liked cake?
You don’t like cake anymore?
Wow. Speaking as a huge fan of BB, VB (though decreasingly so), and the individual Boingers, i can say that
1) Boing Boing is a blog, people. Get over it.
2) I don’t recall any promises ever having been made that Boingers will never ever modify any of their works nor take back anything they’ve said or done. That they are not always 100% perfectly perfect and their posts are not etched in granite for the rest of eternity is not a huge drawback here, especially since there are numerous sources which have archives anyway, if you really MUST have access to this material in order to survive.
3) This blog is an extension of the lives of some people who live in meatspace like the rest of us, who are imperfect like the rest of us, and who occasionally decide to hit the do-over switch like the rest of us.
4) I forgot what this one was.
5) To paraphrase Walt Whitman: BB contradicts itself? Very well then! BB are large; they contain multitudes.
Also, I can’t help but wonder: are there really not more important things to debate? Really? Nothing else happening in the world right now worthy of this much pixelsteam and textfire? Really? REALLY? You people must live in a far, far blander world than i.
@1273 @GREGLONDON – “Concern Troll” is the word that comes to mind here for most of these critics.
Also: kudos to Xeni and Pesco et al for being exactly as transparent and open as they feel the need to be. Now please, can we finally put the lid on their [own, personal] garbage cans and get on with wonderful things?
@Brownbat 1309:
As I read it, Nina described a situation between her and VB. I don’t think Nina is a pseudonym for Xeni.
So while what happened between Xeni/BB and VB might be similar, it’s not that.
@1155 Xeni: What do you think? Seriously, I’m asking. I don’t know. We don’t have a policy for it yet.
I think that a good first step would be notifying the Boing Boing moderators that you “don’t have a policy for it yet” — and, therefore, there is no One True Church … uh… Official Policy that must be defended unto death on this comment string.
On the other hand, if the Boing Boing editors decided to let the moderators engage the haters in a ham-fisted manner to keep the editors’ hands clean — see also good cop/bad cop routine, political attack via surrogate — then the BB principles are even more brilliant than I thought.
And I thought all y’all was pretty damn clever to start with.
— SCAM
The cake is a lie
OK. Anyone post something here after #1337 that’s already been mentioned before is a flying monkey. And those still holding their pitchforks should tar and feather them. Or better yet look at #1260 and #1264 and go over to tinynibbles and enforce the policing of hypocrisy over there.
but poopyhead, I was hoping for ice cream.
Oh, wait, it’s ice cream after a stoning.
never mind.
@PooPYHEAD: good idea, will do so (i.e. stop posting after leet), if and only if the BB team promises a follow up post.
But who ever gets post #1337 better not blow it like #1000 did. What a moran!
But I don’t read tinynibbles.
Must….get…..to……1337!
@holtt: which fo the four do you mean?
In retrospect this whole thing is more interesting that I first thought.
I think the questions being asked about what policies should be followed in terms of “unpublishing” actually start to hit upon the weirdness of how new technologies have allowed people to tinker with public/private boundaries in ways that are unfamiliar – and in experimenting people are making mistakes and finding it’s harder to “take it back.” There aren’t social conventions in place for a lot of this stuff and in this void things that seem natural (e.g. I don’t believe in something I wrote so I want to use the unpublish feature of my publishing software).
It’s kind of a weird thing to become a public figure and to lose your “right” to privacy as a result. When Pamela Anderson Lee’s sex tape came out against the wishes of her and Tommy, the courts ruled that as a public figure she had given up the expectation of privacy – a ruling that is bizarre, but is also telling about how we view people that we see as famous.
Things like Boing Boing have created a whole slew of new celebrities, but this is a different kind of celebrity as well. So the public/private issues are only getting weirder…
Hi, I heard there was cake here…?
Tavie, more like pie, and VB has it ALL over her face now!
(And no, that was not an attempt at W-A-M kinkiness there. I’ll let you know when I’m being kinky. ‘k?)
Nothing should be deleted, ever.
Everything ever written should always be available.
(this message brought to you by Seagate and Maxtor’s “An infinite web, stored on finite harddrives” program.)
Ah the four 1000 posts? The actual one, where the poster typed “100” instead of “1000” – what an embarassing typo :D
L33T … neat …. meat …. beat …..seat …. J33T …. wheat ….greet …..
are we there yet?
In all seriousness, and after reading this for the past 2(!) days (thanks for the workday time sink!)….
I am personally fine with the way BB handled this. I do not see them as hypocritical or otherwise ‘shady’ for doing things the way they did.
BB are champions of transparency and openness, but that is only for things that should be for public consumption. I feel pretty certain that they are NOT for transparency and openness in private matters of a personal nature, because they are just that, private and personal.
What happened here was private and personal to the BB team and they handled it in the best and most discreet way they knew. Remember, it was VB who decided to shed the crocodile tears to the public to generate an outcry. Well congratulations, you fell for it, her mission was accomplished!
I have read VB’s stuff before, and I gotta say, she has never rubbed me the right way (no pun in…aww who am I kidding, how could I resist THAT pun?). The whole Steve Jobs thing, remember that? He was calling a duck a duck, and she went shedding the crocodile tears to anyone who’d listen. People fell for that shit too.
Boing Boing: I appreciate what you guys do here. It’s unfortunate that you may have tried to be discreet when dealing with this issue, but it seems the discreetness (is that even a word?) was wasted on the wrong person.
If anything, this incident has made me respect you guys (and gal!) more. You are people, mistakes (and shit) happens. You learn and move on.
As for the mods: I say good on them. I prefer mods to NOT to handle things with the kid gloves. If someone comes bringing a fight, they should expect a fight back.
if we hit 1337, the singularity starts.
If you’re not uploaded by then, it’s too late for you.
Damn, it didn’t make 1337!
crap, this thing keeps crashing my browser…
“Nothing should be deleted, ever. Everything ever written should always be available.” Yepp!
They should shut down comments at 1336
PETITE!
In case this makes it after #1337 here’s a new thought: Based on #1264 Nina conference organizers had better think twice about ever inviting VB as a speaker ever again or risk ruining their cred and/or a slander lawsuit. Also the Wikipedia and copyrighting of other peoples’ photos is just appalling.
Wow, the negative stuff on VB just keeps coming out, doesn’t it?
Do any of you think she regrets starting this yet?
So… Branson hates Visual Basic?
Here, to round out the end….
have some lion-lovin’.
OK, tillwe, you got 1337, so you get to buy everyone ice cream.
One of our basic rights as human beings (and i’m not merely talking about the U.S. Constitution here) is freedom of speech, which includes freedom from speech, i.e., the right to NO expression, or the right to go back and change what we’ve already expressed.
In meatspace, people do this all the time. The only time anyone has a problem with it is when elected officials or corporate big-dogs do it. The fact is that Boing Boing is a blog, and even though some may consider them to be Authority Figures, and even if they themselves consider their blog to be authoritative to some degree about something, they are NOT authorities, and are NOT held to the same rules of accountability to which true authority figures are held.
The internets is a malleable, ever-changing medium, and it comes with its very own checks and balances called the Wayback Machine, Google cache, etc., in case we need to temporarily undo any undoings. All the drunken, idiotic posts/tirades i’ve ever made anywhere would be gone in a heartbeat if i wasn’t so lazy, and i’m sure i probably did delete some of them, given the possibility and relative ease. And i fully understand that somewhere out there may already exist a more “permanent” archive that i may not have any control over.
Who really needs to dig that deeply into someone else’s private life (or whatever!) to come up with a “valid” reason for Xeni doing what she did? The fact is that Xeni exercised her right to unpublish some of her material, and although it is not literally unquestionable, BB is not in any way liable or required to de-unpublish it.
So it is what it is, and people really need to talk about More Important Things starting, say, SOON.
Full disclosure: i am an avid reader of Boing Boing and a huge admirer of Violet Blue for her work in alternative sex ed. Although i have lost a little bit of respect for both BB and VB (BB for getting all weird on us, and VB for opportunistically fanning the flames while pretending like there could be no possible reason why anyone would ever take even the most passively negative action like deleting mention of (slash Yet-Another-Link-To) Poor Little Innocent Her), i honestly don’t care what i think about it and will just carry on with my life like it never happened because it’s such a non-issue.
I have read VB’s stuff before, and I gotta say, she has never rubbed me the right way (no pun in…aww who am I kidding, how could I resist THAT pun?).
Because it’s not a pun?
So while the BB editors have been carefully considering everyone’s comments and actively meeting to revise their policy in response, Violet has posted a link to some BB censoring VB game on her blog. She’s having fun with this. Possibly still high from the rarified air of having tricked more than 1337 people.
Now single up all lines!”
“Cheerily now…handsomely…very well! Prepare to cast her off!”
“Windy City, here we come!”
“Hurrah! Up we go!”
It was amid such lively exclamation that the hydrogen skyship Inconvenience, its gondola draped with patriotic bunting, carrying a five-lad crew belonging to that celebrated aeronautics club known as the Chums of Chance, ascended briskly into the morning, and soon caught the southerly wind.
When the ship reached cruising altitude, those features left behind on the ground having now dwindled to all but microscopic size, Randolph St. Cosmo, the ship commander, announced, “Now secure the Special Sky Detail,” and the boys, each dressed neatly in the summer uniform of red-and-white-striped blazer and trousers of sky blue, spiritedly complied.
They were bound this day for the city of Chicago, and the World’s Columbian Exposition recently opened there. Since their orders had come through, the “scuttlebutt” among the excited and curious crew had been of little besides the fabled “White City,” its great Ferris Wheel, alabaster temples of commerce and industry, sparkling lagoons, and the thousand more such wonders, of both a scientific and an artistic nature, which awaited them there.
“Oh, boy!” cried Darby Suckling, as he leaned over the lifelines to watch the national heartland deeply swung in a whirling blur of green far below, his tow-colored locks streaming in the wind past the gondola like a banner to leeward. (Darby, as my faithful readers will remember, was the “baby” of the crew, and served as both factotum and mascotte, singing as well the difficult treble parts whenever these adolescent aeronauts found it impossible to contain song of some kind.) “I can’t hardly wait!” he exclaimed.
A number of people have noted that “unpublished” is a confusing term. It gives the impression that the posts in question have been removed, deleted, wiped out, destroyed.
What “unpublished” actually seems to do, if I’m understanding corectly, is throw a Cloak of Invisibility over the material. The posts still exist in their ones and zeros, but to access them requires jumping thru a hoop (“Wayback Machine”) or two.
Rather than “unpublished”, how about… “redacted“?
Hi. I’m a longtime occasional reader who had a weblog for a good while before this one came around. Probably my first time posting a comment here (I’m so old school I see comments as a newfangled blog thing, I guess). I read as far as #1100 or so on this post before I started writing this (will try to read the rest, but think I should just get this posted at this point and hope it’s still relevant). Boy. Wow. Eek. Ugh.
I’m disappointed over how this was handled, though I’ve been impressed by Joel and David’s comments in this thread. I know all-too-well how hard it can be for a group of people to figure out how to deal with something like this, when it’s blowing up all around them. I’m sure there’s a ton of discussion going on right now behind-the-scenes and that not everyone is in agreement.
I think it was a big mistake for Xeni to remove the posts she did, but I also know how these things can happen and it sounds like BB didn’t have a set policy for this and she didn’t consult the others over the removals. A lot of it comes down to how you think about your blog. For a lot of bloggers and readers of blogs we can’t imagine ever removing a bunch of old posts for any reason and I think we’re really shocked that Boing Boing did this because we thought they were on the same page as us in regards to weblog ethics.
From recent pieces at the L.A. Times website, it sounds like it was Xeni who removed the posts and that up ’til now the editors of Boing Boing have just kinda done their own thing in regards to publishing, editing, or unpublishing content without consulting each other or having a particular policy on this. I’m guessing some of the editors might be the sort who wouldn’t think of ever unpublishing a post or that many posts and some are not. They’re all in a tough spot here. They aren’t a hive mind, but individuals and I think they’re now realizing that a whole lot of their readers had expected that they had policies about this stuff and would’ve discussed the removal of this many posts and how to handle it. Sounds like they’ve been having that discussion while all this is blowing up around them– not fun, to be sure.
I do think it was a mistake for Teresa (on behalf of “the Boingers”) to use the word “unpublish” rather than say the posts were deleted or removed. While lots of bloggers read Boing Boing and may be familiar with “unpublish” from Movable Type and other software, many more people wouldn’t know the term. If you wanted to be really clear, you could’ve said the posts were removed but you still had the content in your private (non-visible to the internet at large) database and had the capability to look at them and to restore them should you change your mind about the removals.
I was really shocked to see Teresa say “Most large, active blogs take material down, for a variety of reasons” and that this is “normal behavior” because I don’t see that as the case at all. Honestly, I exclaimed my shock aloud when I saw that because it was just so wrong to me. Yes, sometimes a site will pull down their entire archive. Sometimes links do go dead, of course, but especially with the advent of good blogging software most weblogs make archives available and leave them there. There’s a reason “permalinks” are called just that– if they aren’t actual permalinks, the language you use should be different. Rebecca Blood’s piece on Weblog Ethics has been mentioned and quoted and with good reason: many (most?) bloggers really believe in this stuff and that one should “Write each entry as if it could not be changed; add to, but do not rewrite or delete, any entry.” A lot of readers of this site assumed that Boing Boing adhered to this because it seemed in line with the content here.
I haven’t yet in this thread seen anyone quote this part of Rebecca Blood’s piece on Weblog Ethics:
[The strikeout tag doesn’t seem to work within the blockquote for “Bill” there so I used the old- fashioned fanzine way of striking that out, which is a difference from the way it was in the piece I’m quoting. Everyone at Boing Boing should read or re-read “Weblog Ethics” by Rebecca Blood if they haven’t already during this mess if they want to understand why some of us are so shocked.]
This could be another factor in the assumption by the readers; so far it has seemed (at least to this casual reader) like Boing Boing was correcting and amending blog posts, not removing them or editing them without comment. In this case, a strikeout tag could’ve been used on references to Violet Blue in posts that included content on other topics, the actual link could’ve been removed (maybe leaving the text behind, maybe with a note saying the link was removed).
If nothing else, it’d be nice if Boing Boing had a proper 404 page that included a search box for the site, links to popular pages/posts on the site, and maybe even an explanation that some stuff may no longer be in the archive. This is dead simple (well, maybe not the explanation part!) and just good practice for any website.
Someone somewhere mentioned that you can’t keep the data from old posts in the Moveable Type database in the same place if you edit the post to remove/replace content– the old data is lost (unless you copy it to a text file or something somewhere). This was in a response to a suggestion of replacing the old posts that mentioned Violet Blue with boilerplate explanation or something.
Well, one could just create a redirect so that attempts to access any of the “unpublished” Violet Blue pages point to this post or a special page of explanation. No need to mess with the content in the Movable Type database then, it’d still be there for editors to look at and you’d still be able to republish it (you’d then want to remove the redirect from the .htaccess file of course). There’s a plug-in for WordPress (called Redirection IIRC) that handles redirects from within WordPress for folks that don’t like editing .htaccess directly with an editor; I’d be surprised if there isn’t a similar plug-in for Movable Type.
I do think there should be another statement on Boing Boing that explains any new policies that come out of the discussion that is surely going on among the Boing Boing editors now. And acknowledges that you’ve listened to your readers and value what we’ve had to say. Yes, some people have been jerks, but some of that comes from being shocked and surprised and disappointed and even a little angry; and, since is the internet, some people are just being jerks ’cause they like to be or have an axe to grind but that always happens.
I was truly disappointed to see Teresa and Antinous make some remarks here that seemed directed to all commentators as if we we’re all in the “jerk for jerk’s sake” category when that clearly isn’t the case. I know they were (and probably still are) under a lot of stress and some people were attacking them and their friends, but that just made things worse. If I read a comment from Teresa right one of the comments she made was meant to be private (the one that said “you blockheads” etc. I think) but she posted it public by accident– that’s unfortunate and the sort of thing one has to be extra careful about at times like this. Which is rough, when stressed and swamped with work.
Antinous (in #1076) said “Once again, the majority of critical comments in this post are from first-time commenters” and “half the comments in this thread are from users who have never bothered to weigh in on any of those matters, saving their outrage for this instead. Torture: no response. Year old post removal: explosion of fury. The facts speak for themselves.” Good grief! And others (presumably not employed by Boing Boing) have piled on. Argh! This is exactly the sort of thread that would cause longtime readers to come out of the woodwork and weigh in– please don’t assume we’re trolls or VB’s friends and discount what we have to say. Some folks just don’t read or post comments on weblogs due to a lack of time or interest in that sort of thing, that doesn’t mean they aren’t dedicated readers of a website.
It’s better to be honest and apologetic (and confused if appropriate) in your statements than defensive, but it’s hard when one is being attacked by some. Lots of sensible people are reading and not saying anything; some are saying smart things and that’s in the mix here and should be acknowledged. If those folks feel lumped in with those making attacks or saying crazy things, they’ll likely be awfully disappointed and maybe even a little hurt or angry. They may feel unwanted and like the remark in the original post that you guys are “listening” isn’t so true after all.
Redacted works. And was wholly an appropriate thing to do given what I have learned about VB since this began.
When I grow up (on whatever day I decide I should start behaving like a proper adult) I want to be just like Xeni.
Just so folks know; If BB had wanted to, they could absolutely have removed ALL of that material from The Wayback Machine. That is their right as a publisher. They left it there but refused to support VB with their own bandwidth and their own money. And that is about as fair as it is possible to be, or so it seems to me.
I’ve given this a little thought. I don’t care at all about Violet Blue, but I am a regular reader of Boing Boing.
I simply don’t buy the “directory of wonderful things” reasoning that Xeni uses. How does a “thing” go from being wonderful to not wonderful? If the thing in question was wonderful when it was published what did the thing do to become “unpublished”? Nothing! The problem seems to be that Xeni had a disagreement with the creator of the thing.
While we’re at it, I think that “unpublish” is a dangerous term. While perhaps technically accurate, it stinks to high heaven of double speak.
What harm was the old material doing that needed to be addressed? Wouldn’t it be better to simply stop publishing “things” associated with VB? Is removing something from your own archive really the best way to address things?
BB loves to hold others’ feet to the fire for this sort of thing. It is sad that they seem to apply a different standard to themselves. Of course it is also not that unusual. We all tend to think of ourselves as exceptional and want to write our own rules, but next time BB wants to complain about issues such as censorship their voice will be weakened considerably. They’ve shot themselves in the foot, and they’ll realize it as soon as they start writing some post in righteous indignation and it dawns on them that they really can’t post such a thing after this.
There was a “Post of Death” on Slashdot several years ago in which the editors decided to go to war with their readers. Slashdot wasn’t the same after that, because the readers realized that the site wasn’t what they had thought it was. Or at least that the people with the keys saw the site differently than the participants did. Perhaps the same sort of thing will happen here. Readers have thought BB was one thing, and now realize that Xeni and Co. don’t have the same perspective.
It will be interesting to look back at this in a year or two and see if there have been long-lasting effects.
not bad, of one thousand three hundred and fifty one posts, I only deleted one because I felt lke it.
@Greg: In fact, I was only quoting you (and didn’t aim for 1337), but anyways, here’s the recipe.
Hi #1349 Bruce Arthurs, and #1354, A random John, the definition of the term “unpublish” has already been defined in this thread several times, please skim before commenting?
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/07/01/that-violet-blue-thi.html#comment-225558
It’s not doublespeak, it’s a technical term with a different meaning than “redacted” or “deleted”, I was only trying to be precise.
((… and it has been questioned at least equally often))
Sorry Boing Boing, but I think you’ve embarrassed yourself with this call. If another site deleted posts about Richard Dawkins, you would have been the first to call foul. Even if Violet Blue became a convicted paedophile, I still see no reason to delete posts. It’s part of your past, it’s part of your history, and it’s part of the community.
@Theresa this will probably be disemvowelled, but I signed up here just to say: “please, please, please count to ten before posting your comments in this comment thread.”
I understand that you might be upset at the level of attack some have thrown in this discussion, but you are not helping your own image with remarks such as:
“Is it okay if I mention that I find some of these comments astoundingly stupid? I’ve known hamsters that had more guile than the Boingers. Many of you guys have been reading them for years. Have you really not picked up on that fact about them, or do you just like hitting people you know won’t hit back?”
I noticed you made a much more reasoned response later, and good for you. As moderator that’s kind of what we expect from you.
That being said: My problem with the disappearance of these posts has to do with the fact that it was on the sly. It looks sleazy and I (for one) expected better of BB. There’s no need to bash VB in an explanation, just say there’s a conflict of worldview, or whatever. The fact that people didn’t notice for a year, 2 years, 10 years isn’t an excuse or make it look less sleazy. It’s because I believe in BB and what the bloggers say they stand for that I am hurt and angry. Saying that’s an unreasonable expectation is a disingenuous reply. I shouldn’t trust BB’s bloggers to live up to their own principles? Why have them at all, then?
tillwe, I have to make the ice cream myself??? Never mind the recipe is in german and I can’t read it, but more importantly, what was the point of getting 1337 if not to win and buy everyone else ice cream?
I don’t think I can trust you to ever buy me ice cream again.
also, I keep hearing flapping sounds and seeing banana peels on the ground.
MeFi user Breath weighs in with an interesting perspective.
Perhaps I’ve read too much Dickens, but this reminds me of a typical plot device whereby the protagonist (Xeni) is provoked by the antagonist (VB to do something for personal and private reasons that is deemed outrageous to the majority of society. However, because the protagonist is a person of honor, they decline to issue an explaination of the underlying reasons for the action because they are, in fact, protecting the antagonist’s own privacy.
On the other hand, having read the LA Times interview, it seems like this ultimately is a good thing in that you are all discussing it like adults, and perhaps it will ultimately be chalked up to growing pains for electronic media, and benefit the (I can’t stand using the word) ‘blogosphere’ in general. Evolving standards of ethics and all that.
Can’t log in from work, but just had to add my voice to the throng – Bobkat
p.s. I still love Bingbong and read it every day!
this is boring! has anyone actually read all these posts? onward and forward with LSD and hot sauce!
I once knew a painter who decided he would never have a show again and put all of his work into storage. He made no announcement he just did it. No one could see it but it was there and if you asked him he would drag it all out. As an admirer of his work did I have the right to demand he make it available at all time to the public?
yes, 1365, clearly he was OPPRESSING YOU by DENYING you the right to see his work. Surely such a despicable being is aligned with the forces of darkness. :p
Neener @1290 – No, I saw your post at #450 really as a tantrum. Telling them how to do their jobs, telling them you were more important than say, me, and telling them you’re never ever EVAR coming back.
It’s not my job to give you a hard time about saying you’re done, then coming back for more (and then more).
It is, however, my hobby.
I like to give people a hard time for being histrionic over such a triviality.
This thread easily shatters any previous record for worst use of analogies on each side of the argument.
@quarterlyprophet #1368:
You know who else said that?* Hitler.
*though the actual words were spread out over a number of weeks.
Xeni: I think most here know “unpublish” is technically absolutely correct. I (and others) just think that you should use “removed” or “deleted” for the sake of efficient communication.
Because to a non-movable-type user, they (deleted and removed) are the correct term for “pushing a button that sets a flag in a database which removes a post from the set of posts automatically sent to the general public upon request”.
Having to educate the general public about movable type’s terminology will just make your job harder.
All this hoo-haa has just made me realise how nice it is outside. Away from the internet.
Wow, Theresa, talk about needing to take two seconds to think before posting.
Explaining away hypocrisy doesn’t make is something else. There was a large mistake made and nothing but excuses to account for it. I’m very disappointed and becoming more disappointed the more I read the ranting retorts and insufficient explanations.
If BB was a book in which they wrote about Violet Blue, it wouldn’t be called censorship if they omitted those phrases in the next edition.
Yes, yes, “Unpublish” is a technical term for a database maneuver. We get that. It also makes no difference to us. If something is removed from a website, nobody gives a fig about the mechanics behind the process. It was removed.
I think that removing things like that stinks. It’s sneaky and underhanded. If you have a falling out and don’t want to be associated with someone AND don’t want to call attention to the fact, just stop posting about/linking to them. Sure, they may get a trickle of attention from old links. So what? I’ve been on the receiving end of bb links. It’s not anything to worry about after a few days.
As was mentioned a few posts up, Breath on MeFi had an interesting take, which was essentially that we’re holding Xeni to Cory’s standards. There’s some merit to that, but as this is essentially a group blog (again, as seen from the outside) it seems reasonable to do that. I can’t wait to see Cory’s take on this.
I’m sorry that TNH and Ant…(I can never get his name right) had a tough couple of days, but a lot of us are also moderators elsewhere and I, for one, am going to use this as a cautionary example for other mods. Xeni also started out pretty poorly, but I guess she got some sleep or something because she’s doing much better now. (And the mods are too, come to think of it.)
#1372 majkeli
Haven’t you heard? Pitchforks and torches are so yesterday. Having a reasoned discussion about the best policies for a large famous blog is the new black.
Oh now I am disappointed, we are nearly at 1984 posts and its all gone quiet.
Come on guys, the next big push – 1984!, 1984!
BTW Boingers, this page takes quite a while to load now. Perhaps you could paginate every 500 comments or so in the unlikely event that it ever happens again.
Xeni, this thread seems to have gotten so large that my computer is choking on it; when I try to cut & paste from your comments at #1357 and #1191, it’s taking about 20-30 seconds per friggin’ keystroke/click. (!)
For some reason, regular typing in the comment box seems to be working normally. So forgive me for not making specific quotes from your posts. I can’t seem to cut & paste right now, and scrolling up and down is similarly ensnailed. I’m going from memory here.
You described “unpublish” as a “technical term” used on Movable Type.
So… why are you using a technical term in a non-technical discussion?
Why are you using a technical term that comes from command-level Movable Type programming, in a discusssion that’s not being conducted, with some exceptions, by command-level Movable Type users who would recognize the technical meaning of that technical term?
Why do you continue to use “unpublish” when it has been continually and repeatedly interpreted in a way at odds with the strict technical meaning that you seem to think would be obvious to every single Boing Boing reader, whether they’ve used Movable Type or not?
When people see the word “unpublish”, the immediate thought, the common thought, the obvious thought is: “Those posts have been removed.”
I have skimmed the comments here, Xeni, and what I’ve seen is that “unpublish” has repeatedly been seen and interpreted as “removal” rather than “hidden”. It’s because the word is continually interpreted and used in a way contrary to the way you want it to be used and understood that I suggested “redacted” as a more accurate substitute.
As long as you continue to use “unpublish” , you’re going to have to continue “correcting” people who don’t see the word in the narrow, technical, Moveable-Type-specific way you want them to see it. Is that really how you want to spend your keystrokes?
“Unpublish” is a confusing word to use.
“Unpublish” is a bad word to use.
“Unpublish” is a terrible word to use.
As long as you continue to use it, “unpublish” will continue to be part of the problem, not the solution. For God’s sake, just stop using it. The more you use it, the more you keep insisting on it’s MT-specific meaning as the one-and-only possible meaning, the more… foolish… you look, Xeni.
Please, just stop using the word. Just stop. Find something better.
I suggested “redacted” because… well, as near as I can see, it’s an accurate word.
If I take a piece of paper with words written on it, and mark out portions of it with a wide-tip Sharpie, I haven’t destroyed the words on that paper; I’ve just made it more difficult to read them. There are methods, I’m sure — black light, or iodine vapors, or whatever — that could make the obscured writing readable.
Isn’t that exactly what you say the “unpublish” button does to posts, with the Wayback Machine substituting for the black light?
Perhaps what upsets you is the association “redacted” has with the Bush Administration’s excessive (to say the least) obsession with keeping their doings and writings inaccessible.
Well… “redacted” predates George Bush. And, properly used, it’s a useful method to protect genuinely sensitive information.
So… sorry, but I still think “redacted” is a better word than “unpublished”.
If you can think of a better word than “redacted”, as accurate, without the political baggage, by all means use it. I’d be happy to see it. But “unpublish” is NOT the word to use.
(I really try to use words that are clear and meaningful. Up at the top of this absurdly long comment of mine*, trying to think of a word to describe my computer’s slowdown, I rejected “snailification” and “snailized” before settling on “ensnailed”. That you** have to keep explaining the “real” meaning of “unpublish”, again and again and again, shows pretty clearly that it’s not the word to use in this discussion.)
–Bruce Arthurs (just for anyone who might have forgotten the author of this comment by the time they read all the way to the end)
*Y’know, if I hadn’t retired from the Postal Service last month, there’s no way I’d have the time to read this thread and write a comment this long. Man, I gotta get more applications for a new job out this afternoon, before I turn into that classic XKCD cartoon. (“Someone is WRONG on the Internet!“)
**the word “you” has not consistently been used in this comment to refer specifically to Xeni; some have been intended as a group-you that includes Xeni and other people who have used “unpublish” in its technical sense.
Can we stop with the made-up word “unpublished?” It is dishonest Newspeak. Just write “deleted.” Xeni deleted the posts referring to Violet Blue. Deleted.
And honest conversation begins with the terms.
#1378: wrong.
If you read through some of the comments you’ll learn its actually the technical terminology for what was done. It just seems to confuse some people as it is an unfamiliar term.
Maybe it is a confusing word, but it was not used dishonestly, it was used honestly and literally.
Nice try though.
@ David:
My two cents: BoingBoing is like an answering machine. If you guys care to change your outgoing message, there’s no law saying that you can’t. But all of these incoming messages are just like the ones you’re receiving from telemarketers. You have every right to broadcast them, remix them, or in any other way use and abuse them to your liking. By leaving the message, the individual is granting you their explicit permission to record them. Don’t lose any sleep over it.
Having said that, I wish that I could “suddenly” be unpublished from BoingBoing. I was mentioned here a couple of times, and it brought me a tremendous number of page hits, but also a heap of negative publicity and spam. Of course, I don’t blame BB for any of that, but considering the amount of mixed attention this debacle has brought Violet Blue, being an outcast just might have its advantages. I almost understand her position, though… BoingBoing is Page Rank Gold, and deleting references to her website has likely diminished her own Googlability to some degree. At least, until yesterday.
@ Xeni:
On a few occasions, I have espoused a belief that TNH and her fellow mods provide a service here, and I do believe that. There are times, however, when their derisiveness and cattiness are uncalled for, seemingly devoid of any real purpose aside from bullying your readers into behaving like ants. This thread in particular might have benefited from a bit of thoughtful self-moderation.
As to your predicament, it is no secret that this has cost BoingBoing some credibility. It is possible that all of those who have lost faith are in the wrong entirely. Not for me to say. I only expect that, given the ridiculously immense amount of attention that has gone into framing both sides of this debate, the moderators would exercise a modicum of care in addressing your readership. Still, I support you in your editorial decision-making, regardless of the rationale, because I’ve been following BoingBoing since the earliest days, and I am (barely) humble enough to acknowledge how unforgivably flawed I am.
I honestly can’t believe how *INSANE* this thread has become. So, finally, I leave you with the ultimate chaser: a video of puppies, kittens, and ducklings – together at last – frolicking adorably, kissing one another with reckless abandon, and being unapologetically cute at every dizzying turn and in every sickening way imaginable.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=jcMqBqkrBMw
“Unpublished” is the correct and most accurate term for what was done to the posts in question. Unpublishing has specific characteristics which any other term fails to describe. If you don’t understand ‘unpublish’ please educate yourself by reading one of the many explanations of it above. But please do not lobby for the exclusion of this accurate term just because you don’t understand, or it ‘feels’ like deletion, censorship, 1984 or Hitler to you.
Its also almost derangedly pedantic to be obsessing so much over a single word. Seriously. Step away from the computer. Get some sunlight. Have a nap. There is no cause to be flipping out like this. Its hilarious, yet terribly, terribly sad. You poor things. :(
@Takeshi (#1380), That video. Wow. WOW. Posted. Thank you.
Does anyone else agree that the angriest comments here are from some of the first time commenters, and many of those angry comments are basically that BB has fallen fast and far and should just be burned down and forgotten?
If they were not so all alike I would not be so suspicious. I hope no first-time commenters are discouraged by this possibility, as some of the best ideas have also come from first timers.
It must be hard to be so good at what you do that the haters come out of the woodwork to pile on and sockpuppet you when you slip up even just a little.
#1377 Bruce Arthurs
#1378 LarryC
I think it is safe to say that people have registered that many don’t like the word “unpublish”, but it would be re-writing history (a thing we apparently NEVER do on the internet) to say either that it was a mistake to use it in the first place or that it was used dishonestly.
If you have read the entire thread, you can see that the term was initially used quite accurately and precisely. If it is the correct term, it is not dishonest, yes?
Nor, I would argue, was it a mistake; in the sense that I don’t believe Teresa could possibly have anticipated that using the correct term to describe what actually happened would cause such an extremely emotional reaction. I certainly wouldn’t have.
I think it’s fine to make a case for what term to use going forward, balancing technical accuracy with public comprehension (a line all techie types walk with varying degrees of success).
There’s just no need for the narrative to be written as a courtroom drama. It’s really more like the Death Star Canteen scene.
What’s really hilarious, and yet terribly sad, is the made-up word “unpublish.” I imagine the unpublishers also unlisten to music and untake photographs while they unsing a song about unringing a bell.
Just say “removed” or “deleted”, because that’s what you did.
“Unpublish.” Sheesh.
Pie Fight!
Unpublished is relationship between the database and its blog. Deleted is the relationship of the readers to the blog, so the articles were most definitely deleted from that relationship of Boing Boing readers. Unpublished just changes the status in the database and how it relates to the blog. Deleted means the relationship between readers and those articles have been eliminated and that is, without a doubt, true. Boing Boing deleted the articles.
Either way live by the blog, die by the blog.
I’m not your friend buddy!
@1388: see #5 “The posts still exist in our archives, and they’re also available on the Wayback Machine.
Does that square with your definition of ‘deleted’?
Read a bit before you dive in and start flailing.
Everyone who managed to ignore the dozen or so explanations of the technical term ‘unpublish’ and its specific characteristics, as well as the descriptions of how to find the unpublished articles:
Go stand in the corner. No dessert for you.
@1387 – until 2 days ago I forgot how much I like pie.
Mdhatter at 1384 – if this were Wikipedia, I would be coming after you with a tag about now. Where are these posters you think are sockpuppets?
It’s probable that first-time commenters will be coming here angry – after all, if they are regular readers who have been reticent about commenting before now, something pretty anger-making must have happened just now to encourage them to set up and use an account when they’ve previously been happy just reading BB. I don’t think that it points at conspiracy, rather that it points at the fact that there are a lot of different ways people find themselves feeling emotionally invested in websites – through taking part in comments threads, through regular reading of the main text, and, for some, lurking in comments without posting.
Please close this thread. If we’re stuck in a loop of explaining what “unpublish” means and why the word was used, followed by yet another commenter who has apparently read enough to form an opinion about the word, but hasn’t read any of the dozen or so previous loops of explanation and complaint, then it has come to its natural end.
I agree with #1378 in that honest conversation begins with the terms, but argue that in order for that to happen, we should be using correct terms, and not just familiar ones.
How can we have any kind of constructive debate if you can’t even see clear to accept the actual industry language of the software when it has been clearly explained?
Anybody who has seen the back end of a blog understands the concept of “unpublished.” Whether it is the terminology used by Movable Type or the terminology used by WordPress or other blogging software, the concept itself is straight-forward.
Anybody who has read (or even skimmed) this thread should understand by now what “unpublished” means as used in this story and this case; that “unpublished” has a specific meaning apart from “deleted” or “removed” and even “redacted.”
“Unpublished” is a software term that refers to an unmangled, non-deleted post that is no longer viewable by the public-at-large at the site where it was originally published. Those posts continue to exist in a database but are no longer available for public consumption. At BoingBoing, it does allow for archived copies of the posts to continue to exist elsewhere, just not here.
Because those posts are still available in some form, “deleted” is incorrect terminology at best and disingenuous at worst, which doesn’t help the debate. The posts weren’t nuked or destroyed, they were simply pulled back out of public view while remaining in existence. It’s not a trivial distinction.
As much as I understand the argument for “redacted,” the term carries baggage of its own, suggesting in at least one sense that the posts may have been edited or revised. They were not. While they were pulled back, they remain whole but outside of immediate public view.
“Removed” could sound like deleted, although I grant that depends on the context of the sentence. One could write the posts were removed from view but still exist in the database. However, as we’ve already learned, there’s already a single word that means just that, “unpublished.” I’ve long said that the single correct word, regardless of size, can take the place of many smaller, dumber words. I usually grin when I say that. ;)
There are real questions to be asked and debated and pondered. Continuing to make a stink about the terminology used obfuscates those more pertinent questions.
#1385 – Surely you mean “Cantina.” [/ Star Wars geek]
“Making a stink about terminology” is bad?
Now you’re disparaging the work I was born to do.
I would be tempted to agree with Nelson.C, but no doubt that would cause a shitstorm of a shitstorm. Maybe just post an empty entry just so stoopid ppl can wail on each other about semantics.
p.s., anyone who can’t infer the intrinsic meaning of “unpublish” probably isn’t looking at BB for the insightful text. Perhaps more pretty unicorn pics to keep them quiet?
Xeni #1357,
I think my comment indicates that I know exactly what “unpublish” means. Knowing the technical meaning of it I still thought that it was a terrible choice. If you want to defend “unpublish” ’till your dying breath that is fine with me. I think the better option is to admit that it was an incredibly stupid thing to say and move on.
Why was it incredibly stupid? Because many of your readers (and most LA Times readers) have zero idea what it means and see it as double speak. Even those that do know what it means think it has Orwellian overtones. “Removed” would have worked much better. I’d have considered “retracted” but it isn’t a good fit because it implies that there was something untrue about the posts, which seems to have not been the case.
Seriously, when you’re know you’re about to step into a firestorm, why make it worse for yourself?
I see no comment on the rest of what I had to say. I hope that you didn’t decide to “unregard” it because you think I don’t know what “unpublish” means.
#1397 – Nothing of the sort. I wrote “Continuing to make a stink about the terminology used…”, essentially saying what you said in #1391, only your post was shorter, and therefore superior to mine. I still get my dessert, although, regretfully, I shouldn’t eat it.
#1396 Johne Cook
At last! A new word to argue about!!!
No, I mean canteen, though I’m sure they come from the same source. A cantina has the sense of a bar (where droids are not served), while a canteen is like a cafeteria, originally one under regimental control (which it would be, if it were on the Death Star).
You can look it up on YouTube to see what I’m talking about.
Yes, we’ve read the made-up definitions for the made-up word “unpublish”, none of which change the fact it’s a made-up word which is being used because words like “removed”, “hidden” or “deleted” would effectively illustrate how BoingBoing has engaged in the same sort of behavior for which its authors vociferously and ferociously attack others while BoingBoing claims to “fight hard for openness and transparency.”
If BoingBoing values openness and transparency, it would behoove them to use real words instead of inventing new words in order to avoid being criticized for the behavior for which they criticize others.
I like pie. Mmm, pie.
i laugh at the horror of your hair-splitting, pedantic word-buffoonery, histrionic commentors!
#1399 a random John
#1402 emdub
#1385
Really, my feelings are hurt. Didn’t you read my comment? Didn’t you anticipate the firestorm of rage I felt when I read your comments? And yet you posted them anyway!
I admit, I used made up sentences.
OK OK, all of the words are made up. Every one of them!
I feel much better now. Confessing to you was so cathartic.
@1393 Lizzle – This is not wikipedia – nor the NYT – nor is it Google. And that is exactly the point of the whole thread as far as I can tell.
Other commenters have indicated that VB’s legions of doom apparently rule her wikipedia page – I was just wondering aloud if several of them might not also be making trouble here for kicks.
If we’re going to improve the quality of dialogue, we would do well to give each other (those of us who clearly care and are not just angry little trolls) a little more benefit of the doubt. Maybe?
@1387 – DUCK –
——-woosh————–[}
SPLAT!
@ #1394 Nelson.C, we considered closing the thread (and at one point when things were going totally nuts, tried but fucked up!), but it felt more appropriate to leave it open, given the nature of the subjects people were talking about.
As long as the dialogue remains more or less civil (okay, internet-civil, anyway, which may be a few notches down), it’s fine by me.
Besides, I’m mining this thread for kitten/puppy/duckie video links now, and momma needs some urls.
Well, I’ve given Xeni a (little) bit of crap earlier, so I guess I could cough up some Fainting Goats:
(I keep thinking there’s an analogy of some kind here, but I’ve got nothing.)
Other commenters have indicated that VB’s legions of doom apparently rule her wikipedia page – I was just wondering aloud if several of them might not also be making trouble here for kicks.
If we’re going to improve the quality of dialogue, we would do well to give each other (those of us who clearly care and are not just angry little trolls) a little more benefit of the doubt. Maybe?
There’s so many circles of irony there it must be art.
#1402 – EMDUB
Made up, you say? Let us consult the lexicon.
Not made up.
You can, of course, be as cheesed as you want about the propriety of unpublishing posts as an activity, something I’m neither defending nor decrying.
….or someone’s geometry final.
So here’s what I’ve learned, after 1400+ posts…
1) When other websites (say, Google), remove, restrict, or otherwise alter access to information previously or otherwise available through them as a resource, that’s censorship, and worth repeated criticism. Ways to bypass these efforts are made available through BoingBoing.
2) When BoingBoing removes, restricts, or otherwise alters access to information available through them as a resource, it’s just a personal decision because the editor’s relationship to the information has changed, and, like, what’s the big deal?
3) BoingBoing is a collective effort, with management, insurance, and other professional representation, and – as per Greg London – until we ourselves have undertaken a similar effort, with similar requirements of transparency and oversight, we have no right to criticize BoingBoing.
4) BoingBoing is just four people independently talking about stuff they like, and as such, oversight and transparency aren’t relevant, and we have no right to criticize BoingBoing on such grounds.
5) Name-calling by commenters is rude and unproductive, and indicates groupthink at best, malice and trolling at worst.
6) Name-calling by Teresa is moderation, and a perfectly acceptable method of discussion thread governance.
7) Only people with a post count over a given criterion can have legitimate grievances or credible opinions.
8) Post count is immaterial, because no commenter can possibly understand how BoingBoing works.
9) Transparency, oversight, and version control are for the other guy.
10) The very fact that I have posted this makes me a troll or flying monkey.
11) BoingBoing is willing to listen.
12) Experienced internetters can have their feelings seriously hurt by being compared to a flying monkey.
Alright, using “Movable Type” for blog publishing is not programming by any stretch of the imagination. And just because Movable Type labeled some stupid button “unpublish” doen’t make it part of anyone’s lexicon, outside those that use Movable Type. People’s problem with the term is that it is a simplistic little bit of sophistry dancing around the fact that the posts were undoubtedly removed from the public sphere, for undisclosed reasons. People aren’t irate because they were removed from the server, which may or may not have happened, people are pissed because they were essentially removed/deleted/hidden from the public. They were essentially deleted from our lives.
The contradiction arises because Boing Boing, who preaches free speech, selectively removed posts that they originally thought were interesting articles, for personal reasons. They have essentially censored the material they offer. What is really interesting is that it is all so incredibly juvenile. “I don’t like you anymore so I will remove all record of you from my blog.” I am not declaring the reason for the removals but it cannot be content, because at one point in time they loved violet blue. If these articles passed muster in the past why is all this associated content suddenly removed?
They are free to do what ever they fucking please, it is their blog, but ironically enough they are victim to the same power of the blogosphere that they once had at their disposal. If you are going to be full of high ideals on the internet you better be able to live up to them.
Made up, you say? Let us consult the lexicon.
Good point! Let us consult the dictionary too!
Well, I’ve just been rapt for the last day and a half — refreshing every few hours, scanning down through the new comments looking for something from a “mod” or a “Boinger” (I can’t tell you how excited I am to get to use those words!), then back up to whatever comments they’re replying to — it’s just been fascinating. All the emotions roiled by “unpublishing”; all the ways to measure the guile of hamsters, or to spell Antinous; the accumulation of kitten/puppy/duckie links; not to mention that actual issues at the heart of the matter, arising from seemingly nothing, bound to devolve into another somehow different nothing… and yet so rich, here and now. It’s been a great read. But then, I’m the sort of newb who gets excited just finding a chance to italicize things with my rudimentary HTML. Anyway, I can’t help but notice that nearly two hours passed between comments #1407 and #1408 (unless something’s fucked up with the timestampinator), so I have to conclude that things here are on the wane. Maybe some GUI-vivante out there in BB land could assemble a series of attractive charts showing perhaps comment-per-hour density, um… posters offended by MT terminology, percentage of discussion revolving around moderator behaviour… which # elicited the most anticipation (1st? 500th? 1337th?)… Oh, I dunno, there must be some wonderful ways of collating this pile, maybe ways that’ll help illuminate the path forward for the staff… Or, maybe that’ll just look cool — and you could post them somewhere, then maybe BoingBoing will link to them. I mean, that’s sort of what BoingBoing does, isn’t it: “link” to things that exist in other places on the interwebs… like things that BoingBoing isn’t really able to “unpublish”, because they’re already out there, of their own accord. And if you give a hoot you can find them, no?
Glamajamma @1415: “Removed from our lives”? I’ve had friends and relatives removed from my life, and that’s a source of grief and even anger. For a bunch of words removed from our lives — that weren’t missed for a year — this level of drama is bathetic.
And lest we forget; The REASON this became an issue at all is that Violet Blue is just a horrible human being;
1. We are told that she got somebody she disagreed with fired from her job.
2. She used the TRADEMARK system to destroy the life of a poor single mom who had been using the name Violet Blue long before the current Violet Blue had changed her name from Wendi Sullivan Blue
3, We are told that she accused a Wikipedia editor of being a stalker, at a microphone, at a major conference and OUTED that editor.
She is horrible to anybody she cannot USE. And she was so terrible to the Boingers that they wanted NOTHING to do with her ever again. And she was TOLD that a YEAR ago when it HAPPENED, and only decided NOW to attention whore with it because, well, she wasn’t getting her ego-boo.
What a sad, pathetic person she is!
And a really inarticulate writer, so there is no redeeming value there, either.
13) Same as it ever was.
Archeaopteryx,
I haven’t read all 1400 posts, but what is the source of your information? If those are the reasons, in what sense are they too personal to air?
(Also, what just happened to my earlier post? Was it really so offensive to explain why ‘I don’t get it’? Or was it just a database glitch?)
#1416 – Ah, I see your point.
;)
I…
oh my god…
this, this can’t go on…
Will someone PLEASE think of the ducklings!!!
@#1419
you illustrate the irony well, Archeaopteryx.
If we are to take Boingers at their word, one of the reasons the unpublishing of any ref. to VB was done, and kept quiet, was to avoid ‘trashing’ her.
Well, that didn’t work, clearly. Goons like yourself are only too eager to do it for them (although the vague insinuations issued by the crew and mods were plenty for a not so discerning reader).
Sure, unpublish til the cows come home, and defend it any way you like. But when the shit hits the fan, as it must in a situation like this, it would be nice to see some attempt to avoid outright character assassination.
To focus on VB’s ‘sins’ is to miss the point of most of the disappointment I read into this epic thread.
Is it really in boingboing’s interest to get in a personal fight with another prominent blogger? What’s to gain? From where I sit, this thing started bad, and has gone ugly.
Last, you show no class continuing to come here and harp on what you don’t like about VB. It’s never really mattered who ‘this person’ is.
Sirdook,
I think he is referring to posts 139, 626, 690 711 1260 and maybe some others I missed using search on this thread.
I’m sure google will find you a lot more, and we reference the stuff on the lawsuit at Wikipedia.
-Ben
Yeah, but the issue is, there’s no evidence that any of the things he named is in fact the reason Xeni chose to “unpublish” the posts. There’s no evidence VB was told anything a year ago – no-one’s even claimed that.
Yes, VB has maybe done a lot of nasty things. Yes, any one of them would perhaps merit a public denunciation from BB. But that’s not what happened. And what _has_ happened is as much about what has been done to BB as what has been done to VB.
Wow. I had a post deleted too! I’m part of the phenomenon now.
Here’s (roughly) what it said.
“1) A lot of people are simply REALLY SHOCKED that you would behave this way.
2) A lot of people think it’s INCREDIBLY HYPOCRITICAL for you to behave this way.
3) A lot of people think it’s a DISASTER for your credibility
4) A lot of people think your actions after this came out have made things MUCH WORSE
BoingBoing people, please respond.”
I mean, I think there’s been some bizarre disconnect between what posters here have said and what the BoingBoing people have responded to.
Posters have expressed their feelings, along the lines of “I feel shocked by your actions because they go against what I thought were your principles. I feel a strong sense of disappointment and betrayal”.
BoingBoing people have not responded to those statements about how people feel, they’ve just made statements of supposed fact, as in, “all blogs do this” and “it happened over a year ago”.
That’s the disconnect.
Person A: “You have done X. You are not what I thought you were and I can’t trust you any more.”
Person B: “Lots of people do X. I’ve got a right to do X. Anyway X happened a year ago and you didn’t feel upset then because you didn’t know about it”.
That’s not going to help Person A with their feelings of betrayal, is it?
Well, there’s many unpublished posts of Xeni’s that have nothing to do with VB (Like a William Gibson interview, or a hello kitty copyright post).
I’ve also seen a post of David’s regarding VB, that’s now unpublished. So she can’t say it was just her work she was altering.
Ambrose: Right now my perception of the BBers’ view is “We really, really thought that doing X was fine. But it seems a lot of people think otherwise, and we’re by no means infaillible — maybe we were wrong — let’s think about it.”
And given that, apparently, Cory is on vacations, they may (understandably, at least for me) have to “think about it” for a while before they decide what to do. And that’s fine with me — I wouldn’t want them to rush into a decision and regret it later.
And I don’t think anybody can deny (no brothers at least) that rethinking the way BB does moderation is in order.
>my perception of the BBers’ view is “We really, really thought that doing X was fine.
Well that’s a very charitable view.
I don’t think it looks that way to the majority of people. All that “we have the right to do it” business, the history-revision, post-editing and policy-sleight-of-hand is just damage control after the fact as far as I’m concerned.
Holy crap, it’s not just the William Gibson interview– every podcast is gone! WTF is wrong with you?!
#1431 Burnchao, I really appreciate the fact that you care enough to keep contributing to this conversation, but please, calm down. You are entirely mistaken.
The Boing Boing Boing audio podcast archives are just fine. I’m not sure why you think the podcast episodes are no longer available in part or in full, but a quick Google search or a peek at our MT interface indicates they are all very much alive and well.
It is late; you have been very very active in this thread; it might be a good idea to take some time out and re-check your observations more carefully before posting seemingly panicked, factually incorrect contributions to this already very long thread.
Nice, Xeni. Beautiful. Help show your moderators the way.
When you start feeling our pain you’ll understand how to respond to even the harshest of your critics.
It’s so interesting to me that Cory is away when this all breaks. The the one voice so many of us us are the most interested to hear from, strangely silent.
Let’s all give thanks to the Internet Gods for sending down this fantastic little test, to keep us all on our toes.
Remember people, be peaceful and loving.
#1427 Ambrose
That sounds an awful lot like #1235, which I can see just fine.
My charitable view is that you are mistaken.
@Ambrose #1427
… it’s not all about “Person A”
This all seems to me to be a very complicated issue, that has emotionally drained many involved- and at this stage of the game, the discussion is in it’s 3rd overtime. For the hockey fans among us, that’s a reference to 2 teams in the playoffs having both played for over 2 hours of ice-time, over usually 5 hours of real-time; and what was once an exciting and pep-filled hockey game of skill and play, is now just ‘night of the living dead’ on ice.
The BB’ers have been diligently responding to most concerns for the last 2 days; and have been appearing to be reading all of them.
I think everyone needs a break- and maybe at a later date, when everyone has had requisite sleep, non-tech time, and time to discuss in meatspace among friends and colleagues- maybe a richer discussion can happen at a conference, tech town-hall, or something.
At a minimum- everyone does need a beer, some fireworks (ok, maybe not the best combination), some cake, and definitely some human f2f interactions with folks outside this discussion.
So: shall we take a breather?
#1433 PeaceLove
Weren’t you the inspiration for Dolores Umbridge?
Seriously, your comments give me reason to doubt your motives.
Xeni, more ducklings in compensation for your awesome work.
maybe it’s an allegory of some sort?
#1432 Xeni, using the web archive to surf old BB (which you guys recommmended), I found this (podcast #15) to be unpublished (which I commented on), then looking closer, I found this (gone) and this (gone). I haven’t checked every single podcast, so maybe some are still around. Maybe many are still around. Maybe I’m super unlucky, and the three I tried are the only three missing ones. I don’t know.
But I guess you’re right about needing a break from BB. I’ll take your advice and disappear for a while.
#1436
Hagbard,
I don’t recall Dolores Umbrage ever calling for peace or love at Hogwarts.
Why do you doubt my motives? Is it something suspicious in my message or something closed in your heart?
Crap, I just realized that it looks like I’m implying that you’re implying I should “disappear”. I’m not implying that. I’m just taking a break. That’s it. Crap.
Yep. Concern Trolls. That covers it.
I’m saying that your saintly demeanor is just as believable as hers.
You’ve accused BB of psychological violence, passed judgment on them (and I don’t grant you the moral authority to pass such judgment). You’ve demanded their surrender and sought to impose penance on them. You’ve declared who is sufficiently contrite and who is still damned. You’ve even threatened them. And you’ve sought repeatedly to draw Cory into your office so you can help save his soul too.
Suspicious? “It’s so interesting to me that Cory is away when this all breaks. The one voice so many of us are the most interested to hear from, strangely silent.”
Wow, when you put it that way, it’s really clear that Cory’s silence must mean something’s…what’s the term? …closed in his heart.
Your posts are entirely consistent with my original thesis about this whole process (#474 and others).
For a brief while today, they had gotten to a point where there was constructive discussion about good policy. Trying to fold that into your narrative of violence, pain, sin and contrition, with you as Sister Mary Headmistress does a sort of “psychological violence” to that dialog.
How do I know psychological violence has been done? Because I feel outrage. And once you start feeling my pain, you’ll understand how to respond to me. By showing proper contrition, isn’t that right?
What, you don’t think I’m in a position judge your saintliness and demand apologies?
Robert Anton Wilson (RIP) said that there can be no communication except between equals. Time and again I’ve found that observation to be valid.
You are my equal.
Cory, Xeni, Joel, Dave, Mark, Teresa, Antinous, et al, are your equals as well.
Stop treating them as if they are grovelling at your feet or failing to grovel properly, and then maybe they can dialog with you as well.
“We didn’t attempt to silence Violet. We unpublished our own work. There’s a big difference between that and censorship.”
Interesting that I can’t find my previous comment that I submitted in this discussion – basically pointing out what would happen if commenters would want to “unpublish” their own comments.
Censorship?
I love this site and its editors/contributors but the silent application of the Airbrush of History is not cool. What were you thinking?! Moreso its not like no-one would ever notice, and if/when the target of the “unpublishing” noticed you’d be guaranteed to have a good ol’ shitstorm of an Internet Argument on your hands which combined with your frankly weasel worded statements worthy of only the lowliest government spin doctor (“we didnt attempt to silence…we unpublished our own work” – come now, you’re better than that) and lack of openness and on the situation is one you’d be guaranteed to lose, which of course you have done – hence the ~1500 post thread.
So you had a spat with a one-time friend and contributor. So what? Stop accepting her contributions.
I still enjoy your site though, and I still will, but please guys – practice what you preach and behave like the cool people you really are :)
#1442 Hagbard:
You’ve accused BB of psychological violence,
You are totally misrepresenting what I wrote earlier. Here’s my exact comment:
“I agree with Hiram in principle. Removing all references to a person on a well-known blog can be a kind of emotional and psychological violence. Whether the term is correctly applied in this situation I don’t know, since I don’t know the circumstances that led to the removal. Without any intended insult to Ms. Blue, I tend to trust the integrity and good intentions of the BoingBoing team.”
Gosh, pretty damning stuff, eh?
You’ve demanded their surrender and sought to impose penance on them.
Are you referring to this:
“This isn’t fatal to BB, and most of us assume your intentions were perfectly noble. But many of us feel you messed up big time and need to respond in an official capacity immediately.”
I was trying to communicate that their silence, and their decision to defer their response to undiplomatic moderators, was helping to turn this incident into a major PR disaster for them.
You’ve declared who is sufficiently contrite and who is still damned.
??
You’ve even threatened them.
Whu-what? What on earth are you talking about?
And you’ve sought repeatedly to draw Cory into your office so you can help save his soul too.
Have you even read my comments? They’re all there in my profile if you need to see them again.
Here’s what I said:
“I’d like to see Cory address this; among the editors I think he carries the most authority on matters of free speech, Net transparency, and the structure of the Web.”
This sentiment has been expressed by others in the thread. It has nothing to do with me or anyone else “saving his soul,” or even suggesting he or anyone else has a soul in need of saving. It’s because I and many others love his writing and am interested to know what he thinks of this whole brouhaha.
Suspicious? “It’s so interesting to me that Cory is away when this all breaks. The one voice so many of us are the most interested to hear from, strangely silent.”
I didn’t mean to say it was suspicious, in a conspiracy way (you RAW fans!). I said it was interesting in a “the universe act in mysterious ways” way. Sorry if you misunderstood me.
Please read peoples’ comments more carefully before throwing around such accusations in the future.
PeaceLove, for real.
is this how evolution works ?
The fact that many BB supporters at the moment (and BB themselves) keep feeling the need to bring up that this is a “PERSONAL” project/blog/whatever is distressing to me.
It’s only personal in that, it’s owned by them. Which, great, do whatever you want with it. But don’t forget, the INSTANT you release something to the public, it is no longer your own.
Any writer worth their salt knows this. Any artist, any journalist, anyone who labors (even if only for love) and shares their work PUBLICLY must understand this. Or they better never step into the public realm.
Yeah, it was yours, until you hit submit. And then it became the product of the world. Which is odd because I thought that BB understood this with the constant ranting against Copyright. Yes, I know they are different, but conceptually the BB argument and mine are intertwined.
BB needs to understand that, this may have started as a personal thing, but it was only personal until the first person got their hands on the original stapled copy. And once it got online, it became even more personal.
And so, when they hide behind the “It’s our site, we can do what we want” defense, it smacks of naivety and makes them lose credibility.
Add to that the circular and vague explanation of their actions and it just widens the gulf between them and credibility. They’re not journalists. They’re bloggers. But they still have responsibilities. And the handling of this shows that they either don’t understand, or care for these responsibilities.
And that’s sad, because unfortunately, BB is one of the things that sets the standards for how the web and the people using it should act and behave.
dllacina @1447: BB doesn’t rant against copyright. It rants against abusive use of copyright and other IP laws. There’s a big difference.
Dear BoingBoing,
I understand that comparing your actions to Stalin’s Revolution was a bit over the top. I understand now that as more comes out about VB that you had good reason to want to withdraw support of VB. I understand now given what other victims of VB have said that you had some valid concerns that would make you want to withdraw support without getting into a public fight with VB.
I understand that the only reason I found out about you deleting this content about VB ultimately funnels back to the fact that VB complained about it in various public venues such as her blog in in an LA Times puff piece interview that may as well have been written by VB herself. I understand now that I never actually suffered any damage myself by you deleting this content over a year ago, but allowed myself to be whipped up into a frenzy by VB and friends into forming a flying monkey squad that attacked you.
But pride refuses to allow me to be wrong about literally everything thta happened around this mess. And therefore, I vow to devote myself to fight to the last breath to prove to you just how morally wrong you are to use the word “unpublish” when you clearly should be using the term “delete”. Not “unpublish”, DELETE! DELETE!
And so to the last I grapple with thee; from hell’s heart I stab at thee; for hate’s sake I spit my last breath at thee. Talk not to me of blasphemy, man; I’d strike the sun if it insulted me.
How many barrels will thy vengeance yield thee even if thou gettest it, Captain Ahab? it will not fetch thee much in our Nantucket market.”
Nina @1435 gave us the best metaphor for the discussion at this point:
And just in case any entertainment impresarios are listening, I, for one, would pay good money to see a production of Night of the Living Dead On Ice.
Greglondon et al.-Stop.go home see friends,family or significant other.Get yr panties out of the wad their twisted into.move on.Take a step back,look at how insignificant this is.
Yes yr all very clever and can exhaust an argument ad museum ,yer intellectual powers noe no bounds but there come a time to sheath yr inexhaustible mind and let it go…
c’mon its easy,Its nice outside…
It’s ok, he’s just blazing up a straw man for the Fourth.
Hagbard, you could give PeaceLove a little more benefit of the doubt. I could read what you saw into PLs comments, but that’s a shortcoming of the language itself.
A lot of us started off pissed and are really hoping this string of productive comments continues.
GregLondon, might I be the Queequeeg to your Ahab? That was awesome, and a well eaten ‘it’.
I liked the idea above about ad-hoc groups wielding power. (#1248)
My idea: Each of you Boingers choose your 3* preferred commenters from this thread and ask them to be your ad-hoc sounding board on whatever changes you’re considering.
That way there’s at least one level of discourse with ‘us’ before you ignite another storm. It’s arbitrary, yes, but in the end – what isn’t?
(And please disqualify me from consideration, as I suggested it.)
* – or some number
“Gosh, pretty damning stuff, eh?”
Yeah, when it’s followed by such classics as, “This is, however, a huge screwup for BoingBoing,” or “You have compounded your problems…”
Surrender and penance = #1136
– Respond immediately on your front page
– Display appropriate contrition and humility
– Your moderators’ heads are forfeit
– Your current responses are deemed unresponsive
– Give us a new official response in a new post
Sufficiently contrite, damned:
“David and Joel have both displayed appropriate contrition and humility in their comments, but the moderators are widely perceived (including by me) as unfriendly and snarky.”
The threat:
“Until such a response is forthcoming, expect the ongoing erosion of goodwill you’ve built up over the years to continue to slowly erode.”
And of course all of the references to the legions of hurt and angry fans you claim to represent is an implicit threat that the impact of the consequences of their continued intransigence will be huge.
Come out and play, Cory:
#793 You
#1433 You again
Perhaps it was wrong of me to claim that your intention was to save his soul.
“I didn’t mean to say it was suspicious, in a conspiracy way (you RAW fans!). I said it was interesting in a “the universe act in mysterious ways” way. Sorry if you misunderstood me.”
But you didn’t say it was suspicious. You asked me what I thought was suspicious. And the more serious emphasis in my mind is, “..strangely silent” as opposed to the first part, “It’s so interesting.”
Of course, I didn’t bring up RAW in terms of consipiracies, but in terms of communication. Do you agree with RAW about communication happening between equals? Because that’s the part of my comment most important to me.
“Please read peoples’ comments more carefully before throwing around such accusations in the future.”
Words to live by.
I’ve been thinking about this situation for the past few days, trying to figure out what the actual problem is. It’s been wonderful to read the thoughts — hostile and not — from others here.
It has helped me clarify my own thoughts. That’s tricky for me for a few reasons (caution, name dropping ahead):
My first exposure to tech culture was through Mondo2000 and Boing Boing way back in the days of paper.
@David and I worked for the same editor in Cincinnati many years ago. In some respects, I stalked his career, even following in his footsteps out to Berkeley.
@Xeni and I met when I worked at Wired and have stayed friends over the years.
@Cori and I used to have spirited conversations about copyright, intellectual property and digital culture outside the EFF offices.
Even @John and I have traded thoughts — sporadically — over the years.
I have a great deal of respect for them. I love Boing Boing. And I believe them to be honorable, passionate people who care as much about BB as the community does.
The decision to unpublish doesn’t bother me. Their blog, their right. We may disagree on whether they should have done that — but I don’t think it’s hard to understand it’s their right to do that.
I’m not even overly concerned about whether they should have or not. That is an internal decision that probably can’t be used as a “template” for other sites. Every decision to do this is individual. What you learn here is likely not applicable somewhere else.
The problem is the decision to hold back the explanation. Again, it’s the rights of the BB folks to do that, but it’s the right of the community — which is equally invested (with the link submission, with the comments, with the 2-way communication) — to demand that. In one swoop, the idea and dynamic of the BB community has been defined specifically in a new way.
It’s less 2-way now (and maybe it always was) at least in definition.
This is a perfectly legitimate way to run the community — but for those invested, it’s a radical notion. If you invite people in and they get invested, this is a shock.
Of course, the irony is this: the decision to do something which (inadvertently) changed the community dynamic also caused the community to engage and discuss the act and itself.
Which is indeed a wonderful thing.
#1454 mdhatter
Too late. I was typing and not refreshing when you wrote your suggestion.
I’ll stop posting for a while to see if I have perspective, and with a prayer for more constructive dialog.
@MDHATTER (#1455), regarding
“My idea: Each of you Boingers choose your 3* preferred commenters from this thread and ask them to be your ad-hoc sounding board on whatever changes you’re considering.”
Funnily enough, I was thinking about something along those lines last night. Not just as a response to this particular situation, but as a way to keep this kind of “meta-conversation” with our community going. Anyway, more grist for the mill. Thanks for bringing it up!
Hey. So Reading this lately has been making me think about the question of personal vs business. I think that taking your business very personally is actually really important. I think that that is a big theme here at BB. Think about the TSA, or corporations who helped nazis or all the social/environmental issues. The ideas that – “oh your being payed – this is your job – this isn’t personal.” is very very dangerous. From all I’ve read (and correct me if I’m wrong!) Xeni thought she couldn’t let herself of BB be associated with, or promote VB anymore. Perhaps ‘unpublishing’ (just live with the word for the moment) was the wrong way to do this. But how do you stop supporting something you think is bad without ‘unpublishing’? It’s the linking that’s the support and gives the page boost. What if they wrote – oh we think VB sucks now on every VB post – that would be really really rude. VB would get her rankings but google would show nasty stuff at the top – right? I get the feeling that some people have that ‘unpublishing’ feels like ripping pages out of a book. It really scares me too – but here on the internet because the information is a living thing maybe it’s like publishing a new addition of a book. I mean look at a biology text book from 1979 and then 2008.
I also really don’t think BB ‘owes’ it to the community to tell us what VB did. You could be my lover and sometimes I just can’t or shouldn’t tell you what someone else did. I owe you an explanation of MY behavior – like I’m not friends with X because X hurt me – but you don’t need all the details. It’s not lack of love.
wow. i accidentally hit something on the left of my keyboard and it hit post about half way through a paragraph. sigh. now you all know how bad my spelling and grammar is before editing. writing in textedit from now on. and expect a amendment!
Ok only a little bit missing: Re the unpubishing thing – I was just going to say ripping the pages out might be more like taking the posts off the wayback machine. For people who are really upset about it – How do you think they could politely stop supporting VB with no more linking to her and no public accusations?
@GREGLONDON – Very well said.
@AGF And they COULD have taken the posts off the Wayback. I’ve taken things off the Wayback and its not difficult (but not speedy.)
has anyone noticed that no other person(s) mentioned in the unpublished entries has cried fowl or kick up a “sh*tstorm”?
Martha MacArthur@1465: Actually, that’s not true. BB fans just aren’t looking for it, so they may not be seeing it.
@Michael Brutsch: Uh, interesting link. Especially that comment there:
really brings something new into the discussion here.
((I would have commented many other things like 1337, but nothing was really new, only a repetition of things like the “unpublish=delete from public view” argument or applaud for Ambrose’s (1417) explanation why vague feelings may matter here. Hope others on both sides of the argumentative fence also post only when there is something new …))
@1459:
3 respected commenters as an ad hoc sounding board is a fine idea for gauging reactions except it won’t tell you how trolls, pyros, pilers-on, drama queens and other ill intentioned parties will react.
That requires a second *cracked* sounding board comprised of over caffeinated hysterics and no-lifers with too much time on their hands. Run it past them for worst case scenarios.
Nominations are now open.
This is a private blog and they have the right to show or not show whatever content they want, and the right to explain or not explain any hiding of content. But, when they do NOT explain why they did this, they invite people to speculate. Most of the reasons that come to mind why they would do this cast BB in a negative light. To improve the way people look at them, explaining the real reason would (probably) be an improvement over the reasons that people would imagine. On Metafilter, a reason was mentioned that this was done to break the association with sexual content so that BB would be less likely to be blocked by netnanny and the like- to become a kiddy blog where no adult conversation is allowed. People ARE going to believe things like that if the real explanation is not given. But, it remains their right not to explain – it is a private blog, on their server, they can make it into a Shrine to Satan with blinking text if they so choose.
Way more than fashionably late to the party as there were a few comments to catch up on. (And yes, I read them all – *whew*)
First off, BB is a great community of wonderful things and people. I support the BB staff and moderators. I used to mod a quite sizable board, and I know how easy it can be to find yourself at the end of a really bad post that had a path to it paved with the best of intentions. The past few days have been hectic for the BB crew I’m sure, so hats off to all, if not for anything else, for your effort.
Comment editing, purging and rearranging is a woefully common blog activity. Remember that old joke “of course it’s true, I read it on the internet� The humour in this suggests that there are fabricated or changing ideas on the net, and change is really the very fabric of the technology. I’m not really sure why people are up in arms about a common activity in a medium that is built on the ideals of constant change and revision. Does anyone ever get worked up over rewritten or edited Facebook or Wikipedia pages?
The BB/print comparison (BB is like a newspaper, and newspapers don’t purge people/articles) is not entirely accurate because if you go back 40 years and look up an old newspaper article all the pertinent items that paid for the cost (ads and such) are grossly out of date and would not reap the advertiser any benefit… conversely any old link in a blog potentially COULD generate revenue for the linkee. One could say that BB chose not to continue their support on this basis as it generates an advantage to the linkee not found in old print archives.
I believe this was mentioned once before, and I’m surprised it hasn’t been mentioned more, but perhaps BB is not only personally trying to distance themselves, but also legally trying to distance themselves. Something may be coming down the pipe and BB may simply want to get out of the way. Either way, I believe that the BB crew is full of integrity and they would not choose this path unless it was their best option (I’m not saying it was a good option, but the best of the choices available).
To me censorship means trying to stifle or extinguish a voice or idea. By removing posts on your own blog regarding one topic/person is removal of support. Trying to close down the same person’s website, burning all their books, persuading other bloggers to shun them… that would be censorship.
The real news story here isn’t ‘censorship’, ‘unpublishing’ or ‘what is the private matter really about’ but it is about the volume of reaction, how people perceive posts on the internet, and the sense of ownership a reader feels about content on their favourite blogs.
Perhaps the best thing that can come from this is the creation of a common set of blog ‘rules’ or ‘code of ethics’ that all blogs that sign on would abide by. Many people have stated that “I do X on my blog†or “I don’t do Yâ€, which shows a great difference in how blogs are handled, but if people could say “this blog abides by the ‘New BB Code of Ethics’”, we would then know the common rules a site plays by. It would need the input of lots of blogs/bloggers and maybe even a conference or two, but the end result would be worth it.
I think that everyone has a different expectation of what the ‘responsibilities’ and ‘rights’ for a blog/blogger entail and everyone is making their own rules and judgements up as we surf along. This incident has just brought the differences of opinion to light.
Talk soon, Djinn
There are still some flying monkeys about because people are trying to fix an issue using the wrong tool. There is no one size fix all solution for something like this. Each individual case requires sober consideration as one ideal may very well override another.
In this case it’s appears to be a private matter with possibly other people involved (hard to imagine for what other reason Xeni would prefer to keep this private). In many cases privacy trumps transparency especially when it involves a predatory litigous personality such as Violet Blue Internet Bully. Even though it seems readers have lost something they hadn’t noticed for an entire year, this action may be mitigating other damages unknown to us all. Maybe in fact BB are martyrs for some personal/private thing which is no one else’s business but their’s.
Based on personal testimony seen here and other sources such as Violet’s wikipedia talk page’s history, it definately does seem like she trolled the BBrs for page hits in the name of transparency. And people are up in arms for transparency in general instead of the right to privacy, freedom of speech, and reasonable expectations over the management of their own content.
Look at googletrends, except for a spike in her page hits in Jan. for being snubbed by Steve Jobs, her numbers for 2008 are significantly lower than 2007. One can’t help but wonder, is it due to numerous others quietly withdrawing support after knowing her personally? Perfectly reasonable result from spending the year trademarking her name and suing an indigent, single mom sex worker who already had her name way before she started blogging, publicly slandering and trying to destroy other peoples’ careers and reputations, stealing others’ images and copyrighting them as her own, sockpuppeting her own wikipedia entry, etc.
It’s no wonder a personality like this would rather garner the support of the anonymous masses and hide behind generally accepted benign ideaologies as shields instead of facing the actual specific issues she has with people (which after we’ve all learned more from this debacle), she’s most likely to be in the wrong.
As usual the act of banning has made the banned more popular and well known then ever.
If Boing Boing wanted to advertise This person,whom I never had heard of before, they are doing a great job of it.
Salmon Rushdie and the Rolling Stones son “Street Fighting Man ” always come to mind when someone bans something.
The ONLY result of banning something is to make it more popular than ever before.
Violet Blue is a company that makes excellent microphones and to me that is all Violet Blue will ever be.
If you are looking for a top notch microphone check out Violet Blue mics.
I’m starting to get pissed off at people insisting that just because the damage that was done isn’t easily measurable, that nothing counts for anything. Somehow it doesn’t matter at all when BB betrays the ideals that they’d previously espoused, because you can’t put a dollar sign in front of the it. The emotional pain of having your formerly-shared ideals discarded by a blog which, whether they want to or not, sets an example for people – isn’t worth anything, because you can’t put a number on it.
@ Archeaopteryx Re: wayback machine – yeah I know. That’s why it seems a bit more like publishing a new text book – with some more information and some less. The wayback machine is kind of like going to the library and getting the old version of the text book. It’s interesting to see how what people choose to publish changes.
I guess the posts could now say “Boing Boing can no longer host this link. If you would like to see it please visit the Wayback machine at : such and such . com’ maybe that would be civil enough and still calm people down. It would also send people to the wayback machine.
The other thing is – and this is why people (myself included) insisted “you had a year” was because #5 said the posts were removed from public view (passive voice, as if it was a collective decision instead of Xeni acting alone) while an evaluation of what to do took place. (More passive voice, implying that the BBers all got together back then to “evaluate” things.
It’s now clear that neither of those are the case, but what’s not clear is what “an evaluation of what to do” actually did mean – I can’t think of an alternate interpretation of that; maybe someone else could suggest something?
And TNH’s original post here is full of “us” and “we”, again making it seem like this was something that all (or most) of the Boingers were involved in. So, yes, people were a bit surprised when everyone else said they’d never gotten together and talked about it, and then when Xeni told the LA Times that it was her alone.
So I had a previous post here that disappeared last night; I think it had to be some sort of database error related to the high volume of posts, because it disappeared rather quickly and wasn’t particularly inflamatory.
But here, is the main point:
What puzzles me most about this situation the odd not-quite-public-not-quite-private was this is being handled. The original post essentially just publicizes the fact that they aren’t going to say anything, while the linked interviews in the update provide a bit more information.
One alarming disconnect between the original posts and the linked interview is this:
The original post makes it seem like there was a collective decision for BB to disassociate with VB.
But the linked interviews seem to indicate that this was a unilateral decision made by Xeni.
In that light, it appears that the explanation is this:
Xeni decided, for personal reasons, to remove all of her VB posts. She figured they were her posts so there was nothing inappropriate about her doing as she pleased with them. Many readers vehemently disagree, and BB is now reconsidering that aspect of their editorial policy.
This is a perfectly coherent explanation, it leaves room for the substantive dispute about what BBs editorial policy should be, and it leaves Xeni’s reasons private without obfuscating what happened. So if this is true, why doesn’t the original post say that?
Wow, I think we passed the Minsky emergent complexity limit, we’ll become self-aware any minute now.
I unpublished your mom last night!
#1475 posted by Random832: TNH’s original post here is full of “us” and “we”, again making it seem like this was something that all (or most) of the Boingers were involved in. So, yes, people were a bit surprised when everyone else said they’d never gotten together and talked about it, and then when Xeni told the LA Times that it was her alone.
No shit. Especially when her original post said “SPEAKING FOR ALL THE BOINGERS…”
Does it still say that? I dunno – it seems that the folks around here (at least Teresa and Xeni) are accustomed to simply going back and rewriting their own posts without the slightest indication that they have done so, regardless of what may ave been said in response in the interim
Wow. ok. I think this is about it for me – but: The us/we thing. So Xeni unpublished posts a year ago. No one noticed. no issue at the time. Then it all went nuts – so then the Boingers talked, and decided to have TNS put up this post – for them. Hence the we/us on this post. This post is from all of them. Theresa said in the post “We were trying to do the right thing quietly and respectfully, without embarrassing the parties involved.” so I would understand that not only means VB. It also means they didn’t want to say – “oooo Xeni did it and didn’t tell us – it’s all her fault.” That wouldn’t be very nice would it? I figured this out by just reading this post. It’s no conspiracy. No one is out to destroy Boing Boing or hurt you or the internets. It’s just humans doing what they can to share and live in this world together. It will never be simple or perfect or completely black and white. So please try to be charitable and try to see other people’s side. Really. We are all together on this – it’s a community right?
AGF,
Here’s the offending sentences:
“Violet behaved in a way that made us reconsider whether we wanted to lend her any credibility or associate with her.”
Based on subsequent comments and the linked interview, this is extremely (and pointlessly) misleading, even on the most charitable reading.
sirdook – I see what you mean and why it bothers you. I just think it was said because they didn’t want to put it all on Xeni. I don’t think it was meant to be misleading. Just gentle. I mean imagine it’s your best friend – wouldn’t you publically just say we and take the hits? Xeni choose to explain further and that’s awsome.
You were just asking why the first post didn’t explain and I think that’s why. As far as being charitable – you were just asking – so sorry if I sounded grumpy!
Has anyone else noticed that post ” #581 by Teresa Nielsen Hayden / Moderator ” has been disemvowelled?
Sirdock @1481: No, it’s a perfectly understandable collective “we” that you use when one of your friends and your shared enterprise is under attack by flying monkeys from the short wavelength end of the spectrum.
If Xeni acted alone and without consultation, the rest of the boingers have elected to support her while the shitstorm blows over. You should hope to get as much support from your workplace when you are mobbed by avian simians.
People involved with a project often say “us” and “we” when that isn’t actually accurate.
I have a nifty game for us to play; Who is Jonathan Moore’s sock puppet(s) on this thread? Because you know he absolutely HAS to be here as he is just very involved in editing her article over at Wikipedia at the moment.
Winner gets an free McDonald’s Double Cheeseburger and the acclaim of dozens!
I could never watch the flying monkeys when I was a kid. I’d hide. I think my husband actually made his dad leave the theatre with him for that bit of the movie. Flying monkeys are freakin scary! I want pie and puppies to share it with ;)
Teresa disemvowelled herself? That’s hard-core moderation.
Food for thought: “Needing To Know”
http://www.kickingpebbles.net/?p=107
Not including my blog-link to pimp my blog… which most I can assert, will find to be generally irrelevant and boring, in it’s entirety.
Only posting as a link, because the scrolling and ascii-overload of this post, is already over the top- and, the post does not directly discuss details of this article.
#1488 – Perhaps she just “unpublished” the vowels. ;)
Hey Nina – Yes. Beautifully put.
Hi folks,
Hope everyone in the US is having a mellow holiday, and that everyone else is having a good day, too, even if they are deprived of the fireworks and the BBQs.
A few things.
Many people in this nearly-1500-post comment thread have weighed in with very thoughtful observations and questions. Thank you. I know there are still some misunderstandings floating around, and we (BB, not me as the “royal we”) need to address them. We’re planning to do that.
Please be patient with us. Today is a holiday, and I’m spending it with my family and friends, mostly offline.
Cory and Mark happened to both be on personal vacations, mostly offline (in Mark’s case, entirely offline) all week while this stuff blew up.
When something happens that affects all of us individually and collectively, we try to really think through things together, and process it together, and do the right thing together. In this case, we were delayed by a number of factors, but we will swing back and address some of the unresolved issues, soonest.
One asteroid I’d like to blast apart right now with a truth-laser: um, contrary to what like 5 people complained to me today, in person, on the phone, and over email, um… how do i put this… well, this comment thread is not shut down. And we’re not planning to shut it down.
We considered doing so the other day because we were dealing with a short-term crisis, but as you can see this is not the case, and plans are to keep it open indefinitely. That could change I guess, so please don’t crucify me if one day we have to for some unsual set of reasons, but I don’t think we’ll close it any time soon.
Anyway, thank you so much for being engaged with this discussion, and please stand by, we’ll be back soon.
XJ
Well, don’t see that any issues got settled here, although all sorts got raised. The Boingers can do as they wish with their blog? Xeni’s human and isn’t keen to admit or explain her private business? Wow. Quelle suprise.
One thing’s sure true for me, though: BB just got a lot less interesting. It’s just some kids with a magazine, trying to get famous and make a buck. They have this Letters to the Editor column and an interesting blend of stuff, but not fundamentally different from lots of other media — unlike, say, Daily Kos, where there really is a conversation going on.
Too bad. But then they didn’t pretend to be something special, right?
Wendy Augenstein? Was THAT her original name? One search engine shows that…
@ Teresa
Although I don’t like the disemvowelling of anybody, I’m really impressed that you did it to yourself. That’s the strongest, most sincere apology I’ve seen in a long time. I’ve gained A LOT of respect for you.
@burnchao and others, I am very proud to call Teresa Nielsen Hayden a colleague, she’s handled this with dignity and sincerity throughout.
All of us here at Boing Boing are human beings; but she’s that and more.
Again, stay tuned, more from all of us when the holiday’s over.
XJ
Xeni, people got that impression because another boinger announced that was the case in this thread (although I can’t ‘find’ it now. It was before 8:00pm on the 2nd, assuming you and Twitter are on the same clock.)
Burnchao, the mods have disemvowelled themselves before, mostly because of intemperate comments. It’s weasley whether you do it to another or yourself. Disemvowelling is all about shirking responsibility. “I didn’t DELETE your/my post, you see…” It also encourages mods to be intemperate, since they can disemvowell it later. It’s the Taser of moderation.
Burnchao @496, Teresa is a person of enormous integrity. I’m just sorry there aren’t more moderators who are willing to live by the rules they enforce. (I once banned myself for a day from the SFWA livejournal because I was being a jerk and really needed a timeout. I’m sure that in making that decision, at some level, I asked myself WWTNHD?)
AGF – out. have a good 4th y’all.
Passed another milestone. Time for some ducklings and puppies!
in after 1500 – Anyway… This milestone is as good a time as any: I would appreciate if this thread were closed and a new one opened in its place – my browser is starting to groan under the stress of loading this page, and especially of searching it.
(some reader-side option to divide the comments into multiple pages with, say, 50 or 100 comments each would be nice. Just sayin’)
The one thing everyone has danced around is the money involved here. Removing the references and links to Ms. Blue’s blog would (and probably did) take away some ‘googlejuice,’ to use a term from a previous link. Deciding to no longer support her goes farther than just changing a tag in a database.
Now I am no apologist for her actions, they sound pretty despicable if they are all to be believed. [No offense, Nina – I find your comments believable, it’s rags like Vllywg I have more difficulty with, though I suppose rumors and gossip are their business.] And whatever Ms. Blue did specifically to make the Boinger(/s) come to the (allegedly difficult) decision must have been at least as bad as some of that described. But, there is definitely some damage done here, and by the looks of it, some collateral damage. Nonetheless, this editorial decision is absolutely your prerogative.
However, as much as anyone involved wants to act like this is a personal blog, the reality is that it is a business that looks and acts like a personal blog. We all buy our slice of the product every time we refresh a page and read on (and give eyeball counts to the ads). We are invested in it with our time and attention.
We have formed a vibrant community invested in the personalities and the filter that these unique and interesting individuals provide. I don’t mean to say that we own anyone involved, far from it, but the content we read and follow with terms associated like Permalink, well, we feel like we are a part of it. We feel like once it’s out there, it should stay out there. And we felt reasonably assured that things like Permalink meant that a link was permanent. More than a few people have expressed lament and consternation about their inability to continue to rely on those links and the like as permanent. I have gone back days and months (maybe not years) later to find something I recalled reading here. I like that it’s here, waiting for me. This retroactive change in policy makes me doubt whether I can return and find something again. That is what troubles me.
I’m not going to get all overdramatic and claim to take my ball and go home. I have no doubt that there are tens of thousands of readers like me who are at least a bit miffed, but will continue to read, only a little more wary of what they see and worried about whether it will be around the next time they come looking for it.
I have enough respect for the people here that I believe you when you say your intentions were never to be secretive. And I believe that you were honorable in holding your collective tongues by not discussing specific reasons in the face of sharp criticism. And I think in the heat of it all, some things were said that shouldn’t have been said, but we’re all human and we make mistakes.
I am anxious to hear what you all decide to do after you have the time to think about this and make some collective decisions, whether there is a change or not. It’s your decision and your call to make.
In any case, thanks for keeping this thread open, and for listening.
——-
I should have ended my post there, but here goes…
I’m not arrogant enough to think I’m right, but this is the internet, dammit, so of course I have an opinion of what to do. I suggest you put the posts back up, with strikeouts through the parts you don’t like and a note added with as much or as little detail as you care to give. Break the links back to the things you no longer endorse, but give the enough text from the link that we could get there if we want to without having to consult the wayback machine. I’m no expert, but I expect that a broken link should take away most of the ‘googlejuice’ and that plus the note and strikethrough should give more than the desired punitive effect, with minimal collateral damage.
Is this a bad time to ask again to have my commenting account removed? Teresa e-mailed me a one-liner reply to my request in November and I’ve heard nothing else about it since.
At this point, I even don’t care if my comments and comment history remain. I just want to disable the account.
Someone just emailed me, bringing this to my attention:
When Violet was criticizing Flickr on her blog some time ago, she included a link to a Flickr image- on which I wrote a comment, offering a devil’s advocate angle for folks to consider, prior to rushing to judgments against Flickr.
Violet promptly deleted my comment, and blocked me from further commenting to her Flickr account. This of course, was what then prompted her to call me out as a “troll” to her Flickr pages. Was it a comment she didn’t want to hear? Sure- and technically that does meet the criteria of being a troll… but, common sense I think dictates otherwise, if the text of the actual comment is read.
Apparently someone noticed my comment before it was deleted, and quoted it in her blog:
http://worldmegan.net/2007/06/the-big-flickr-scare/
As with my other posts here, I’m not out to smear Violet- but given the acute criticism being lodged against BoingBoing, and wanting to provide as much context as I can to ease their burden in this situation- I’ve done the commenting, as I have.
And, personally- “coming out” finally, after avoiding parties and day to day cowering in fear of what crap Violet will sling at me next, for over a year– this experience, while “not about me,” has truly been a great catharsis.
Unless someone else sends me publishable stuff to share- I’m off.
Keep up the civilized debate; it’s a good one, and one that obviously has been long overdue.
Speaking of searching this thread, I’m running Firefox 3 under XP and when I try to use the search function (F3) in this thread, it chokes and locks up. Works fine with other BB comments threads but this one makes me have to crash/restart the browser.
Maybe it’s just recoiling in distaste from something, but I think it’s a size issue.
“Maybe it’s just recoiling in distaste from something, but I think it’s a size issue”.
(insert lame, “size does matter” comment here).
Somebody should unpublish this thread.
Rossindetroit, Firefox 3 does the same for me under OSX 10.5.4.
But I like watching the thread grow. Signal to noise is about what you’d expect, but there are still good bits coming in.
#1507 ROSSINDETROIT
The search function starts to search as soon as you type a letter in. I think that’s what it’s having trouble coping with with a page this long. I’ve been typing out the term I want to search for in a text editing program, then copying and pasting it into the search field. That way, it immediately starts searching for the whole term, and not each letter of the term.
So far, that’s worked for me. If the page gets bigger…OMMV.
Wow, first time I’ve refreshed the thread and not seen any new comments! For what it’s worth, my search function works instantly, but I’m using Firefox 2 in OSX 10.3.9. Firefox 3 doesn’t seem to work for me at all…
Also, nice thread.
Hey, lookit that, everyone. The world is still turning.
Hagbard, nice tip. Thanks!
Kevbo, I would love to say you’ve found something we can all agree on. But then we’d probably get a visit from here.
Being from Alaska I find it amusing that they host there sight there since anyone from Alaska is keenly aware the earth is round from practical experience.
Just realized I didnt mention that, 1514 is a response to 1513. And I do so know how to spell site *smirk*
@1515 How about “their?” :)
Ulor and Ajpresto, my favorite Twain quote (okay, of many): “I don’t give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way.”
Nice.
Okay, I’m gonna make just one more (hopefully short) comment about the word “unpublish” and then go away.
“Unpublish” only contains the idea of “saving” or “archiving” if you’ve already learned the blogging-software definition of the word. Minus that knowledge or experience, there is no context to the word to communicate the concept of “saving” or “archiving” the unpublished posts. This is why it keeps having to be explained, over and over, as new people come along who haven’t seen it used in the blogging-software way.
Like, oh, me. I’d never seen the word “unpublish” used until this whole discussion started, and I’ve been blogging for years.
But that’s been on Blogger. And it turns out that the Blogger command that does the same thing as “Unpublish” here is…
…”Save To Draft”.
Bam, right there on the button is the word “Save”. Hit that button, and the post is moved from public view into a “draft” catgegory visible only to the blog’s editor. No confusion possible.
Y’know, I’ve seen Blogger treated with disdain, like it was the two-headed ugly stepchild of blogging software, but in this case… I think they got it right.
That is all.
No, wait, there is just one more thing I wanted to say:
I’ve put two previous posts here, that seem to have caused some ruckus, and NOT ONE LURKER HAS SUPPORTED ME IN EMAIL! NOT ONE! I AM DEEPLY, DEEPLY HURT BY THIS. YOU LURKERS ARE ALL A BUNCH OF… OF… SLACKERS!
Y’know, I’ve seen Blogger treated with disdain, like it was the two-headed ugly stepchild of blogging software, but in this case… I think they got it right.
I don’t. Any button whose primary effect is to remove from public view a post which was previously in public view, should contain some synonym of “remove” in it. If it was posted before, it was ALREADY saved, so the action isn’t one of saving, it is one of hiding or removing. “save as draft” only makes sense for things that have never been posted at all.
I vote for “remove from public view”. “Unpublish” may be the right technical term, but it is back-end jargon and has a creepy feel to it. “Delete” has a vaguely sinister connotation and is incorrect from the back-end perspective. “Remove from public view” is value-neutral, factually correct, and comprehensible even by those who are not MT bloggers.
The whole thing really boils down to money, doesn’t it? That’s the part that’s interesting to me.
I had a debate a couple of years ago with Jeff Jarvis, where I argued that accepting ads on a site changes the character of the site – even if the writer(s) of the site haven’t changed in their intentions. The context is just different.
If BoingBoing were still an absolutely unprofitable zine done for the pure fun of it, then removing something or changing their minds would be fair game.
But because a bb link now equates – for some – into business value, the removal is somehow more pertinent. Add to that the fact that BB is, to some extent, a profitable business itself, and readers feel there’s a different sort of obligation implied.
If I cut something on my blog, chances are no one would care. That’s because my linkage doesn’t really help so much financially (unless I really really push, as in the case of saving Arthur or RAW) and because my site is unsponsored.
The lessons learned here are, first and foremost, the law of negative effects. Undoing something almost always makes it worse. And second, the rules of anti-censorship and value creation from the periphery are actually incompatible with business as we know it.
If the BB people were all at home, they probably would have simply decided to republish the stuff once the hubbub started, and said something like “thanks to our community, we realize that the unpublishing was contrary to the ethos we’ve been espousing and reconsidered our actions.” Or, if Cory had a rationale for what happened that he could articulate (as only a guy like Cory can) in a way that satisfies the most FSFish amongst us, he’d have done it.
What fascinates me is whether the energy spent here might have been directed at Blackwater or some other malfeasant corporation, and how to generate the same sort of outrage for more significant crimes against humanity.
Or think of it this way. BB is much more a part of the GIFT economy than the business economy. Although the people doing it now hope to make a little something off all their work, the ethos is that of a culture, not a business. Posts are still personal, dictating more by social networks than any official or sponsored connection. So the removal of something is not a business decision or policy maneuver – but a personal reflection of what a writer does or doesn’t want his name associated with.
The whole discussion of censorship and transparency really is not germane here. This isn’t government. This isn’t the FDA removing a study that shows a drug had dangerous side effects. This is blog from a posse that quite randomly finds stuff they like or don’t like. This is not a case of institutional, commercial, or government trust; it’s a social situation. In social situations we are free to sulk, to change our minds, and to stay silent about why we are.
If that doesn’t meet the expectations you had when you came here, you are free to ask for your money back.
This is a blogger deciding she doesn’t really agree with what she posted earlier, but thought that calling attention to the removal would have actually created more harm than good.
I’ve tried really hard to wrap my head around the upset, and I think it’s more a matter of projection and web-polarity than substance.
A blogger on BB felt she no longer wanted to be directly associated with what she obviously felt was some negative energy. Some of you seem to feel she’s not allowed to do that with disclosing more, or announcing it. To me, making that demand is not consistent with the code of the happy mutant.
-withOUT disclosing more-
#1523 – this has grown legs – I think to a lot of people the reaction afterwards (flaming by the moderators, sneakily changing the privacy policy and acting like the new policy was in effect at the time of the old action) is worse than the original decision to remove the posts.
hey – just a little note:
Given the nature of everything we have been talking about here, it was bothering me to post under a handle. I didn’t want to change my name, so my real name and website etc is listed under my profile now.
– ami
#1523 rushkoff
Thank you! That has been my perception as well.
I hope people might keep your observation in mind when evaluating the pronouncements that have been made about how BB should have handled the unpublished material, and their supposed lack of ethics; especially given the volume of attention that BB can cast someone’s way.
What fascinates me is whether the energy spent here might have been directed at Blackwater or some other malfeasant corporation,
I agree with your point, it is a lot of wind for so small a mill. But the return on our collective investment is already evident.
1) most of the boingers have responded to relevant points, and they’re working on them because they really like us.
2) TNH disemvoweled herself (wow, hats off to TNH)
3) I have like 10 new reasons to never give VB a whit of my attention, (aside from personally not liking her work much)
4) kittens and ducks abound.
Just a personal anecdote. I’m posting anonymously because I try to keep my work life separate from my online life.
I’m an attorney who works in copyright and other intellectual property law. I completely disagree with about 75% of what Cory writes about on those issues, but I respect his different perspective and enjoy being challenged.
Earlier this week, I did the unthinkable. In a legal brief submitted to a federal district court, I provided a citation to a recent post by Cory. It was a post on a particular copyright issue that indirectly relates to my case, and I was citing to the BoingBoing post to provide context (and basically agree with what Cory had said).
I did this with the expectation that that post would remain on BoingBoing (which it has). It’s pretty uncommon to cite to a blog of any sort in a legal brief, but I viewed BoingBoing as more-or-less the “newspaper of record” among blogs on these issues.
Let’s say that for whatever reason, Cory were to decide a month from now that he no longer agrees with that post and removes it. (“Deletes” or “unpublishes” it, pick your phrasing.) That post would then be gone to the outside world, and the judge would think that I was an idiot for having cited to a 404 link.
My expectation was (and still is) that this just isn’t something that BoingBoing would do. I would fully expect Cory to update the post and indicate his new position, but not to kill it silently. This is particularly true in light of the principles about transparency and openness that Cory and the others have been espousing for years.
Granted, this might be an unusual example. Still, these posts are a part of history, and should be preserved as such. I had thought that the common practice of more professional blogs like BoingBoing was to admit to the occasional mistake (such as any prior decisions to post about VB), rather than sweep it under the rug. Granted, this isn’t the New York Times, but imagine how BoingBoing would respond if the NYT were to just delete certain old articles from its archives rather than run a correction.
Yes, it’s your sandbox and you can decide how to run it, but I hope that Xeni and the gang will reconsider this decision. You can certainly give VB the silent treatment going forward, and even provide a disclaimer with the old posts if you must, but please don’t just remove/delete/unpublish posts after you’ve already published them.
@1529 – Wow. I thought I was done with thinking about this issue three days ago. Good answer and yummy food for thought.
#!529 – I did this with the expectation that that post would remain on BoingBoing (which it has).
I’m really not trying to be snarky here, but a legal brief sounds like a good place to use a hardcopy rather than a link. I’m not a lawyer, though someone at BB clearly knows one. From the ‘POLICIES’ page (lower right of all screens, under Extras):
Happy Mutants makes no guarantees or warranties as to the accuracy or completeness of or results to be obtained from accessing and using information on our Websites.
I think people get annoyed when they expect the world, and then realize they were only promised a huge manatee.
It’s often easier to get annoyed with others than it is to see your own incorrect assumptions. I’m pretty sure that is why we have laws and contracts, and thus we need lawyers. And I’m betting you’re a good one.
#1529 Anonymous
The case you illustrate is certainly a strong argument for seeking to preserve your links as much as possible, especially if you want to be the kind of blogger who gets referenced in legal documents.
But it also illustrates a challenge in the world of online publication. What if, for some unforeseeable reason, all of the advertising money dried up and all of the Boingers went broke and couldn’t afford to keep their servers running? Where is your reference now?
I’ve seen so many websites that I like disappear that I tend to think of the web as ephemeral. I don’t want it to be ephemeral, but there are many forces affecting what happens to online content: economic, legal, personal, social, and technological. I think this is still a new enough area that there is not clear hierarchy of priorities that says which consideration should win out over others in every given situation.
For that reason, I tend to disagree with Erosbacchus’s argument that the web itself, and all of its links, need to be preserved inviolate. It’s generally agreed that serving up a 404 is poor site design; I don’t think it’s agreed that it’s up there with book-burning.
This is an area where online content is fundamentally different from print content. If BoingBoing Hardcopy Publications stopped printing a book that Xeni wrote, you could probably still find a copy of it somewhere and therefore prove that the citation in your legal argument was valid. It would be horrifying to many if BBHP was able to recall all copies of a book they had published — which explains some people’s upset at the loss of even one entry on BB.
And yet if it weren’t under the CC license and I made a print copy of each new page of BB so that the record could be preserved even in the case of massive power failure, wouldn’t I be violating copyright law?
I tend to think that the case you illustrate points to a problem for the legal profession more than it does for bloggers, because the ephemerality of the web can’t be prevented outright. As more and more content is published exclusively on the web, how can lawyers make valid citations, with not only the link always working, but the words never changing?
I just had this eruption of thoughts after reading your comment — no doubt in your profession you’ve thought about it more — and I daresay Boingers have too. So I’ll stop now.
As an academic, I know with my spelling most of you are shocked, when we cite (see I can spell it another way too) something online we put both the link and the day it was retrieved that way if it goes away or is changed you can show that at least on the day you retrieved it the info was such, which may not be true X months from now. This is standard practice for APA. So it is surprising that something like this does not exist in the legal profession as well, if it doesn’t then it should in my opinion.
What many people here have failed to recognize is that blogging, if done right, is performance art. In its own unique way, BB is a kind of penetrable art, something far more than “posting.” BB is a performance art piece. One doesn’t read BB for the posts, per se. We read it for the performance, for the art, for this “thing†that gets created when the penetrable web, us avatars, and that which we create anew when we hit publish recombine into a thing that we had not seen previously, which makes us feel a sense of wonder. Bloggers who get this have no interest in contemplating apologizing for their art or what they choose to do with it. Blogs are experiments, they are performances, they are art pieces—and mutations are an important part of the performance itself. Sometimes, these pieces have a beginning, a middle, and an end. They will live on and they will die again, in our minds and online. All this mindless arguing about censorship and unpublishing fails to understand on a deeper level what is really going on here. A long time ago, Carolee Schneeman got naked, covered herself in mud, and read from a scroll that she pulled from her vagina. These days, nobody is bellyaching over the transience of that art piece. And in the double zeros, part of the abiding beauty of the internet is its true transience, as much as its transparency. Those people who are attacking BB and its editors in this situation are too stupid, too ignorant, or too blind to see the art of it.
Hey, guys, if you want to see a train wreck, head over to the Wikipedia talk page for the VB article where her boyfriend is making a REAL ass of himself…
Sometimes people and things start out small and get too big, and then they lost what made them great, and I think this is happening to BoingBoing. All these boingers heads are so big that the amazing things inside them can’t find their way out.
That’s just nasty, Mother.
f1rst post!!!
@1534 – Well said. Very well said. I think you just made me look at blogging in a new way. Thanks for that.
Still true; http://xkcd.com/428/
@1534, I’ve been trying very hard to keep reading without saying anything more about this issue, but I’m weak, and I admire your point, to this extent: blogging is a thing of the moment, but unlike performance art, it’s not inherently ephemeral. It’s only ephemeral if you choose to delete it. In its natural state, a blog post is information that, in theory, could last as long as the universe.
Which might be a fine argument for deleting a post, I’ll grant.
Fearing that’s not clear, a bit more: Blogs are a record of a performance, not the performance itself. Destroying the record is arguably a performance, but if you argue that, both “record” and “performance” become meaningless.
Which might be another argument for deleting a post, of course, but if we go that way we’ll quickly be in the land of Why a duck? I’d rather continue to think that a performance is a thing that a person does, and a record is what’s preserved of that thing. If you want your blogging to be performance art, invite a few people into the room and disconnect your keyboard.
#1540 Archeaopteryx
I’m more partial to this one — as you might well imagine:
http://xkcd.com/386/
HT Bruce Arthurs for mentioning it earlier
I really do hope this issue is addressed because, as the situation now appears to this outsider observer, it reflects horribly on Miss Jardin, and by extension to the other BoingBoingers. It would be a shame if BoingBoing’s integrity were to be seriously damaged by this scandal. BoingBoing is a strong voice for openness and transparency in our electronic society. It would be a shame if the greater cause of freedom in our modern world were damaged by these disreputable actions.
Let us consider the facts –
BoingBoing has been disingenuous in it’s own official pronouncements. When the official Boing Boing moderator, Miss Hayden, posted the official BoingBoing post on the matter, she dismissed the severity of the deletions by claiming media reports of over a hundred posting deleted were too high. It has been documented that at least seventy postings related to Violet Blue were deleted. Not quite a hundred, but a massive enough purging of the public record.
Insinuations by Miss Hayden and Miss Jardin that Miss Blue is somehow responsible for the deletions through bad behaviour are vile, especially as they fail to disclose or deny Miss Blue’s assertion that Miss Jardin and her were “casual†lovers for a brief time. Miss Blue claims ignorance of any misbehaiour, and Jardin and Hayden have darkly hinted that a failure to disclose is to protect the parties from embarassment.
What is most likely is that Miss Jardin deleted the posts in the aftermath of her intimate relationship with Miss Blue. One can well imagine that the break of intimacy might have been more jarring to Miss Jardin than to the libertine Miss Blue. Perhaps some embarrassment over the nature of their relationship troubled Miss Jardin. She suggests as much to the LA Times in comparing her own actions to those of her own father in destroying some of his own erotically-themed work.
It is hard to believe that some public action of Miss Blue prompted the deletions, since then Jardin would need no coyness in explaining herself. It is also unlikely that Miss Blue was banished for acting as a groupie, as has been suggested by many partisans of Miss Jardin – Miss Blue is a successful blogger and columnist in her own right, and not dependent on BoingBoing for attention, nor are there any other reports of Miss Blue behaving badly to get publicity. She writes for Forbes magazine, for goodness’ sake!
So the likelihood is that Miss Jardin’s actions are from personal animus towards Miss Blue, probably prompted by the breakup of their love affair. There is no evidence of any other behaviour by Miss Blue that would have bothered Miss Jardin enough to withdraw her own work from the public sphere.
Other reasons given by BoingBoing, such as the “expense†of keeping these posts public are also fatuous. That this reason is officially cited by BoingBoing brings into question, again, their own truthfulness about this episode.
There is also considerable contradiction in the account of how the deletions were decided upon. At first, the action is depicted as one decided upon by mutual consensus, while later it has been asserted that the BoingBoing bloggers work independently and usually without consultation, and that the deletions were unilaterally done by Miss Jardin.
So the appearance is of Miss Jardin destroying her own work in petulant repudiation of a spurning lover, a depiction even more pathetic in that the spurning lover is oblivious to the original offense. One can well see why Miss Jardin has not been more forthcoming. Her actions were reckless and immature, and perhaps priggish. In the absence of any credible evidence otherwise, one must come to the sad conclusion that the evasiveness of Miss Jardin and BoingBoing is not in deference to Miss Blue’s easily embarrassed sensibilities, but rather out of embarrassment for their own bad behaviour.
We hope that Miss Jardin will put this matter to rest by a full and honest accounting. The openness of the discussion that this comment is a part of gives one hope, but just in case, I’m posting them on my own blog. As this recent episode makes clear, BoingBoing doesn’t have the best track record recently as an open and transparent public forum.
I am even sympathetic to Miss Jardin in her dilemma. No-one likes their intimately private life made public, particularly in such a unflattering way. I hope that she will consider the example of Lady Godiva. Sometimes riding naked through the town’s square can be the best thing for one’s reputation, if the cause is noble.
#1542 Hagbard – I have that one posted up on the wall here. :-)
#ME #1543 – OK, now, why do you assume that having the real reason aired would improve ANYTHING?
Lovers (if that was actually true) fall out for lots of reasons.
Sometimes one has an STD and lies about it and the breakup happens when the other gets it, for example. Were that the case here, would that be appropriate to air under any circumstances?
Sometimes one tells another something in confidence and that confidence is immediately broke.
Sometimes one find that the other was only with them because of something that the other could do for them, in other words, using them.
There are a lot of reasons where the truth, if it came out, would be met my even more opprobrium than the present situation!
So; What you ask for might be really a bad idea, and most probably the present situation reflects upon Xeni better than the conditions of full disclosure you petulantly demand!
#1543 – please consider one earlier posting that I found somewhat perspective changing. As you’ve made -a lot- of assumptions (and insinuations, i might add) in your comment about private motives which you could not possibly know, at least consider this view:
but being classy sometimes makes you look like a douchebag especially when the other side is taken advantage of your tack.
(even though i dislike the d-word, i love the sentiment). We don’t know the details. They are not our business. What is at hand now is how they might do this less clumsily next time it comes up.
@mdhatter,1546 – I made factually-based speculations, not insinuations.
What happens with BoingBoing is my business. It is a publication of far reach and its integrity is a matter of public interest. When its integrity is brought into question, the actions that bring that integrity into question is everyone’s business, no matter how personally embarrassing the underlying reasons for those actions may be.
@1545 Archeaopteryx
A putative private lover’s quarrel is not my business, but as I explained to mdhatter, an important public forum’s integrity is my business. I merely cited facts to speculate on the likely cause of the resulting scandal. If BoingBoing is going to delete its archives on the basis of personal romantic involvement, that is a matter of public interest.
Miss Blue has claimed there was a sexual liaison and Miss Jardin has not denied it. If it were untrue there would be no reason for her not to deny it.
And to use some other slang, mdhatter, I just find it skeevy that Miss Jardin might be using a subject’s sexual acquiescence and acquaintance as a criteria for their inclusion in BoingBoing.
Finally, Arch, if you are going to try to use my own words against me, use them properly My language is neither rude nor the motive capricious, as suggested by the word petulant. My speculations are rather unpleasant, but I have tried to express myself without vulgarity or personal rancor.
@1542 – giggle!
@1543 – have you been reading what Nina has to say? especially in her own blog? (link at #1490)
and generally: http://xkcd.com/438/
“Delete” has a vaguely sinister connotation and is incorrect from the back-end perspective.
The back end is not what the reading public sees or necessarily gives a shit about or even comprehends. Delete is a fine word, neither proprietary nor icky in the newspeak way.
Also, the Wayback Machine aspect of the argument is misleading: do we doubt that the posts would have been deleted if the Wayback Machine did not exist? (On a tangent from above somewhere, when I delete my copy of “Baby Got Back” that copy is deleted despite it being available on the internet.)
Again, I’m interested in the policy argument and associated language and not in the Violet Blue/personal stuff argument; the use of newer or proprietary jargon takes away from the idea that people generally treat Boing Boing as they do a newspaper. The contributors are a larger part of the public record – and good for them – than they seem to believe, and the relationship between Boing Boing and its readers is not novel despite the usage of computer chips.
Personally I think I’d be happy to delete all reference to someone I thought had become an asshole, but then I’m a nobody: people don’t count on me to be X for whatever wrong or right reason.
Miss Hayden, posted the official BoingBoing post on the matter, she dismissed the severity of the deletions by claiming media reports of over a hundred posting deleted were too high.
You say dismissed as if it is a fact, which attributes a real negative motive to TNH. I say she clarified in response to a misunderstanding.
Miss Blue claims ignorance of any misbehaiour, and Jardin and Hayden have darkly hinted that a failure to disclose is to protect the parties from embarassment.
darkly? that’s another insinuation. I think this is about trademark abuse, not pillowtalk, but as an outsider.
What is most likely is that Miss Jardin deleted the posts in the aftermath of her intimate relationship with Miss Blue.
How is that most likely? Because you can imagine doing it that way yourself in her shoes? Again, the why hasn’t been stated, and won’t be, and isn’t our business. It’s also an insinuation of bad motives.
One can well imagine that the break of intimacy might have been more jarring to Miss Jardin than to the libertine Miss Blue.
I would call that un-well imagining, as it insinuates some disconnect in her thinking, rather than the possibility she’s trying real hard to do the right thing. It says much about your imagination.
Perhaps some embarrassment over the nature of their relationship troubled Miss Jardin. She suggests as much to the LA Times in comparing her own actions to those of her own father in destroying some of his own erotically-themed work.
I thought Xeni was talking about how she saw her blog and her control over her content here as a creative force (force of nature).
I won’t continue. That’s three of your several paragraphs from the first post – counting five (at least) attempts at character assassinations against two boingers, and in that small a space.
That is how I read it.
— in yr second post–
I just find it skeevy that Miss Jardin might be using a subject’s sexual acquiescence and acquaintance as a criteria for their inclusion in BoingBoing.
Well, I find it skeevy that you’re so fixated on sex other people may or may not have had, and that you would accuse someone of such intellectual dishonesty on such flimsy evidence as ‘what you can imagine’, and what you find potentially believable.
Really. You write well, I imagine there is better inside you than positing speculation and opinion as fact that demands your satisfaction.
@1529, I know that when you’re doing all that important legal business, you don’t want to look like a fool by citing a dead link. However, if your scenario was true, and Cory really didn’t believe what he had posted anymore… Do you think it’s still right to use his words (which are now no longer “true,” to him) in your fight? It’s almost like you’d be taking him out of context then, because that’s no longer his belief.
PS, I’ve read this whole darn thing, and for a while I thought there was no way I was going to contribute. I didn’t really feel like writing blah blah VB! blah blah BB… blah blah TNH… blah blah Nazis & Trotsky & purges, oh my! &c.. &c… &c….
But I think this thread has outrun its course of dumbitude and is starting to become smart and genuinely civil again! Wild stuff.
Hey Bubba –
Also, the Wayback Machine aspect of the argument is misleading: do we doubt that the posts would have been deleted if the Wayback Machine did not exist?
They mentioned up front that we could find them there. Just not here, and not on their dime.
I think it was counterproductive of them to point us to the way-back if their intent was to make the information disappear. I think it disproves that notion, soundly.
I think it was counterproductive of them to point us to the way-back if their intent was to make the information disappear. I think it disproves that notion, soundly.
The point was to imagine that the WM did not exist: would the posts still be gone from BB? Speculation only on my part, but I think yes, especially since the prevailing view regarding content appears to be that BB is a personal project.
Pointing to the WM seems more like an attempt at damage control rather than transparency, but whatever my speculation involves there’s an acknowledgment in posting about this stuff at all that there is some responsibility to the public; that is, the project is not just personal.
#1543, 1547 ME
So much for my hope expressed in #1527.
The order of events give lie to your facts.
#1545 Archeaopteryx
Rather than “petulantly”, consider the word “pruriently”.
Righteous Bubba @1553: “Damage control”? If that were the thing uppermost in the editors’ minds, then they could have just republished the missing posts. Which they still might do.
#1549
Also, the Wayback Machine aspect of the argument is misleading: do we doubt that the posts would have been deleted if the Wayback Machine did not exist? (On a tangent from above somewhere, when I delete my copy of “Baby Got Back” that copy is deleted despite it being available on the internet.)
A friend of mine deleted his entire music library a few years ago (except for Bob Dylan) because he didn’t want to dwell in the negativity and pessimism contained therein.
A few weeks ago, he asked me to send him all the Radiohead B-sides he sent me years ago because he wanted to listen to them again.
Would he have been so quick to delete everything if he didn’t have a resource (me & the internet) to recover it? The internet exists. The posts still exist in at least two places (Wayback Machine and BB’s server). Nothing is ever really deleted from the internet… ever.
@1550 the possibility she’s trying real hard to do the right thing.
That possibility (i.e. that her motive in not revealing the reason is to avoid publicly attacking VB) would be more believable if VB had privately been made aware of the reason.
I am writing this (This was written Friday evening) without looking back over the thread, so I’m not going to include specific links and references to things.
Issues that have been brought up and not addressed, that you may wish to consider either addressing or definitively saying you do not want to address:
The modifications to the policy page, and subsequent citing of that policy page as if to justify the past actions (one can argue, of course, that the actions were acceptable even without it, but in that case why make the change at all? The fact that we had to check for ourselves that the page did not say that a week ago speaks volumes by itself.)
The conduct of moderators towards commenters – notably the fact that they seemed to think that if someone doesn’t have a long history of commenting their opinion is worth less.
The editing of comments, for example the removal of the “piles of shit” remark without acknowledging that it had been removed.
The utter refusal of the moderators to approve any anonymous comment that was not either 100% supportive towards the Boingers or 100% irrelevant. In an event that has generated enormous external interest, it is, I think, ridiculous that only fourteen anonymous comments are visible (it’s absolutely unbelievable that only those fourteen were submitted in the first place) and that all fourteen are taking one side.
The collateral damage – any post that mentioned VB once, even if it was massive and otherwise had little to do with her, was removed. This has had negative impact on numerous stories and, ultimately, people who did not have anything to do with whatever VB did wrong.
An explanation of what exactly “an evaluation of what to do took place.” meant. Did _anyone_ other than Xeni even know this had happened until a week ago? #1483 (I know I said I wouldn’t include specific refs, but I went back to find this since it really does say it better than I could) has a valid point, but did the other Boingers consent in advance to being drafted to absorb a percentage of blame for this? They don’t seem to have been aware that they supposedly took part in “an evaluation of what to do” a year ago, and I’m a bit irritated that I got called out for relying on that claim.
A lot of people do want to hear from Cory. Despite some “fans” (I’d rather call them “critic-haters” since their participation has been overwhelmingly reactive and negative in tone and at times seemingly deliberately misconstrue other people’s arguments. The term “concern troll” is particularly unhelpful. I had to look it up – apparently anyone who claims to like BB but fails to stick to the party line in every way is secretly the enemy) claiming that people are calling for his head, the real reason is simply that people assume that Cory would not approve of this and they want to hear him say so.
There’s a perception of a lack of honesty – not dishonesty per se, but a general feeling that you think it’s acceptable to just do things that are generally thought to be somewhat dodgy and hope no-one notices. This isn’t even so much about the original removals (except as the start of a pattern) as it is about the comment edits and policy edits afterwards. I think a commitment to be up-front about anything you unpublish, alter, or delete in the future would go a long way.
On the reason – I do understand if you want it to be private, but it’d help, I think, if you’d state unequivocally that it is something private/personal – i.e. it’s not about any of the bad things that Violet Blue has publicly done that people have brought up in the thread (or, alternately, if it _is_ one of these things, not saying so doesn’t really IMO help anyone at this point) and it’s not about your bottom line. The other reason people have been asking for the reason is that some people think it is unbelievable that anyone could do ANYTHING to deserve what has been done here – which they may think is more extreme than you think it is because of the lack of transparency, the collateral damage, etc. The “unperson” comparison is being made for a reason – it is removal of references to a person from what many people perseve as being a permanent historical record.
List of things that you might wish to consider moving forward:
Whether or not to restore some or all of the posts that were removed – Whether 100% intact, with a note / any links to VB’s blog delinked, or with all mention of her removed.
Whether the moderation style exhibited here (I’m not only talking about the intemperate remarks that were made, but rather the actual exercise of power to delete comments, edit comments, not approve anonymous posts, etc) is something that Boing Boing endorses and wishes to have continue in the future. I’d like to say that no-one is calling for anyone’s head here either, but I have seen people call for TNH’s dismissal, so I’ll just say that *I’m* not. But maybe you should privately discuss with the moderation team and point out where they went wrong and how better to handle this in the future. Their actions reflect on you.
There is no shame in apologizing. There isn’t really any shame in screwing up in the first place, either – we’re ALL human.
One final question – and this goes a lot towards why this caused such an uproar: BB has in the past been perceived as upholding certain ideals or values – freedom of speech, transparency (the one most relevant here), anti-copyright-abuse (vaguely relevant to the “It’s MINE so I can do whatever I want and no-one else can say anything about it” thing – it’s not really about copyright here, but it’s perceived as the same kind of attitude), etc. My question is – have people been off the mark in believing that BB has these ideals? It’s been suggested on another site that that’s really just Cory. I don’t really know enough to know if that’s reasonable. And even if they were off the mark, were you really unaware hat people thought that?
Random832 @1557: But BB claims that VB was informed, though VB claims that she wasn’t. It seems you find BB to be less believable because you don’t believe them.
@1552 not on their dime. This is something that’s been mentioned a few times – I’ll repeat essentially what I said in #929: How much does it really cost to host them? They’re not saving any disk space, since as they keep going to such pains to emphasize, they’re not deleted. So that leaves bandwidth. I’m guessing that this is really a very tiny percentage of their bandwidth bill – I didn’t know their principles were so cheap that they’d be discarded to save that little cash. Of course, that’s not really true – whatever it really is about, it isn’t about the money. But it’d be nice if people would stop SAYING that like it matters.
#1559, I have never seen anyone affiliated with VB claim that VB was informed what this was about. I’ve seen them complain that she didn’t ask, and complain about her “accuse publicly even while claiming that asking privately would seem accusatory” attitude, but that’s not really the same thing. Can you point out a specific comment number?
*never seen anyone affiliated with BB claim that VB was informed.
The keys are like right next to each other
Random832 @1561: It looks like you’re correct. I beg your pardon.
Still and all, it seems a trifle disingenuous for someone who enjoyed some attention on BB for a while, enough that she felt she could call herself “the fifth boinger”, to say a year after the event that she has no idea why she was removed from the site, and presumably ignored from about the same time. If there are understandable gaps in BB’s account of the event, there also seem to be some more purposefully obscure ones in VB’s account.
Righteous Bubba @1553: “Damage control”? If that were the thing uppermost in the editors’ minds, then they could have just republished the missing posts. Which they still might do.
They could also have posted a thread in which people argue about policy. There isn’t necessarily just one way to fix the policy.
On a side note, if someone could show me how to search for the phrase “Violet Blue” on the Wayback Machine I’d be grateful.
wow. the horse is so dead that some of you are kicking glue.
That possibility (i.e. that her motive in not revealing the reason is to avoid publicly attacking VB) would be more believable if VB had privately been made aware of the reason.
“The right thing” by THIS community, you know, the place we are talking, and where this was brought up Are you VBs Paladain or something? Who gives a carp what X told B privatly. Jeebus. This is about BB policy, NOT VB’s feelings.
Greg, if the horse was dead, you wouldn’t have to mention it. If you did have to mention it, your post would be the final post. If you did have to mention it and a fool like me insisted it was not, the fool’s post would be the final post. Shall we see if my post is the final post?
Frankly, I’ve seen a number of good posts turn up recently. Picking only two of the more memorable, I liked the lawyer and the fellow who talked about performance art. Okay, a third: I like Random832’s point that BB trufen think anyone who questions any BB decision is a hater. The haters got bored and left a long, long time ago. The haters who didn’t get totally bored are having their fun at metafilter, not here.
And the comments by first-timers that cover old ground? That’s how they vote. It would be nice to think two people could debate this issue and then call an end to it, but democracy and anarchy are messier than that. Which is why hierarchists prefer to impose their will, of course, but I prefer freedom to tidiness.
So, if the horse is truly dead, last post!
@1566 I understood the phrase “trying real hard to do the right thing.” in context to mean the perennial claim that the reason for not stating the reason was due to “the Boingers not wantng to trash Violet Blue”, which in light of the failure to PRIVATELY disclose the reason does tend to ring false.
And if in fact the motive in not sharing it with US was some reason other than (as the BBers still maintain) protecting VB from being “trashed”, that is very relevant to THIS community, in so far as it would mean that we were being lied to about the motive and that the motive itself may be something rather less noble than protecting VB from herself.
VB absolutely KNOWS what went on. She is being dishonest.
@1570 I haven’t heard from a BBer that VB knows. I will continue assuming that VB does not know until a BBer unequivocally states that VB has been told (notably different from “ought to know” or “should have figured it out” or “really absolutely knows unless she’s a complete idiot or being deliberately obtuse”, since, you know, maybe VB is just really really dense) what she did.
You said in an earlier comment #690 “Well, I think it was likely the trademark suit and the FILING for the trademark over a year ago.” I can tell you that I know for a fact that it’s not that. Because if it were really as simple as “You know the bad thing that she did a year ago that you all already know about? Yeah it was that. Kthxbye” they’d have said it – there’s nothing private or personal about that and obviously there is something (even if we don’t know what) private or personal about the real reason.
So, yes, VB does know, obviously, that she sued someone over a b*llsh*t trademark. She knows that many people here have expressed disapproval of that action. But that’s not the same as her knowing that that is the reason, or indeed the same as that being the reason.
@Archeaopteryx: what exactly is the reason you know what VB knows?
#1558 Random832
Regarding the policy discussions:
Xeni addressed concerns about changes to the policy statement in #854
David addressed them in #858
Xeni addressed them again in #864
David addressed them again in #870, and yet again in #1151
Now, Random832, would you like to reconcile your statements in 974 and 1525?
I, for one, am outraged….OUTRAGED…that BoingBoing apparently advocates dead horse beating. Wait…what was this article about?
I couldn’t remember what Violet Blue’s content was, and I was afraid that Xeni had somehow unpublished my memories. Thankfully my tinfoil hat is still firmly in place. So I googled, found Violet Blue’s blog, and managed to mumble “Oh…yeah…” as I scrolled through the pictur…er, informative blog entries. I would try to muster some outrage at her unpublication, but I’m a little tired at the moment. Maybe later.
I just read the nytimes article.
I don’t really get the fuss. The idea of “self-censorship” is silly; what motivation would make that different from simply pruning the site a little? Why can’t someone edit their own work even after it has been published? This is the Internet.
The article did bring up one thing that has bothered me for a while and has made me steer clear of the comments threads so I don’t get a bad feeling in my gut about the site: disemvoweling. It’s one thing to delete someone’s comment, but it’s entirely different to mutilate their words and string them out for others to see.
There’s just something… grotesque… about the thought of someone charged with maintaining order taking the time to go through someone’s words and remove the vowels. There’s a single-minded viciousness about it that disturbs me.
Boing Boing is a great site, and it should be above shaming people in the comments, even if they are being dicks.
Chris, read the Moderation Policy. Just above the recent comments, there’s a link. It explains why disemvowelling is preferred to deleting or unpublishing the comment in most cases.
And years ago on Electrolite, when Teresa invented it, she had to manually replace each vowel letter with nothing; BB has a “Disemvowel” button for one-click convenience! No single-minded viciousness required.
@1572 How I know? Well that would be betraying a confidence, so I can’t tell you. Sorry. Suffice it to say that I have reason to think that she knew at the time and knows now. You can choose to think otherwise without my finding fault with you.
Regarding #974 vs #1575: just because the legal requirement to announce it on the front page doesn’t apply to that section doesn’t mean it’s not still a sneaky thing to do.
By “not addressed” I meant there’s been no hint of a process, going forward, to make sure it’s clear what changes are made to the policy at what times. Yes, they’ve commented on what’s happened. But there’s nothing there to make me think that it won’t happen again.
@1577 – so, is that “No, she has not been told directly” I hear? My earlier arguments apply then – she could just be very very dense. But regardless, no BBer has said that she knows, and that’s good enough for me. Her claims not to know were also not included in the list of “lies” in #691, implicitly meaning that as far as TNH is aware of, VB in fact did not and does not know the reason
I would like for disemvowelling – if it has to be done at all – to be done in a way that allows me to choose to read the original post without having to painstakingly guess at words to reconstruct it. You can have your scarlet letter (or lack thereof) without inconveniencing people who really DO want to see what was said.
Before this all blew up, I had no idea who Violet Blue was.
Now I do, and I think she’s a rotten person whom all good people should avoid like the plague. This is what Xeni was trying to avoid, I’m sure.
#1578 Random832
So you’ve changed your position without transparently announcing that you’ve changed your position?
How does anything I’ve said constitute a change in position? I still stand by everything I’ve said in this thread.
will@1567: Greg, if the horse was dead, you wouldn’t have to mention it
Right. I forgot, no one ever fought a pointless and endless battle on the internet. That’d be crazy talk. Oh, wait, look, it’s crazy talk:
random832: I will continue assuming that VB does not know until a BBer unequivocally states that VB has been told
Nice goalpost. Do you get tired moving it so much?
This pretty much shows that you’re not making suggestions to improve the process as requested by Xeni and the other boingers. You’re setting up arbitrary and moving goalposts that state your demands for satisfaction.
#1582 Random832
No really, why aren’t you addressing my concern? This really goes to whether or not I can believe anything you’ve written.
Perhaps you should prove your reliability to us all. I’d really like to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you’re going to have to do something to demonstrate that the abounding faith I have in you is still justified. Otherwise, the integrity of this entire thread could be called into question, and it’s readership might decline. People might start to think that the participants have agendas.
“… might start to think that the participants have agendas” — don’t you have one?
#1585 tillwe
I just re-read all of my comments in this thread, and you know what?
I think I do.
I’m just as shocked as you are.
@RANDOM832 (#1578),
you wrote:
“By “not addressed” I meant there’s been no hint of a process, going forward…”
As several of us have said, we’re working on it. BBers are still on vacation, we’re still digesting, etc. Thanks for your patience!
@hagbard (#1586) — don’t worry, it’s a fine thing to have an agenda, even people like Lincoln and Franklin had one, I guess. Or Cory, for what it is worth. Maybe even a moleskin one.
.
.
.
.
;-)
#1588 tillwe
Gaaah! Are those bullet points? I can’t abide bullet points!
@ Random0832
But regardless, no BBer has said that she knows, and that’s good enough for me.
Good enough for you to keep demanding access to the dirty laundry of a company you don’t work for, and whose product you don’t pay for, and who still extend you the privilege to ask them questions anyhow.
It’s. Not. Our. Business.
Most of your (well argued) point is hinged on either your right to know, or your feeling that you ought to be told anyhow. None of us have that right. I think Xeni shouldn’t (in the name of artistic license) even have to explain it to her co-boingers. It’s her work to control.
If she (or any of them) loses even one iota of that control, Boing Boing will be lessened for it.
Greg, you pronounced this thread glue at 1565, yet you’re still kicking the horse at 1583? We won’t believe you think it’s dead until you walk away, maybe sniffling a little, but with a determined stride, knowing somewhere there’s another thread you’ll love, maybe not as passionately, maybe not as innocently, but wisely and kindly and well.
Good luck!
“Good enough for you to keep demanding access to the dirty laundry of a company you don’t work for, and whose product you don’t pay for, and who still extend you the privilege to ask them questions anyhow.”
Which company? Verizon? AT&T? Bell Canada?
Most of your (well argued) point is hinged on either your right to know, or your feeling that you ought to be told anyhow. None of us have that right.
mdhatter for president.
Anyway, y’know what’d be a nifty script? An “Unpublished” – nay, “DELETED!” – page with a Wayback Machine link, summarizing the latest deletions, which’d be more than likely duplicated posts anyway. It’d probably cause more caterwauling than it’s worth, but it’d be an up-front log of site fiddling with a very clear pointer to the content. Or just a redirect or link from the original page to WM content if the issue is hosting.
Good enough for you to keep demanding access to the dirty laundry of a company you don’t work for, and whose product you don’t pay for, and who still extend you the privilege to ask them questions anyhow.
When the fuck did I ever “demand” or even ask to know the reason for myself?
All I asked for is why VB wasn’t told the reason. Not for the reason itself. And, you know what? I don’t even need to know that – It’s a rhetorical question. Because there is NOTHING that anyone could do to deserve not even getting an explanation for this.
When the fuck did I ever “demand” or even ask to know the reason for myself?
in your comment above #1289 – recreated in full
Even though you don’t want to reveal actual details, I think it would help get the discussion on solid ground if you would go on record as characterizing the reason as one of the following: Personal, Legal, Ideological, or Money (advertisers etc).
Can you see that is exactly “the fuck”* when you did so? A one word summary of the reason isn’t any more our business than the full details.
ok?
All I asked for is why VB wasn’t told the reason.
Is even THAT your business? NO.
*please please please let me have this one.
#1594 Random832
I think we’re down to an intractable problem: you believe VB and you don’t believe BB, nor do you believe various people who have tried to demonstrate that no perfidy was committed.
But how much of a problem is that? How hard should anyone try to overcome your prejudice?
I use the word prejudice advisedly. Unless you have some source of information outside of the various blogs and forums, all you have is what we have: the printed claims of parties involved. You take VB at her word, and you distrust the words of Boingers.
You may have over-played your hand. If someone can’t possibly get back in your good graces, then perhaps it makes sense for them to cut their losses.
I personally don’t think they can get back in your good graces (honestly, I don’t see any evidence that they ever were in them).
So this guy goes to his psychiatrist and says, “Doctor! Doctor! I’m having those dreams again! They’re terrible! Necrophilia! Sadism! Bestiality! Can’t you help me?” And the doctor says, “I tell you and tell you, and you won’t listen. You’re just beating a dead horse.”
Or maybe not.
But I love that joke. And I do want to help get the thread to 1984…and beyond!
@1596
No, the problem is that between what VB has said on the one hand and the deafening silence from BB on the other, I don’t believe random commenters. (not even ones that claim special inside knowledge like Archaeopteryx)
#1595
Well, for one thing, I already know what the answer is: it’s not private at all unless it’s personal issues. All I was asking them to do is actually officially rule out all the ridiculous conspiracy theories about it being advertisers wanting them to “clean up” and stop linking to sex stuff, and the equally ridiculous “DURR it’s obvious it’s the trademark thing” so we can move forward and not have to deal with more idiots chiming in with those.
The point is, they said the only reason they’re not telling us what it is is to avoid trashing VB. VB has been so thoroughly trashed in this thread that there’s no reason avoiding saying whatever it is (ESPECIALLY if it actually is one of the things people have been acting like they “KNOW” it is), so they could (which is ENTIRELY THEIR DECISION) consider whether they still have a reason to keep it secret at all. I haven’t DEMANDED anything. I said it would f*ing HELP bring people to a common ground and create a more productive discussion if they would perhaps find it in them to CHOOSE to share their reasons
And if they in fact had a reason other than not wanting to trash VB, then they shouldn’t have lied about it – better to say “we don’t want to say why we won’t say” than to pretend they’re being all noble.
But anyway, let’s not forget that I’m the one actually TRYING to provide constructive suggestions (you know, like they asked for?) and you’re the one trashing everyone who doesn’t mindlessly bow down before them.
Even if not all of my suggestions are any good, at least I’m trying.
The other problem, if the reason’s not known (yes, they have a right to not tell us, but other people have a right to point out the problems it’ll cause) , there’s an air of uncertainty. What would Lawrence Lessig, for example (to choose an example others have used) have to do or say to get on the shit list? And when someone can be, well, shunned like that (even ignoring, for the moment, the removal of PAST posts from the record) for some unknown slight, or maybe (it might as well be) nothing at all, people are going to rely on this site less.
So this guy goes to his psychiatrist
Okay, took it already.
how about paint? let’s make paint with all the animal glue.
random832: All I was asking them to do is actually officially rule out all the ridiculous conspiracy theories
Random, guess what? Those conpiracy theories? They’re ridiculous. Because they’re conspiracy theories. And anyone needing official ruling out of a conspiracy theory, doesn’t get that anything ruled out can always be brought back in if you just widen the conspiracy a little bigger.
The only people who need the ridiculous conspiracy theories ruled out, are people like you who are so much more willing to believe them than a simple explanation that doesn’t involve someone getting away with something somewhere somehow.
What would Lawrence Lessig have to do to get on the shit list?
I don’t know. Maybe accuse BB of doing terrible things they didn’t actually do. Maybe comparing Boingers to Stalin for doing something that he himself did. Maybe acting as grand inquisitor at some kind of witchunt finding treachery in every shadow, finding guilt in every gap.
Oh, no, I guess not. You jokers have been pulling that crap for 1600 posts and you’re still around. So, I guess they’re willing to put up with the shit you and will and others have been shoveling out for weeks. Which means random-innocent-person would have to be some kind of super serious asshole to get banned from BB, cause I look at what you’ve guys have been doing for the last week and you’re still around, so I can only imagine the absolute shit someone would have to do to have old posts written about them get deleted.
This is the point at which common sense will fail, and you’ll come up with some crazy alternate conspiracy theory where Lawrence Lessig is actually a spook for the CIA and had to pretend to be an asshole to BB to get his security clearance, and wouldn’t it be terrible if BB banned him for that???
whatever.
Random,
I apologize if you thought I was just tearing you down. I’m trying to get your (obviously capable) mind back on the “what to do now”, as you were early in the thread, and away from the “why it’s so bad” and “what they need to do to placate me”.
I agree it would be nice if they told us why. I’ve speculated on why myself, but I think none of us should hold our breath on that front. My guess is legal jeopardy and/or artistic license.
You seem to agree, at this point, that at the end of the day the specifics are not our collective business. We also decidedly agree that ‘unpublishing/deleting/major revising needs to be handled better in future if BB wishes to maintain the respect of people as smart as you (and yes, I definitely think that is true of you) and me (pat,pat,pat).
What one does to get this kind of treatment could be as simple as flicking a fake-booger on Joel’s bike helmet as a joke. It might be genocide. Hopefully they clarify this some. Let’s both encourage them to and focus on the future. deal?
Where I I disagree with you Random, and what I ask you to reconsider, is your regular assertion that the boingers are acting in bad faith/lying.
If it seems I tear you down, be aware that is what you’re doing to people I STILL have a lot of respect for, the Boingers. (and TNH!)
I guess I have been unfair in one regard here – I’ve been assuming the ultimate answer to “why not tell VB” is “because she’d tell all of you, and we don’t want you to know” – which would be a problem when the [professed] only reason they don’t want us to know is to protect VB.
#1598 – 1603: Dude, really?
Gosh people. Keep your pants on. If the purveyors of a Web site want to take something off, for goodness sake let them. Freedom of speech (or more correctly, expression) seems to be to also denote freedom of un-speech. It’s not like they are denying ever posting the stuff.
Apparently, Xeni seems to have settled on an official position over this matter – we’re all “drama queens”:
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/07/07/tibet-and-human-righ.html#comment-228180
From the parent post here (update):
“Comments welcome; ad hominem/feminem attacks not so much.”
Hypocrisy seems to have become the theme de rigeur for BB. Nice.
I am certain this thread, like Oliver Cromwell, will die by 1658.
KLOBOUK, don’t be so sure… I am being told some things that, if true, are absolutely going to be posted here… But maybe not for weeks.
Hey Blue, guess what? Comparing the deletion of some blog posts with Stalin? Drama queen. Comparing the deletion of some blog posts with the torture going on right now in China? Drama queen. Comparing the “disappearing” blog posts with “disappearing” dissidents in China? Drama queen.
Hypocrisy seems to have become the theme de rigeur for BB. Nice.
Interesting you can use fancy phrases like “de rigeur” but simple concepts like “torture” != “deleting blog post” slip so easily from your grasp.
As for actual hypocrites, people who publicly condemn an action they themselves have done, see post 1130. I await your non-hypocritical outrage in condemning that hypocricy.
Something tells me I’ll be waiting a while.
Nice (not really) to see you guys keeping the fire stoked in this thread. Still think we ran out of reasonable discourse around the mid 900’s. So yeah, I can see “Drama queens” keeping the thread going, unless the intention is that we’re all drama queens for pointing out the bull caca in the first place.
:p
Greg, five questions:
1. Is the thread dead?
2. If it’s dead, why are you still kicking it? Or, if it’s not dead, why are you helping to keep it going?
3. Did Stalin revise history?
4. Do you understand the difference between Godwin’s Rule of Nazi Analogies and Reductio ad Hitlerum?
5. Should Happy Mutants LLC be exempt from the standards that bloggers expect from other companies?
Cavalier, anyone who has made more than five posts in this thread counts as drama queen. So does anyone who has said anything belittling about anyone else. And so does anyone who calls anyone a “drama queen.” It’s a term like “schadenfreude”–as soon as you utter it, you reveal that you think your position is pure and noble, and other positions should be ignored because their advocates are inferior.
Or, as Gandhi said, “”First they ignore you, then they laugh at you…”
So, Will, by your logic you are also a drama queen.
Xopher, yes.
At least, that’s the glib answer. The more serious one: Yes, but it’s not my logic—it’s the logic of the people who use the term. I don’t. “Drama queen” was coined to describe people who only care about themselves, but it’s now on the long list of phrases that simply exist to dismiss the opinions of others: “I’m defending an important principle; my opponent is a drama queen.”
To make that clearer, if I could edit #1617, I would change “…as soon as you utter it, you reveal…” to something like “…if you utter it first, you reveal…” You may use your opponent’s terms without subscribing to the views that gave birth to them.
will@1619: “Drama queen” … (is) now on the long list of phrases that simply exist to dismiss the opinions of others
will@1616: 3. Did Stalin revise history
you object to “drama queen” as being an unfair label but continue to argue that the deletions of blog posts can justifiably be compared to Stalin.
Dude, that’s better than comparing the deletion of blog posts with Stalin, and then 500 posts later admit that you’ve deleted your own blog posts.
will@401: This is going through the photos and taking out Trotsky.
will@997: I’ve deleted posts that seemed outdated in my blogs
Just when I think it can’t get any more ludicrous.
Long time, first time. I’ve followed this thread since its beginning and I continue slogging through it, even as it devolves into nearly 100% noise as all long threads eventually do. At the risk of becoming among the unpublished, allow me to explain why I’m sticking with the thread. Since I’ve read so many of his strong opinions on the practices of others regarding transparency, revisionism, and quasi-Orwellianism, I have to ask the question, where is Cory on this issue? Or, in the language of the unposted, WH_R_’S C_RY? TH_ S_L_NC_ _S D__F_N_NG.
#1621 just saying
sppk — you’re doing it wrong.
Greg @ #1616
You’ve taken the reference to ‘drama queens’ out of the context in which Xeni used it.
Nobody reasonable could argue with that, if it were the case, but it’s not. Xeni didn’t say that the people who compared the abuses of Chinese totalitarianism to the abuses of moderation/ethics going on here at good ol’ BoingBoing were a bunch of drama queens, she said that it was wrong to compare totalitarian Chinese abuse with drama queens having fits about post deletions:
Greg, I don’t mind being called a drama queen. I’ll happily don a boa and pose for the group photo with everyone who’s still commenting on or about this thread.
I wish you would answer my last two questions at #1616. If you’d like to slip past the fourth, that’s cool. But the fifth is essential to this discussion.
As for what you say I said at #997, the comment’s actually at #996, and the explanation is at #1140. You can’t say I don’t have your back.
I’m certainly a drama queen.
Will –
5. Should Happy Mutants LLC be exempt from the standards that bloggers expect from other companies?
Should party A be exempt from what Party B expects from party C?
Yes. Party A should be held to the standards they have told Party B to expect. If Party B expects their arrangement with Party C to be honored by Party A, Party B can complain. And BOY HAVE THEY.
#1623 Blue
so….you don’t like Xeni calling us a bunch of drama queens because you don’t like her diluting your brand?
I’m sorry Blue, but drama queen is already in common usage and you can’t trademark it.
I don’t think “Drama Pawn” is taken yet….
me: Comparing the “disappearing” blog posts with “disappearing” dissidents in China? Drama queen.
Blue: Nobody reasonable could argue with that, if it were the case, but it’s not.
Oh get over yourself. Satan in post 7 of that thread said we’re talking about deleting “from the records to make it seem like undesirable people never even existed. BB wouldn’t know anything about that right?“
So, Satan was taking China killing political prisoners and making them disappear from the records so their deaths wouldn’t be recorded and comparing it to BB making VB “dissappear” from the blog. Take a look at the picture at the top of that thread, the one with a chinese guy in uniform holding the head of shackled human being over a pool where he’s been simulating drowning the guy. Then tell me with a straight face that that is comparable to deleting blog posts, or should even be brought up in that thread.
And I agree with you completely that nobody reasonable would argue with that. But you are arguing with it.
Just like will is arguing that “drama queen” is an unfair label for you yahoos, but “Stalin” and “China’s disappearing political dissidents” is fair description of BB deleting some blog posts a year ago.
I’ll leave it as an exercise to determine who is being unreasonable here.
Greg, oops, I’m very sorry! Please continue to ignore my fifth question. I forgot that I’ve been trying to ignore the actual issue and only focus on the issues around the issue. My bad.
I think your belief that we should only make comparisons to identical things goes against the human love of metaphor and simile, but we all have our quirks.
Uh, Greg, you don’t want anyone to make comparisons to history, but you do want us to believe photographs taken by ad agencies and presented as being from Amnesty International when they’re not? I think it’s time for me to leave this discussion entirely.
[Exits singing I will survive.]
#1621 – …I have to ask the question, where is Cory on this issue?
At the risk of sounding coy, he said he’s at Clarion West.
According to what he said at one of his readings, he posts things at BB as much as a personal resource as anything. That’s far different than diving into an issue of this magnitude on vacation or while teaching at Clarion West. I realize the internet moves at lightspeed, but give him some breathing room, people. As far as I know, he hasn’t even been home since this post broke just before the 4th.
will@1624: I wish you would answer my last two questions at #1616
Your questions can go rot for all I care, will. Nothing will please you except to have BB prostrate themselves completely and fully before the blinding white light of justice and truth that your inquisitions provide.
screw that shit.
While you make excuses and find ways to forgive your deletion of old posts, you cast the same thing as a mortal and unforgivable sin when BB does it.
You’ve engaged in reckless and damning swiftboating, comparing BB to Stalin, and then cry foul when someone uses the term drama queen for your behaviour that is far more valid label than Stalin is for BB.
You’ve shown from the beginning that you’ve got two sets of rules, one for BB and another for yourself. You’ve demonstrated nothing more than sheer hypocracy since you jumped in here.
And I’ll be damned if I’ll give you and your meaningless hypocritical questions the time of day.
you do want us to believe photographs taken by ad agencies and presented as being from Amnesty International when they’re not?
China actually does engage in state torture of dissidents. They actually waterboard real people. They actually force false confessions out of real human beings. They actually execute and even dissappear some people. A picture of someone in a Chinese uniform torturing someone has some basis in reality.
You don’t have to believe that China really does torture real live human beings. That wasn’t the point. The point was that comparing the torture and killing of real live human beings isn’t comparable to the “dissappearing” of year old blog posts.
But subtleties like that escape sometimes I guess.
I think it’s time for me to leave this discussion entirely.
Sure, whatever.
[Enters singing Respect.]
Greg.
[Flips boa.]
What-evah!
[Exits singing Dancing Queen.]
Johne Cook #1630?
You. Are. Adorable.
WILL – debate in good faith or go away.
I mean, that’s what ~I~ expect when ~I~ come here. Isn’t this community about meeting ~my~ needs? Doesn’t it have to be exactly what ~I~ expect?
will@1629: I think it’s time for me to leave this discussion entirely. [Exits singing I will survive.]
will@1632: [Enters singing Respect.]
That didn’t take long.
Greg, Hagbard …
Name calling, ad hominem attacks, straw men; and apparently you still believe you have something valuable to add to the discussion.
I fear that ship’s not so much sailed, as sunk.
(Don’t forget to scrape the barnacles off your bum, when you’re done.)
blue, nobody reasonable could argue with that, if it were the case, but it’s not.
We’ve already proven that one in 1627, remember? No probably not.
you still believe you have something valuable to add to the discussion
I started out because folks were comparing BB’s actions to Stalin and Orwell’s totalitarian state in 1984 and other crazy comparisons. Just recently Satan compared BB deleting a blog post to China making people disappear. And I’m just pointing out the absurdist stuff like that.
I don’t know if I’d call it something valuable as I’d call it shooting fish in a barrel.
Quite a lot of us will be in the same physical location later this week, so we’re going to continue to bang on this whole thing and try to reach some sort of happy medium. I don’t have a lot more to offer than that at the moment, but thought I’d pop in and wave a hand to let you know we’re still discussing things and moving forward. We’re a slow boat!
#1636 Blue
That’s me told.
I’m utterly embarrassed how easily I was drawn into that.
Will, you are now trolling this thread. Please cut it out.
Violet Blue killed Nina Reiser. It’s the only explanation that fits.
Violet Blue killed Nina Reiser. It’s the only explanation that fits.
Did he kidnap Cory too?
It was Violet Blue on the grassy knoll.
I think it it was… umm…. Violet Blue in… the Conservatory, no, no, in comment thread, with… with the Hello Kitty dildo!
My wife would like to note she thinks it’s childish for me to start a game of Violet Blue’s Clues.
@1645 You sir are my new hero
Xopher @1640, how is that Greg is behaving appropriately when he calls people drama queens, but I am trolling the thread when I accept the title rather than get miffed? Seems to me that once Xeni brought up drama queens, the subject is about as on-topic as it could possibly be.
To make this extremely on-topic: Have we reached comment #1647 because the drama queens have united to do it? Or is it possible that there might actually be some matters of principle here?
Also, I like John A Arkansawyer’s joke. I was beginning to wonder why Greg kept adding comments to a thread he had declared dead, but I now see he was right to keep this going: there are still good bits coming in.
Since the boingers are considering changes in policy, I have a serious one now: Drop all politics from the site. Then, if a post disappears, no one will wonder if it was removed for matters of principle, and if a moderator disemvowells someone like Zosima in the current Tibet thread, no one will think the moderator is abusing his or her power for partisan reasons. Politics are messy. Perhaps Boingboing should stick to things that make people go boingboing.
On the other hand, perhaps Boingboing should spend a few days directly addressing politics. If you’re pro-CIA/NED/RWB, just say so. It’s nice to know people’s biases.
And that, I pray, is the last thing I have to say in this thread. Those who want it to continue will have to carry on without me.
Will, in that thread Zosizma had stopped arguing his point in good faith, and when the mod challenged him to take a breather, he escalated with the mod by throwing a litany of nasty words and sentiment. When he continued, he was given a week off.
I assure you, the mod deleted several highly ad hominem attacks which I got the chance to see before they were removed entirely (also the first time I’ve seen that here, but wholly appropriate). I myself got dsmvwld in that thread, am I whining? No, I had earned it (and you helped inspire me to jump headfirst).
That should continue to be their role. I fully support the mod policy, though it’s not always clear who the mod is at any given time.
Mdhatter, passion in the heat of argument is to be expected. You apologize when you go too far, so I’m glad to forgive you.
But Antinuous is a moderator. On Tibet, he/she is not moderate. Zosizma did not enter flaming. Based on the 100 messages or so that I read when I returned last night, Zosizma’s frustration is very, very easy to understand. And if there were ad hominem attacks that were deleted, I’m especially surprised: your ad hominem attacks weren’t even disemvowelled. That’s pretty much the definition of partisanship.
Since we’re giving BB advice about moderators, I agree that the moderators are fine people. The problem isn’t moderation. The problem is selective moderation.
And, okay, since it keeps coming up, there’s another problem: disemvowellment makes things worse on BB, not better. Mockery exacerbates indignation. Disemvowellment may be an acceptable tool on a private or political site where partisanship is expected. It’s a bad one on a commercial site, and an especially bad one on a site that addresses free speech. I hope the board of Happy Mutants LLC will consider that when they talk.
This doesn’t mean the experiment shouldn’t have been tried. It means the experiment in moderation should move on to v. 3.0.
For those of you keeping track at home, the Cory countdown clock is now at 8 days and ticking. CRY WHT GVS?
Will, you announced your intention to quit the thread and kept coming back to put in little digs. At 1649 you again claim to be done with it…and then you posted again.
If you want to be believed when you’re saying you’re quitting a thread, you have to not come back even if people address you directly. What you’re doing now is the equivalent of stomping off in a huff, then coming back and opening the door just so you can slam it again.
Either leave the thread, or stop saying you’re going to. The second is easier, since it doesn’t really cost you anthing at this point: no one will believe you if you say it again anyway.
If these posts were just “unpublished,” considering the ensuing shit storm, why don’t you just REPUBLISH them?
Xopher, my credibility on leaving threads was shot to hell on GEnie or Compuserve or Usenet–long before the web, anyway. People joke about it: “Will’s said goodbye. Setting the stopwatch for his return now…” It’s my cross, and it’s easy to bear. If you’re afraid of looking foolish, you’ll never have any fun. More importantly, you’ll never do anything that matters.
For those of you keeping track at home, the Cory countdown clock is now at 8 days and ticking. CRY WHT GVS?
How much work do you do while you’re on vacation?
ROSSINDETROIT #1656
Again, that’s adorable. But, the man has responsibilities to his principles.
You’re pretty cute yourself, but it’s a blog, not the drafting of the Magna Carta.
Glammajamma @1654: http://www.boingboing.net/2008/07/01/that-violet-blue-thi.html#comment-228874
Maybe they will. They haven’t decided yet.
There’s no evidence that in the past BB has waited for a politburo meeting in order to formulate an immediate reaction to the ham-handed behavior of *others*. Now that the hypocrisy comes from within, why the need for committee work?
Will @1647:
To quote Jim Macdonald, never ask a question unless you’re sure you want to hear the answer.
@1648:
1. Have you been reading more than a handful of threads on Boing Boing?
2. Do you actually think it’s appropriate to propose silencing the Boingers’ right to talk about politics, and by extension their readers’ as well, just because you don’t understand why Zosima got moderated?
This seems excessive. Is it intentional?
The three main reasons comments are disemvowelled or removed are bad manners, spamming, and acting in bad faith. Suspending or banning commenters is done when a commenter keeps repeating the bad behavior and also ignores warnings from the moderators; when some piece of misbehavior is so egregiously awful that assuming good faith is not really an option; or when the account is being used for what is obviously automated spam. The reasons Antinous suspended Zosima fell entirely within normal policy and practice around here.
Also: have you thought about whether this is an ideal moment to assert that if you can’t see why we did something, we must needs be dishonest?
Do you know that when you phrase it that way, you sound exactly like someone who’s insincerely proposing a policy change as a weaselly way to accuse the moderator of acting in bad faith? Those of us who know and value you are aware that you’re capable of putting your foot in it that badly purely by accident, which is astounding but must be written off as one of your supernatural powers. However, you should be aware that to people who don’t know you, it makes you come off like a demi-troll.
Which is so not like you.
I’m observing a moment of mourning here for the really beautiful long paragraph I just deleted, on the grounds that its tone was inappropriate and other readers wouldn’t know what I was referring to.
Let me just say instead that your political arguments would be a good deal less messy if you didn’t leave it to others to sort out your logical structure for you at the same time that you’re arguing with them.
Do you ever stop and wonder, before you say such condescending thingss, whether those to whom you speak have been repressing consdescending remarks they could have been making to you?
If you have anything to say in reply, or if anyone else wants to talk about moderation, take it to the moderation guidelines comment thread. I’m declaring it off-topic here.
Do you know that when you phrase it that way, you sound exactly like someone who’s insincerely proposing a policy change as a weaselly way to accuse the moderator of acting in bad faith? …However, you should be aware that to people who don’t know you, it makes you come off like a demi-troll.
As a person who does not know Will, I can confirm that this is so.
ok teresa – you totally make it worth coming back here for a read through.
“2. Do you actually think it’s appropriate to propose silencing the Boingers’ right to talk about politics, and by extension their readers’ as well, just because you don’t understand why Zosima got moderated?”
“Silencing the Boingers’ right to talk about politics?” I don’t think he has that power. He proposed a voluntary restriction on politics, so that you all don’t end up in a ‘do as I say, not as I do’ situation (which is, as far as I can tell, where you all are currently at.)
Harp on a “principle” all you will, but what people dont understand is the extremely hugely vast difference between removing some posts on a blog (whoop de friggin do) and countrywide censorship or the other kinds of censorship-related stuff BB reports on.
Its not even remotely a “do as I say not as I do” situation. Not by a longshot. I feel quite confident that if the situation were reversed, say VB decided to remove all posts in any way related to BB, they wouldn’t be making any sort of hullabaloo about it. Her blog, she can remove posts if she wants to, for any reason. Doesn’t hurt anyone, really, or take away anyone’s rights, or prevent anyone from reading BB if they so choose.
#1660 @ just saying
“There’s no evidence that in the past BB has waited for a politburo meeting in order to formulate an immediate reaction to the ham-handed behavior of *others*. Now that the hypocrisy comes from within, why the need for committee work?”
They need to measure how it will reflect on the party.
My advice on the best possible, mature response, to this situation.
Take the high ground.
“
Republishundeleteput back on the blog” with a disclaimer/update comment about BoingBoing’s position in regards to Violet Blue.Essentially disavow any relation to her and bring into question the veracity of past articles. Make clear that the articles continued presence is only a result of BoingBoing striving for a historical record of the “BoingBoing experience”and transparency to its readers.
If this would have been done in this manner in the first place there would have been some murmuring and speculation about what happened but BoingBoing would have never lost credibility.
Talia, if this were just Xeni’s personal blog, I would be inclined to agree with you. (Although I still think you need to own up to your past.)
The problem is, it’s not. And if this is left unaddressed, you can be sure that the next time a censorship post goes up, a bunch of wags will say, “It’s not censorship if *they* retain a copy, it’s unpublishing.”
#1657 – But, the man has responsibilities to his principles.
And he doesn’t to his family or his students and peers at Clarion West?
Your ‘Cory watch’ comes across as selfish at worst and petulant at best. This is not about you.
and if a moderator disemvowells someone like Zosima in the current Tibet thread, no one will think the moderator is abusing his or her power for partisan reasons.
Do you know that when you phrase it that way, you sound exactly like someone who’s insincerely proposing a policy change as a weaselly way to accuse the moderator of acting in bad faith?
I’m sorry. I thought the implication was clear, and not at all weaselly or insincere, but since you say it’s not direct, I will make this as unambiguous as I possibly can: Yes, the moderator at “Tibet and human rights” acted in extremely bad faith.
I hope you will let this answer appear where your charge was made.
No need to continue the debate at the moderation thread now. I’ll happily wait until the Violet Blue affair has been addressed.
#1667 in a way its somewhat like four personal blogs.
That just became very, very popular.
Your ‘Cory watch’ comes across as selfish at worst and petulant at best. This is not about you.
Ah, I’m going to leave y’all, moderator included, to your name calling and infighting. Best of luck with this mess.
Seacrest Out.
If VB had invested in more battery-powered ‘Hello Kitty’ vibrators, maybe she wouldn’t have pissed off so many powerful and important Boingers (and others across the intertubes).
Instead, she’d be at home, writhing violently on the floor, making little ‘grrr grrr’ noises in the back of her throat.
And THEN what would we talk about???
Talia @ 1670:
“#1667 in a way its somewhat like four personal blogs.
That just became very, very popular. ”
I don’t agree. Boing Boing is not very different than a TV channel. They post items that require very little attention span to process and provide a numb place to go and relax my brain for five minutes while at work. They collect revenue from advertisers. Sounds just like TV, they even have videos with commercials.
Now that I think about it BoingBoing doesn’t act any differently than an AAN paper.
They are free
They collect revenue solely through advertising
They tend to have rather schlocky journalism, no offense, I never thought you were shooting for good journalism
And they are self righteous, once again no offense, but there is a great deal of proselytizing on this blog.
will@1629: I think it’s time for me to leave this discussion
will@1632 …
will@1647 …
will@1648 …
will@1649 …
Gee, will, I wonder what it would look like if the world held you to the same unforgiving standards of perfection and absolute interpretation of your word that you hold BB.
It’s like you keep promising stuff, and then keep backing out of it. Can I trust you to do anything you say?
in 401, you compare BB deleting blog posts to Stalin.
in 997, you admit you’ve deleted blog posts.
in 1616, you still want to use Stalin to label BB
in 1619, you think “drama queen” is an unfair label of your behaviour.
It certainly seems like you have two standards here. One for yourself and people you agree with, and one for BB and people you disagree with.
I hope bb is Y2K compliant, cause we’re bordering on rolling over to MM base roman posts here. sheesh.
2K or bust!
Greg, I addressed this here, but I should speak directly to you now: I thought when I answered your charge of “drama queen” by playing one, you’d laugh, but I failed, and I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to make you angry, but I did. I should have stopped replying to your posts much sooner. My bad. Seriously. We’ve agreed on some issues in the past. I trust we’ll agree on some in the future.
As for my habit of announcing my departure and then returning, I addressed that in this very thread at #1655.
I have a question (actually several, but here’s one to start with) that I want to see answered, if any of the mods want to take this one:
Why was there a policy of rejecting any anonymous comments in this thread that were not complimentary towards the Boingers?
I saw a lot of postings very uncomplimentary to the Boingers that were this my blog I would have deleted at once, but they remained and remain on this thread.
Some are so devoted to BB they will hear no evil.
Some are so out to get BB they will hear no good, and are just glad for a great chance to stick their knives in.
Some (like me) were initially upset, but feel like most things have been explained and trust the Boingers with what they won’t explain.
Some are thinking that this is a great excuse to try to pry intimate details out of someone who has chosen not to share these details.
A large number of readers are uncertain, and waiting, a bit suspiciously, for the answers to why, and what next, and all like that.
And some are just hopelessly confused, but don’t realize it.
Intellectuals* can’t live without principles, which is not a bad thing. But when they discover themselves suddenly without principles, they feel the need to rush right out and pick one up off the ground, and, if there are none lying around, to grab some cardboard, duct tape, and magic markers and invent some so they’ll feel less naked. This will often have spectacularly wrong-headed results.
Thus we find, as a “matter of principle,” Do Not Ever Remove Your Blog Posts. But the question of when to remove a given blog post is not, and cannot be, a matter of principle in the abstract; rather other principles need to be applied to each situation: are there larger issues involved, what are they, and what is my position on them? if someone is being hurt, why is it okay to hurt someone in this way under these circumstances? how responsible am I to the community, and what effects will this have on it? And so on.
When I say I that I trust the Boingers, what I mean is, I believe it is these questions, in general, that they’ll be kicking around over the next days and weeks, and I trust them to find reasonable answers.
One last thing: Yes, it is easy to find a definition of “censorship” that applies to this case, all you need to do is open a dictionary. But that misses the point. To call this censorship is to underestimate the real dangers of real censorship–much like calling any authoritarian act “fascist” weakens our understanding of fascism, and makes it that much more difficult to identify the real thing when it appears. And with what Bush is doing, and what Obama and McCain seem to favor**, it is more important than ever to be aware of exactly what it means when the State uses armed might to suppress information and dissenting opinion. In other words: sure you can call this censorship; but why would you want to?
*I don’t mean to use “intellectual” as either a compliment or an insult; rather I refer to someone who habitually tries to abstract the general law from a particular situation, and to solve a particular problem through the application of the appropriate generalization. I consider this a good thing if done well, otherwise not so much.
** To me, support of undemocratic domestic spying is a step on the road to many things, including censorship in its most dangerous form, though I admit this isn’t intuitively obvious. We can argue it elsewhere.
and any with common sense moved on long ago
Yo, Steve! Is that really you? If so, you left out the second matter of principle that people are arguing for: When You Delete Or Edit, Acknowledge It. You don’t need to say why. Just put something so future researchers will know that the record has been changed and who changed it.
Will @ 1682: If it isn’t me, I didn’t leave out the second matter of principle? :-)
Anyway, yes, that’s true. It is an issue. And I trust the Boingers to figure that one out and come up with a reasonable policy on the subject for the future. Perhaps I’m naive.
I do not, however, think it is a matter of principle, but rather something to which one applies one’s principles in each case.
I’ve almost commented several times before, but Mr. Brust’s very rational post was the trigger I needed.
The particular details of this brouhaha have been alternately compelling, painful, tawdry, philosophical, and insightful.
Like Mr. Brust, I have faith in the BoingBoingers. I believe they will rise from this shitstorm stronger and more principled than before. The community that has grown around BoingBoing will be more invested and more explicitly considered part of BoingBoing. I am willing to be patient while this egg hatches.
I do have a few suggestions for future comment management on BB:
1. Don’t go to a threaded structure. That fractures discussion.
2. Have each comment’s number fixed. I have seen many references by other commenters broken.
3. It’s fine to ignore comments that never made it onto the page, but if a comment is removed after being served to even one pageview, leave a simple “This comment was deleted.”
4. Some way to distinguish between different anonymous posters should be used. I have several ideas, but that could be hashed out in another thread.
5. Any post that is edited after being served to even one pageview needs to be marked with a note and timestamp. Description of the edit is optional, but recommended.
6. If a user wants to have their account deleted, that’s fine, but don’t delete their comments. Just change the username to “De-Registered User #42″
At times, I’ve been worried about the moderation in this thread, but the moderators have proven to me that while they may not be perfect, they are willing to listen and are trying to do the Right Thing.
I’m very proud to witness such a dynamic and beautiful evolution of BoingBoing.
#1679 I was talking about anonymous posts specifically. The fact that declining an anonymous post is not treated as equivalent to deleting a post that was made by a registered user indicates a cavalier attitude to anonymous posters (which perhaps has its roots in the same attitude that led some of the mods to insult people for their low post counts)
The elephant in the room is the numerous posts that were not about VB at all, whose subjects have not wronged any of the boingers, but are simply gone because the post happened to mention her in passing or credit her for the link. How do you explain THOSE?
Well, my holiday to Sicily was great, thanks for asking.
It’s good to be back though. What did I miss?
Damon_TFB (@1684), Those are good suggestions. Thanks for posting.
They are indeed good suggestions, but most of them where suggested the same day the moderation policy went live, in March.
I know it’s more than a week later; I wanted to leave it alone, but I can’t. Here’s yet another 2 cents for you…
There’s a big difference between:
1) Xeni saying “I nuked the posts for personal reasons that are none of your business”.
I can accept that. We all at times do things others might not understand or approve of for reasons we don’t wish to share and ought not have to.
2) Boing Boing, via Teresa, saying “We made an editorial decision to remove the posts because VB is a bad person. We won’t tell you what, but she did very bad things. Just take our word for it, she’s bad.”
That’s just shabby. If you’re going to accuse someone of bad behavior, to suggest they are so heinous all mention of them must be scrubbed from your archives, common decency demands some explanation.
Dozens of posts were removed that weren’t even about VB, but got caught in the cross fire because she happened to forward you a link and got the “via boingboing friend VB…”. That makes it plain enough to me whether this was a considered and carefully weighed editorial decision or an impulsive emotional one. Being fed a line is a bit insulting.
But really, it’s this comment thread full of, in my perception, moderator-encouraged wild speculation about what a horrid person VB must be that has really damaged my opinion of BoingBoing.
Trashing your own archives? Stupid, but whatever; your blog.
Unsupported charachter assassination? Sucks, and ought to be beneath you.
Damon_TFB,
We would love to implement those ideas, but the MT interface doesn’t support some of them. Here are some specifics:
Have each comment’s number fixed. I have seen many references by other commenters broken.
The majority of renumbering comes from approving anonymous comments, which appear based on receipt time, not approval time. It’s really better to use a name or pull a quote when responding to a comment.
It’s fine to ignore comments that never made it onto the page, but if a comment is removed after being served to even one pageview, leave a simple “This comment was deleted.”
We have no way to do that except to overwrite the comment under the existing username. That would be a much bigger problem.
If a user wants to have their account deleted, that’s fine, but don’t delete their comments. Just change the username to “De-Registered User #42″
Username changes are not retroactive, so it wouldn’t make any difference anyway. I already test drove that option.
Some way to distinguish between different anonymous posters should be used. I have several ideas, but that could be hashed out in another thread.
Click the eyeball and leave a note or contact Teresa. It would be lovely to know if you were dealing with one or many anonymous commenters in a thread. If you have any ideas for fixes or workarounds on any of this, we’d be quite happy to hear them.
Thanks.
Comment management is one of those bugbears that defies “Easy” in any aspect. Then it gets worse.
It has become Whack-A-Mole of sorts battles in some cases. The level of moderation required often shows a “Sanity Quotient” index of posters. If anyone has some methods that consistently work easier?
As otherwise I fear our mods may starve while keeping up with the work. Which reminds me of Lovecraft’s alleged demise. Starving to death while answering fan mail. As trolls are fan mail of a deranged sort the simile may be on track.
I’ve been following this thread with a great deal of interest (I’m “cortex” over at Metafilter, one of the three moderators on the site), so I feel a bit silly about jumping in only now and starting off with a random comment on implementation issues, but here I am and here I go:
We would love to implement those ideas, but the MT interface doesn’t support some of them.
I appreciate that customization isn’t ever free—either you’re spending your own time or you spending money for someone else’s—but a number of the idea Damon_TFB listed do seem worth looking into, and while I don’t know MT from Adam under the hood I’d be a little surprised if it couldn’t be modified to make this work. There has to be some mindshare in the BoingBoing userbase and the site’s social network—it’d probably make more sense to tap that to get a spit-take from someone with expertise on what MT can and can’t be plied to do than to just set this stuff aside as “can’t”.
I don’t know that that’s even what you meant, but it reads a bit like that.
Some specific thoughts on your objections. Some of these would, presumably, require the MT tweaking we’re talking about above.
– Have each comment’s number fixed. I have seen many references by other commenters broken.
The majority of renumbering comes from approving anonymous comments, which appear based on receipt time, not approval time. It’s really better to use a name or pull a quote when responding to a comment.
Two approaches:
– Preserve the comment numbers at anony-submission time; if an unapproved comment has reserved #3, skip #3 in the comment ordering. If the comment is ever approved, no change. Never approved? Ditto.
– Eschew comment numbers. It’d be a significant change, which might be a sufficient argument against as far as your users are concerned, but it is also more or less the best way to guarantee that folks do indeed use quotes and names. No numbers means no laziness or brokenness with numbers, and a greater emphasis on actual usernames. It may present a headache in threads with a large proportion of anonymous commenters, as well; I don’t know what your usual balance is, so no comment there.
– It’s fine to ignore comments that never made it onto the page, but if a comment is removed after being served to even one pageview, leave a simple “This comment was deleted.”
We have no way to do that except to overwrite the comment under the existing username. That would be a much bigger problem.
Customizing MT to treat deletedness as a flag that prompts the display of an alternate message (either a stock “comment deleted” marker or an explicit note) would do the trick here. This is functionality that could tie in to the previous note as well.
– If a user wants to have their account deleted, that’s fine, but don’t delete their comments. Just change the username to “De-Registered User #42″
Username changes are not retroactive, so it wouldn’t make any difference anyway. I already test drove that option.
If it’s a question of anonymizing someone’s comments under a specific username after the fact, this could be done as a one-off db query. If it’s not something you expect to do on a regular basis (which, I gather, is the case?) then this might even be worth building a tool for.
Again, I don’t mean to say “poof! it’s easy!”. There are time and testing and maintenance costs to doing this sort of thing. But take a look at what those costs are.
Second to last paragraph should read “…might not even be worth building…”. Oof.
Eschew comment numbers. … It may present a headache in threads with a large proportion of anonymous commenters,
I just use the timestamp when I need to make a distinction on other blogs.
Incidentally, you’ve missed a third approach: re-dating comments when they are approved. I know I expect new (not-previously-seen) comments to show up at the bottom, and it was surprising to hear they don’t.
i can’t pretend to have read ~all~ of the previous 1694 comments, mostly vitriolic it seems to me… most comments seem to be screaming for transparancy and full disclosure of what’s been going on, citing boingboing’s commitment to such principles.
however, despite not having read the magna boingboing carta, i have developed the impression that boingboing also values / seeks to defend, personal privacy, certainly when such does not impinge on the rights of others…
just a teeny bit of googling revealed to me that there was/were a person or persons for whom further discussion of the disputes would certainly infringe their privacy, and i believe in such a way not justified by any public right-to-know. i think xeni / boingboing acted as honourably as she / they could in the circumstances, and even as the shit hit the fan they have held their tongues.
i believe that she/they have probably shown best judgement in very sticky circumstances, and as such, over and above their marvellous blogzine, they have maximum respect from me.
re-dating comments when they are approved.
True. Pros and cons—pulling the anony comments out of order make them more visible to folks following the thread as it develops. But it might also remove the comment from the context in which it was made; if the anony commenter didn’t quote well and the thread is moving fast, that could be an issue if the mods aren’t lightning-quick with the approvals.
Anonymous approval is rarely real-time, particularly if they require fact checking or URL checking.
I dig these ideas on how to improve the commenting system itself. Certainly worth looking into.
DAMONTFB and JOSHMILLARD, thanks for posting. And ANTINOUS, thanks for facilitating!
Can you explain to me just to what extent anonymous approval requires fact checking or URL checking? Why isn’t it just “it’s not spam, it’s not a stream of obscenities, we wouldn’t delete this if it got posted by a registered user, *click* done”? I think the more latitude you give yourselves to reject comments for different reasons, the more you’re going to end up (even subconsciously) rejecting them when the real reason is to some extent “is not showing a view favorable to the Boingers’ official position on this issue”. look at the anonymous comments in this thread – of the fourteen present, only two are in any way negative on the BBers’ actions, and those are the last two, from after I’d already complained about it twice.
I’ve asked before why my post from before I was registered, asking if in fact VB had been told the reason or not, was rejected. I would like to see an answer. Because, even with the best of intentions, there is a risk that the more you rely on your own judgement rather than a written policy in deciding what comments to accept, the more you’re going to tend to (without even meaning to) reject them based on your own biases.
JOSHMILLARD, DAVID PESCOVITZ, RANDOM832, and ANTINOUS:
Thanks for your comments.
RANDOM832’s mention of the timestamps made me realize that each comment has a permalink! In light of this, I’d agree with getting rid of comment numbers altogether.
Antinous, since it was possible to develop a Disemvowelling button (I don’t know what it looks like, but I’d like to think it’s labelled “Dsmvwl”), couldn’t another button be created to replace all text in the comment with just “post deleted”?
Here’s one idea for distinguishing multiple anonymous posters that I’d like to share with the group (I’ll send others directly to Teresa):
When you submit anonymously, you are asked to select from a list of ten animal names. This creates a short-term userid (Anony-Mouse Anony-Tiger, Anony-Platapus, etc.) that is tied to the submitter’s IP address for this particular discussion only. There would be a catalog of a hundred or so animals to refresh the list of ten available to the next anonymous poster.
If this was used, you’d probably want to deny any ordinary user from begining their userid with “Anony” and describe the system in the Moderation Guidelines.
Random,
How does “it’s not spam” not tally with fact/url checking?
Random832
Perhaps we should consider the pros and cons of moderators allowing anonymous criticism, both in the general case and this case in particular.
People who create a handle are still effectively anonymous, so it’s not like fear of retribution keeps people with handles from speaking up.
And people are certainly allowed to be critical of Boing Boing, so it’s not like criticism in general is being suppressed. In fact, they give us public fora for criticism (like this one), the better to keep other threads on track.
Anonymous is like the ultimate sock puppet. In a forum for critical discussion like this one, one could post multiple times, wording the same criticism different ways, in order to create the impression that the masses are outraged.
Anonymous is less conducive to dialog. Picture two Anonymouses getting into an argument, and trying to figure out what the heck is going on. Or picture trying to engage in a dialog with Anonymous, not realizing that some of the points are coming from a different person.
Anonymous is less conducive to effective moderation, because the history of a commenter’s posts can have an impact on a moderator’s decisions. As a participant in this thread (it’s long), I’ve also found the comment history feature useful for crafting my oh-so-trenchant observations.
If I were moderating, I’d allow anonymous comments very sparingly. They’d have to advance the conversation and offer useful insights that aren’t otherwise getting thrown into the ring.
that’s a editor call, not a moderator decision
TAKUAN
I’m sorry Takuan, which that are you referring to?
your last paragraph
Speaking of comment-permalinks, I noticed they are of the form “#comment-231022″ – I assume this number 231022 is globally unique (my completely unsupported speculation is that it’s an autoincrement field in the comments table)? You could display _that_ number to allow people to identify what comment they’re responding to.
I’d also like to mention again that as long as we’re discussing features that could be added to the comment system, how about dividing it into pages of 100 comments or so each. You could have options to do that or display them all on one page.
@Arkizzle, I got the impression that “fact checking” means “verifying claims made in the post” (what else could it mean?) – which doesn’t have anything to do with determining if it’s spam, and from which it’s a short step to “do I agree with the argument made in the post”.
99% of comments posted don’t contain a URL, and I assume that legitimate anonymous comments would have a similar proportion.
For identifying anonymous users that are the same poster, how about http://infosthetics.com/archives/2007/01/ipbased_identicon.html ?
TAKUAN
Well, I don’t see an editor “manning their post”, as it were, for as long as a thread is open; so I guess you mean that the editor would leave instructions to the moderator(s) about allowing anonymous posts? I’ve not been an editor or a moderator, so I don’t know the dynamic of their interaction.
I stand by my notion: if I were an editor, I would also allow anonymous posting very sparingly.
Antinous, since it was possible to develop a Disemvowelling button (I don’t know what it looks like, but I’d like to think it’s labelled “Dsmvwl”), couldn’t another button be created to replace all text in the comment with just “post deleted”?
To be clear, I think there’s two different things here:
1. Actually replacing the stored content of a comment in the DB — overwriting the commenter’s text with “[comment deleted]”, thereby destroying the record of the content.
2. Toggling a flag in the db that tells the display script to show the “[comment deleted]” marker instead of the still-in-the-db original content of the comment.
I don’t know if you’re suggesting (1) or (2), but I very much agree with the notion put forth by both staff and readers (here and elsewhere) that (2) is the much better, if slightly more complex, solution. When this came up over a Mefi a few days ago, I talked about some of our reasons for going down the hide-rather-than-delete road — between moderator fallibility and recurring user issues, there’s a lot of value in keeping a record.
Also, an idle question for the mod folk here: I’m presuming that the disemvoweler does in fact just remove vowels permanently from the disemvoweled (portions of) a comment, but is that the case or those comments actually marked up with some sort of Display-As-Deemv’d metatag that allows you to retain the original comment intact while sieving out vowels at display time? Have you considered such a system?
josh,
I believe that the key concept is that disemvowelling alters a comment, whereas the other suggestions call for keeping alternate databases for the same comment stream. One’s a small add-on; the other’s a big system change.
I believe that the key concept is that disemvowelling alters a comment, whereas the other suggestions call for keeping alternate databases for the same comment stream. One’s a small add-on; the other’s a big system change.
Well, but that’s not the actual primary argument for disemvoweling, is it? “Convenience” isn’t something I’ve so far heard anyone, Teresa especially, suggest as why deemving is the preferred method.
Adding a column to the comment table called “hide”, with a boolean value defaulting to false, and altering e.g. index.cgi to do a check against that column for each comment and conditionally displaying either the comment or the “[comment deleted]” marker: not a big system change. Not a tiny one, precisely, but not rocket science certainly.
The notion of handling some sort of metatagging in the deemving, to shear off vowels on the fly, as in my idle question — that sounds like a bit more work indeed, and that’s partly why I was guessing it’s not something you’ve implemented. Understandable, but also a destructive edit that can’t easily be reversed if you come to believe after the fact that you’ve made an error.
“Movable Type can’t do that”
Have you Boingers ever considered designing your own platform, to meet your needs. If you’re all going to be in one place at one time, THINK BIG.
I won’t be impressed until they deliver the Implant. That way we can all be together,all the time, everywhere,forever… we are the Boing
this is the thread that never ends
yes it goes on and on my friends
some people started bitching here
not knowing why it was
and they’ll continue bitching here
forever just because …
And still I have nothing to say about this.
Finding neither interest nor amusement, I’m moving on…
There could be a column which indicates the vowel status of a comment–in fact, the column where publication status could possibly be used for this–and a conditional in the query so when the comment is retrieved, the disemvowellment happens there.
I like that idea.
This discussion so far in wordle:
http://wordle.net/gallery/wrdl/63950/That_Violet_Blue_Thing
Thanks, antinous. Now that I read more carefully, it’s very similar to what JoshMillard suggested about alteration on the fly.
I’ll also mention my second favorite method of moderation, the one used at Perlmonks: Moderators can hide comments behind a second link. The contents of those comments don’t (I believe) show up in site search or in search engines.
There’s no reason the two couldn’t be combined: The disemvowelled comment could be the text in the link.
thank you Erik, I knew if I waited long enough a complete and accurate summary would preclude any need to read all that
Regarding disemvowelling via a flag, don’t the moderators sometimes disemvowel *part* of a comment? Is this done manually?
Yes, more or less.
Erik that is beautiful. I almost want to print it out and hang it on my wall.
Hm. I hadn’t considered partial disemvowellment. That does make it harder. Maybe a tag for disemvowelled text? I’m sure that’s doable, but feasible? Or a second column which holds disemvowelled text, and pull that column if it’s not null?
word cloud again- this time with the boingboing color pallette (for the nerds):
http://wordle.net/gallery/wrdl/64860/That_Violet_Blue_Thing_2
very nice
I find it striking how everyone involved in this has come out looking worse.
Xeni – far from “making a difficult decision” – took an impulsive, justifiably hurt but nonetheless embarrassingly childish action and is now sorry to see it belatedly blow up in her face after having it escape notice for so long.
Violet is clearly a contemptible parasite – richly deserving of her “unperson”-hood.
The Boing Boing editors stonewalled and then obfuscated – trashing the integrity of themselves and the site.
And the commenters – not excluding myself – if not “drama queens”, have been all too eager to sit in cynical judgment.
What a discreditable episode all around.
so, how about them Knicks?
July 1, 2008 5:50pm
So I come in from painting the fence, clean the brushes, take a shower, eat a light dinner, go on-line, read the news, and drop in on boingboing for some…
WTF!?
This shit’s none of my business; I’m outta here.
JULY 12, 2008
Well, I got the fence done; two coats. Took almost 2 weeks. So, how did you guys do? Everything work out okay?
nothing really happened
Comments like dried leaves
Filter down in hush whispers
Soon a fine brown mulch
Wow. Over 1700 mostly angry comments. I bet all that righteous indignation in one place has got to be bad for you. The mods are going to end up with smuglung. Still hammering away at their jobs, singing old Irish mining songs.
“And I feel like I’m dying from mining for gold…”
HOLTT,
Well, it’s got the 5-7-5 three-line form, but do you think the leaves and mulch contrast is visual enough?
Yeah…I do too. It ain’t exactly “…petals/on a wet black bough.” But what other haiku ever is? Nice.
c’mon people! we need more rightous indignation! more indignant ranting! we’re not even to 1800 yet, so let’s get to it! if we is gonna make 2000, we gotta get tough on terror! so let loose! you know you wanna.
I had an opinion a while ago (had to do with thinking of links as part of a gift economy, as I think was already mentioned, and how it is in pretty poor taste to complain [as seems to be underlying the complaint on VB’s side] that something you were getting for free has ceased to be) but then the focus seems to have rather shifted to a discussion of the bad form of removing one’s own work from one’s own blog. Well, that and moderation, which I care about even less because this is the only thread I have read the comments in. (There have been good thought provoking comments scattered throughout, to be sure, but… I don’t think I’ll be frequenting the comment pages any more than before).
I don’t really care one way or another whether the content reappears – to me the internet was always meant to be ephemeral anyways, and VB is pretty yawn inducing – but I do have a suggestion.
More creative 404 pages, as found here: http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2007/08/17/404-error-pages-reloaded/
There is even one that begs you to think of the kittens.
@Anonymous (#1737), I *love* that link. Thanks.
@mintphresh: for you and to 2000:
[outrage]
[disclaimer saying something about how my ideas, while like everyone else’s, are unique and interesting]
[ad hominem disguised to look non-hominem]
[discussion of ethics, highlighting justice, beneficence, autonomy, and non-maleficence while acknowledging that this is not a public forum]
[strange modern day Godwin’s law corollary highlighting tyrannical historical revisionism, preferably mentioning deposed communist leaders]
[brief statement saying the disguised ad hominem was really not homonymic at all]
[final self-congratulating comment thanking staff of blog for participating in this ground-breaking, life saving discussion]
So, Xeni was a drama queen and 86’d 80 posts because they happened to mention Violet Blue? My understanding is that some of those weren’t even her posts and most of them weren’t ABOUT Violet Blue. Unless I am mistaken this makes Xeni look like nothing more than a jealous ex-lover who went way overboard with a grudge. I’ll not compare her to Stalin, more like a 15-year-old after her first breakup…
who cares
This is just to say
I have deleted
the posts
which were on
Boing Boing
and which
you were possibly
using
for reference purposes
Forgive me
It was not malicious
they were unnoticed
and year-old
william carlos arkansawyer
glazed with rainwater…
Somebody else who “gets it;”
http://blog.gism.net/2008/07/01/violet-blue-sucks/
Archeaopteryx, VB’s suckitude is not the issue.
I think a post that linked to a blog that linked to a blogpost of mine, which made mentioning of Violet Blue has also disappeared. This is too odd to be true. ‘Unpublishing’ is like the ‘Unlawfull combatant” of publishing. BoingBoing: Go hide under some rock will ya?
Church, are you saying Archaeopteryx’s comments are irrelevant? Would you by any chance be under the impression that the rest of this thread is undeviating in its relevance? Let’s be tolerant. Everyone’s been getting their say, yourself included.
John Arkansawyer, this is just to say thanks.
Anonymous @1746: That is indeed too odd to be true. As far as I know, Xeni didn’t unpublish anything that didn’t mention Ms. Blue or her weblog.
“Unpublishing” is what Movable Type calls the action. It’s different from deletion, which removes the text entirely. Unpublishing keeps it in the database, but doesn’t display it on the site. When you get used to using the term on an everyday basis, its faintly Orwellian overtones disappear. We regret losing track of those faint overtones. This has already been explained a few times.
BB has been cheapened. Jealousy, spite, a love spat, whatever is no reason for censureship. Is Bush running this blog?
Teresa, considering that you won’t talk about what VB did to merit the bb memory hole yourselves, I think it’s entirely appropriate to call that off topic, yes.
I’m concerned about bb’s actions, which are, as far as I understand, entirely independent of VB’s.
Bubbleman @1749, I believe that’s been said too.
Church @1750, 1759: I’m finding the concept of Boing Boing’s actions being entirely independent of Ms. Blue to be very attractive indeed. From your mouth to God’s ears, as they say.
Let me restate my earlier question: If we haven’t zapped messages in wholesale lots for irrelevancies far less arguable than Archaeopteryx’s, how is it your place to demand that Archaeopteryx conform to your idiosyncratic notions of relevancy?
If on the other hand you insist on declaring war on irrelevancy, when are you going to get around to chiding all those other, much more glaring instances in the comments? You’re way behind on the thread.
DamonTFB @1757, don’t think I didn’t notice that.
Jim @1751, I believe they’re still talking it over.
Xobmai @1753, see Johne Cook @1754. Everything sounds Orwellian if you say it the right way. Orwell manufactured horror out of plain standard English.
Joel (comment #1638) seemed to suggest that there was going to be a meeting and ongoing discussion there at BoingBoing HQ.
Since then, I haven’t really seem any comments from the BB bloggers.
I was wondering if we should expect any sort of official follow up statement.
Or maybe the lack of a statement is the statement.
Also, I just wanted to do my part increase the number of comments.
dave@1739, effin brilliant! bravo, homie, i’m freekin cyin here!
“When you get used to using the term [unpublish] on an everyday basis, its faintly Orwellian overtones disappear.”
…a statement which itself sounds a little bit Orwellian.
I can’t help but think of the popularly unpopular term “collateral damage”, a term which seems to me to serve purpose within a narrow context; it makes sense for the military to use it internally if you accept loss of life as a given and I don’t see that there’s necessarily any doublespeak involved. Used outside a strictly military context – such as when reporting on military operations to the public, however, it seem extremely disingenuous.
Used often, enough, though, I suppose we just start to accept it and the military context along with it.
#1753 – There are a kabillion blogging-related terms which see wide use on a regular basis, and none of them get the kind of grief ‘unpublish’ does in this thread. It’s a technical, functional word which describes a specific action in Movable Type, not a political statement.
Just because there are those who want it to be disingenuous as used here doesn’t mean it has been, or is.
I went to the Violet Blue thread and all I got was this stupid T-shirt.
CHURCH – It absolutely is the issue. Violet Blue (aka Wendi Sullivan) UNPUBLISHES a woman’s entire life, and then has the colossal GALL to complain about a few posts being removed? And now it appears Wendi Sullivan is not content with just taking the NAME away from that poor woman, she wants to ruin her monetarily. And the actress has NOTHING, so to satisfy any judgement will have to work cutting hair (that is what she does now) for the rest of her life. Wendi Sullivan is an evil person.
#1755 (FuneralPudding):
“I went to the Violet Blue thread and all I got was this stupid T-shirt”
I want to put that on a hat.
What–you don’t like t-shirts?
Arche., that may be a great reason to hate VB, but it’s not at all clear that *that* was the problem. It’s just speculation at this point.
And even if it turns out it *was* the problem, it doesn’t necessarily excuse bb’s conduct.
Could this unarguably be the longest comment thread on Boing Boing? Only two others seem to make it past 700 comments:
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/04/23/against-ben-steins-w.html
and,
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/04/24/untitled-1.html
an aptly surreal meandering.
I have yet to actually parse most of this; it needs to go on my summer reading list.
Kudos to the moderator for having to sludge through the muck.
Theresa @1761 – Thank you.
Teresa, what “demands” did I make? And what is my “place,” exactly?
separated from state?
Oh, don’t bring HER up!
Greetings,
I have avoided saying anything in this thread because I felt that there was nothing I could say that had not already been said by those smarter and better informed than myself. I have lately only returned with the hope that there would be some nugget of information hinting to the more complete response promised to us weeks ago. What I find is something that has degraded into anything but wonderful.
I come here now to implore you, Boing Boing to shut this thread down.
Free speech is a wonderful right that we have, but as a community we generally decided that blatant hate speech is simply unacceptable. Regardless of the nature of the reason for the unpublishing, we should not accept people wildly speculating and eventually slandering all those involved. No one here in their right mind would knock on all their neighbors doors telling them that the Johnsons down the block liked to kill puppies with a spork on the roof of their car at the full moon. Yet thanks to the anonymity of the internet people are embolden to scream from the rooftops just that.
Though the moderators have thankfully taken a relatively relaxed stance on this topic to give people the leeway to express their anger and frustration at both VB and BB, that should not preclude them from moderating the things that are said only to hurt and defame others. This discussion has at times become too heated that the moderators themselves have had to be moderated to remove their own acidic, slanderous statements, but for some reason I return to continued hate and anger being tolerated and possibly even encouraged.
So again, I implore you Boing Boing, stop this. I want nothing more than to give you as a collective the chance to think this through and deal with it appropriately. Evidence in this thread shows that quick and rash statements have only caused more trouble. Your silence does hurt, and to a degree I feel like I am being ignored, but I am willing to tolerate it in order to give you the time to reach a place were you feel comfortable with your decision.
None the less, letting this continue makes you complicit to the worst that is being said. I have been listening to you all for many years now and I know full well that this complicity is simply not true, but the feeling is getting harder to ignore the longer this is allowed to continue. The thread has served its purpose, a great discussion was held here about something that is crucial to this new age of information, but it is done, do not let the worst of those who would participate tarnish your reputation any longer.
Leave the honey pot open.
OH NOEZ….
NOT….
*~TEH BEEZE~*
bzzzzzzzzzzzz
funny, I know the Johnsons down the block pretty well and would never have suspected a thing. A spork, eh? How unimaginative. Perhaps I should introduce them to more effective rituals…
GGOLAN, why? Because the truth is ugly?
bzzzzzzzz
though, flies and a huge crock of shit might be more apt… not beeeessss, I like beeezzz…
Archeaopteryx @
690
700
783
846
868
879
935
984
1010
1027
1039
1071
1086
1419
1495
1545
1570
1756
1770
-[citation needed]
http://cnb-host1.clickandbuild.com/cnb/shop/showerail?imageID=375&op=imgLib-viewImage
pick one
GGOLAN, what parts do you want cited? Be very specific? Most of this is a matter of public record.
There are a multitude of problems that have contributed to this situation.
First is the self-serving, doublespeaking, elitist culture that has obviously permeated BB. By this I mean the, “it’s only censorship when *other* people do it” sort of mindset. Sure, they have their justifications ready but at the end of the day their unpublishing/deletion of posts or comments amount to stifling someone’s opinion.
If you read up on many of the BBers you can see that they really feel they’re ‘above’ the rest of us and so very intellectually superior. THEY know what’s right, and that gives them the mandate to do ridiculous stuff like talk out of both sides of their mouths. Elitist bullshit abounds.
To be honest, it reminds me of the logic that caused countries to slide into Communism (yeah yeah I know, I’m filling an Internet flamewar stereotype here but hear me out). Specifically, the powers-that-be would take an action, then come out with the, “But don’t you agree…this is truly in your best interest, not that we’re going to really explain how!” sort of rhetoric. Right before you take it up the ass.
Here the BBers are saying, “Yes we took away someone’s voice but, you know it’s not really censorship because I promise, we had our reasons! …not that we are going to tell you what they were.” What’s being left unsaid here is that the reasons amount to some petty dirty-laundry and that they took the chicken-shit way out by deleting posts instead of dealing with it in a way that gave the other side a chance to make their case.
I firmly believe that the hiring of their know-it-all moderator, Theresa, is a poor choice but more of a symptom than a cause. Any blog with a truly anti-censorship stance would be loath to hire someone with her history.
I almost quit BB when they hired Theresa. Because of this, I’m blocking it at our router. Yes, it’s censorship – but at least I fucking admit it.
Frst rsl K. L Gn gts th x, nd nw Vlt Bl ?
Bng Bng s bcmng ptty nd vndctv, r t lst hypcrtcl. Pls stp snkng rnd. Y knw y’ll gt cght. Stp th cnsrng t. nc y rls smthng nt th wlds f th ntrnt, t’s nt yrs nymr, t rs, nd thnk y shld gv s sm rspct.
Mst f th tm y d gd, bt smtms thnk ths st s rn by lttl Nplns.
t’s nt cl t g bck n tm nd ltr r dlt psts bcs y chng yr vw.
t’s nt t mch t wnt hnsty, trnsprncy, gnnnss n r dgtl hstry.
dn’t cr wht Vlt Bl dd r ddn’t d. ‘m jst gvng t th wy s t.
‘ll stll rd BngBng, bt y lst sm rspct.
-mksm32
FrankShipley, you strike me as just the sort of elitist you apparently cannot tolerate. You sure do sound like it. So what’s really got your goat?
mikesum32 @1777: If you get the facts wrong in your first line, why should anyone bother reading the rest of your comment? Ursula Le Guin didn’t get the axe.
Just do some research, will you?
#1777 – MIKESUM32
Do you mean this axe? The one where she asked him to take down a one paragraph article she’d penned, and he did, and furthermore apologized in good faith, and she accepted in good faith?
silence is golden – there is enough noise on the nets – take a lot of stuff down – spend your time adding content – stop the war – dada is everything – art is what you can get away with – not that many people care.
Save the drama for Anung Un Rama. (sorry, had to).
Frankieshipley @1776:
You said:
“Here the BBers are saying, “Yes we took away someone’s voice but…”
Actually, you’re wrong. We never said that. Because we never “took away someone’s voice.” Last I checked, the site that Xeni linked to is still online.
FIRST!
How long before this thread becomes a Mexican soap opera?
Oops.
MikeSum32 @1777: Not only is that comment a tendentious piece of axe-grinding, but you posted it in two threads at once.
Knock this off. Take some anger management classes or something.
I posted this one in the wrong thread. :-) You’re reading too much into it, and frankly all the name calling is childish. I’ll try not to continue your tit-for-tat table-tennis text tussle. Although, it is a little fun. ;-D That is all.
It’s sad that this has blown up so much.
BB has always been vocally supportive of open and free culture. Removing posts from BB itself doesn’t conflict with that, as it is their right as owners of the site to control what copies of their posts are available here.
Xeni’s example of her father burning his own paintings maps well onto this situation. From what I understand, he destroyed works that he had created but never released into society at large, and so there was no attack on culture. And in the case that those paintings had been published publicly, he still has the right to destroy his own personal copies.
The only “wrong thing” he could have done would be to publish his works into public consumption, thereby making them a part of our culture, then go out later and destroy every copy that existed. Without *all* of those circumstances, he’s in the clear, in my mind, from a “Free Culture” standpoint.
Now for this controversy, we have a collection of works (posts) that are published online at BB for the public at large, and have without question become a part of our culture. Now, if these works existed only on BB’s servers, and they deleted them, that would wrong as it would be destroying every copy that existed.
But if you actually read BB, you’ll know that the nature of the Internet doesn’t allow for things to disappear. Cory’s been chanting it for years: “There is no future in which bits become harder to copy.” There are copies of BB everywhere, in fact, it would be near impossible to do the “wrong thing” and destroy every copy to wipe it from our cultural log.
Hell, even traditional newspaper’s couldn’t easily “unpublish” something, unless they could recall every newspaper they printed. Arguing that they’re “the public record” is moot point, because they couldn’t unpublish even if they wanted to. The “public record” argument was more valid 200 years ago, when a publisher had a more reasonable chance of destroying every copy that existed of their work.
People are only confused (and then angry) because they can’t separate the BB server from the BB content. The BB server contains but one visible copy of each post, the original copy to be sure, but just one copy.
If someone destroyed the Declaration of Independence, it’d have no effect on future generations benefiting from its text. Sure, symbolically, it’d be a big loss, but it’s not like then all of the other copies would “unpublish”.
The only metrics that matter form a positive relationship: how many people are influenced by it and how many copies are available.
The more people that are influenced by a work, the more important that all of the copies aren’t destroyed. As the internet quickly and efficiently copies popular works everywhere, the less it matters that any one copy is destroyed.
BB could pull the plug on their site right now, and we’d still have copies of everything available.
People are only confused (and then angry) because they can’t separate the BB server from the BB content.
That’s far from true. I wouldn’t describe myself as anything like “angry” about any of this — I’m an occasional reader and don’t hold any hard-line position that BB shouldn’t be allowed to take down its own content, and have grappled directly with these issues as a moderator over at Metafilter. And I know full well that most of it is probably cached (e.g. Wayback) or excerpted/copied (misc. other blogs), for someone who is likely to assume it was removed by BB (and not just a bad link) and who is willing to go digging for it.
For all that, and calm, essentially disinterested third party that I am, there are aspects of the initial event (setting aside any discussion of the post-blowup handling etc) that bother me.
The removal of content at the source is something that should only be done for a good reason, and a reason in scope and scale with the removal, and should be done with disclosure to the degree possible.
(And let’s be clear here: you can dismiss the BB link as “just a copy”, but if that’s the link one goes to follow (and traffic fountain that BB is, in many cases it likely will be) and that’s the one that’s dead, that other copies exist is at best a thin mitigation of the damage done.)
Xeni can argue scope and scale re: her close-to-the-vest reasons for the removal, but disclosure of the removal wasn’t even in the neighborhood on this one. I think that’s just a plain bad call, personally, and there’s a lot of other reasonable, non-wingnut folks on the internet who have been saying the same thing for the last few weeks. They’re neither necessarily angry nor confused; they’re surprised, and disappointed.
As I said, if the original Declaration of Independence was destroyed, it’d be a symbolic loss, but it wouldn’t affect the availability of it’s cultural impact on future generations.
Sure, when the main source of a work destroys their original copy, it can make finding the work inconvenient, and can be very upsetting, but in this day and age, it’s really hard to get rid of something that’s popular.
I too, am upset that they’d remove their original copies, and I agree that they could have handled the disclosure much better.
I am also regularly neurotic with worry about the loss of culture. I’m native Hawaiian and fully mourn the loss of cultural information that occurred when the Missionaries came (both by the Missionaries and the Hawaiians themselves who had predicted the the coming of a “superior” culture and had gone about dismantling their own).
But the loss on the BB server did not destroy the BB works. A real “unpublishing” of something with a strong cultural/historical influence that is available online is nigh impossible.
The only real way, at this point, of removing something from wide circulation would be to destroy the infrastructure that supported that circulation.
To destroy the work completely would mean not only the network, but all of the mirrors, caches, hard copies, etc.
I think then that we’ve more to fear from those electronic munching crazy rasberry ants than from Xeni’s editorial decisions.
But the loss on the BB server did not destroy the BB works. A real “unpublishing” of something with a strong cultural/historical influence that is available online is nigh impossible.
Absolutely; I’m not one of the folks who has been invoking 1984 (and along with Anil Dash I defended the CMSian, not Orwellian, heritage of “unpublished” over in the mefi thread) and my concern her isn’t that Xeni razed cultural artifacts from the very face of the Internet or anything as dramatically stated as that.
But there’s a huge continuum between being some Orwellian demon and being the best custodian of content you can be, and I think Xeni’s handling of this fell somewhere on that continuum, not happily on the endpoint of the angels. I think it was bad execution, whatever the motivations may have been, and I’m a little surprised that this is the first time it’s apparently even been something the BB principles considered.
Principals, even. Death to homophones.
I agree, and honestly admit to having removed things from my own blogs in the past for personal reasons, though nothing I’ve made has reached Boing Boing tier.
In this whole “controversy”, I think it’s simplest to say that people were crying out with Big Brother concerns, when this is more Ceiling Cat caliber.
Less “double plus unpublish” and more “I can has retrakshun?”
Are there any plans for a further statement on this?
#1794 – RANDOM832
Have you read this one or this one?
Mikesum32 @1787: cute, plausible, not.
Random832 @1794, what Johne Cook said. The Boingers are planning to do a wrap-up post on the subject last Friday.
How in the hell did I miss a thread this great??
How in the hell did I miss a thread this great??
Just lucky, I guess.
Buttseks, it missed you too.
It was a week long trainwreck with more rolling stock piling in hourly. The Trolls made a feast of the carnage.
There was useful discussion going on, but also a great deal of hyperventilating from readers taking the unaccountably proprietary position that having once read something posted on Boing Boing for their entertainment they’re entitled to read it here perpetually, whether they actually want to or not, or they’ll by gum have an explanation of where it went while they were unaware of its existence.
I think that about covers it.
Buttseks! I was just this afternoon feeing wistful about having a thread this long with you not here to see it.
If I weren’t obliged under the Geneva Conventions on Violet Blue to love all the comments in this thread equally, I’d praise Ross’s description.
sooner or later, we all get wistful for Buttseks
yes, but now it’s called “rice”.
Teresa: I’m not.
Ross: Bravo!
Takuan: I know I do. But you misspelled that.
Wait! You meant…
*blush*
MinTPhresh: Yeah, I hope I come home and find some rice cooking.
Actually I hope I don’t, since I live alone.
I only wish I had the time to read through the previous 1800 comments. I’m just going to assume that it’s something like:
“OMG CENSORSHIP BOINGBOING IS A BUNCH OF SELL-OUTS”
“YOU GUYS SHUT UP XENI IS THE BEST AND CORY’S BOOKS TAUGHT ME TO READ. VIOLET BLUE DID COPYRIGHT THINGS AND CORY SEZ COPYRIGHTS ARE BAD SO SHE SUCKS”
“FCK THT STPD CNT VLT BL”
“TERESA IS A NAZI FOR CENSORING PEOPLE. YOU’RE ALL NAZIS!!!”
“TERESA YOU ARE THE BEST MOD EVER I WANT YOU TO DISEMVOWEL MY FIRST BORN”
And then there’s me, like Jesus walking across a lake, while all around the lake people are screaming for help because they are on fire, but Jesus does not hear them because they are all morons. He just looks at the fish below and thinks about what to make for dinner.
Except that most of the lost vowels were from the OMG CENSORSHIP crowd, not a bad description.
It needs a little more OMG MY HEART IS BUSTED, BOING BOING HAS TURNED EEEEEVIL, I WILL NEVER LET MY CHILDREN READ IT EVER in the mix.
also kittens.
and some cowbell. Explore the space.
Yeah, it was the overrepresentation of the self-entitled that creeped me out. And certainly not enough cowbell.
Is this still going on?
While all of you are still up in arms over unpublishing and moderation, Miss Blue has graduated on to issuing restraining orders on people who edit her wikipedia article in ways she doesn’t approve of.
http://valleywag.com/5027803/violet-blue-restrains-critic-with-court-
Like mentioned above policies on transparency are all well and good but sometimes there are extenuating circumstances that justify overriding them. It certainly sounds like that is the case here.
What wacko court would issue THAT kind of restraining order? Wow. This country has really become The Marching Morons.
Indeed. What an affront to freedom of speech if that prevails. Conference organizers had better think twice about how it would affect their credibility for ever inviting Violet Blue to speak on open source, women in technology, sex worker rights, and similar issues again.
SlappStick, I’d make a broader statement. This Violet Blue (of whom I’d never heard before this blowup) sure sounds like a detestable, malevolent person, and everyone should avoid having anything to do with her ever again.
My opinion solely. Not endorsed by the Boingers, Federated Media, or the Library of Congress. Void where prohibited, restricted, or taxed. Color and consistency may vary. Do not bounce Happy Fun Ball.
I don’t know if my opinion of VB has changed much. But my opinion of her supporters (and detractors) has gone way downhill. I just want dialogue, not slapp, er, sockpuppety.
I’m going to the moderation thread to make a suggestion.
“The Marching Morons”
XOPHER, you just named my next band…
No! Not the moderation thread!
You might as well bounce Happy Fun Ball. Or wish for cake.
@PHIKUS @1817 – You should know that is the name of a famous SF short story by C. M. Kornbluth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Marching_Morons
Phikus, I was referring to the Kornbluth story cited by BettaSplendens.
***LAST!!!****
(sorry, I’ve been waiting awhile to do that though)
Not long enough, my friend.
So, that’s it? What rot. What rot. Five million comments on the internet, and no one published a single truth about the affair. According to Teresa Blue did something very horrible, and according to Xeni, Blue shat around the place, and according to Blue she did nothing wrong. So, What was it? Is there to be no knowledge in this whole affair? Or just knowledge for those involved and the rest of us can screw off? Just lawyerly statement from all involved. What rot. Well, I enjoyed all off your insight into how the web works. Thank you kindly.
OK, who forgot to turn this thing off?
wow, oldnumberseven, just wow.
If this thread taught me anything, it’s that I hope you can find sites you’re happier with elsewhere, but you would do well not to hold your breath.
You could try TMZ.com i suppose.
[Bump to refresh archive]
Comments are closed.