I would speculate that recent decisions have been driven more by IRL peer pressure and a desire for social acceptance than any kind of business shark/ Homo Economicus reason.
I would speculate that recent decisions have been driven more by IRL peer pressure and a desire for social acceptance than any kind of business shark/ Homo Economicus reason.
It is possible to construct a conspiracy theory in which GamerGate is being censored, but given the existence of (say) http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/, it's hard for me to believe that Reddit as an entity is removing all GamerGate discussion.
Deletion comment of widely popular reviewer who screen-capped it and then tweeted to his followers was head scratching moment. Same happened to british journalist who was harassed in relation to the controversy. She commented under guardian article and her comment was deleted. She was kinda angry afterwards.
For about a day, comments anywhere on Reddit matching `[zZ]o[eë] ?[qQ]uinn` resulted in what appeared to be an automatic global shadowban. I verified this by asking "who is Zoe Quinn?" on a throwaway. When people say totally nonpermitted discussion they might mean something like that.
Again, no opinion, just context.
That and KiA was recently threatened a ban from the admins for their boycott campaigns against companies. Admins have said that you cannot link to a public representative of a company as it would constitute doxing.
It doesn't feel like censorship until your particular cause or group or agency is the one that comes under the boot.
For example, this list of words autobanned from /r/technology made me very wary of Reddit.
http://www.reddit.com/r/undelete/comments/22yewf/i_have_iden...
P.S. I don't understand why am I getting down voted for asking a question.
God forbid you use the hashtag on Twitter. It's like summoning demons from all sides of the argument.
As for 8chan I guess it's because its address was being spammed constantly on every board and it's also considered advertising.
In case it's the second one, I have to tell you something: it really isn't about truth in games journalism. I know a lot of people think it is, but it truly isn't. Gamergate's sword are its misogynistic views and its coordinated attacks, while it's shield is the "games journalism" angle. If you truly believe you can separate one from the other, trust me, you can't.
The number of people who disagree with GamerGate, who are willing to deeply go into their reasons why, is very very tiny in my experience. Usually all you get is "gamergate is about harassing women", a link to an instance where trolls have done precisely that, and nothing further. Absolutely nothing to directly rebut the constant refrain that most people in the movement are there to crap on female developers.
If you have some deeper insights, I'd love for you to share them here. I find GG to be unfairly maligned - and given the fact that they've picked a fight with primarily huge, monied interests with mass media connections, I can see why. It doesn't even need to rise to the level of massive conspiracy.
I agree with the stated purposes of GG: games journalism needs some serious balancing. For instance, that mailing list in which both journalists and producers are members is an example of a line that should exist and yet doesn't. Hech, even "game developer literally in bed with producers" is something that, properly approached (not the case AT ALL, of course), could have been a valid point.
And yet, what is GG known for? They are being openly misogynistic, attacking anyone who dares speaking against them in a pretty serious way. Anita Sarkeesian and Felicia Day, to name two famous women, were doxxed and harrassed just for speaking openly.
And just like you cannot say "X and Y belong to Anonymous, but Z doesn't", you cannot say "The misogynists are using GG as an excuse, but they are not true GGers", because they are GG (the same way that you are not stuck in traffic, you are traffic).
So my point would be: If a group is full of jerks that are flocking towards a group erroneously, are they really in the wrong group?
Edit: Downvoters, where is your evidence, where is your evidence, where is your evidence, where is your evidence?
What evidence is there that prominent GG detractors are receiving harassment for their views? Exactly the same amount of evidence that prominent GG supporters are receiving harassment for their views, yet for some reason, this standard is only applied against some people and not others.
I want to know what that reason is, I want someone reasonable to explain that to me, and I hope beyond all hope it doesn't boil down to "because some of those people have media connections and some don't".
It gets easier to understand when you realize most of us were bullied as kids. It becomes a natural instinct to herd together and protect our own. It's less because some of those people have media connections and more because those media connections happen to be people they consider friends and loved ones. At that point, emotional bias takes over.
Or, to put it another way, if somebody told you your mother was a murderer, would you believe him, no matter what evidence he presented? Even if he had a video of the event, it would be easier for you to believe that the tape had been doctored than for you to believe this person you loved could do something so terrible. At least it would be for me.
I'm not excusing it, mind you, just explaining it.
Given how central HN is to Silicon Valley, I suspect that at least some of the participants in this discussion are more than innocent (if naive) bystanders and actively sabotage any investigation into the licentious relationship between games companies and game journalists: whenever anyone dares to mention that something untoward has been going on, they automatiaclly and habitually scream: misogyny, harrassment, bullying. And it works well on the mainstream level: the damsel-in-distress trope sells really well with normal guys. But it doesn't work with everyone, like myself ... leading to angry downvoting.
I suppose you could argue that exposing frauds is a form of doxxing, but so could whistleblowing. I think there is a line to be drawn[0], but their names? How do you talk about the key players in a scandal if you can't use their names?
[0]: That guy who took a picture of Zoe's work place and posted it on twitter was over the line, for example. Then again, Zoe posted Mike Cernovich's address on twitter and encouraged her followers to swat him.
But when we must talk about them, we can use their public names and get along fine. Getting their former identities doesn't help people who want to clean up journalism, it just helps dig up background dirt.
All this shows the ridiculousness of the charges the Van Valkenburg and Flyns of this world are making, then the gullibility of their followers.
Keep digging.
Okay, so first off, "attacking" does not imply misogyny. Attacking a woman for any reason that's not directly related to her gender is not misogyny. Period point blank.
Secondly, "What GG is known for" is the perception, the thing I take issue with, "What GG actually does" is something else.
I find it somewhat telling that you (not sure if you did this on purpose or not) characterize the community's response to being called misogynists as "attacking", and you characterize the people throwing the accusations as "speaking against". I'm not sure that any reasonable person would respond with anything but derision at being pre-emptively labeled in this way. Are people not allowed to defend themselves?
What I'm looking for here are facts. It appears, and please correct me with something I can actually verify on my own if I'm wrong here, that basically three people are saying "i'm being attacked because X", without actually backing up that accusation.
The cycle appears to be:
* Person writes incisive article or otherwise does something skeevy (GJP email list)
* Community goes "WTF?"
* Person characterizes this response as harassment.
I see no evidence, none, other than the words of the people concerned (which for obvious reasons, is insufficient evidence), that GG is mass harassing them. THIS IS THE MISSING PIECE OF THE PUZZLE FOR ME. Every time I try to follow the evidence trail, it ends at, in effect "I say I'm being harassed, so I am", with a side order of "The extremists in a group define a group".
I do not accept either of those explanations as true or logical.
And as a follow up, even if we acknowledge the existence of that mass harassment, what effort does the rest of the GG community, the people that are actually part of the revolt for the purposes of journalistic impropriety, need to do that they have not already done?
Loudly state they don't support harassment? Already done. [1].
Form a group to ensure harassers are removed from their ranks? Already done. [2]
Try to assemble a code of conduct for people to follow? Already done. [3].
What else needs to happen?
The problem with your standard is that you allow any group to be trivially discredited by the existence of a minority of troublemakers, either real or invented by the discreditors. The same kind of thing happened to Occupy Wall Street, the difference here is that this is the internet, and we should be able to logically separate troublemakers from non troublemakers.
--
[1]: https://jennofhardwire.wordpress.com/2015/01/06/gamers-discu...
[2]: https://twitter.com/search?q=%23gamergate%20harassment%20pat...
[3]: https://docs.google.com/a/tkware.info/document/d/1WjidVijE_f...
Oh the corrupt journos showed up. I wonder why. https://twitter.com/totalbiscuit/status/521737847758663680
Games "journalism" has always been a stones throw away from advertising and you all don't have an ethical bone in you. Basic journalistic values such as skeptical inquiry, critical thinking or independent judgment are foreign concepts.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/09/17/exposed-the-secre...
Here are more emails[0].
It's put up or shut up time. Either you're going to provide a thorough counter of the evidence provided or everybody will know exactly what you are: a liar.
[0]: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/09/18/the-emails-that-p...
What's the conclusion? That video game journalists are secretly colluding to push an agenda? That's just about the most penny-ante conspiracy theory imaginable. That the evidence is selectively excerpting emails from a professional mailing list (that from what I've been able to discover wasn't exactly a secret) is pretty petty.
Major industry organizations have been forced to step up their efforts to protect innocent developers from GamerGate.
I oppose GameGate because:
* Every issue they've brought up has, without exception, been a minor quibble at best and an outright fabrication on the part of GamerGate at worst
* GamerGate has, as a movement, systematically refused to decry the harassment or take any kind of practical steps to curb it
* GamerGate uses charities as cover for their actions, and then DDOS the charities when the charities refuse to be used like that.
* GamerGate is still, as a movement, entirely obsessed with three specific women
* GamerGate uses anonymity for plausible deniability of its celebration of things like developer's dogs dying (multiple instances), SWATing (multiple instances), bomb threats (multiple instances).
If your anonymous imageboard thread gets regularly co-opted by trolls, maybe they're the real movement and you're the outsider.
Celebrating dogs dying: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/01/brianna-wu-dog_n_62...
http://www.dogster.com/the-scoop/brianna-wu-dog-dies-gamerga...
SWATing: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jan/13/gamergate-...
http://gawker.com/8channers-sent-cops-to-wrong-house-in-atte...
https://storify.com/a_man_in_black/baphomet
Bomb and Shooting Threats:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/16/technology/gamergate-women...
http://www.newsweek.com/feminist-video-game-critic-receives-...
http://www.giantbomb.com/articles/anita-sarkeesian-forced-to...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/10/15...
http://www.engadget.com/2014/09/17/anita-sarkeesian-gdc14-bo...
http://www.cnet.com/news/anita-sarkeesian-cancels-speech-in-...
https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/521072241673379840
http://www.polygon.com/2015/1/15/7551417/nightline-gamergate
http://zennistrad.tumblr.com/post/100805680213/analyzing-the...
Other GamerGate-related information:
http://ohdeargodbees.tumblr.com/post/107838639074/august-nev...
https://pixietalksgamergate.wordpress.com/gamergates-misconc...
https://storify.com/a_man_in_black/there-s-no-money-in-it
https://storify.com/a_man_in_black/gamergate-condones-harass...
https://storify.com/a_man_in_black/how-gamergate-harasses-vi...
https://storify.com/a_man_in_black/why-i-still-oppose-gamerg...
https://storify.com/a_man_in_black/actually-gamergate-is-abo...
http://blip.tv/foldablehuman/s4e7-gamergate-7071206
http://www.zenofdesign.com/gamergate-hits-rock-bottom-keeps-...
Indeed you link to Sarkeesian's (or rather Jonathan Mcintosh) Twitter as evidence ... don't you think even random people might find such a source ... how can I put it delicately ... somewhat partial?
Indeed you admit "It's immensely hard to tie the events to specific people". So if it's hard, why do you do it? Given this methodological misinformation that you've carried out, I wonder if you are somebody who has something to hide, has skeletons in his cubboard and throws shade at anyone who challenges the official, mainstream narrative.
Let me close by challenging you again: please present concreat, actionable evidence, usable in a court of justice, that the alleged threats against Sarkeesian, Chelsea Van Valkenburg (aka Zoe Quinn) and John Walker Flynt (aka Brianna Wu) were carried out by who had a substantial GG affiliation.
See, here's the thing: because of the way that GamerGate works, anyone who says that they're part of GamerGate is a part of GamerGate. To use just one example, the shooting threat in Utah was by someone explicitly claiming a link to GamerGate.
(And I never said that GG killed dogs, I said they celebrated the dogs being killed. Which is obvious if you read 8chan at the time.)
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/16/technology/gamergate-women...
[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/10/15...
You really don't understand (or pretend you don't understand) how modern newspapers work.
1. Newspapers have ideological bias. In terms of domestic news, it's a liberal newspaper, so would automatically add a sexist anti-male spin.
2. Journalists are under heavy deadline pressure and badly paid. Typically most stories in a newspaper like the NYT are slightly edited press releases from some PR agency. The corrupt games journalists who are trying to cover up their wrong doings know this and produce press releases that smear GG, knowing that mainstream news outlets like the NYT will uncritically print them. You only need to look at the Wikipedia article for Chelsea Van Valkenburg (who currently calls herself Zoe Quinn) to see a prime example of a PR-agency hit-piece. Having worked in PR and journalism, I can smell the PR-style writing from a million miles.
3. Newspapers like the NYT are doing financially very badly and are desparate for page-views. And the damsel-in-distress narrative reliably generates such page-views. That's why the likes of Sarkeesian, Chelsea Van Valkenburg (aka Zoe Quinn) and John Walker Flynt (aka Brianna Wu) use them, and that's why the NYTs of this world print them.
Rest assured that the NYT writer responsible for editing the press release you linked to has done no fact-checking of substance.
As to "because of the way that GamerGate works": I'm afraid it's the other way round. Since there is no organisation, no formal membership, everybody can claim to be GG; moreover, Sarkeesian, Chelsea Van Valkenburg (aka Zoe Quinn) and John Walker Flynt (aka Brianna Wu) et al and their friends have strong financial incentives to run false flag operations, see their Kickstarters and Patreons and media adulation. So the only reasonable default assumption must be that they are running false flags. This default assumption should only be reversed in the presence of concrete, actionable evidence that would work in a court of law. So far none of this has been forthcoming.
I would also like to point out that the police clearly doesn't take these claims seriously, for otherwise we'd probably have seen some people being arrested or charged. After all anonymity on the internet is hard these days, and beyond the abilities of most.
As somebody that has watched GG from the outside out of fascination, I don't think this point is true and I think think it points to a broader problem online that I feel is becoming increasingly troubling - a failure to recognize that trolls are attracted to conflict and not necessarily representative of anyone on either side of an issue.
What practical steps to curb the actions of anonymous internet trolls would you have considered sufficient?
Like I said, I think it's a larger problem of shitty behavior on the internet in general, and I don't think anyone has a real solution at this point. I find it unfortunate that people use that behavior as an excuse to talk past each other.
That story was broken by TotalBiscuit, a prominent YouTube game reviewer who's generally considered to be part of Gamergate by its opponents and has been under attack by them for supporting it for months. (I believe they're currently trying to get his Steam curator privileges pulled for supporting it.) The gaming press didn't even report on it until over a week after it'd already blown up in Gamergate circles, the PR company behind it had apologized and promised not to do it again, and the Youtubers who took the deal had been scrutinized. Even then, I think TB was the main driving force behind them reporting on it.
The whole narrative about Gamergate ignoring it started a while after the gaming press finally reported on it, so about two weeks after GG got those responsible to apologise and back down from their decision. (By which point there wasn't much new GG discussion of it because they'd won and it was old news.)
But you go right on saying that, person who made an account to post this one comment.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/09/17/exposed-the-secre...
Besides being gendered, the other bit I've noticed is that it seems very anglosphere. We had a brief discussion in class here (Denmark) about gamergate, which I was initially very cautious about because I didn't want to be leading, but it ended up mostly fizzling because afaict students just viewed it as foreign and not their problem. They didn't seem to view it as an active debate here that they should be for or against, but rather some weird debate in America that they could only shrug about (weird debates in America that you can only shrug about are a dime a dozen). Well, maybe America plus some tagging along from CA/UK/AU. That perception is probably strengthened by the fact that the high-profile "pro-gamergate" articles have come from right-wing Anglo-American media outlets like Breitbart Media, whose politics start from a position that's pretty weird/foreign by local standards.
[1] There was a period when a bunch of people had a conspiracy theory about how DiGRA (http://www.digra.org/), a small and mostly ineffectual professional society for academics studying games, was taking over games. Being vaguely on the fringe of that organization provided good opportunities for trollish hashtagging (I attended a DiGRA conference once, which I believe made me a member for 1 year as a result of paying the conference registration fee). It was fun to imagine ourselves as all-powerful conspirators directing the future of games, when almost no game developers have even heard of the conference (much less read its papers), and the organization's powers are such that releasing a timely call for papers once a year remains an aspirational goal.
Women get more attention in general, both negative and positive, both online and off. You spent your time trolling GG, I spent my time arguing for GG. Both of us were largely ignored. There are quite a few women arguing in support of GG and they also get a large amount of attention (positive from GG, negative from antiGG). It's human nature to pay attention to women.
... it seems very anglosphere.
Considering all of the companies involved are American, this doesn't surprise me. I don't even think the UK would bother with it much if it weren't for Milo. It just doesn't affect anybody outside of American culture, thank god.
There was a period when a bunch of people had a conspiracy theory about how DiGRA ... was taking over games.
HAHAHAHA, oh man. I've never heard of DiGRA until just now, but that's hilarious. You should put DiGRA Illuminati on your business card.
>You will not post or request personal information ("dox") or calls to invasion ("raids"). Inciting or participating in cross-board (intra-4chan) raids is also not permitted.
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2gvtrp/
[2] http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/833450-gamergate
EDIT: Downvote all you like. I'm not making any judgement pro or anti Gamergate in this post, I'm just pointing out a rather large conflict of interest.
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/01/08/admission-quest-v...
And also covered her here:
http://tmi.kotaku.com/the-indie-game-reality-tv-show-that-we...
...without disclosing the relationship. Which could have been resolved with a simple apology and adding disclosure to the articles, but several major game sites instead responded with such a storm of ridiculous charges that game journalism was instantly sullied even more than it already was.
Because of this, GamerGate has been poorly covered in most game sites and rags like TechCrunch, so it's not surprising that you hadn't heard of this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_lzjvu24a8
Very clearly what occurred was a major violation of ethics.
http://www.realdanlyons.com/blog/2012/02/13/hit-men-click-wh...
fortunately the more responsible publications have already updated their policies and looked inwardly to prevent fucking up so publicly and obviously again. (We can hope at the least they won't soapbox to their readership that they are assholes for calling them out!).
BTW: this guy is a journalist for TechCrunch. I only mention it because it explains why he doesn't want to actually debate the topic.
I choose to believe what I can prove. You provide nothing of substance. Empty words and air. You work for ABC news and not TC. Ok, great. What does that have to do with Moot?
Years ago I worked on bianca.com (early community site; founded 1994, Webby 1997, closed in the dot-com bust), which had a similar unfettered-free-speech aspect to it. I feel a lot of sympathy here.
Committing to publishing everything is one of those positions that is very appealing to a young idealist. But it grinds you down over time. Partly because of the content: unless you're a reptile you are faced with a series of decisions about whether this really awful thing is too awful or just awful enough. And partly because of the people: most of them are lovely and some amazing things happen when people are free to be themselves. But some are terrible and plenty are just broken, and it's those you spend 90% of your time dealing with.
I saw one of the Bianca people recently and we talked a bit about 4chan and 8chan and how thoroughly grateful we were to have left those problems behind. No matter how appealing radical free speech is in theory, at the end of the day you're the person who has devoted your life to enabling awful people to say awful things. And with GamerGate, to go and do awful things as well. I imagine he's just tired of it.
Therefore universal censorship should be instituted in every medium to make all communication conform precisely to my own opinions, sensitivities, and preferences.
Edit: /s, people!
8chan will probably last much longer than 4chan precisely because Fredrick refuses to make those judgement calls about what is and isn't acceptable. He doesn't need to bear a heavy conscience about what kind of speech he is allowing, he just follows the law to the letter and lets people do their thing.
I leave you all with a fantastic speech the late Christopher Hitchens made about the freedom of speech and why there is no freedom of speech unless you extend that freedom towards people you disagree with, even the ones you find completely abhorrent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIyBZNGH0TY&feature=youtu.be...
Comparisons to Hitchens are similarly misleading; there is a large difference between enabling vs not stopping.
While I support eg the KKK or gamergate jerks' right to talk and organize, I'm damn well not helping pay for it.
I know it's not the same to you, but if you look at the top 15 boards on 8chan, that list includes a board that Fredrick likely has no interest in (gay porn), boards full of users that he probably disagrees strongly with (/leftypol/, a left wing version of /pol/, and /christian/, iirc he is an athiest), and a community full of people that he personally cannot stand (/furry/). Maybe you wouldn't pay to provide a home for "gamergate jerks", but he doesn't seem to have a problem providing a home for a lot of people he dislikes or disagrees with.
What is the difference between "enabling" and "not stopping" something? Is he "enabling" GamerGate because he supports it on his personal twitter account, or is he "enabling" it just for refusing to censor it on his site? Is he "enabling" /baphomet/ because he made some improvements to the site software that happened to fix a spam/flooding problem they had? Then is he not also "enabling" the /furry/ board that he developed a CAPTCHA option specifically for, due to the constant attacks of one dedicated spammer that board received? Or does "enabling" just mean "allowing something I dislike"?
If you allowed anybody in the world to put an ad in your newspaper, for example, you would be responsible when ISIS use it as a recruitment or propaganda tool - they wouldn't have that reach otherwise. Same with imageboards, reddit, or HN.
How are these distinct from imageboards, forums or reddit? This is a very slippery slope which implies censorship from the very beginning. Are you prepared to follow your reasoning all the way to its conclusion and stop people from having any platform for speaking their mind? Once you go there, you no longer have freedom of speech, which I agree with Hitchens et al. has to be protected even when it is uncomfortable.
I agree that there is a very tricky ethical case when it comes to harrassment or terrorism, but I have no good ideas on how to resolve it. We should err on the side of not censoring stuff we don't like.
No, that's not the conclusion. The conclusion is that the providers are responsible for it and are definitely enabling it, but sometimes that's better than the alternative. Not everything's black and white, unfortunately.
I'm not entirely certain that unrestricted use of a popular destination is the same thing as unrestricted use of a transport, though, to try and figure out a place where the line should be put. If you have an audience and allow people to reach that audience with dangerous and harmful ideas, that's likely worse than giving them the transport to build their own audience.
Holding providers of "audience" infrastructure accountable means that the only unorthodox groups that can communicate as effectively as the orthodoxy are groups with members that can provide "audience" infrastructure. Now the unorthodox suffer a disadvantage. The purpose of this system is to prevent dangerous and harmful ideas from being spread. This is still censorship.
Requiring all ISPs (or forums or whatever) to accept and retransmit the KKK's propaganda is just as much a limit on freedom as banning the stuff.
Alternatively, when an American cable news channel bleeps profanity or blurs nudity, isn't that a form of censorship?
I'm really confused with where the "censorship is only something a government can do" idea came from.
Some sort of conflation between the ideas of "censorship" and "violation of first amendment rights" I suppose.
Oh my god, shut up about free speech. It's his privately owned website and he can do whatever he wants with it.
But if every individual ISP refuses to host the KKK because they'd just rather not do business with bigots, then that's not censorship. It's just freedom of association.
If the 8chan guy tomorrow decided to shut down and nobody else wanted to host the pedophiles, that isn't censorship. They can buy a piece of land and make a pedophile clubhouse. They can buy a printer, make pedophilia leaflets, and distribute them in the town square. But if nobody wants to help them do that, it isn't censorship, because nobody is exercising power over the pedophiles, just over themselves.
No, that is censorship.
transitive verb : to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable <censor the news>; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable <censor out indecent passages> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censoring
Freedom of speech means that you can put up your own lawn signs in your lawn. It doesn't mean that you get to put your lawn signs in other people's yards. It certainly doesn't mean that they are obligated to print and put up your signs in their yard.
People don't have an obligation to uncritically pass on any and all messages. True.
That a publisher only publishes certain books is not censorship of all the other books. True.
That you promote your own views without simultaneously mentioning all other views is not censorship. True.
Freedom of speech means that you can put up your own lawn signs in your lawn. It doesn't mean that you get to put your lawn signs in other people's yards. It certainly doesn't mean that they are obligated to print and put up your signs in their yard. True.
These are all true, but irrelevant. Refusing to help spread a message is different than trying to stop other people help spread a message. I've been repeating this for a while now. If you're still confused, try rereading our discussion until you see the difference.
If my neighbor puts up your signs, I am allowed to express my opinions to him. If he decides to take down the signs, that is still not censorship. I'm even allowed to decide to not talk to him if he leaves them up. Exercising my right to freedom of speech and freedom of association is not censorship. It can't be, because otherwise the right to free speech ends up being self-contradictory.
Your analogy is irrelevant. Your example neighbor is only putting up signs for one person, and you don't explain why he takes down the signs.
Censorship is selective removal of unwanted ideas to prevent those ideas from spreading. Removing all ideas for some other reason is not censorship.
Removing neutral infrastructure is restricting free speech through social conventions instead of through government. It's still censorship.
If you have an ideological attachment to the existence of neutral providers, nobody can stop you from creating one. But as 8chan is discovering, people are free to criticize them for who they are helping and what effects that has.
People are of course free to try and stop neutral providers. They are also free to lobby for a government that will censor them.
If you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe a lawyer who does a lot of free-speech work: https://www.popehat.com/2013/09/10/speech-and-consequences/
Edit: According to you, shouldn't Twitter be at fault for letting Pax say such hurtful things? They're providing him a platform.
Should you be under fire if you sell a printing press to an unsavory bunch of people?
How many levels of "providing a platform" can we go through before we no longer vilify people? We do business with companies (our ISPs) who do business with companies (other ISPs) who does business with a company (8chan's ISP) who does business with a company (8chan's host) who does business with a company (8chan) which is used by extremists. How deep does this go?
Alternate question: Should we bust newspapers for pimping?
Is it up to park police to monitor the user groups? Sure, but they cannot take action unless it violates the law.
When the ACLU spends money defending the KKK's first amendment rights in court, are they enabling the KKK, or merely not stopping them?
That's a different thing from giving them a platform to talk on, though. From a natural rights viewpoint, the KKK should be allowed to say whatever they want, but nobody has to give them a platform to talk on.
Is this an accepted stat or is this a soundbite used by 8chan supporters? I've seen this repeated often, but it doesn't seem true. According to the archive stats (https://archive.moe/vg/statistics/activity/, https://archive.moe/a/statistics/activity/, https://archive.moe/v/statistics/activity/) - 4chan's traffic and activity has been stable.
>8chan will probably last much longer than 4chan precisely because Fredrick refuses to make those judgement calls about what is and isn't acceptable. He doesn't need to bear a heavy conscience about what kind of speech he is allowing, he just follows the law to the letter and lets people do their thing.
I honestly don't see how 8chan is different from 7chan, and I'm willing to bet that after the controversy is over 8chan's influence will die down much like 7chan's.
Not saying you're not totally right. You probably are. But underestimating competitors is how they win.
The qualifier you missed is "who were there entirely for the freedom of speech they enjoyed." There are some 60-80,000 daily users of 8chan right now, even in spite of the constant DDoSes the site has suffered over the past few weeks, and that number is only increasing; they had to come from somewhere. I've visited 4chan a few times since the split and have noticed quite a few people that seem out of place in imageboard culture, and in general a lot more of the whiny and shitposty elements that I left 4chan to get away from, so my guess is that as the older anons that craved the free atmosphere that had been slowly eroded from 4chan over the years left, they were replaced by newbies who were previously too scared to visit 4chan who figured things would be "safer" now (yes, there already existed communities like /r/4chan on reddit that consisted of people that liked "4chan humor" but were afraid of, say, stumbling across gore, and there are also a lot of people that lurk 4chan without posting that don't want to deal with trolls and arguments, who might be more likely to post now that a lot of the people they disagreed with left).
> I honestly don't see how 8chan is different from 7chan, and I'm willing to bet that after the controversy is over 8chan's influence will die down much like 7chan's.
As someone who was around for both splits, they are completely different. 7chan was an exclusive community for "oldfags" (non-imageboard users, please don't shit on me for using that word, that is the actual term they called themselves) that attempted to insulate itself from the "newfags" and "gaiafags" they believed moot was allowing to ruin 4chan. They tried to do this by being highly elitist, and banning anyone even mentioning 4chan or its memes or for not being able to keep up with the latest mod shenanigans (because apparently snacks was the most important element of 4chan to them). The site died a slow death because it didn't really have any important unique communities to offer over 4chan, and because most people got tired of the comically overbearing moderation and eventually settled for the (at the time) much more lenient 4chan.
Now that 4chan is the site with the overbearing moderation, 8chan is an inclusive community for people displaced from 4chan (mostly gamergate and /pol/), for fringe communities that previously lived in "general threads" that could now create their own boards with their own moderation (much of /vg/, parts of /a/, /lgbt/, etc), and for those that never had a home there to begin with (/furry/ is a pretty huge one that, for better or for worse, is one of the largest drivers of fresh blood into the site). Even if the boards like /v/ and /a/ with direct equivalents on 4chan died out (which they are not showing any signs of doing, even though they are admittedly smaller than the 4chan boards they split from), there is still a more than sufficient critical mass of people in the communities that have no other home on the internet that could keep the site going.
8chan is also for those like yours truly, that remember how nice 4chan used to be in the lenient days before you had to watch everything you said for fear of upsetting a mod or janitor strictly following rules that the majority of the community disagreed with, or just deleting things allowed by the rules because they personally disliked them. The days when mods didn't up-end boards they didn't even use, like what has happened to /u/, /jp/, /pol/ and /new/, and /r9k/ over the years, on a whim. The days when it wasn't tragically common for downright respectable users to have to frequently ban evade just to participate. Once I'd had a whiff of the fresh air of hands-off moderation and posters that mostly ignore things they don't like instead of whining about them ad nauseum, I realized how much 8chan reminded me of my favorite days on 4chan, and I'll never go back.
Will 8chan "beat" 4chan? I hope not. I'm happy to let 4chan serve as the "containment site" for the (IMO) most annoying parts of the community. But 8chan doesn't need to beat 4chan. It can do its own thing. Ironically, it's a bit like Hacker News vs. Reddit in that respect.
---
Adding a response to malbiniak, because I've, uh, "hit the post limit" (cough):
>Within the first minute of his talk at XOXO back in 2012, he mentioned 4chan being about anonymity and ephemerality, not a blanket endorsement for freedom of all type of speech.
I know, he has said that many times, but his users didn't see things that way, and that is really the crux of this debacle: the disconnect between what moot and the rest of the 4chan staff thought 4chan was about, and what the community thought.
This comment is exactly where my head is at and has been my connection with 4chan.
I had a very rough time in my teens, and my mother and I moved to new cities or towns every year or two. It was hard to keep friends and consider a place home. 4chan was the constant in my life where I could always escape to be comfortable and amongst people who shared my hobbies while experiencing free-speech without the repercussions of identity. No other site offers this like 4chan does, and I've seen plenty of other chans over the years, so, I'm skeptical about 8ch.
I know a lot of people who feel the same way. I'm scared for the future of what I consider my home.
8chan was once just like that, a ghost town of a somewhat more modern AnonIB clone that wasn't really going anywhere. It owes its success entirely to the fiasco of Gamergate discussion being banned from 4chan, which caused a (literally) overnight exodus of a significant minority of 4chan who wanted to discuss it, along with those who (like me, in spite of the fact that I sometimes defend it on HN) were mostly appalled by the blatant abuse of power. These people weren't trying to "get away from" 4chan or its culture, they were forced to leave. They weren't curmudgeony "oldfags" or the like trying to enforce some new cultural norms in their secret club to increase the "quality", they were 4chan.
Perhaps not surprisingly, the site is now thriving as a community "for people who loved 4chan, by people who loved 4chan." And that's what's I love about it. It's just like 4chan, with a lot of the same people and ideas, but now, the community is running the show, not some guy trying to distance himself from "his creation" and a team of mods that often don't even use the boards they're supposed to protect enforcing arbitrary rules from afar.
Give it a shot. For all the negative attention that boards like /gamergate/ and /baphomet/ receive, they're in their own worlds. The rest of the site is very welcoming towards anyone that understands "4chan culture" and isn't obnoxious about it. Also, webms with sound.
I'm starting to browse 8chan alongside 4chan today and we will see where it goes.
It may be a slippery slope, but it's an important one to navigate. Throwing your hands up and saying "well all these horrible manchildren would just organize somewhere else to harass people, so I might as well let them do it here!" isn't bravery, it's opportunism.
As far as 8chan outlasting 4chan? Unlikely unless the owner realizes he's sitting on a ticking time bomb of federal criminal cases.
Great idea. Easy to misapply, because with speech people are very bad at knowing where their nose actually is. Having hurt feelings from something someone said? Not being hit in the nose, but I know plenty of people disagree.
There's a reason that flag-burning hit the SCOTUS.
SWATing is horrible, but IMHO you should be placing more of the blame on our fucked up militarized police system that lets bored teenagers send an armored car full of soldiers, armed to the teeth and ready to kill to anyone's house with a single phone call. If it takes a few SWATings for the public to realize that this is completely unacceptable, so be it.
It's not directly relevant to the topic, but if you really believe this you should better educate yourself with regard to what has been done in the name of gamergate.
>IMHO you should be placing more of the blame on our fucked up militarized police system that lets bored teenagers send an armored car full of soldiers, armed to the teeth and ready to kill to anyone's house with a single phone call. If it takes a few SWATings for the public to realize that this is completely unacceptable, so be it.
SWATing has been an ongoing thing for quite a while, with a few cases making their way into mainstream news. Perpetrators (when caught) are prosecuted quite heavily. Waving off SWATing as not the fault of places which allow and encourage harassment in the form of doxing just because the military industrial complex exists seems like blaming auto manufacturers for drunk drivers.
"Fault" is a concept that I believes always lies with the person who is actually committing the crime, but I think the general idea isn't outlandish.
Say I've got a problem of drunks leaving the bars at night and pissing on the sidewalk. I can make it illegal, arrest anyone who does it, and when the complaints continue to roll in I can point out you can't make people not break the law. It is nobody's fault but their own, surely I cannot be responsible for another man's bladder.
Alternatively I can recognize the futile nature of attempting to correct this behavior with laws alone, and do something like install public toilets in problem areas.
Designing a society to accommodate people such that they are less likely to break the law does not mean that I am assuming responsibility for their actions, nor assigning fault to myself when people break the law.
No, really, gamergate supporters like Milo Yiannopoulos have also been doxxed, sent death threats to, sent threatening packages to, had their family members harassed, etc. The social justice movement contains honest supporters of diversity in tech, and psychotic scumbags like Shanley Kane. There are idiotic assholes on both "sides," and you shouldn't let them discount the entirety of the movements they "support."
I'm in no way excusing SWATing, but I absolutely think the outrage it generates should be directed towards our militarized police system. The drunk driving analogy is stupid because the benefits that cars provide to society outweigh the negatives of drunk drivers, but there is no good reason for an anonymous tip to warrant armed soldiers breaking into your house in the night, usually making no indication that they are policemen and not just thugs and robbers, and shooting you dead if you so much as move the wrong way in your confusion. It's a profoundly dangerous and easy to abuse system, and it needs to change.
I don't think someone searching his twitter feed for a phone number he himself posted for self promotion falls under the same category as taking selfies outside someone's place of work.
>The drunk driving analogy is stupid because the benefits that cars provide to society outweigh the negatives of drunk drivers, but there is no good reason for an anonymous tip to warrant armed soldiers breaking into your house in the night, usually making no indication that they are policemen and not just thugs and robbers, and shooting you dead if you so much as move the wrong way in your confusion. It's a profoundly dangerous and easy to abuse system, and it needs to change.
You're right, the system does need to change. And I would even agree that is linked to the issues of online harassment. However, that is not the cause of online harassment, nor would improvements to police reaction policies put a stop to doxing.
The parent commenter was referring to an incident when Shanley Kane tweeted Yiannopoulos' personal phone number, which was not intended to be public. He subsequently received a deluge of messages (does this qualify as "harassment"?) Such behavior is commonplace amongst the SJW set, and not so much among their opponents, contrary to the mainstream perception.
Either way they are both shitty behaviours, don't really think we need to take a one vs the other.
The kinds of harassment we've seen come out of one man's personal crusade against an ex-girlfriend are disgusting, and it's incumbent upon all of us to discourage it.
I am astounded by the viciousness and mendacity of those who are determined to undermine 8chan at any cost. These people are essentially fighting for total corporate control of every corner of the internet, just because 8chan doesn't promote their pet issue.
Except for all the evidence that's in the article, like the newspaper link with quotes from the police chief. But hey, if you ignore all the evidence, there's no evidence!
> Also, I'm not sure why anyone would give any credence to information from those sources in the first place.
Probably because they lie a lot less than GamerGaters seem to.
8chan is actually not a person, and no evidence has been presented that a user of the site has done any such thing. I have noticed a couple of posters in this thread posting a gish-gallop of links (mostly from discredited sources) purporting to prove something, but one sees upon inspection that they in fact do nothing of the sort.
Promoting a worldview is a tricky thing. To be really good at it, you have to believe, and the more unorthodox your worldview, the harder you have to work to maintain that worldview in the face of widespread resistance. The easy thing is to refuse to even consider anything to the contrary, to only talk with people who share your views.
This pattern happens over and over in tech, too; it's not like we're exempt. Look at the dot-com bubble, for example. It was an article of faith that the Internet would change everything. That it turned out to be true eventually didn't matter; enough people took leave of their senses that we wasted billions.
If you haven't heard it, it's worth a listen (20:59).
If I operated 4chan and wanted to get the racists out of my hair, the last thing I'd do is ban mention of other sites they could go to besides 4chan. If mentioning 8chan gets them to leave 4chan for 8chan, then that's a win for me, right?
My guess is that it was a combination of peer pressure and a measure against organized attacks against 4chan.
That's what ended up happening though. By barring discussion of GamerGate and 8chan, its supporters wound up on 8chan. After all, the really toxic GamerGaters were already well-organized on Twitter, and banning 8chan-related discussion is not going to stop the die-hard from hearing about 8chan through the grapevine.
If I were moot and if I had wanted to get rid of these people, I would have flat out told them to go to 8chan. The "really toxic GamerGaters on twitter" likely comprise a minority of the people I would want to get rid of (I assume in all movements there is a silent majority. Most people who think something are too lazy to actually go out and talk about it), and the common mode of communication between all people who use my hypothetical site is my site.