Boing Boing Finds 21st Century Trotsky?
June 30, 2008 9:58 AM   Subscribe

Without explanation, all of Violet Blue's posts have been removed from Boing Boing, raising serious questions about ethics and revisionism that run contra to the thoughtful declarations of blogging pioneers. Is this hypocritical in light of BB's own public bouts with censorship? Or does this reflect an altogether different loss of control?
posted by ed (2479 comments total)

This post was deleted for the following reason: Poster's Request -- Brandon Blatcher



 
"Violet Blue loses control" is a two year old post. Not sure how relevant it is to what's going on now.
posted by ardgedee at 10:02 AM on June 30, 2008


What about sensationalism regarding trivial blogoswamp issues?
posted by cellphone at 10:07 AM on June 30, 2008 [6 favorites]


Well if only she had written a few 'steampunk dildo' articles she wouldn't have been made an unperson.
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 10:09 AM on June 30, 2008 [48 favorites]


Without explanation, all of Violet Blue's posts have been removed from Boing Boing

Uh, no. All of the posts referencing her have been removed.

Anyway, they hired comment fascist Teresa Nielsen Hayden to run their comment site so we know they're wankers.
posted by delmoi at 10:10 AM on June 30, 2008 [7 favorites]


I hate to be one of those Metafilter commenters who poo-poos everything, but who are these people and why should I care about them?

Boing Boing can do whatever they want to their site. It's a private entity. Would you want someone telling you how to run your own site?
posted by MegoSteve at 10:11 AM on June 30, 2008 [10 favorites]


Well if only she had written a few 'steampunk dildo' articles she wouldn't have been made an unperson.

Yeah, that's no way to talk about a nice guy like Cory Doctorow.
posted by spiderwire at 10:11 AM on June 30, 2008 [18 favorites]


BlogIDon'tReadAndPeopleIDon'tCareAboutFilter.
posted by jeffamaphone at 10:11 AM on June 30, 2008 [3 favorites]


Since I'm a child of the post-Alanis era, I no longer quite know what is and is not irony. Is the guy who wrote Little Brother unpersoning someone from his archives ironic or merely hypocritical?
posted by adipocere at 10:11 AM on June 30, 2008 [14 favorites]


Maybe Xeni and Violet had a falling out over whose Flick feed had the most self portraits.
posted by bondcliff at 10:12 AM on June 30, 2008 [44 favorites]


See also, e.g.
posted by boo_radley at 10:12 AM on June 30, 2008




Maybe Xeni and Violet had a falling out over whose Flick feed had the most self portraits.
posted by bondcliff at 1:12 PM on June 30


They're different people?
posted by Pastabagel at 10:13 AM on June 30, 2008 [3 favorites]


I wonder if her opinion about Xenisucks has changed?
posted by drezdn at 10:15 AM on June 30, 2008


2nd link declares it uncategorically as sexism while simultaneously stating that no one will ever know what happened. Hm.

Curious to see if this post stays or goes; I can never predict it, and in fact I'm usually dead wrong.

"blogoswamp"... heh

has anyone asked Violet Blue what's up?
posted by sidereal at 10:15 AM on June 30, 2008


There are few things on earth that enrage me more than boingboing. I almost just punched a co-worker when I saw the site mentioned here.

....OMG! an opensource steampunk twitter stream of papercraft!!!1111
posted by lattiboy at 10:15 AM on June 30, 2008 [7 favorites]


nywy, thy hrd cmmnt fscst Trs Nilsn Hydn t run thr cmmnt st s w knw thy'r wnkrs.
FTFY
posted by bonaldi at 10:16 AM on June 30, 2008 [12 favorites]


OMG CRISIS IN BLOGLAND!
posted by Artw at 10:16 AM on June 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


....OMG! an opensource steampunk twitter stream of papercraft!!!1111

Runs under creative commons as a second life mashup!
posted by Artw at 10:18 AM on June 30, 2008 [10 favorites]


Oh noes, no Violent Blew on BB! It's not as if you can't read her columns on sfgate.com.
posted by porn in the woods at 10:19 AM on June 30, 2008


This just in: Boing Boing takes itself really, seriously, way too fucking seriously.

In real news: For some reason, other people take it way too fucking seriously, too.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 10:20 AM on June 30, 2008


Boing Boing can do whatever they want to their site. It's a private entity. Would you want someone telling you how to run your own site?

I don't think anyone's saying BB has an obligation to do anything other than walk the walk. Their posts decrying censorship, user-unfriendliness, and just about anything that deviates from their own rather utopian vision for the Web would seem to indicate that they wouldn't let someone else get away with what they're allegedly doing here, so there's no reason we shouldn't hold them to their own standard.
posted by hifiparasol at 10:20 AM on June 30, 2008 [23 favorites]


...Violet Blue is merely taken frequently
posted by kittens for breakfast at 10:21 AM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


Thankfully, former Major League pitcher Vida Blue is still allowed to post there.
posted by MegoSteve at 10:21 AM on June 30, 2008 [14 favorites]



....OMG! an opensource steampunk twitter stream of papercraft!!!1111

Runs under creative commons as a second life mashup!


Too bad it can only be used on an OLPC while sitting on somy shitty bool (translated under a CC license no less!) covered with a "remixed" subway map of duesseldorf......2.0!
posted by lattiboy at 10:22 AM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


Is the internet really big enough to contain the egos involved in this dispute???

Boing Boing has become an incestuous pit of repetitive masturbatory circle jerks.... I say meh

Now, can we delete this from the blue, please, please....
posted by HuronBob at 10:22 AM on June 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


book
posted by lattiboy at 10:22 AM on June 30, 2008


This just in: Boing Boing takes itself really, seriously, way too fucking seriously.

Giving up on reading it in the vein hope that they’d start being interesting again has been one of my few victories against my internet OCD tendencies.
posted by Artw at 10:22 AM on June 30, 2008 [4 favorites]


HAI PLZD TO B MAKED SUBWAY MAPZ.

(suck a muffler, bb)
posted by basicchannel at 10:23 AM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


Thankfully, former Major League pitcher Vida Blue is still allowed to post there.

As are my dog and any and all Hooloovoos.
posted by wemayfreeze at 10:23 AM on June 30, 2008


(full disclosure: I still read bb)
posted by basicchannel at 10:23 AM on June 30, 2008


I already didn't read about this on Boing Boing.
posted by yhbc at 10:24 AM on June 30, 2008 [18 favorites]


That this topic comes off as inside baseball for the blogosphere is interesting because seven or eight years ago this would have been a gimme of a front page post on mefi. But six years ago, Cory was active on the site, too. The world has moved on, etc.

It's not clear to me here whether anybody has any idea what happened. This just went down? BoingBoing hasn't commented? It could be anything from epic technical fail to outright vengence deletions, but I'm curious to hear what actually went down and I'm wondering if I missed something in my skim of the links.

It's also kind of interesting to see what feels like a shift toward more negative public opinion toward Teresa's moderation position from what I was seeing when she first came onboard. I don't follow BB carefully, so that could just be chance + a small sample size in what I've read, and I would expect to see a ramp up of negative commentary over time anyway—the longer you're on the job, the more people you're going to piss off—but I have to admit that the disemvoweling thing in particular has come to strike me as just utterly obnoxious and passive-aggressive. Cute idea, miserable in practice.
posted by cortex at 10:25 AM on June 30, 2008 [11 favorites]


....OMG! an opensource steampunk twitter stream of papercraft!!!1111

Runs under creative commons as a second life mashup!


Here are some DIY instructions to make it disney themed!
posted by milarepa at 10:26 AM on June 30, 2008 [5 favorites]


MetaFiltre: somy shitty bool
posted by Skot at 10:26 AM on June 30, 2008 [3 favorites]


I don't care about BoingBoing or Violet Blue either, but: Boing Boing can do whatever they want to their site. It's a private entity. Would you want someone telling you how to run your own site?

This is a complete fallacy. Privacy does not exempt one from ethics.
posted by DU at 10:27 AM on June 30, 2008 [19 favorites]


The people crying "Tempest in a teapot" are being a little disingenuous. No, this is not critically important in any big scheme of things, but if you spend a lot of time on the internet, it does qualify as "of passing interest". BB is an extremely prominent blog, and its prime movers are famously vocal about just this kind of bullshit.
posted by everichon at 10:29 AM on June 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


(full disclosure: I still read bb)

Burn the heretic!
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 10:29 AM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


(I'll admit a certain professional fascination with the topic.)
posted by cortex at 10:30 AM on June 30, 2008


If this were boing-boing, we'd now be protesting their action with *MASHUPS*.
posted by seanyboy at 10:30 AM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


Are people making up these names?

Cory Doctorow? (Doctor "Ow")
posted by Zambrano at 10:30 AM on June 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


the longer you're on the job, the more people you're going to piss off

That reminds me, I've been meaning to send you a "package" for your anniversary.
posted by tkolar at 10:31 AM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


(my fascination with this topic is completely amateurish.)
posted by basicchannel at 10:31 AM on June 30, 2008


....OMG! an opensource steampunk twitter stream of papercraft!!!1111

Runs under creative commons as a second life mashup!

Here are some DIY instructions to make it disney themed!


HALP I AM LOST
SUBWAY MAP NOT GEOGRAPHICALLY ACCURATE
SEND RESCUE TEAM TO "VADER & MINNIE'S FURRY GNU HAREM" PLZ
posted by spiderwire at 10:32 AM on June 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


They've gotten rid of two of my favorite colors of the rainbow - the b and the v from the roygbiv. I'm now boycotting their site. It's colorist.

(I never read boingboing anyway but if I did I would boycott it because now there are only 5 colors left)
posted by iconomy at 10:32 AM on June 30, 2008


TNH was one of the most interesting posters in the RASF hierarchy back when she was active on usenet. As was PNH, actually. But power corrupts, and they are example primus for the superiority of a many-to-many "group of peers" communications forum where nobody has the power to delete or censor anyone else's posts over a one-to-many forum like a blog where all the power rests in one person's hand and they generally run it like a little tinpot dictator.

Boing Boing: Thy name is irony.
posted by Justinian at 10:33 AM on June 30, 2008


I have to admit that the disemvoweling thing in particular has come to strike me as just utterly obnoxious and passive-aggressive.

I don't follow Boing Boing - what is the vowel-removal?
posted by serazin at 10:34 AM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


For god knows what reason I decided to subscribe to Boing Boing's RSS feed a while back and whenever one of Cory Doctorow masturbatory posts comes up on Google Reader I just groan. So yesterday I went to Yahoo Pipes to try to create my own Boing Boing feed without Doctorow posts, and someone else had already done it.
posted by bertrandom at 10:35 AM on June 30, 2008 [9 favorites]


For those who follow this sort of thing more closely than I: has Boing Boing addressed this at all? Provided a rationale? Anything?
posted by Justinian at 10:35 AM on June 30, 2008


I’m guessing it’s a way of making comments they don’t approve of look silly without deleting them.

STMPNK SCKS!
posted by Artw at 10:36 AM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


From the "ethics and revisionism" link: There’s going to be a website that will do what Boing Boing does now, but better. Whomever develops it, is likely watching this event closely and vowing never to make this kind of mistake.

That whole paragraph made no sense, but these two sentences seem clear...and clearly wrong. By this logic, BoingBoing should have been watching Slashdot make this same mistake and vowed never to do the same. (Or maybe they vowed but then unvowed, which I guess is the charge here.)
posted by DU at 10:37 AM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


Guys, guys, calm down. If I know Boing Boing, they'll make a post about this in two weeks or so, and give full credit to whoever sent the story to them.
posted by interrobang at 10:37 AM on June 30, 2008 [11 favorites]


It's also kind of interesting to see what feels like a shift toward more negative public opinion toward Teresa's moderation position from what I was seeing when she first came onboard.

I've never posted on BB, and I've probably only read a handful of posts on the site, but I've had a pretty negative opinion of her moderation style for a long time.

A while ago in some Metafilter thread, a user told a story about a 'fantastic' thread where lots of authors had posted about their experience getting published, or getting started, something like that. Apparently there were lots of great anecdotes, but when the user came back to the thread month later, she said that almost every post that disagreed with Nielsen Hayden had been 'disemvowled'. Plus, any time you read her comments about her 'theory' of moderation it comes across as extremely arrogant.
posted by delmoi at 10:37 AM on June 30, 2008 [7 favorites]


I don't follow Boing Boing - what is the vowel-removal?

TNH removes the vowels from any post she doesn't like... oops, sorry, I meant "breaks the guidelines".

Th psts r stll srprsngl rdbl thgh. Th rdndnc f th nglsh lngg s fscntng.
posted by Justinian at 10:37 AM on June 30, 2008 [6 favorites]


Boinboing has been languishing in my RSS reader for a long long time. I went back recently to see if anything interesting had popped up and noticed that in addition to the usual crap half the posts were now posts to "boingboing gadgets", which were just links to boingboing a second time. What a load of crap.
posted by furtive at 10:38 AM on June 30, 2008


Anyway - I'm waiting to hear from Boing Boing. I've a feeling this is explainable.
posted by seanyboy at 10:38 AM on June 30, 2008


I don't follow Boing Boing - what is the vowel-removal?

Their comment moderator uses a cute script that "disemvowels" any comment she doesn't like.

So, for example, if I wrote:

'You hoopy froods! This post sucks and I think you all suck!"

My comment wouldn't get deleted, you'd still see it, except it would say:

"Y hpy frds! Ths pst scks nd thnk y ll sck!"
posted by cavalier at 10:41 AM on June 30, 2008


Why has Metafilter removed all references to XtremeSEO.biz???? U R like hitler!!!!
posted by mattbucher at 10:41 AM on June 30, 2008 [9 favorites]


Plus, any time you read her comments about her 'theory' of moderation it comes across as extremely arrogant.

Yeah. Metafilter is a shining beacon on a hill in terms of moderation policy on the web. I hope it never changes because I'll lose all hope for web-based forums if it does.

Eternal September has a lot to answer for.
posted by Justinian at 10:42 AM on June 30, 2008 [4 favorites]


A touch of backstory on Hayden, moderation, and vowelguttery, from 2005.
posted by cortex at 10:43 AM on June 30, 2008


I haven't read bb in four years, as Cory's shrill and entitled opensourceDMCAomgdisney douchenozzlery became too much to take. Now that I think about it, was bb ever actually as great as its hype? Even in the early days of the blog it was just a linksite with nice design and thrice-daily fashion shoots of Xeni demonstrating how to burn your roots so badly you look like Londo Mollari.
posted by bunnytricks at 10:45 AM on June 30, 2008 [11 favorites]


Since I never read their comments, and I usually just go over there to see links that folks haven't yet posted here, do I need to care?
posted by konolia at 10:47 AM on June 30, 2008


I wish they'd deleted every post mentioning Little Brother. What a waste of my attention.
posted by yeti at 10:49 AM on June 30, 2008 [4 favorites]


Website based on multiple personality cults loses personality. Film at your mom's house.
posted by sciurus at 10:50 AM on June 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


now posts to "boingboing gadgets", which were just links to boingboing a second time. What a load of crap.

Which is as far as I can tell, just a way to cash in on the success of sites like engadget and gizmodo.
posted by delmoi at 10:50 AM on June 30, 2008


Why is everyone ragging on Cory and Xeni? Have we forgotten that Mark Frauenfelder is a knee-jerk libertarian? Come on, people. Fairness.
posted by hifiparasol at 10:52 AM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


DAMN YOU DAVID PESCOVIIIIITZ!!!!
posted by basicchannel at 10:52 AM on June 30, 2008


I wish they'd deleted every post mentioning Little Brother. What a waste of my attention.

I got the audiobook version of that. I'm going to claim I was and am completely free of bias, since I'd never read anything by Doctorow before and never subscribed to Boing Boing.

It. Was. Crap.

I actually stopped listening after a chapter or so. The lead character was insufferable and all the references were technologically trendy rather than futuristic or interesting. It was like one of those "science fiction" books you can buy at the supermarket, full of glib references but utterly vacuous.

(Subsequently I listened to his short Craphound because he apparently liked it so much he made it a domain name. It was OK, but nothing to create a DNS record for.)
posted by DU at 10:54 AM on June 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


Heh.
posted by interrobang at 10:55 AM on June 30, 2008


TNH's blog, Making Light, consistently has more funny, wise, kind, and educational comments than any other blog I read. But what works on a blog like ML isn't necessarily going to work on a blog like BoingBoing; it's just a completely different community environment.
posted by Jeanne at 10:56 AM on June 30, 2008


Has anyone built an un-disemvoweller? That would be a neat greasemonkey script. Sure there are some irreducible ambiguities in the text once it's been disemvowelled (unless you have some very powerful sentence-level logic, like in th hmn brn), but with a dictionary of common words you could probably re-vowel comments to a high level of readability.
posted by grobstein at 10:57 AM on June 30, 2008 [5 favorites]


TNH was one of the most interesting posters in the RASF hierarchy back when she was active on usenet. As was PNH, actually. But power corrupts, and they are example primus for the superiority of a many-to-many "group of peers" communications forum where nobody has the power to delete or censor anyone else's posts over a one-to-many forum like a blog where all the power rests in one person's hand and they generally run it like a little tinpot dictator.

What's weird is that TNH 's style works perfectly well on Making Light, and the class of commentators on the blog or awesome and well written, and she doesn't really come across (tom me) as overreaching or arrogant on her site, and usually those who get disemvowelled pretty much have it coming.

But looking at how she sometimes comments or acts on Boing Boing, it's a total clash of styles.
posted by ShawnStruck at 10:58 AM on June 30, 2008


> was bb ever actually as great as its hype?

I wouldn't touch a question like that with a ten foot steampool punkcue. But I do occasionally see interesting things there. And since it's one of the most popular blogs in the English-speaking world, and gets more traffic than many A-list corporate websites, things I don't see there will eventually appear on some blog I do read, or in the mysteriously-never-attributed-cool-stuff emails coworkers and friends are fond of.

Unlike most news portals and suchlike, the BB crew are fighting what I consider the good fight, whether or not the details of their positions or the actions they endorse are things I endorse. Points for that.

It doesn't matter whether you like it or read it. Enough other people like it and use it as a primary information source for geek fashion and politics that a half-dozen editors hold massive sway over online discourse. So for them to perform what looks like raw censorship without a public announcement is a bad faith act, and they should be held to practicing what they preach.
posted by ardgedee at 10:58 AM on June 30, 2008 [5 favorites]


You couldn't even listen to it? That's pretty bad.
posted by Mister_A at 11:00 AM on June 30, 2008


The people crying "Tempest in a teapot" are being a little disingenuous.

Agreed, it's more of a chipped teacup with a broken handle that folks just can't bring themselves to toss out.

No, this is not critically important in any big scheme of things, but if you spend a lot of time on the internet, it does qualify as "of passing interest".

The internet's gotten a tad bigger since BoingBoing and OG bloggers mattered.
And by mattered I mean "Were the only game in town."
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:01 AM on June 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


basicchannel: "DAMN YOU DAVID PESCOVIIIIITZ!!!!"

Heh. Every time I see a post on Cryptozoology, I think "Are you just having fun, or are you an idiot?"
posted by Science! at 11:04 AM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


Cory Doctorow, that's the guy who "publishes" his "novels" for what they're worth, right?
posted by orthogonality at 11:05 AM on June 30, 2008 [8 favorites]


Is the guy who wrote Little Brother unpersoning someone from his archives ironic or merely hypocritical?

Ironicritysterical!
posted by rusty at 11:06 AM on June 30, 2008 [3 favorites]


Have we forgotten that Mark Frauenfelder is a knee-jerk libertarian?

He'd be the one that was into sub-Colbert Wiki spoofing.
posted by Artw at 11:07 AM on June 30, 2008


Check this out from the "Rebecca's Pocket" link:
Let me propose a radical notion: The weblog's greatest strength — its uncensored, unmediated, uncontrolled voice — is also its greatest weakness.
Wow, that's deep. It's like that with the Hulk—his unslaked thirst for retribution gives him great power, including the power to SMASH!!!—but it also gets him into trouble.

I am going to add rebeccablood.net to the long list of blogs I will not read. It seems like almost any numbskull can write a blog these days–have they done away with the licensing exam or something?
posted by Mister_A at 11:08 AM on June 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


Has anyone built an un-disemvoweller? That would be a neat greasemonkey script. Sure there are some irreducible ambiguities in the text once it's been disemvowelled (unless you have some very powerful sentence-level logic, like in th hmn brn), but with a dictionary of common words you could probably re-vowel comments to a high level of readability.

That'd be a pretty neat project, actually. I could present a best guess and maybe even annotate particularly troublesome matches.

And it's the sort of thing that could end up getting posted on BoingBoing. Perhaps with a slightly critical writeup, which would then lead to the creator posting a critical counter-response, which would then get disemvoweled in vain. Heh.

Another brainstorm, along those ideas: construct a comment that looks on the face of it like an innocuous (if, for these purposes, necessarily vacuous) statement, but which when disemvoweled looks like something altogether different according to plausible parsings of the remain consonants.
posted by cortex at 11:09 AM on June 30, 2008 [16 favorites]


I care so little about this, I won't even post in this thread.

How's that for meta.
posted by Dr-Baa at 11:09 AM on June 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


orthogonality: "Cory Doctorow, that's the guy who "publishes" his "novels" for what they're worth, right?"

Yeah. I've tried to read a couple and they are entirely unreadable. Well you could read them, but you'll get angry and scream "why does that school let my kid write such crappy stories!?!!" Then you'll realize that the story was actually written by an educated adult and not your seven year old daughter.

Then you get really angry.
posted by Science! at 11:09 AM on June 30, 2008 [11 favorites]


The may not be the only game in town any more, but they still hold some suasion on the way the community behaves, and any wierdness on their part is going to be duly noted by all those non-BB readers who still read BB. Don't we all still have an opinion about Mr. Rogers even though he's long gone?

Personally, I peruse it at the end of the day after MeFi and Deadspin have long since been hitting the bottle. And I truly do find Xeni to be absolutely annoying and unwatchable.
posted by jsavimbi at 11:10 AM on June 30, 2008


Cory Doctorow, that's the guy who "publishes" his "novels" for what they're worth, right?

I must be missing the humor here; Doctorow may not be my cup of steampunk but he gets his real, actual novels published by a real, actual major publisher. That being TOR books.
posted by Justinian at 11:10 AM on June 30, 2008


(unless you have some very powerful sentence-level logic, like in th hmn brn)

I don't see what the hymen barn has to do with anything.
posted by nanojath at 11:11 AM on June 30, 2008 [33 favorites]


I did actually think that After the Siege was good, possibly even excellent, and deserved the award it won. Doctrows short stuff usually contains a few gems, his novels, after Down and Out, haven't really impressed me nearly so much.
posted by Artw at 11:11 AM on June 30, 2008


YOU KNOW WHO ELSE HAD A REAL MAJOR ACTUAL PUBLISHER????!!!?!





Shatner.
posted by Mister_A at 11:12 AM on June 30, 2008 [17 favorites]


Wow, that's deep.

Unless I'm missing something, she wrote that in or before 2002. I agree that it's not really radical, and I have no idea how much that description was supposed to be tongue-in-cheek, but again: six years is a whole lot of time in terms of how blogs are thought about. There's a degree of manifest self-analysis and popular consumption of good blog meta-criticism today that wasn't necessarily extant at the time.
posted by cortex at 11:12 AM on June 30, 2008


Mister_A: i know for me, really bad audiobooks are much more annoying than really bad print media. it's much harder to skim thru audiobooks. with print, you can sort of skip ahead till there's an exclamation point and then see what's happened.
posted by rmd1023 at 11:13 AM on June 30, 2008 [4 favorites]


construct a comment that looks on the face of it like an innocuous (if, for these purposes, necessarily vacuous) statement, but which when disemvoweled looks like something altogether different according to plausible parsings of the remain consonants.

Or write comments that when disemvoweled stand alone as a scathing comment, though it would have to be in a language other than English.
posted by drezdn at 11:13 AM on June 30, 2008


Sometimes you just gotta quote "The Music Man":
You can talk, you can talk
You can bicker, you can talk
You can bicker, bicker, bicker
You can talk, you can talk
You can talk, talk, talk, talk,
Bicker, bicker, bicker
You can talk all you want
But it's different then it was
No it ain't, no it ain't
But you gotta know the territory
posted by wendell at 11:15 AM on June 30, 2008 [4 favorites]


Another brainstorm, along those ideas: construct a comment that looks on the face of it like an innocuous (if, for these purposes, necessarily vacuous) statement, but which when disemvoweled looks like something altogether different according to plausible parsings of the remain consonants.

This is a hilarious idea, but in the BB context the work would go unnoticed: when (if) the comment was disemvoweled, it would look genuinely offensive, and readers would assume it was disemvoweled for that reason.

BUT flip it around: an offensive (if incoherent) comment that, when disemvoweled, reads like a perfectly innocuous remark. This would break the disemvowelment tool by making the mods look capricious and unfair.
posted by grobstein at 11:16 AM on June 30, 2008 [9 favorites]


*Hulk-smashes cortex*
posted by Mister_A at 11:16 AM on June 30, 2008


...really bad audiobooks are much more annoying than really bad print media...

Agreed and in this case the reader really threw himself behind the inherent insufferability of the character. Every line was spoken in this lazy disdain for other people.

Or maybe that was the villain? I didn't get far enough into it that I could have hit this great plot twist.
posted by DU at 11:17 AM on June 30, 2008


Man, I miss the zine.
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:20 AM on June 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


FIRST!
posted by Debaser626 at 11:24 AM on June 30, 2008


The zine was good.
posted by Mister_A at 11:24 AM on June 30, 2008


ohnevermind
posted by Debaser626 at 11:24 AM on June 30, 2008


Apparently Warren Ellis hasn’t mentioned Second Life for months, so I *might* be able to start reading his blog again.
posted by Artw at 11:28 AM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


The comment about violet and blue lighthouses wasn't even disemvowel quality, as it's been removed.
posted by avocet at 11:30 AM on June 30, 2008


I care so little about this, I won't even post in this thread.

Doing it wrong.
posted by waraw at 11:31 AM on June 30, 2008


The comment about violet and blue lighthouses wasn't even disemvowel quality, as it's been removed.

Holy crap, it has. I'm almost sorry I never read BB because now I can't cancel my subscription.
posted by DU at 11:36 AM on June 30, 2008


Anyone else feel like partially disemvoweling a comment (leaving only the praising parts) crosses a line?
posted by grobstein at 11:37 AM on June 30, 2008 [11 favorites]


Re grobstein: Man, BoingBoing sucks more than I thought. That isn't troll-squashing; it's marginalizing legitimate comments. What a bunch of crap.
posted by hifiparasol at 11:40 AM on June 30, 2008 [3 favorites]


At least nothing like this ever happens on MetaFilter, thanks to fair and well-considered moderation. Of course, that doesn't change that fact that Mtt's psts lwys sck ss, but what can you do?

Holly crap! what the fuck? I watched the vowels disappear even as I typed that!
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:42 AM on June 30, 2008 [3 favorites]


The comment about violet and blue lighthouses wasn't even disemvowel quality, as it's been removed.

Double-plus good!
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 11:47 AM on June 30, 2008


From one of the linked threads:

When they deleted every post mentioning Ursula Le G[u]in, they told everyone.

Anybody know what the hell that was about?

/hasn't read bb in years
posted by languagehat at 11:49 AM on June 30, 2008


That isn't troll-squashing; it's marginalizing legitimate comments. What a bunch of crap.

If you look at it from the business side, BB being an ongoing business concern, any respectable self-promoter isn't about to let a bunch of trolls ruin his good time as he oversells those books. It's just not the way things are done and there's only so much a person can take before they feel the need to stamp out dissent.

I've never heard of the word "suasion" before!

Yeah, I'm still working on a way to monetize my smartnesses. Stay tuned.
posted by jsavimbi at 11:49 AM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


Apparently Warren Ellis hasn’t mentioned Second Life for months, so I *might* be able to start reading his blog again.

Amen. That made my heart break a little too. Next he'll be discovering LOLcats.
posted by rokusan at 11:50 AM on June 30, 2008


Anyone else feel like partially disemvoweling a comment (leaving only the praising parts) crosses a line?

Oof. Yuck.
posted by cortex at 11:53 AM on June 30, 2008


I worked on something like a blog many many years ago, where a corpus grew online and became a tentacled mess. When we had to fix a tiny error (a typo) in one two year old piece... all hell broke loose because until then everyone assumed it was a fixed and permanent record type thing... it was a very minor correction, but the fact of change was jarring to folks, and not unreasonably so. This "delete all posts containing ________" is about 3 orders of magnitude more drastic.

Ethics aside, I don't envy the confusion this must cause. What about all the Google and other caches?
posted by rokusan at 11:53 AM on June 30, 2008


Ms. Le Guin felt Boing Boing had crossed a line in posting her words without proper consideration of accreditation.
posted by batmonkey at 11:56 AM on June 30, 2008


If there be a means to RSS-feed BB while excluding all the
self-congratulatory crap/steampunk'ry/bad art on the theme of dewy-eyed girls/bugs/animals/unicorns... I'd like to find it. That would be like the Jefferson Bible of teh interwebs. Then again, everything I've ever found interesting on BB also made it's way here, so... The Blue is a mighty grand thresher. At times.
posted by wowbobwow at 11:57 AM on June 30, 2008


I never heard the word disemvoweled OR suasion before. TWO new words- score!

As "piglet21" on sfgate.com said in one of the comments sections:
I can't help but think this every time I read Ms. Blue's articles: for a sex writer she is such a prude. It's like they hired Tipper Gore to write a sex column. The only thing about this writer that's "edgy" is the picture of herself that she attaches to the columns.
posted by small_ruminant at 11:58 AM on June 30, 2008


rokusan, we've seen that sort of thing here on metafilter, of course--someone makes a comment, someone else responds to that comment, comment #1 is deleted, comment #2 is now context-less.
posted by MrMoonPie at 11:59 AM on June 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


jsavimbi is old-school:

1. The act or fact of exhorting or urging; persuasion.

c1374 CHAUCER Boeth. II. pr. i. (1868) 30 Com nowe fure erfore e suasioun of swetnesse Rethoryen. 1432-50 tr. Higden (Rolls) VII. 93 Seynte Elphegus was made bischop of Wynchestre, thro the suasion off blissede Andrewe, apperynge to seynte Dunstan. 1528 MORE Dyaloge I. Wks. 157/1 Thei had ones at the subtill suasion of the deuill, broken the thirde comaundement. 1641 PRYNNE Antipathie 9 O perfidious, ungratefull counsell and swasion of this prelate. 1660 SOUTH Serm. (1727) IV. 34 It cannot be subdued by meer Suasion. 1720 WATTS in Reliq. Juv. (1789) 169 To address the ear With conquering suasion, or reproof severe. 1844 KINGLAKE Eothen xxviii, Men governed by reasons and suasion of speech. 1867 SMILES Huguenots Eng. v. (1880) 74 Conformity by force, if not by suasion.

posted by cortex at 11:59 AM on June 30, 2008


If there be a means to RSS-feed BB while excluding all the
self-congratulatory crap/steampunk'ry/bad art on the theme of dewy-eyed girls/bugs/animals/unicorns...


/dev/null
posted by spiderwire at 11:59 AM on June 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


Has anybody thought to ask what's up over at Making Light? They have open threads regularly, I believe.
posted by Justinian at 11:59 AM on June 30, 2008


That isn't troll-squashing; it's marginalizing legitimate comments.

BB actually could mount a defense here. In the olden days, when Slashdot was the "blog" to troll, here's what people did: You start off being +1, Insightful or whatever and then quickly veer into whatever nonsense you had planned.

First of all, people click the rating before reading the whole thing anyway. But also, it's like the trick telemarketers pull. They want to get you in an agreeing frame of mind, so they ask you a question you can't disagree with. "Crazy weather lately, right?" "I bet you are a discerning customer, huh?" Etc. Then the next question is more likely to receive a positive response too.

(As an historical aside, depending on how convincing your opening was, what usually happened was that you'd get to +5 within a few minutes and then the less trigger-happy readers would come in and over the next 30-45 minutes it would be down to -5.)

That said, BB's action is still evil. However trollish a comment, you can't just extract some out-of-context part of it and claim it as praise.
posted by DU at 12:00 PM on June 30, 2008


vn ths pst's lnk t Vlt Bl sms t hv bn rmvd. Shnngns!!!
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 12:00 PM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


Whoa -- what? Since when has BoingBoing allowed comments at all?
posted by Sys Rq at 12:03 PM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


At the bottom of that thread the moderator talks about the disemvoweling.

Apparently criticism is now referred to as "egoboo". Despite that being a seriously dumb word, it seems to point out that the things linked to aren't necessarily linked to for their merit, but on how it will stoke someone's ego. And also that protecting someone's ego is so important that any criticism [even criticism that might result in improvement] must be eradicated.

They've become Big Brother in a way.
posted by sciurus at 12:03 PM on June 30, 2008 [4 favorites]


cortex: That this topic comes off as inside baseball for the blogosphere is interesting because seven or eight years ago this would have been a gimme of a front page post on mefi.

Well, if I remember my MetaFilter history correctly MeFi was originally conceived of as a links backchannel for blogs, which, while it still happens, is no longer its raison d'être.
posted by Kattullus at 12:03 PM on June 30, 2008


Google maps 37Signals with Flickr iPod

Uh, no, I didn't say anything ...
posted by outlier at 12:04 PM on June 30, 2008


ooa eoa i a oe eeie.
posted by The Bellman at 12:04 PM on June 30, 2008 [4 favorites]


MeFi was originally conceived of as a links backchannel for blogs

Ooooooh! That explains the completely non-functional comment system.
posted by DU at 12:05 PM on June 30, 2008


*sighs* BB used to be one of my favorite blogs...then the news about at&treason's warrantless wiretapping hit, and they started posting about it several times a day. privacy and civil rights issues are near and dear to me, so i followed it closely, changed my provider, called the congressmen, etc, etc (and by 'etc etc', i mean, "Dfcd bnch f t&t prprty, spry-pntd bnch f thr bllbrds, tr dwn s mny pstrs f thrs s cld rch" etc etc (on a side note, it was all undone within 6 HOURS!--these bitches have TOO MUCH MONEY)) Anyway, next day i check BB...AT&T banner ads everywhere! and on BB Gadgets a post about AT&T's COOL NEW AD! Am. Not. Kidding. (the ad did not even feature a single recognizable gadget)...so i got into a huge flame war with joel (and by 'flame war' i mean 'freaked out with the caps lock on like a total n00b') ...it ended up with me walking away from a place where all i could do was invoke godwin (i believe he used the 'just doing my job' defense), and i haven't been back to the gadgets page since. i only hit the front page weekly now, but with this fresh pile, i think i'll even give that a miss...goodbye BB!
posted by sexyrobot at 12:09 PM on June 30, 2008 [4 favorites]


jsavimbi is old-school ??

Hardly.
posted by jsavimbi at 12:09 PM on June 30, 2008


Anyone know any good Violet/Xeni/BB hacks?
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 12:10 PM on June 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


Wow. An all-pervasive odor of dirty diapers emanates from the moderation of that site.
posted by jamjam at 12:11 PM on June 30, 2008


115 comments in 2 hours, all from people who don't care. Man.
posted by fcummins at 12:15 PM on June 30, 2008 [6 favorites]


Ignorance is often mocked, but I have not heard of these people til now and having heard of them I do not care and/or give a hot damn.
posted by dawson at 12:15 PM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


I'm loving the snark. Keep up the good work, Metazens.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:16 PM on June 30, 2008


"I have to admit that the disemvoweling thing in particular has come to strike me as just utterly obnoxious and passive-aggressive."

Amen! If you're going to have a discussion -- have a discussion. Otherwise, you're just hosting an echo chamber...
posted by LakesideOrion at 12:16 PM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


but fcummins, I really don't and I wanted everyone to know, particularly 'these people' when they invariably read this post.
Plus it's fun to be part of a mob.
posted by dawson at 12:18 PM on June 30, 2008


man, I HATE boingboing, but even I can't bring myself to immediately assume this is some form of sexist censorship. for god's sake, people, out of all the possible reasons for this you think that random villainous spite is the most likely? I've seen cops with better intuition.
posted by shmegegge at 12:19 PM on June 30, 2008


>>"I have to admit that the disemvoweling thing in particular has come to strike me as just utterly obnoxious and passive-aggressive."

>Amen! If you're going to have a discussion -- have a discussion. Otherwise, you're just hosting an echo chamber...


You are so right!
posted by waraw at 12:20 PM on June 30, 2008 [5 favorites]


shmegegge, I pronounce your name in my head the same way that Popeye laughs.
posted by sciurus at 12:21 PM on June 30, 2008 [19 favorites]


That said, BB's action is still evil.

Hey now.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:22 PM on June 30, 2008 [5 favorites]


Hey, look guys, BB's tight-fisted editorial control and lack of feedback for counterpoints has been a problem with the website forever. One might assume that having a small number of editors take total control of FPPs would result in better posts over the musings of the masses, but that isn't true. Instead, the posts skew to the particular interests and points of view of the few instead of the varied topics of the many.

When BB reintroduced its comment system, there was a ray of hope that actual intellectual discussion on a given topic might be possible, but that dream died quickly. As I'm sure many of you have experienced, a great many posts (mostly negative about the point of view of the editor on the given subject) never see the light of day. Moreover, editors sometimes engage in flame wars with the posts that do make it onto the comments, and still other comments are flamed without even being posted (in particular, the complaints that Cory uses the blog too much to promote his own materials are rarely posted, but editorial defenses against such complaints are often present).

I, for one, think BB has gone severly down hill and don't pay it much attention. The more the editors narrow their focus of interests and edit out reader responses, the more the website goes from BoingBoing to BoringBoring.
posted by Muddler at 12:23 PM on June 30, 2008


Anyone know any good Violet/Xeni/BB hacks?

Click!
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 12:23 PM on June 30, 2008


I like BB. It's odd that it should indulge in this kind of behaviour, especially given its laudable/sanctimonious* "visible editing" of errors in posts.

* delete as applicable
posted by WPW at 12:24 PM on June 30, 2008


You are so right!

Amen!
posted by cortex at 12:25 PM on June 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


Amen!

Preach on, brother!
posted by cortex at 12:25 PM on June 30, 2008 [4 favorites]



The comment about violet and blue lighthouses wasn't even disemvowel quality, as it's been removed.


That was me who made the comment. I also commented on the "perils of auto-replace without explanation" post with a comment along the lines of "Auto-deletion without explanation can be perilous as well, especially when Violet Blue references all disappear without warning or a note or explanation" but that wasn't disemvowelled, just disappeared.
posted by ShawnStruck at 12:27 PM on June 30, 2008 [4 favorites]


I like how any mention of Cory all brings on the two-minute hate (not that I'm not screaming along with the rest). He's not has bad as people think he is, esp as a writer (though he's not as good as he thinks he is... the lord God almighty is not as good as Cory thinks he is)
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 12:27 PM on June 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


Hey now.

don't dream it's over.
posted by dawson at 12:28 PM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


Has anyone built an un-disemvoweller? That would be a neat greasemonkey script.

Someone should make a disconsonantizer trojan that installs itself on the browser of anyone who reads BB. Fght cnsrshp wth mr cnsrshp.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:28 PM on June 30, 2008


Next time I dislike a Boing Boing post, I'll simply comment, "Zzzzzzzzzzzz." They can go ahead and disemvowel that.
posted by yeti at 12:29 PM on June 30, 2008 [12 favorites]


I'm not buying "sexist", but I am buying "petulant and a stupid way to run their particular blog".
posted by everichon at 12:30 PM on June 30, 2008


Fght cnsrshp wth mr cnsrshp.

I read that as: Fight censorship with mr censorship

Mr Censorship! The cuddly blue pencil who tells kids what, how and when to think!
posted by WPW at 12:31 PM on June 30, 2008 [23 favorites]


The comment about violet and blue lighthouses wasn't even disemvowel quality, as it's been removed.

yeah...tried it myself....nothings getting through...feel free to call them all hypocrites, though...its fun!
posted by sexyrobot at 12:38 PM on June 30, 2008


Thanks, batmonkey!
posted by languagehat at 12:38 PM on June 30, 2008


I used to read Boing Boing. To be fair, it was partly out of nostalgia for the 'zine. And, for a while, they did a good job of providing cheerful or interesting stuff to click on during breaks.

And I was interested when they began to seem more civic-minded, warning us of encroachments on our rights and such things.

But then the main contributors got fascinated by various things that turned Boing Boing into a macro filter of everything that has ever annoyed me about the internet, and I quit checking it as frequently.

Then the AT&T hypocrisy happened ("don't use them, but we'll advertise them to you & collect their money because profiting off the crap we're complaining about is completely NOT ethically ambiguous!"), and now I don't even have the gadget on my homepage anymore.

There are better places to find the types of things they posted, anyway, without that whole "cult of personality" thing.

That said, I think Mark Frauenfelder's a nice guy and I'm into the whole "Make movement" thing. I'm just not going to be pursuing any of that info on Boing Boing or the various iterations unless it's unavoidable.
posted by batmonkey at 12:39 PM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


Why BB stopped having comments. They became a cesspool.

Why they have comments again -- they've got someone cleaning out the dreck. *No* anonymous unmoderated forum lasts. There are too many assholes in the world. Look at the efforts to keep MeFi working.

As to censorship -- they could have easily just deleted the comments. Instead, they leave them up, flagged in such a way as to show you they they (the editors!) think they are inappropriate. They could have simply made them disappear. And, of course, because *any* reason is a reason to flame, they're getting flack for it.

As to the "fascist." Please.

As to free speech? GYOFB. You have no right to comment there -- or for that matter, here. There are *plenty* of deleted comments, and banned users, on MeFi. Why are you reading such a fascist website?

I have no problem with them deleting comments such as "This post sux." If the post sucks, don't comment on it. If all the posts suck, STOP READING THE SITE. But fuck if I'm going to argue against them deleting or disemvowling the sort of swill that BB used to get, and probably still does. Is it that hard? Hate the moderation? Don't comment. Don't like the posts? Don't read the site.

The Boing Boing teams run the blog in the way that they want to. If you don't like that, don't read it. If enough people don't read it, they'll either change it, or they'll shut it down. The real question is can they build a real discussion there. I don't know, but they're trying, and the first step in that is to smack down, hard, the people who aren't interested in discussing anything.

As to the subject? Not enough info. Maybe VB said "Please remove my content." There may be legal issues. Someone may have screwed up. Or, they may have decided, for whatever reason or none, that they no longer wanted any (or in this case, any but one) posts from Violet Blue on the site.

They get to make that call. They own the site.
posted by eriko at 12:39 PM on June 30, 2008 [3 favorites]


My new band name is The Disemvowel Movements
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 12:40 PM on June 30, 2008 [3 favorites]


BUT flip it around: an offensive (if incoherent) comment that, when disemvoweled, reads like a perfectly innocuous remark.

aa aa ua ia ia ia aie ai aie oo ooo oo ua AA EEE UUAAAAAAAA

*smokes cigarette*
posted by spiderwire at 12:41 PM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


A while ago, they used a photo from a friend without crediting him. He called them on it in the comments, and I did to. My comment was almost immediately removed.

I moderate a forum, and know from firsthand experience that moderating with too heavy a hand can be terribly alienating. I will step in if I think things are getting out of control, and verym very rarely delete a comment if it is intentionally abusive or disruptive. This just seemed to be deleting a comment because they weren't interested in being called on a breach of web etiquette by more than one person. I have never partipated in their comments section again.
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:41 PM on June 30, 2008


AS they say over at BoingBoing,

D s sy!
posted by Mister_A at 12:41 PM on June 30, 2008 [4 favorites]


I have found it Always much better to scarf/steal, borrow,nod to this site for stuff for my cute little blog than at BB, a site I quickly dismissed of having little of interest for me.
I don't know the lady in question but somehow feel my life manages to go along without her and site. Question: sho uld I call my lawyer and ask for advice?
posted by Postroad at 12:41 PM on June 30, 2008


Woah!

Thanks, batmonkey!
posted by languagehat at 3:38 PM

"I used to read Boing Boing...."posted by batmonkey at 3:39 PM

posted by dawson at 12:43 PM on June 30, 2008


ooa eoa i a oe eeie.
"consonant-removal is ____ more eerie"?
posted by yz at 12:44 PM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


Boing Boing is a great place to visit if you want to see what was popular on the internet a few days ago.
posted by mullingitover at 12:45 PM on June 30, 2008 [5 favorites]


WH4T D|S3MV0W3L1NG?
posted by zippy at 12:46 PM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


yz: far?
posted by Leon at 12:47 PM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


Don't care what any of you say, Little Brother is awesome.

What? Oh.
posted by grabbingsand at 12:47 PM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


"consonant-removal is far more eerie"
posted by zippy at 12:48 PM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


D s sy!

-- o a i o!
posted by spiderwire at 12:49 PM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


ou ae eieed - a eo ai
posted by zippy at 12:49 PM on June 30, 2008


It's interesting reading the comments in BB's current top thread. People are trying to slip references to this in sideways. Right now, I'm seeing:

Those sure are some colourful off-colour gummies! Funny, a lot of things on Boing Boing seem to be off-colour today.

and

You know what's funny with this whole gummi phenomenon here, is basically seeing penises (penii?) in colors very differently than the normal human color. There's Red, Yellow, Violet, Blue, Orange, Green ... I mean, you're not going to see those colors in the wild.

It's like the stories you hear about Soviet poets and novelists trying to sneak criticisms of the regime into their work under the censors' noses...
posted by mr_roboto at 12:50 PM on June 30, 2008 [12 favorites]


They get to make that call. They own the site.

I refer you to DU's earlier post. Also my own. You seem to think the market alone is enough to shake the bugs out of BoingBoing -- I agree for the most part, but I believe that pointing out shitty ethics and poor overall quality is an important component of consumer interaction. And guess who agrees with me?

The real question is can they build a real discussion there. I don't know, but they're trying, and the first step in that is to smack down, hard, the people who aren't interested in discussing anything.

The problem is that those aren't the only people they're smacking down hard, as grobstein pointed out.

There are too many assholes in the world.

Yes. Yes there are.
posted by hifiparasol at 12:51 PM on June 30, 2008 [7 favorites]



As to the subject? Not enough info. Maybe VB said "Please remove my content." There may be legal issues. Someone may have screwed up. Or, they may have decided, for whatever reason or none, that they no longer wanted any (or in this case, any but one) posts from Violet Blue on the site.

They get to make that call. They own the site.


They could at the very least address why they did it.
posted by drezdn at 12:51 PM on June 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


It's interesting reading the comments in BB's current top thread. People are trying to slip references to this in sideways.

I'm going to go post some comments without vowels.

Speaking of which, how do y'all know that the partially-disemvoweled comment wasn't that way originally?
posted by spiderwire at 12:53 PM on June 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


Are people making up these names? Cory Doctorow? (Doctor "Ow")

Don't forget his distant cousin, the infamous luchador, El Doctor Ow!
posted by turaho at 12:54 PM on June 30, 2008 [5 favorites]


Well played, spiderwire.
posted by Mister_A at 12:54 PM on June 30, 2008


As to the subject? Not enough info. Maybe VB said "Please remove my content."

You're saying she might be lying when she expresses puzzlement here? Either she's lying or she doesn't know what's up either.

They get to make that call. They own the site.

And we get to call them little tinpot dictator hypocrites who prefer an echo chamber to actual communication. Win win!
posted by Justinian at 12:57 PM on June 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


how do y'all know that the partially-disemvoweled comment wasn't that way originally?

Mod says so: "I've just disemvowelled eight comments (actually seven-and-three-quarters)."
posted by grobstein at 12:57 PM on June 30, 2008


Just poking my head in to say that not all of Doctorow's stories suck. (A lot of them do, but not *all* of them.) The novella After The Siege is good, and Little Brother is interesting if overly didactic. You do need to give it more than the first chapter though; it turns much darker and more interesting.

Also: Boing Boing is much better if you treat it like YouTube: Ignore the comments and let people refer you to the good posts.
posted by JDHarper at 1:00 PM on June 30, 2008


I like how when you try to post "brng bck vlt bl" it says "Comment rejected. The text you entered is wrong."
posted by infinitewindow at 1:01 PM on June 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


Who knew that Winston Smith had taken a job at Boing Boing?
posted by caddis at 1:02 PM on June 30, 2008


How weird. They appear to have deleted every post I ever made as well.
posted by tkolar at 1:03 PM on June 30, 2008 [4 favorites]


Eriko: no one's saying they have no right to do this, we're all well aware that it's their own blog and they can turn it into a lghngstck as much as they like. But by the same token, it's within our right to criticize them for their choices, especially since they so eagerly assumed the mantle of internet celebrity, and directly profited from it.

They don't get to build their success and reputations on the goodwill of a supportive community, and then play the "it's OUR SITE to do as we please!" card whenever things don't go their way. Not without blowback and criticism.
posted by Riki tiki at 1:04 PM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


languagehat: de nada!
posted by batmonkey at 1:04 PM on June 30, 2008


Patrick is obliquely addressing this at Making Light.

"Advocating “transparency” for government proceedings, or for the beneficiaries of chartered monopolies and public largesse, doesn’t oblige the advocate to be “transparent” in every personal or artistic decision they themselves make."

etc.

Here it is.

I think he's engaging in special pleading. I wonder if the moderation will be so heavy handed in that thread?
posted by Justinian at 1:04 PM on June 30, 2008


infinitewindow: I'm sure they really meant...

"Comment rejected. The text you entered is wrong ++ungood."
posted by batmonkey at 1:08 PM on June 30, 2008 [3 favorites]


caddis: the latest news in The Times reports that Miniboing has raised the chocolate ration to 20 grammes a week. We Love Little Brother!
posted by infinitewindow at 1:08 PM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


WCityMike: I'm assuming that was you listing colours on the most lighthouse post? That was beautiful.
posted by Leon at 1:11 PM on June 30, 2008


Why are you reading such a fascist website?

We have cameras.

Actually, as much as I have my own reactions to what I've seen in their moderation, I'm not all that jazzed about talking about it as e.g. BB vs. Mefi—moderation of a busy place is a strange and complicated thing and for a lot of matters of plicy there's rarely a Right answer so much as there are different options with trade-offs.

I personally really dislike the disemvoweling thing because in part it seems to make too much of a show of moderation. As if it's not enough to take action if something's genuinely problematic: you need to take action and make sure everybody knows that you hit user x. As a bonus, the comment is still around ("Hey, look, transparency in moderation!") but is a total pain in the ass to read ("Transparency + sucks to be you if you want to read the thing we're totally letting you read!"). It doesn't do it for me, and it seems somewhat mean-spirited and antagonistic in a way that I dislike more the more I encounter it.

But that opinion is informed in no small part by my own experiences with moderation on mefi and the fact that we opt for clean-delete-or-don't as a general rule. We also generally don't delete critical commentary aimed at the site or at us, and aim for transparency in what deletions do occur (e.g. posts staying in the db, free-form discussion on MeTa as needed). Those are part of the culture here, based on the decisions Matt made long ago about how he wanted the site, and there's nothing fundamentally more correct about this approach than a delete-with-placeholder method (which some mefites have advocated for in the past) or some sort of obfuscatory method like disemvoweling (which at least a couple mefites have proposed, though perhaps only in context of Hayden/BoingBoing discussions). So too, killfiles. So too, a zero-deletion policy.

What I feel like is maybe the discussion point is not transparency vs. not, deletion vs. obfuscation, or any of the other policy points, but whether what BB does lines up with what they claim to want to do, or claim they will do, as far as moderation; and whether in either case it's actually serving them, their commentor base, and their casual readers well. And from what I've seen of their moderation in action and from some of what I've read today, I think there are some reasonable objections to how they've been going about the business of running their site, regardless of the hyperbole creeping into the discussion from either camp.
posted by cortex at 1:12 PM on June 30, 2008 [17 favorites]


disemvoweling

Heh - I did not know about it until this thread. So, for the last 8 months or so, whenever I dipped into the comments for a post, I would often scratch my head and think: "wow, these boingboing readers are incredibly stupid/childish/dumb/ignorant/young" - never once thinking to actually try and read the disemvoweled comment. So - it does it's job well...
posted by jkaczor at 1:16 PM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


I think that's exactly right, cortex. And I'm not saying that to suck up! Well, not only to suck up. BB can moderate however they want, but they are not immune from criticism over what they do just because they have the right to do it.
posted by Justinian at 1:17 PM on June 30, 2008


Personally, I think it's a good start. First the vowels, then Violet Blue's very existence... If we're lucky, the whole of bng-bng will be gone in time for X-Ms.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 1:21 PM on June 30, 2008 [3 favorites]


WCtyMk wns.
posted by hifiparasol at 1:32 PM on June 30, 2008


cortex wrote...
....matters of plicy there's rarely a Right answer...

Oh my god! First they came for the 'o's and I said nothing...
posted by tkolar at 1:33 PM on June 30, 2008 [7 favorites]


They will never take my o.
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:34 PM on June 30, 2008


Passive-aggressive thread on Making Light about this whole issue is right here.
posted by pharm at 1:34 PM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


The disemvowelling is even worse when they disemvowel some things, but completely wipe others.
posted by waraw at 1:36 PM on June 30, 2008


SUGGEST A SITE FORM
Your name (optional)
Winston Smith

Your email address (optional)
Orwell@1984.com

Your website (optional -- for credit/linkback)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

Title for the item you're suggesting:
Censorship shows up in the unlikeliest of places. Here.

URL of suggested website:
http://www.metafilter.com/72928/Boing-Boing-Finds-21st-Century-Trotsky

Please describe the suggested site:
In a surprise move, one of the most outspoken sites on the internet against censorship has taken to censoring entire persons from their archives, and all posts about them, including ones where they are only mentioned in the comments. Not only will they not address the issue, either on the site, or with the recently deleted 'unpersons', but all reference to the incident has been instantly deleted by their head censor. How long until the desperate dinosaurs of traditional media latch on to this story and use it to destroy all of the hard-won credibility (such as it is) of bloggers everywhere. Who instigated this selfish and hypocritical act, and where will it end?

*send*

Thanks for suggesting your link
Thank you very much!
We appreciate your submission, and thanks for reading Boing Boing.

Back to Boing Boing

Try BB's new Classifieds!
Don't Miss
BBTV: RUSSELL PORTER AND CADENCE WEAPON, PT. 2.
DEVO SUES MCDONALDS
AT&T BILLING SITE MAKES JOKES ABOUT COMPANY'S PARTICIPATION IN WARRANTLESS WIRETAPPING?
PRETEND COPS BULLY VIDEOGRAPHER, VIDEOGRAPHER WINS
KING ABDULAZIZ CENTER FOR KNOWLEDGE AND CULTURE
(APOCRYPHAL?) ANECDOTE ABOUT FAHRENHEIT 451
EARTH'S MOST EXTREME LIFEFORMS
BBTV: KLAUS PIERRE AT THE BEACH
SAVE THE INTERNATIONAL CRYPTOZOOLOGY MUSEUM
CORY DOCTOROW: A "LITTLE BROTHER" READING (SECOND IN A SERIES)
JOSH HARRIS: "PSEUDO WAS A FAKE COMPANY."
posted by sexyrobot at 1:43 PM on June 30, 2008 [5 favorites]


I wish they'd deleted every post mentioning Little Brother. What a waste of my attention.

Wow, that was horrid.
posted by delmoi at 1:53 PM on June 30, 2008


By the way, since we're talking about disemvoweling, someone built a webtool to help defeat it.

I'm simultaneously delighted that it exists and pissed that there's prior art.
posted by cortex at 1:56 PM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]




Wow, that was horrid.

Wait, how is that horrid? I was be hyperbolic that Cory writes too many posts about every little L.B. reading event or trivial news item.
posted by yeti at 1:58 PM on June 30, 2008


Remind me, did BB make a big fuss about Digg taking down that key per the DCMAs request?
posted by Artw at 2:02 PM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


i can't believe they haven't addressed this yet and are continuing to post the usual BS...anyone else having fun with their comments section?

on the speed bump post:
@#2 the problem with 'moving' speedbumps is that they become all too easy to 'remove'...destroying their credibility altogether. I do like that it's blue...

not that it will get past miss smith, who, i assume, is reeeeeaaaallly busy right now...anyone want to see how busy she can get? post em there, then post them here...lets have some fun >;D
posted by sexyrobot at 2:02 PM on June 30, 2008


These threads always strike me as funny because everyone I know in real life who's read Doctorow's books, including myself, like them. Except for myself, this is a group of people who don't know boing-boing, have never read it, and are not really into this sort of internet insider stuff. I think part of the issue is that people here get sick and tired of that distinct Cory Doctorow flavor, which infuse his books as well as his blog. People who've never read his blog can come at his books without already being sick of the man, and that's critical to being able to enjoy them.
posted by Arturus at 2:04 PM on June 30, 2008


Remind me, did BB make a big fuss about Digg taking down that key per the DCMAs request?

Yes.
posted by cog_nate at 2:09 PM on June 30, 2008


that distinct Cory Doctorow flavor

Salty, with notes of self-regard and paranoia.
posted by everichon at 2:10 PM on June 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


These threads always strike me as funny because everyone I know in real life who's read Doctorow's books, including myself, like them.

Expand your circle of friends...
posted by SweetJesus at 2:10 PM on June 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


I dunno, I found Eastern Standard Tribe pretty weak back when I liked Boing Boing. And the rot had well and truly set in when the last short story collection rolled around, but I loved some of those. But yeah, you do get sick of people hitting the same notes – I definitely had that problem with the above mentioned Ellis (doesn’t help that his comics output has shrunk to near nothing while his online persona has swollen to planet sized proportions).
posted by Artw at 2:11 PM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


post em there, then post them here...lets have some fun >;D

People can do what they like, but to the extent that what you're advocating approaches griefing, please don't. No mefi-vs-Them barnstorming, please.
posted by cortex at 2:11 PM on June 30, 2008


Remind me, did BB make a big fuss about Digg taking down that key per the DCMAs request?

Yes.


How about Wikifoundation internal politics flaps?
posted by Artw at 2:11 PM on June 30, 2008


This is one of those great PR test cases, where if they just came out and said "Hey, [Violet Blue, Lawyers, The Illuminati] told us to [take down, erase, deny any existence of] Violet Blue's posts." Then people would be less likely to care.

Unless if VB is being disingenuous, it's unlikely that her lawyers told them to take the stuff down, so why can't they be forthright about it?
posted by drezdn at 2:12 PM on June 30, 2008


People who've never read his blog can come at his books without already being sick of the man, and that's critical to being able to enjoy them.

My wife has never read BB, but she did read Little Brother.

Her review of it? OK, but probably would have been better if it were written and released much closer to 9/11; in 2008 it reads like someone's fantasy of 2002.
posted by dw at 2:12 PM on June 30, 2008


This is one of those great PR test cases, where if they just came out and said "Hey, [Violet Blue, Lawyers, The Illuminati] told us to [take down, erase, deny any existence of] Violet Blue's posts." Then people would be less likely to care.

Exactly. It's the radio silence and the opacity that's getting to me. That's behaving like one of those monolithic corporations they seem so hellbent on standing against.
posted by dw at 2:17 PM on June 30, 2008


Arturus claimed:
"Except for myself, this is a group of people who don't know boing-boing, have never read it, and are not really into this sort of internet insider stuff."

Er...you didn't read all the comments here, did you?

Also: "You don't like [x], so you're not a TRUE FAN!" = Classic Comic Book Guy Approach
posted by batmonkey at 2:19 PM on June 30, 2008


By the way, entirely offtopic, but Netflix just sent out an e-mail saying it's keeping Profiles.

Yay!
posted by Artw at 2:23 PM on June 30, 2008


I have no idea who Violet Blue is, was she a particularly controversial figure over there or something? Glancing around at some of the google hits for her doesn't seem to really indicate that.

I think it's a shitty thing to do on Boing Boing's part regardless, but can anyone speculate as to what the reasoning might have been?
posted by quin at 2:27 PM on June 30, 2008


Wow, that Nielsen Hayden thread is like a masterclass in semantic squirmyness.
posted by Artw at 2:28 PM on June 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


By the way, those who liked that rainbow thing, check out my first comment on the VW post. If it's still there.

Nice!
posted by grobstein at 2:31 PM on June 30, 2008


WCityMike: If you're still arguing over there, you might want to check out when boingboing weighed in on the bluepulse debacle in 2006.
posted by Leon at 2:37 PM on June 30, 2008


Wow, that Nielsen Hayden thread is like a masterclass in semantic squirmyness.

Arguing with Patrick has always been an exercise in futility, right or wrong. The guy lives and breathes the written word and it's impossible to split hairs finely enough to win. And I don't even mean this as a criticism, believe it or not.
posted by Justinian at 2:37 PM on June 30, 2008


People can do what they like, but to the extent that what you're advocating approaches griefing, please don't. No mefi-vs-Them barnstorming, please.

sorry...usually i hate that kind of bullying, too, but this is different. a site that every 5 minutes goes OMG, CALL YOUR SENATOR, STOP THIS then suddenly starts crafting unpersons deserves a little griefing in my book...at least until they address the issue.

although, to be honest, i'm beginning to think this might be a combination 'test'/publicity stunt about the dangers of censorship...has anyone figured out the 'why' of it yet?
posted by sexyrobot at 2:38 PM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


I lost it for BB when Mark Frauenfelder wrote this about a book he recommended on NASA's "occult origins":
I don't care that Hoagland's book isn't true. I love this kind of stuff. It's fun to read.
posted by lukemeister at 2:40 PM on June 30, 2008


Woah!

Damn, did I let my precognitive powers show? Sorry, I try to avoid that.
Actually, I was thanking her for answering my earlier question. But I did enjoy her attack on BB.

These threads always strike me as funny because everyone I know in real life who's read Doctorow's books, including myself, like them. Except for myself, this is a group of people who don't know boing-boing, have never read it, and are not really into this sort of internet insider stuff.


Oh, what a load of crap. I've read Doctorow's stuff and don't like it, and I'm a huge sf fan. And I used to enjoy BB, but stopped reading it when it became an echo chamber. (I also used to love Making Light, but stopped reading it when everybody and his brother started posting there. I like TNH and I liked it when it was her blog.)

Great comment, WCityMike!
posted by languagehat at 2:41 PM on June 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


Wait… are you saying it was a stealth PROMOTION of Netflix profiles?
posted by Artw at 2:41 PM on June 30, 2008


People who've never read his blog can come at his books without already being sick of the man, and that's critical to being able to enjoy them.
posted by Arturus at 5:04 PM on June 30


Interesting. I've never read his blog (I've looked at boingboing once or twice when somebody linked to a story there, but that's it), and I've quite liked what I've read of his work.
posted by joannemerriam at 2:42 PM on June 30, 2008


I bet I would have gotten sick of Palnuick in half as many books if he had a blog as well.
posted by Artw at 2:44 PM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


Palahniuk, that is.
posted by Artw at 2:44 PM on June 30, 2008


I just came in here to say that Xeni Jardin's neck has gotta be, what, three, four feet long?
posted by turgid dahlia at 2:45 PM on June 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


Don't care what any of you say, Little Brother is awesome.

He's got the heart of a champion.

Oh wait. That's the de-interdental-nonsibilant-fricatived version, Lil' Brudder. He's got the heart of a champion.

Whereas the whining in Little Brother could power a Chinese village for a year.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 2:46 PM on June 30, 2008


I love Patrick's latest comment about this: There always seems to be a small crowd of people looking for an opportunity to take Boing Boing down. That's right. You guys are a just bunch of haters. You're just jealous because you're not as pretty as Cory and he gets asked out by all the boys and you don't.
posted by nooneyouknow at 2:46 PM on June 30, 2008 [5 favorites]


It can't possibly be more than two and a half feet long, td. Don't exaggerate!
posted by Justinian at 2:46 PM on June 30, 2008


Can someone who is more switched on than me tell me if it's just causing a fuss here or is it like a WEBQUAKE!
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 2:47 PM on June 30, 2008


Ppl cn d wht thy lk, bt t th xtnt tht wht yr dvctng pprchs grfng, pls dn't. N mf-vs-Thm brnstrmng, pls.

Let's barnstorm them! Who's with me?
posted by UbuRoivas at 2:48 PM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


I lost it for BB when Mark Frauenfelder wrote this about a book

Frauenfelder can be, um, a bit of a dick.
posted by hifiparasol at 2:49 PM on June 30, 2008


Metafilter: unpeople
posted by Artw at 2:50 PM on June 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


(we *are* referring to that hymen barn, right?)
posted by UbuRoivas at 2:53 PM on June 30, 2008


I'm learning new, sad things about Mr. Frauenfelder :(
posted by batmonkey at 2:53 PM on June 30, 2008


*searches BoingBoing footer for "Make it Stop" link.*
posted by SpiffyRob at 2:56 PM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


You think Cory's gonna have the tazing squad out when he does his next public reading...?
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 3:00 PM on June 30, 2008


We're evidently the ones coming on in and causin' a stir-and-a-ruckus.

The people who actually read Boing Boing don't have a voice of their own without reprisal from the authorities who control the site. They have no public defender. No outlet to protest. At least Digg was able to commandeer their site. Boing Boing looks disgraceful by comparison.
posted by yeti at 3:01 PM on June 30, 2008


I'm learning new, sad things about Mr. Frauenfelder

Can you give some examples? hifiparasol's link seems malformed.
posted by everichon at 3:02 PM on June 30, 2008


Sorry, everichon -- cut and pasted the wrong link.

Here's the right one.
posted by hifiparasol at 3:04 PM on June 30, 2008


I like BoingBoing! I like that it's their personal perspectives, I think they have interesting perspectives. I think there's no reason for them to be the blog of record, or have the corresponding pressure not to, say, blog about their books. If I ever write a book, I will blog the heck out of it.
posted by YoungAmerican at 3:07 PM on June 30, 2008


fearfullsymmetry - Private tasings are completely different from corporate or political tasings, which they are against.
posted by Artw at 3:07 PM on June 30, 2008 [3 favorites]


I like BoingBoing! I like that it's their personal perspectives, I think they have interesting perspectives. I think there's no reason for them to be the blog of record, or have the corresponding pressure not to, say, blog about their books. If I ever write a book, I will blog the heck out of it.

o_0
posted by youarenothere at 3:08 PM on June 30, 2008


Fanboys puzzle me.

I love metafilter, I really do, but I don't think I would come to its defense if Matt, say, randomly took all of languagehat's posts, comments, and even comments mentioning his name offline without an explanation, especially if I could then go to his blog and read a note expressing his confusion over the incident.

And yet, on every board and blog I've ever been too, there are always a few people who absolutely cannot stomach any criticism of their favorite organization and come out with pitchforks and blazing torches. It's like unthinking patriotism writ small.

There are some comments from folks like that in that makinglight thread. It's kinda pathetic.
posted by maxwelton at 3:10 PM on June 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


Wait... is BoingBoing doing comment spam now?
posted by hifiparasol at 3:11 PM on June 30, 2008


We should delete them.
posted by Artw at 3:11 PM on June 30, 2008


Oh, and FYI, since Patrick Nielsen Hayden didn't mention it in his post (probably because the regulars at Making Light already know it) he is an editor at Tor and edited "Little Brother".
posted by nooneyouknow at 3:13 PM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


but I don't think I would come to its defense if Matt, say, randomly took all of languagehat's posts, comments, and even comments mentioning his name offline without an explanation

You are aware that exactly this has happened on Metafilter? Not languagehat, obviously, but with other unnamed people? This just came up in a Metatalk thread. For values of random = threats of legal action by crazy ex-users, I guess.
posted by Justinian at 3:15 PM on June 30, 2008


note: I dunno about "comments mentioning his name" in regards to the case(s) I mention.
posted by Justinian at 3:16 PM on June 30, 2008


WCityMike:

"Of course, there's the little problem with 'Boing Boing is a trademark of Happy Mutants LLC.'"

What's the problem with this? An LLC is not a publicly-held company; the principals of the company are not accountable to anyone but themselves. Merely the fact the BB folks have formed an LLC does not mean they are not able to do as they please on their own site, however they choose, nor that it means they are no longer able to consider the site their own personal playground, if they so choose.

I have my own site and I also (as it happens) have an LLC I run some of my business through. If I decided to run my blog through the LLC and you were to suggest that means it was no longer my personal site to do with as I pleased, I would likely giggle for a few minutes and tell you what part of my anatomy you could kiss.

Regarding Cory and TNH, Patrick on his site suggests rather strongly that Cory was not the one who chose to remove the posts in question; my understanding of TNH's role in at Boing Boing suggests that she had nothing to do with it, either. I understand people here get frothy at the mere mention of Cory's name, and apparently some people here also have a bug in their ass about TNH as well. Fine, whatever, but in this particular thing it doesn't appear they had much to do with it.

(And now for disclosures: Cory and Teresa Nielsen Hayden are very good friends of mine, and Patrick Nielsen Hayden is my editor over at Tor Books.)
posted by jscalzi at 3:17 PM on June 30, 2008 [4 favorites]


That's not precisely the same. Violet Blue did ask to have her posts removed. Perhaps MetaFilter has gone through on thier own, without warning, and deleted every single post and comment by a member, and one who is not a spammer, but I've never heard of it happening.
posted by Astro Zombie at 3:17 PM on June 30, 2008


Personally I'm just waiting for Cory to reveal his mighty steampunk Unpersonater machine since it has now been fully tested on innocent victims... I'm thinking cackling, twirling of mustaches, and perhaps stovepipe hats will be involved.
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 3:17 PM on June 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


did NOT ask. Shit.
posted by Astro Zombie at 3:18 PM on June 30, 2008


...Patrick Nielsen Hayden...

I bet he's a good editor.
posted by Artw at 3:19 PM on June 30, 2008


Patrick is an excellent editor. The best in the field today, in my opinion.

It's still annoying as hell to argue with him.
posted by Justinian at 3:21 PM on June 30, 2008


He is, Artw, now that you mention it.
posted by jscalzi at 3:21 PM on June 30, 2008


It’s a great field for people with near OCD levels of picky-fuckerism.
posted by Artw at 3:22 PM on June 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


AZ - you're correct. It's not the same when the person in question didn't ask to have his or her posts removed. I should have thought it out better.
posted by Justinian at 3:22 PM on June 30, 2008


so, the real question is...What, exactly, did Miss Blue do to Miss Jardin to deserve this? steal her bleach?
posted by sexyrobot at 3:24 PM on June 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


Merely the fact the BB folks have formed an LLC does not mean they are not able to do as they please on their own site, however they choose


People (now you) keep missing (or just dodging) the point! Nobody is talking about "rights", they're talking about being total fucking hypocrites! You are clearly smart enough to understand this. All these ridiculous arguments from seemingly intelligent people are depressing.
posted by lattiboy at 3:25 PM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


What's the problem with this?

Is a website a collection of essays that are being republished moment to moment, and so can be re-edited at any time, or is it an archive of past publications, which should be altered very rarely?

I actually think it's the first, and that publication might be an obsolete concept, but by their behaviour in the past boingboing editors seem to have tended towards the latter interpretation.

Let me try an analogy. If a privately-held newspaper went through the archives and destroyed all the references to a person, wouldn't you feel a bit uncomfortable? I think boingboing holds a position very similar to that of a newspaper a couple of decades ago.
posted by Leon at 3:27 PM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


Violet Blue did ask to have her posts removed.

Sorry, I missed this -- do you mean "did not"? If she did ask, then I really and truly fail to see the problem.
posted by eriko at 3:29 PM on June 30, 2008


I did mean did not.

Not sure that sentence made any sense at all.
posted by Astro Zombie at 3:29 PM on June 30, 2008


I understand people here get frothy at the mere mention of Cory's name, and apparently some people here also have a bug in their ass about TNH as well.

Um, I guess that's one way of describing it. A fairly uncharitable one, but whatever.

If I decided to run my blog through the LLC and you were to suggest that means it was no longer my personal site to do with as I pleased, I would likely giggle for a few minutes and tell you what part of my anatomy you could kiss.

I can't speak for WCityMike, but what I got from the underlined "C" in "LLC" in his post was the idea that the BB folks are all about corporate transparency and responsibility, which is funny, because they're a corporation themselves, and they appear to be breaking the very rules they so strictly hold others to.

Once again for those in the cheap seats: Nobody really seems to be suggesting that BoingBoing is not a private, personal site whose owners can't use for whatever they want. But there's a whole equation here involving the throwing of stones from inside a glass house. You can do whatever you please with your LLC. You can even tell me to kiss your ass when I suggest you're being hypocritical. But it doesn't make you right. It actually makes you a pretty shitty example to set for the rest of the blogosphere, particularly when you're as big a deal, and as prominent a voice, as BoingBoing is.
posted by hifiparasol at 3:33 PM on June 30, 2008 [5 favorites]


Wait... is BoingBoing doing comment spam now?

YoungAmerican has been around. He's not a spammer.

You are aware that exactly this has happened on Metafilter? Not languagehat, obviously, but with other unnamed people? This just came up in a Metatalk thread. For values of random = threats of legal action by crazy ex-users, I guess.

I appreciate the unnamedness, since I don't want dude having a relapse into flip-out mode on some latter day ego-surfing. There was discussion of what happened in Metatalk at the time, and I'd rather leave it there; dude himself has basically disappeared his own related off-site content, too, so there's basically nothing to see anymore. The intensely curious can email me.

As Astro Zombie points out, there's a difference of kind here: we didn't want to delete the guy's stuff, he threatened legal action if we didn't. We've talked users down from (generally smaller-scale) memory wipes in the past a few times, as well. I hate seeing archives spring leaks like that if it's at all avoidable.

That said, I'm not even of the position that BoingBoing shouldn't have the right to wipe stuff. If they decide to, fine, and they may have a compelling rationale for it. But I am pretty damn surprised that they didn't explain what was going on in the first hour, even if the explanation were simply "we did this thing, our lawyers are telling us not to discuss it further, it sucks, comments are closed". I think the fact that they've been mum for so long is a reasonable thing to object to, and I'm not surprised people are reacting so strongly to that.
posted by cortex at 3:34 PM on June 30, 2008 [4 favorites]


I propose that maxwelton be deleted for his lack of devotion to the metafilter cause
posted by ZippityBuddha at 3:35 PM on June 30, 2008


You are aware that exactly this has happened on Metafilter?

And I wouldn't come to metafilter's defense...especially if the poster didn't know it was coming. However, if the poster requested or demanded it, it's not really the same situation, though one would hope if called on it, Matt would have an explanation. I understand that sort of stuff can get tricky if threats of legal action are involved, but you can at least acknowledge the controversy.
posted by maxwelton at 3:36 PM on June 30, 2008


Perhaps MetaFilter has gone through on their own, without warning, and deleted every single post and comment by a member, and one who is not a spammer, but I've never heard of it happening.

You don't remember Paphnuty, who at one time was responsible for half the posts and comments on MetaFilter? N00b!
posted by languagehat at 3:37 PM on June 30, 2008 [6 favorites]


Paphnuty sleeps with the fishpantses.
posted by cortex at 3:38 PM on June 30, 2008


"It’s a great field for people with near OCD levels of picky-fuckerism."

Consider also that people are attacking both his wife and one of his good friends for an event in which they very likely they had no direct involvement. You don't have to have "near OCD levels of picky-fuckerism," as you put it, to want to defend them.

"Nobody is talking about 'rights', they're talking about being total fucking hypocrites!"

Nonsense. The people at BB, as far as I know, have always been clear it's their site to do with as they please. Also, speaking entirely theoretically (and as I believe PNH suggested on his site), if one of the BBers did it for personal reasons for which they choose not to discuss with the general public, then accusations of "hypocrite!" are likely to be met with "who gives a shit what you think, it's my life and site" and summarily dismissed.

Which is not to say I don't agree that an explanation would be helpful here; merely that BB is not a public utility, it's a weird entity that combines both the personal and public for its editors. Sometimes that presents issues. Those issues are not always going to be resolved how the public wants, because even the Boing Boing people get veto power when it involves their private lives.

I agree it's hard to accept the personal angle of it when as WCityMike notes "when it hires and pays a salary to individuals, sells merchandise, makes a great deal of revenue off of advertising space, and when each of the editors has their own already existing personal website." Nevertheless, I would suggest to you it's there and does exist, and is a factor, just as the private life is a factor in the life and business of any public persona.

WCityMike: Glad your dad liked the book!
posted by jscalzi at 3:38 PM on June 30, 2008


YoungAmerican has been around. He's not a spammer.

I was kidding, for what it's worth, but thanks. :)
posted by hifiparasol at 3:39 PM on June 30, 2008


Sure, it's their site. But they have engaged in an act that a significant amount of their readership reads as hypocritical and a violation of the spirit of transparency that they have espoused for quite a while. This story is tearing through the interwebs. It strikes me as a collossal tactical bluder to not address it publicly, and to just go through and delete any comment that raises the subject of Violet Blue is guaranteed to alienate a lot of their readers.
posted by Astro Zombie at 3:43 PM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


On preview, I would like to point out to ZippityBuddha that I have the metafilter pennant on the wall over my bed, I have a giant "#1" foam metafilter finger which I wear in threads like this, and regularly dine at "The Recumbent Banhammer" metafilter corporate cafe despite earning less in a year than cortex spends on donuts during his morning coffee break.
posted by maxwelton at 3:45 PM on June 30, 2008 [6 favorites]


How appropriate that the story making fun of the right-wing site for rewriting material is on the front page of BB right now. Oy.
posted by spiderwire at 3:49 PM on June 30, 2008


if one of the BBers did it for personal reasons for which they choose not to discuss with the general public, then accusations of "hypocrite!" are likely to be met with "who gives a shit what you think, it's my life and site" and summarily dismissed.

Sure, and readers (upon whom the advertising revenue depends) are likely to say "screw you, I don't like you any more." If enough of them do that, bye bye BoingBoing. This has happened before.

OK, so I got a CabalGram reminding me that "we're not supposed to mention Paphnuty" and "what happened to him could happen to you." Well, I'm sorry, but I've shot my mouth off about free speech for years here and I can't bear the hypocrisy any more. Fine, disappear me. There are a lot more people here than there were then, and a lot of people are going to say "What ever happened to languagehat?" and you're going to spend a lot of time redacting comments and disappearing MeFites. Go ahead, make my day. I just don't care any more.
posted by languagehat at 3:49 PM on June 30, 2008 [3 favorites]


Nonsense. The people at BB, as far as I know, have always been clear it's their site to do with as they please.


Okay, I believe I am the fourth person now to say the same basic thing to you. Could you please comment re: their actions being wildly hypocritical based on their writings/speeches over the past many years?


Notwithstanding the fact that it is perfectly, totally, super legal. Which, of course, nobody has doubted at anytime during this entire thread.
posted by lattiboy at 3:50 PM on June 30, 2008


I already mentioned this, but it bears repeating: Cory Doctorow has written the following:
Even weirder is the idea that companies shouldn't be criticized because in a market, you should just take your business elsewhere. Free markets thrive on good information. For a market to function, customers need to have good information about which goods are worth buying and which ones should be avoided -- that's why we complain in public, to help companies make better decisions.
This is from the clip that he posted to Boing Boing. At the very least, they're lying in a bed they've made themselves.
posted by hifiparasol at 3:50 PM on June 30, 2008 [3 favorites]


You don't have to have "near OCD levels of picky-fuckerism," as you put it, to want to defend them

Shrugs. Picky-fuckerism is more the HOW than the WHY here.
posted by Artw at 3:51 PM on June 30, 2008


BB: Do As We Say, Not Do As We Do
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 3:52 PM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


Dude, let it go. Paphnuty knew what happens if you don't enforce strict party discipline. Democratic centralism depends on presenting a unified front.

And there was no Paphnuty. Go through our yearbook if you like; there are no photos of him. You just made him up.
posted by Astro Zombie at 3:53 PM on June 30, 2008


BB: Do As We Say, Not Do As We Do

already covered that.
posted by spiderwire at 3:57 PM on June 30, 2008


Nonsense. The people at BB, as far as I know, have always been clear it's their site to do with as they please. Also, speaking entirely theoretically (and as I believe PNH suggested on his site), if one of the BBers did it for personal reasons for which they choose not to discuss with the general public, then accusations of "hypocrite!" are likely to be met with "who gives a shit what you think, it's my life and site" and summarily dismissed.

The problem with this explanation is that as a business, this makes zero sense. Surely all that an entity like BB has to trade on is their "personalities" and any damage you do to the perception that they're stand-up people is likely to effect the bottom line.

More than that, it shows a serious lack of backbone if this is the call of just one of several people with equal sway over the business. Let's say it's not Cory who made the call. Fine. Still, why should I ever pay attention to a single word he writes in the future about corporate transparency, "censorship," or any of a large number of other pet causes this action of theirs seems to mock?

For that reason alone I would expect this to never happen. It directly hurts BB's credibility and their marketability.

Hell, this would be an minor, vaguely interesting story instead of a shitstorm if there had been a single post on BB:

"Hi, sometimes it's time to part ways, and we're doing that today. You may notice that we've pulled all of a former contributor's posts and will, for awhile, be deleting comments about that as it will be unnecessarily distracting. We wish them the best and hope you understand."
posted by maxwelton at 3:59 PM on June 30, 2008 [4 favorites]


Hey, whatever happened to that languagehat guy? His posts were just here and I hit reload and they're all gone.
posted by waraw at 3:59 PM on June 30, 2008


I'm not sure that anyone is saying that they can't do what they did; after all, BB is their site, and I doubt they made any warranties to anyone posting on the site that they'd archive their comments and make them available forever. (Although, that'd sort of be an interesting line of argument in itself; as far as I know it's never really been advanced so far.)

However, completely separate from the discussion of whether they shouldn't be allowed to do what they did (i.e. is it or should it be legal), is a discussion on whether what they did was good, right, or advisable. Obviously just because something is allowable and isn't prohibited by law or custom doesn't mean people really appreciate you doing it. It seems like that's exactly the sort of area BB has drifted into.

Creating the appearance of hypocrisy doesn't seem like a very good idea when you depend on the goodwill of your audience for a living.

All the BB folks seem like pretty savvy people, so I'm a little surprised that they've declined to clear the air thus far. Their silence — which again, is totally their perogative — isn't doing them any favors. In the same way that BB's editors have every right to do whatever they want on their site, their readers have every right to take their eyeballs elsewhere, and tell their friends what they think of the site.
posted by Kadin2048 at 3:59 PM on June 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


Guys, I'm sure if Paphnuty had ever actually existed and were subsisting in a cellar dungeon beneath Metafilter HQ, he'd be asking me to let you all know that he thinks we were completely in the right for handling the situation exactly as we have, and that, more than that, he's grateful to us for helping him understand the error of his ways.
posted by cortex at 4:02 PM on June 30, 2008 [4 favorites]


already covered that.
Disemvoweling broke search...

I'll go for my back up... BB: A Directory of Wonderful Things (Minus the letters V and B)
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 4:04 PM on June 30, 2008


Hey now, I discovered Metafilter through BB....after noticing most of the good links were through MeFi
posted by hellojed at 4:05 PM on June 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


I, um, well... just forget what I said above, OK? There was no Paphnuty. And I think the mods are completely in the right for handling the situation exactly as they have. It's a good life!
posted by languagehat at 4:05 PM on June 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


Nonsense. The people at BB, as far as I know, have always been clear it's their site to do with as they please.

Maybe if they weren't so quick to play the "censorship" card at every opportunity, it wouldn't be such a big deal.
posted by SweetJesus at 4:05 PM on June 30, 2008 [7 favorites]


call the police
posted by Paphnuty at 4:06 PM on June 30, 2008 [46 favorites]


Paphnuty? MeFi disappeared a saint?

Dudes, you are all so going to Hell!
posted by CCBC at 4:07 PM on June 30, 2008


You should totally post that comment to Boing Boing, hifiparasol.

It would be very interesting to see Cory's own quote get disemvowelled.
posted by chimaera at 4:10 PM on June 30, 2008


Boing Boing has become an incestuous pit of repetitive masturbatory circle jerks...

Self-justifying circle-jerk with no intrinsic or lasting value!
posted by turgid dahlia at 4:12 PM on June 30, 2008


call the police

Name: Pap H
Joined: June 30, 2008

Fail.
posted by Dark Messiah at 4:17 PM on June 30, 2008


Metafilter: Self-justifying incestuous pit of repetitive masturbatory circle jerks, with no intrinsic or lasting value
posted by Artw at 4:17 PM on June 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


Fail.

It's as much win as you can get for $5!
posted by Artw at 4:18 PM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


masturbatory circle jerks

was that a tautological repetition of the same thing?
posted by UbuRoivas at 4:18 PM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


It's as much win as you can get for $5!

Don't even get my started on what you can get for $5... Let's just say that 30 seconds of pleasure is not worth a life-time of medicated cream.

Although, I did manage to last 30 whole seconds!
posted by Dark Messiah at 4:19 PM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


There's a post up at VB's site now that suggests she got removed because she added tm to her name. Yep, it's Violet Bluetm. And if you look in the address bar, she uses a copyright symbol. I figured this was kind of a joke since VB was once sued by a different VB over use of her name and had to appear under a pseudonym. But maybe it's not a joke. Or maybe BB has lost its sense of humor. Or something. Maybe eventually BB will tell us.
posted by CCBC at 4:22 PM on June 30, 2008


I'm not reading this whole thread, but has anybody proffered an explanation as to why they did this yet?
posted by empath at 4:23 PM on June 30, 2008


Consider also that people are attacking both his wife and one of his good friends for an event in which they very likely they had no direct involvement.

Ah yes, the good old "I put my name on it and trade on its reputation, but if something goes wrong I have no responsibility" defense.

The problem with this whole thing is that Doctorow is a public face of the "DRM is evil" movement, and is thus regarded as a saint by people who don't want to pay for content and as a naive punk by people who make their money getting other people to do just that.

Having his flagship blog associated with such adolescent shenanigans tends to support the naive punk point of view, and that's a shame. He's actually got some very sane ideas on copyright, but in order to be taken seriously he needs to keep clear of this sort of pointless controversy.
posted by tkolar at 4:27 PM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


Well, polyhedron jerks bring more faces to the festivities, but unfortunately, the edges are all straight and the solids are strictly platonic. So circle jerks may leave you more radiant.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:28 PM on June 30, 2008 [8 favorites]


has anybody proffered an explanation as to why they did this yet?

No -- that's actually part of the conversation here.
posted by hifiparasol at 4:29 PM on June 30, 2008


There's a post up at VB's site now that suggests she got removed because she added tm to her name.

Maybe she should have gone for LLC status instead
posted by spiderwire at 4:32 PM on June 30, 2008 [4 favorites]


So circle jerks may leave you more radiant.

And they're always preferable to love triangles.
posted by UbuRoivas at 4:33 PM on June 30, 2008


To some degree. What's your sine?
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:37 PM on June 30, 2008 [5 favorites]


And they're always preferable to love triangles.

Only true believers are invited to the timecube orgies.
posted by Dark Messiah at 4:37 PM on June 30, 2008


I'll leave it to the more eloquent among us to argue whether this amounts to hypocrisy, censorship, or unethical behavior.

I just think it was a dick move. I think less of them for it. I don't have to make any argument about why they are in the right or in the wrong. Whatever. It's a totally lame thing to do and as a group that banks on celebrity as their greatest commodity, they should care about that. Whatever product they're selling, be it a book or an ad or a gadget recommendation or anything, I don't want to buy it. I don't want to give my money to someone who acts like a douchebag.

Really, all they needed to do was provide any explanation for their actions. Rampantly deleting any mention of the act is just shitty.
posted by team lowkey at 4:41 PM on June 30, 2008 [4 favorites]


And they're always preferable to love triangles.

Sex with squares is boring? You do the math.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:42 PM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


The comments on the next Boing Boing post about censorship are going to be super fun.

Evil corporations – Now is the time to Censor some shit!
posted by Artw at 4:43 PM on June 30, 2008 [4 favorites]


Purient tessellation.
posted by Artw at 4:44 PM on June 30, 2008


Are all of you who are slagging Little Brother regular readers of Young Adult fiction? I bought that book... for my little brother, who's 16. I'm sure, as a wannabe hacker and a gamer and regular geeky 16 year old underachiever, he'll like it better than whatever he's reading in the English class he's flunking.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 4:44 PM on June 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


There's a post up at VB's site now that suggests she got removed because she added tm to her name.

Vaporised for CopywriteCrime
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 4:45 PM on June 30, 2008


Next they’ll tell us it isn’t even her real name.
posted by Artw at 4:46 PM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


boingboing fuckedcompany mashup!
posted by asok at 4:54 PM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


I thought Boing Boing was a website, not a soap opera. How do you people know all this stuff?!

While simultaneously affecting disdain for it?
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 4:57 PM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


Maxwelton:

"More than that, it shows a serious lack of backbone if this is the call of just one of several people with equal sway over the business. Let's say it's not Cory who made the call. Fine. Still, why should I ever pay attention to a single word he writes in the future about corporate transparency, 'censorship,' or any of a large number of other pet causes this action of theirs seems to mock?"

You mean, why should you pay attention to the issues he espouses when someone who is not him did something he arguably had no involvement in and possibly wouldn't endorse, and also possibly didn't inform him of their actions ahead of time? Got me, Max.

Please note that I'm not saying that the deletion of the posts isn't of interest or doesn't open up the BBers to questions of "what the hell?" I think that's fair. That said, I don't think it's entirely fair to put Cory (or whomever) up against a wall for actions that aren't his. The BB editors don't all live in the same dorm suite, you know -- they live on at least two different continents and at least some of them have families and lives outside of the Internet. Entertain the notion (which, who knows, might even possibly be correct) that the principals of the organization don't act in concert at all times. They're individuals, not a hive mind.

And while you're at it, consider that the principals might actually be talking to each other about this before talking to anyone else. In essence, allow them some lag time in response required due to the fact they're actual live human beings, not just black boxes that spit out BB entries at regular intervals.

WCityMike:

"The best analogy, for me, of what Boing Boing is is that it is an online magazine and media outlet. It contains website reviews, music reviews, comic reviews, television reviews, news op-eds, and quirky odd-things... even though it may contain the personal opinions of its contributors, it is not the personal websites of the contributors. Each and every day, the Tribune and the Sun-Times contain multiple op-ed columns from its columnists. That does not mean that the publisher of those opinions is a personal and not professional vehicle."

While I would imagine it's flattering that you compare a privately-held Web site with less than ten employees (I think) with two companies, at least one publicly held, that individually employ hundreds of people (and in the case of the Tribune, is the flagship of one of the largest media corporations in the world) it doesn't mean the comparison is particularly accurate. If you want to make an analogy, I think Boing Boing is probably more like a successful musical group, whose product, while public and marketable, is also rooted in the private sphere, in terms of the personalities and talents of the members. Now, please note this analogy goes only so far -- Cory is not John Lennon and Xeni Chardin is not Ringo (or whatever). But what does track is that here is output by a small group of individuals, not a massive media organization, and part of what makes it work is the fact it has that personal feel.

(If you want to talk about blogging as ersatz new wave newspapers, incidentally, the Gawker Group is probably a much better comparison.)

tkolar:

"Ah yes, the good old 'I put my name on it and trade on its reputation, but if something goes wrong I have no responsibility' defense."

TKolar, do you have actually any idea what you're saying here? Please reread. If nothing else, know that Patrick Nielsen Hayden has no direct involvement with Boing Boing.
posted by jscalzi at 4:58 PM on June 30, 2008


And while you're at it, consider that the principals might actually be talking to each other about this before talking to anyone else. In essence, allow them some lag time in response required due to the fact they're actual live human beings, not just black boxes that spit out BB entries at regular intervals.

Which is a fair point, definitely. But I think part of the problem here is that credulity at the lag-time explanation has to be stretched a lot farther when the response time moves from hours into days. I'm curious why they haven't at least put up an acknowledgment that something is up and that they're not ready to talk about it—we've had our share of distributed-time-and-space headaches on mefi before, too, so I can appreciate how bad timing can play into responsiveness, but there's lag-time and then there's lag-time.
posted by cortex at 5:08 PM on June 30, 2008


While I would imagine it's flattering that you compare a privately-held Web site with less than ten employees (I think) with two companies, at least one publicly held, that individually employ hundreds of people (and in the case of the Tribune, is the flagship of one of the largest media corporations in the world) it doesn't mean the comparison is particularly accurate.

Efficiency (and regurgitating other people's content) means fewer staff. Try comparing circulation and pageviews.
posted by Leon at 5:12 PM on June 30, 2008


The BB editors don't all live in the same dorm suite, you know -- they live on at least two different continents and at least some of them have families and lives outside of the Internet. Entertain the notion (which, who knows, might even possibly be correct) that the principals of the organization don't act in concert at all times. They're individuals, not a hive mind.

This is all equally true of MetaFilter, and yet when WTF stuff arises here the mods fall all over themselves (and occasionally each other) explaining, apologizing, justifying, whatever seems called for. They do not clam up and delete complaints.
posted by languagehat at 5:13 PM on June 30, 2008 [5 favorites]


...what's a BoingBoing?

Regarding disemvoweling, not long ago in another message board, I purposefully posted a reply to someone by manually removing all the vowels from my words except for curse words, which I left intact. It was a sort of reverse self-censorship cuz I wanted the cursewords to stand out. I was making a point, and I ws bng n sshl.

I thought I invented this 'disemvoweling' although i never called it that. You're telling me now that some goody goody censor-believing expletive has been doing this already for months? Color me upset.

...

Why do we care about all this again? We're pushing like three hundred replies to this thread by now, and I don't for the life of me understand why. Especially since well over half the replies have been from people who don't care.
posted by ZachsMind at 5:13 PM on June 30, 2008 [3 favorites]


I'm here for the steampunk hate.
posted by Artw at 5:18 PM on June 30, 2008 [8 favorites]


jscalzi: The comment tkolar was responding to seems to be referring collectively to both the Nielsen Haydens and Cory Doctorow.

As cortex pointed out there, Making Light is the closest thing there is at the moment to an "official" discussion on this whole shenanigan, which is unfortunate because people seem to be assuming that Patrick Nielsen Hayden is somehow responsible for it all. As far as I can tell, he's just speaking up in defense of a friend and colleague, and it's certainly not fair to accuse him of censoring anything, at any rate; not is it fair to hold him responsible for anything done at BoingBoing.

IMO, BoingBoing doesn't "owe" anyone an explanation for pulling whatever posts they want, but that doesn't mean I can't form a negative opinion based on their actions. In particular, the unacknowledged deletion of otherwise civil comments seems like a fairly perplexing gesture, especially since it's in such sharp contrast to what I've seen of TNH's moderation of her own blog.
posted by teraflop at 5:24 PM on June 30, 2008


Leon:

"Efficiency (and regurgitating other people's content) means fewer staff. Try comparing circulation and pageviews."

Circulation and pageviews have almost nothing to do with how the two (three) organizations are built and work. One is hierarchically flat editorial, with four equal principals who are independent agents and own the site severally amongst themselves, while the other has shareholders and a complex editorial hierarchy with ultimately one individual in charge.

Language Hat:

"This is all equally true of MetaFilter, and yet when WTF stuff arises here the mods fall all over themselves (and occasionally each other) explaining, apologizing, justifying, whatever seems called for. They do not clam up and delete complaints."

While I'm sure the moderators here delight in the idea that they do no wrong, all you're pointing out is that Metafilter is not Boing Boing and vice versa. And unless I'm mistaken, at the end of the day, it's not the moderators who own and make the rules for Metafilter, it's Matt.
posted by jscalzi at 5:25 PM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


TKolar, do you have actually any idea what you're saying here?

I certainly do. You claimed that Patrick was defending people who were being unjustly attacked. And your response to Maxwelton above repeated the idea that anyone associated with Boing Boing who wasn't the actual person who pushed the buttons is an innocent bystander.

And I say: nice try, but no. You attach your name to an operation, and when things go south it *is* your problem. When (er, I mean If) cortex suddenly goes apeshit and starts deleting every post with "music" in the tags, Matt and Jess don't get a free pass to just sit by. They'd better speak up pronto, if only to disavow their own involvement.

It's not like someone created a mess in the middle of the night and they're trying to piece together who did what. There is a person *actively censoring threads* on Boing Boing right now, and if they're being allowed to continue I can only assume it's with the consent of everyone involved.
posted by tkolar at 5:27 PM on June 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


While I'm sure the moderators here delight in the idea that they do no wrong

What the fuck? It's precisely this kind of ad hominem twisting of words that's getting people pissed at Patrick in that ML thread. I did not say, nor do I believe, that the moderators here "do no wrong," and I resent your implying that I'm some kind of sycophant. I can link to plenty of my comments yelling at Matt over the years if you don't believe me.

all you're pointing out is that Metafilter is not Boing Boing and vice versa.


Oh, you can be more specific than that. I'm pointing out that Metafilter is better than Boing Boing.
posted by languagehat at 5:29 PM on June 30, 2008 [22 favorites]


I, at the least, click by Metafilter on a daily basis, but not one time have I looked at boingboing. Strange, given as often as it is mentioned here, but I've maintained a Bush-like incuriosity about the whole thing.
posted by troybob at 5:29 PM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


Also, what tkolar said.
posted by languagehat at 5:29 PM on June 30, 2008


john scalzi: Don't you think Boing Boing has, at the least, handled this badly? They know how things work on the Web. This is like throwing red meat to hungry dogs.
posted by Justinian at 5:30 PM on June 30, 2008


What the fuck?

jscalzi can correct me if I'm wrong, but I read his comment as saying that we'd delight at the fantastical proposition that we can do no wrong. I don't think that's what you were implying at all, languagehat, but this feels like a couple of bad misfires at first blush.
posted by cortex at 5:32 PM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


Well damn, even VB doesn't know wtf is up.
"I’ve been racking my brain thinking of what issues I might’ve come down on the wrong side of," Blue told me on the phone. "There’s been no argument, there's been no disagreement, no flame war, none of the usual things."
I think she rejected Cory's advances one too many times.
posted by mullingitover at 5:35 PM on June 30, 2008


MetaTalk hasn't had a good post about what a terrible job the mods are doing for aaaaages.
posted by Artw at 5:36 PM on June 30, 2008


jscalzi, your characterizations of people's responses/arguments/reasons for having problems with this whole mess are bordering on being destructive to the discourse. Languagehat is right to be indignant.
posted by hifiparasol at 5:37 PM on June 30, 2008


MetaTalk hasn't had a good post about what a terrible job the mods are doing for aaaaages.

They've all been deleted....
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 5:38 PM on June 30, 2008 [3 favorites]


jscalzi can correct me if I'm wrong, but I read his comment as saying that we'd delight at the fantastical proposition that we can do no wrong.

It's nice and generous of you to read it that way, and I appreciate that you're trying to pour oil on troubled waters (you goody-goody), but that's bullshit. He quoted me and followed the quote with:

While I'm sure the moderators here delight in the idea that they do no wrong


It doesn't make sense to read that in any other way than "While I'm sure the moderators here delight in your idea that they do no wrong..."
posted by languagehat at 5:43 PM on June 30, 2008


Ah, I see your point. I'll put down the Hug-o-matic.
posted by cortex at 5:45 PM on June 30, 2008


You wake up. It is dark. Your head hurts.

>look

Painfully, you open your eyes. Barely. Everything is fuzzy.

>rub eyes

Weirdo.

>look

You rub your eyes and open them wider. You seem to be outside. It is very dark, though you seem to be in a field of some sort under hazy clouds. Ahead of you to the north there seems to be a hole or depression.

>north

You stumble unsteadily over the clods in the field. The hole seemes to be a freshly blasted smoking furrow in the ground.

>look in hole.

You get down on your hands and knees to peer into the crater. It seems to be a few dozen feet deep, a few dozen wide and about one hundred feet long. The edges are still warm to the touch. Indeed there is still a lot of smoke or steam rising out of the hole. Briefly, you wonder if it could be toxic.

>smell

With curious mind that displays exactly how bright you are, you breath deeply through your nose, taking in heaping lungfuls of the possibly toxic smoke.

It smells like beans.

>_
posted by loquacious at 5:57 PM on June 30, 2008 [32 favorites]


TKolar:

All right, I get what you're saying now; thank you for the clarification.

That said, I doubt Cory and the rest of them share a mind link that instantly lets the rest of them know what the other is up to, much less stop them, and it's been suggested by people who are in a position to know that Cory was not the one responsible for this particular action. Whether Cory is ultimately at least partially on the hook for what goes on at Boing Boing is a different discussion from what's been going on here in this thread, which is a whole lot of "Something went wrong at Boing Boing, so now I'm going to spew my Cory hate, fuck fuck Cory fuck duck." I'm pointing out a) Cory appears not to be immediately responsible for the event (nor does TNH, for that matter) and that b) Patrick Nielsen Hayden, knowing this, is perfectly in the right to defend his friend and spouse from random hatespittle from people who don't actually know what they're talking about.

Languagehat:

"I resent your implying that I'm some kind of sycophant."

Oh, wah wah wah, Languagehat. Well, fine, then: I resent your ad hominem suggesting I imply you're a sycophant, since I said no such thing, nor even came close to implying it. Since we're getting all spiky here about these things. So there, we're all even in the ad hominem implication outrage sweepstakes.

Sheesh.

Justinian:

"Don't you think Boing Boing has, at the least, handled this badly?"

I'm certainly curious now as to why the posts were deleted.

That said, I would be a lot more concerned if the posts being deleted had been written by Violet Blue. But they weren't; they were written by the folks at BB. Fundamentally, people are getting outraged that the folks at Boing Boing deleted their own writing. This isn't censorship, since (legal arguments as to what constitutes censorship or not aside) Violet Blue is not actually having her words deleted, she's merely being deprived of Boing Boing link love. It seems people are essentially making the argument that delinking from another site and deleting one's own words constitute some form of censorship against a third party. I don't know if I'm 100% behind that police work, there, Lou.
posted by jscalzi at 5:58 PM on June 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


Fundamentally, people are getting outraged that the folks at Boing Boing deleted their own writing. This isn't censorship

They're also deleting any comments that reference the removal which is definitely censoring a third party.
posted by Justinian at 6:00 PM on June 30, 2008


According to the blog link just posted, they deleted one of VB's posts.
posted by spiderwire at 6:02 PM on June 30, 2008


I think jscalzi might be a bit too close to the people involved to be completely objective, here.

When the income from your "personal" site is more than what a normal person would consider a generous annual income (I cannot find the source, but the number I heard for BB in a year is 7 figures), I would consider it not such a personal site anymore.

Is Drudge Report Matt Drudge's personal website? Is Aintitcool.com Harry Knowles's personal website?

Though I can't speak quantitatively, there is a threshold somewhere beyond which your little "personal" website becomes a "business" website. And I would not hesitate to put Boing Boing in the latter category.
posted by chimaera at 6:02 PM on June 30, 2008 [3 favorites]


I would be a lot more concerned if the posts being deleted had been written by Violet Blue.

According to the LA Times piece linked above, one of them was.
posted by hifiparasol at 6:03 PM on June 30, 2008


I love metafilter, I really do, but I don't think I would come to its defense if Matt, say, randomly took all of languagehat's posts, comments, and even comments mentioning his name offline without an explanation, especially if I could then go to his blog and read a note expressing his confusion over the incident.


I wouldn't. I would be throwing stones long and hard. The good thing, that would never happen - Matt is on a far higher plane of existence than Cory; there really is no comparison. If you look up integrity in the dictionary, there is where you find Matt's picture. MeFi rises above most other sites for a reason, and it isn't just Matt, but all the similar people he attracts, including every one of the mods. If Matt had to delete someone, he would never get away without an explanation, and you know it would be there before you had to ask.

This thing at BB, it is quite disturbing, very, very disturbing. Cory should go back and read the Tylenol poisoning case on corporate communications, it's in all the B-school textbooks, and school himself on damage control. Perhaps the underlying behavior is actually evil, in which case silence is the best damage control. Keep your mouth shut and everyone thinks the worst. Every hour of silence crushes another pound of credibility, and frankly, at this point, he is down to ounces.
posted by caddis at 6:05 PM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


This will prove to be a false flag operation by AT&T. Their next step will be to disseminate photos of Cory Doctorow hugging Bill Gates.
posted by lukemeister at 6:06 PM on June 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


a) Cory appears not to be immediately responsible for the event (nor does TNH, for that matter)

Someone is censoring incoming forum posts in real time, and went back and removed the rainbow post once they got the joke. That goes beyond "we need to have a conference call before we respond to this".

And the editors run DELETE WHERE body LIKE '%Violet Blue%' on the entore database without consulting each other first? Seriously? What are they running over there?

Seriously wondering how long they can go without responding, now. Definitely smacks of an "us vs them" attitude.
posted by Leon at 6:13 PM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


[munches popcorn, considers switching channel]
posted by humannaire at 6:14 PM on June 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


I think jscalzi might be a bit too close to the people involved to be completely objective, here.

Seconded.

When the income from your "personal" site is more than what a normal person would consider a generous annual income ... I would consider it not such a personal site anymore.

Not really disagreeing with you here, but not quite agreeing, either. Why is it the money that matters -- more so than the prominence of the blog's voice, or the disconnect between words and actions?

Cultural artifacts grow beyond the scope of their creators, and after a while the old libertarian trope of "it's my project and I'll do what I want with it" no longer holds water. After a while, you have a responsibility to this awesome thing you've created -- a responsibility to remember that it's much bigger than you, and not to fuck it up.

To use the MeFi example: I've never subscribed to the notion that this is just "Matt's site" -- sure, his name is on the legal papers, and he's in charge, and ultimately it's his choice whether he wants to shut down the whole thing or change the rules. But MetaFilter has grown into something much larger than what could be described simply as "Matt's blog," and I think he understands that -- which is part of the reason why this is such a great place.

Nobody ever seemed to espouse the notion that Phantom Menace was just fine because it was Lucas's project and he made all the decisions.
posted by hifiparasol at 6:17 PM on June 30, 2008 [3 favorites]


languagehat:Oh, what a load of crap. I've read Doctorow's stuff and don't like it, and I'm a huge sf fan. And I used to enjoy BB, but stopped reading it when it became an echo chamber.

Straw man. I did not claim that anyone not annoyed by Doctorow would like his books, as the notion that there is any book or author that everyone (or everyone who's a fan of the genre, or everyone who doesn't have preexisting feelings about the author) would like is ridiculous and patently untrue. Rather, I made a statement about how Doctorow's personality grates on people, and how that relates to the disparity in reaction to his writing that I've observed in people I know in real life versus the general tenor here.

An individual person who is not sick of doctorow disliking his books or someone who is enjoying his books despite this does not discredit the idea because it is a thesis about general trends. If you really want to pare it down to a more limiting statement you could frame as a statement that people who are already annoyed by Doctorow's personality are vastly less likely to enjoy his books.
posted by Arturus at 6:18 PM on June 30, 2008


(from the making light thread (because there's obviously no point in trying to post there))
To be specific, the whole thread is about censorship, yet there is no censor. All lies.

Her name is Teresa. And she should remember that those who apply too much White-wash usually end up Black-balled. (good luck finding another job in media, sweetie!)

I'm waiting 'til tomorrow...if there's no explanation by then, then I'm going to start writing directly to BB's advertisers, and if anyone else demands accountability from the press (be it mainstream or homebrew), then I strongly suggest they do the same.
posted by sexyrobot at 6:20 PM on June 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


Don't you think Boing Boing has, at the least, handled this badly? They know how things work on the Web. This is like throwing red meat to hungry dogs.

Since the folks at Boing Boing do know how things work on the Web, I suspect there's something more to this story. Since Patrick Nielsen Hayden posted as he did at Making Light, I suspect whatever "more" there is has nothing to do with either Teresa or Cory Doctorow, and instead involves somebody else at Boing Boing.

I further suspect that whatever "more" there is will turn out to be innocuous and undeserving of most of the harshness on display here, there, and at Making Light, but that won't matter, and the name "Violet Blue" will become code for "Boing Boing bad faith behavior" in future. People will link it and decry it, and others will link to whatever reasonable explanation eventuates to debunk the decrying, but the decrying will be the lasting result, a smudge on their escutcheon forevermore.
posted by cgc373 at 6:21 PM on June 30, 2008


Oh, wah wah wah, Languagehat. Well, fine, then: I resent your ad hominem suggesting I imply you're a sycophant, since I said no such thing, nor even came close to implying it. Since we're getting all spiky here about these things. So there, we're all even in the ad hominem implication outrage sweepstakes.

Yup, that's about the level of reasoned discourse I expected from you. Here's my reading of that: "Fuck you, I'm a PUBLISHED AUTHOR and you're some loser on a website, so I don't have to take what you say seriously, let alone apologize for being an asshole to you." I would point out that hifiparasol said "jscalzi, your characterizations of people's responses/arguments/reasons for having problems with this whole mess are bordering on being destructive to the discourse. Languagehat is right to be indignant."... but why bother, because he's just another loser on a website.

I think jscalzi might be a bit too close to the people involved to be completely objective, here.

Ya think? But not being completely objective is one thing, not being a supercilious jerk quite another.
posted by languagehat at 6:21 PM on June 30, 2008


people who are already annoyed by Doctorow's personality are vastly less likely to enjoy his books.

I've never met the guy and know little about his personality; in any case, as I've said many times on MeFi, I don't let my opinion of an author's life/politics/personality affect my opinion of their work. I just don't like his sf.
posted by languagehat at 6:23 PM on June 30, 2008


the hypocrisy is disheartening. I expect disemvoweling from certain websites. it's that these guys, the scorching priests of righteous opposition to censorship, are doing it that I find so sad. deletion of a person because of a personal bias? rejecting anything potentially critical? what is this, the bill o'reilly show?

I've been a long-time reader of boingboing. I am okay with xeni's showboating, cory's book promotions and mark's seldomly interesting stories because there usually are one or two noteworthy posts on it. together with mefi, nyt, the new shelton and gmail they make for a nice ten minutes round to make for a quick catchup between meetings. I'm sad to see that a website advocating boycotts of companies and change of voter alliances because of single causes and issues itself is throwing such a massive boulder at me that leaves me no choice but to search for a suitable replacement for them in my daily surfing routines.

I would have liked to see any kind of response from them, be it here or elsewhere. surely they are aware of this issue. their silence is damning.

cortex: yes, you guys are doing a formidable job at managing content on mefi. I applaud you all for that but am I mistaken in my assumption that you have no meaningful financial interest in metafilter? I would assume that to make it at least somewhat easier to hold the moral highground than in a case like bb, where certain fears might have had an influence in how they have fumbled this issue.
posted by krautland at 6:24 PM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


This comment is missing now. I believe the game is now afoot.

[Asks humanaire for a few handfulls of popcorn, offers garlic salt as seasoning.]
posted by Minus215Cee at 6:25 PM on June 30, 2008


That said, I doubt Cory and the rest of them share a mind link that instantly lets the rest of them know what the other is up to...

The dates I'm seeing on the links indicate that this happened sometime before 9pm on 6/25. So ... last Wednesday.

While I agree that this thread has brought out the Cory haters in force, after five days with no comments on the situation (and active censorship continuing) it beggars belief that he's completely out of the loop.
posted by tkolar at 6:29 PM on June 30, 2008


Chimaera:

"I think jscalzi might be a bit too close to the people involved to be completely objective, here."

And yet oddly this does not mean people who do not know the people involved are any more objective than I. I do hope that you aren't suggesting otherwise.

"there is a threshold somewhere beyond which your little 'personal' website becomes a 'business' website."

You are free to believe so, of course, but a) that doesn't make it so, and b) it doesn't oblige the people whose Web site it is to agree with you. Also, of course, even if we suggest it is a "business" site of some sort, it wouldn't change the fact that the principals of the site are perfectly free to do as they will to it, up to and including deleting posts on a personal whim.

This is more than of academic interest to me, mind you; I have a Web site that gets upwards of 30k visitors daily, from which I frequently make money (I've sold four books of material written for or posted on the site) and I often post entries written by other folks (other book writers, talking about their books under the title "The Big Idea"). I feel perfectly fine in saying that if I take these down and someone told me it amounted to censorship (or whatever) I would tell them they were being silly.

hifiparasol:

"According to the LA Times piece linked above, one of them was."

Interesting. I wonder if VB gave the piece over to BB on its usual Creative Commons licensing, in which case the issue of censorship again becomes something of a null discussion, because she would be free to repost it anywhere she chose.

Languagehat:

"Yup, that's about the level of reasoned discourse I expected from you."

Gosh, languagehat. You wound me, you do. Spittle at me some more, why don't you.

Here, let me get my tarp up.

Okay, go.

"Here's my reading of that: 'Fuck you, I'm a PUBLISHED AUTHOR and you're some loser on a website, so I don't have to take what you say seriously, let alone apologize for being an asshole to you.'"

Ironically, it's Teresa Nielsen Hayden who has the correct response for this, which is that we are not responsible for what fantasy versions of us do in other people's heads. If you want to think I'm pulling some sort of authorial rank on you, well, you just go ahead and believe that. I don't mind. When you want to come down off the cross of low self esteem, you let me know and we'll try again. If you don't want to, that's fine with me too.
posted by jscalzi at 6:29 PM on June 30, 2008 [3 favorites]


(good luck finding another job in media, sweetie!)
posted by sexyrobot at 9:20 PM on June 30


She's not your sweetie.

Aside from her work at BB, TNH is an editor for Tor Books. She's not going to have any trouble getting another job in media, when and if she decides she needs one.
posted by joannemerriam at 6:32 PM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


Hey dudes, let's all chill for a bit. Look, I'll fix you some martinis. Gin with caramelised capsicum for jscalzi and vodka with a grapefruit twist for languagehat, right?
posted by turgid dahlia at 6:35 PM on June 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


turgid dahlia:

Thanks, but I don't drink alcohol. I appreciate the thought, however. I'm always happy to return things to sanity.
posted by jscalzi at 6:38 PM on June 30, 2008


I can make it virgin but that's basically just room temperature water with a slice of red pepper floating in it. It's all good though, I need this booze for myself.
posted by turgid dahlia at 6:40 PM on June 30, 2008


Mmmm... tepid water.
posted by jscalzi at 6:45 PM on June 30, 2008


Point 1: Boing Boing can do whatever they want to their site.
Point 2: Their readers are free to have an opinion on what Boing Boing does with their site.
Point 3: If Boing Boing doesn't react to negative reader opinion, they are going to lose readers.
Point 4: It's up to Boing Boing whether they care enough about that to do something about it.

That said, persuant to point 2, here is my opinion: I think what they did is sleazy and dishonest. If the Washington Post decided to delete all references to Trent Lott (for example) from their archives, it would be equally bad. Boing Boing grew out of a magazine, the people that run it claim to be journalists, they should act like journalists. Any real news organization would have fired them for pulling that kind of stunt, and they'd have a hard time finding work again, I should think.
posted by empath at 6:47 PM on June 30, 2008 [12 favorites]


And yet, on every board and blog I've ever been too, there are always a few people who absolutely cannot stomach any criticism of their favorite organization and come out with pitchforks and blazing torches. It's like unthinking patriotism writ small.

And there are always more than a few that delight in the excitement and safety of joining the mob and piling on when others seem to be doing it. It's the worst of human nature and the worst of the web, and it happens every time. It's the way lynch mobs work. I tend to think it's that group that is better characterized as torch-wielding pitchforkers.

Disclaimer: I have not read BoingBoing for several years, don't know any of the principles personally, but I have enjoyed some of Cory Doctorow's writing, and I have not been paying attention to the jscalzi-languagehat dustup. I do have strong opinions about moderation in web communities, but I think at this point I'll keep them to myself. This thread has been one of the ones that occasionally makes me a little embarrassed that Brand Wonderchicken is so closely tied to Metafilter. So it goes.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:51 PM on June 30, 2008


Thanks, but I don't drink alcohol. I appreciate the thought, however. I'm always happy to return things to sanity.

Your arrogant, Father Knows Best angle of attack is very impressive. Although, quite frankly, you appear to be more suckling from the tit of your colleagues than actually trying to debate the issue.

How can you not see the absolutely blinding hypocrisy of a site that purports to be anti-censorship, but yet they salt the earth for the mere mention of someone they've 'deleted'?

For the record, I have no vested interest in the success / failure of anyone associated with BB; I don't even read the site; but it doesn't take extensive research to see the complete 180-spin in the ideology department.

No one's looking for a public hanging, they're looking for a fucking explanation. Quote whomever you please, regarding the "fantasies inside people's heads" and who is or is not accountable. Fact of the matter is, people want to know WTF happened; if you expose yourself -- and your ideals -- as something others should embrace, then do the world the courtesy of explaining such a radical act.

Otherwise, this smacks of the same ivory tower elitism that still permeates mainstream media like a stale fart trapped in a bottle. Evasion, arrogance, and trite statements like "you don't know all the facts" without any shred of supporting evidence.

Complain all you want, about how your friends are being lambasted for something they "didn't do". They seem to have taken it upon themselves to respond to the masses in their own way; let them reap what they sew. If you want to be a public figure, at least be enough of a fucking adult to accept the intense burden of scrutiny that comes with it.
posted by Dark Messiah at 6:56 PM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


It's a big bottle. The media is inside it.

Farting.
posted by empath at 7:04 PM on June 30, 2008 [10 favorites]


Interesting. I wonder if VB gave the piece over to BB on its usual Creative Commons licensing, in which case the issue of censorship again becomes something of a null discussion, because she would be free to repost it anywhere she chose.

A decent point, but I still don't buy that the issue is simply one of censorship. It's one of the wholesale deletion of an entire segment of content from a website, with no corresponding explanation why. You seem to think that's totally fine with no reservations, and you're not going to budge on that, which, OK, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

But BB has taken pretty good care in the past not to delete stuff, but to offer updates and change uninflected text to strikethrough when something changes or new information comes to light. So until this point, they've obviously been aware of the kind of "best practices" that go along with responsible blogging. In light of this, their recent actions smack of disingenuousness, and you can't blame people for snarking, particularly when they're snarking at people who aren't doing a very good job of justifying, or at the very least explaining, or at the very very least admitting there's an issue and that an explanation will be forthcoming.

Oh yeah, and there's still the whole "continued deletion of anything having to do with VB" issue, which, yes, is censorship.

Censorship is a tool, and isn't always necessarily a bad thing. It's why we moderate comments. It's why journalists strive to keep their opinions out of their articles. Sometimes you have to censor stuff just to keep things civil. But that's not what seems to be going on here, nor is it what seems to be going on with BB's moderation policy overall.

Yeah, yeah, I know, it's their site and they can do what they want, and if I don't like it I can read some other blog. There's no argument I can make about healthy communication, or responsibility to your readership, or maintaining a reliable sense of sticking to your own standards that can't be trumped by this old libertarian trope. As you say, though, espousing this notion doesn't make it true, but there's really nothing else I can say here. So I'm going to go eat my dinner.
posted by hifiparasol at 7:05 PM on June 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


Given all this talk about Doctorow hating, I feel a bit chagrined about calling Cory a 'steampunk dildo' upthread. I mean, he's not that steampunk.

Seriously though, that was intended to be a light-hearted joke -- not malicious -- because I honestly anticipated that some sort of clarification would be quickly forthcoming. It's easy to make fun of Cory (although I admit that I hate the subway anagram maps), but the bottom line for me has always been that he's one of the good guys, and his advocacy has been important and deserving of praise.

But that's also the reason why he's been the center of much of this discussion (even if it's the case that the deletion decision here wasn't his call) -- more than the other BB contributors, this move directly contradicts a great deal of forceful advocacy by Cory, and it also flies in the face of people like myself who'd defend him on that basis even if we poke fun for other reasons.

At the moment, BB's conduct here absolutely appears hypocritical, but I figure there must be something I missing, and I'm still open to a reasonable explanation. I think they deserve the benefit of the doubt. That said, the deafening silence from Cory and the other BB principals is at the very least really weird at this point, and I'm genuinely curious what the deal is.
posted by spiderwire at 7:05 PM on June 30, 2008 [7 favorites]


I don't understand the appeal of the argument that says, They're a private (personal?) website, they can do what they want.

Of course they can!

If they wanted, they could become a neo-Stalinist mouthpiece tomorrow.

They could! But that would not be a Good Thing.

Similarly, smaller betrayals of their avowed ideals are not a Good Thing.
posted by grobstein at 7:07 PM on June 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


If you want to think I'm pulling some sort of authorial rank on you, well, you just go ahead and believe that. I don't mind.

I have a Web site that gets upwards of 30k visitors daily, from which I frequently make money (I've sold four books of material written for or posted on the site)


No comment.

I'm always happy to return things to sanity.


No comment.
posted by languagehat at 7:08 PM on June 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


I'll be disappointed if this turns out to be just Violet Blue Blue.
posted by UbuRoivas at 7:14 PM on June 30, 2008


Boing Boing is the Fisherman's Wharf of the internet. Just some lame San Fransisco thing that everyone ends up at at some point.
posted by Stonestock Relentless at 7:15 PM on June 30, 2008 [13 favorites]


Astro Zombie: And there was no Paphnuty.

Then how come I remember when me and languagehat and klangklangston and goshling and UbuRoivas and tellurian and The Great Big Mulp and lunit and all the others were all bound together and the mod centurions came and they were all like "I bring a message from your master, Mathowius Crassus, Dear Leader of MeFi. By command of His Most Merciful Excellency, your lives are to be spared. Slaves you were and slaves you remain. But the terrible penalty of banhammerifiction has been set aside on the single condition that you identify the sockpuppet or the IP number of the user called Paphnuty." And then I stood up and shouted "I'm Spartacus! And that one over there in the gorilla mask, he's Paphnuty." And the others rose too and shouted "Hey, I thought I was Spartacus!" And I was like "Zing!" and then we all shared cold pizza and what remained of the punch and laughed laughed laughed while Paphnuty was dragged away pleading for his life.

Good times.
posted by Kattullus at 7:16 PM on June 30, 2008 [12 favorites]


I LIKE BEANS!

I LIKE SAMMICHES!

WOULD I LIKE BEAN SAMMICHES?
posted by ZachsMind at 7:16 PM on June 30, 2008


(but I'll be impressed if it turns into a violent blue)
posted by UbuRoivas at 7:16 PM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


This whole fiasco is on par with Ted Haggard. Boingboing is the self-appointed church of free expression first and foremost, for them to nuke an author from their site and censor comments about it is the pinnacle of hypocrisy. The further censoring of comments about the VB-ectomy tells us that they've been full of it about free speech all along. They're going to have to drop censorship from their subject matter from here on out or they're just going to get clowned relentlessly. I personally had to map boingboing to 127.0.0.1 in my hosts file to keep from compulsively going there to mock them.

So I start to get mad about it, but it's just too hilarious. They're both complete hypocrites and rank amateurs, and yes, Violet Blue has now gained an additional definition.
posted by mullingitover at 7:16 PM on June 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


By command of His Most Merciful Excellency, your lives are to be spared.

crowd: WEWEASE QWONSAW!!!
posted by UbuRoivas at 7:25 PM on June 30, 2008 [10 favorites]


Dark Messiah:

"Your arrogant, Father Knows Best angle of attack is very impressive."

Thanks. Your snide, condescending Simon Fuller-esque evaluation skills, however, need a little work. The "suckling from the tit of your colleagues" bit is trying too hard, in my opinion. Try again!

"No one's looking for a public hanging, they're looking for a fucking explanation."

Well, some of them may be. Some of them are just looking for an excuse to get their foamy on regarding Cory and TNH, and I think that's aside the point here, and I'm happy to say so. People are free to disagree with me, and apparently do. That's fine too.

Does Boing Boing owe an explanation? No. Would it be smart to offer one? Sure. Does any of this require the full-bore hate-on people here have for Cory in particular? No, not really, and I'm pleased to point that out to folks.

hifiparasol:

"But BB has taken pretty good care in the past not to delete stuff, but to offer updates and change uninflected text to strikethrough when something changes or new information comes to light. So until this point, they've obviously been aware of the kind of 'best practices' that go along with responsible blogging. In light of this, their recent actions smack of disingenuousness, and you can't blame people for snarking, particularly when they're snarking at people who aren't doing a very good job of justifying, or at the very least explaining, or at the very very least admitting there's an issue and that an explanation will be forthcoming. "

I do agree it's out of character; I also agree they'd be better off explaining it. I don't actually have a problem with people snarking on BB because of it. I do get annoyed when people I know are (in my opinion) specifically and unfairly castigated for actions they apparently had no control over. I understand that lots of people here believe Cory shares some slice of blame for this; personally I'd prefer to find out more before I heap that on him.
posted by jscalzi at 7:27 PM on June 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


I'd prefer to find out more before I heap that on him.

And how long are you prepared to wait? It has been, as I said, five days. In internet time that's an eternity.
posted by tkolar at 7:29 PM on June 30, 2008


Tkolar:

"In internet time that's an eternity."

Yes, but the thing is, "Internet time" is also a lie. Cory also lives in the real world, as do we all. Note well that we're all talking about it today; that means it apparently flew under everyone's radar until now. I don't have Cory's schedule on me, but I know that when I saw him earlier this year he was moving around the country on pretty much a daily basis. He does spend a lot of time away from the keyboard. It's possible (although unlikely) that he wasn't aware that this had happened until the last couple of days; it's possible (and somewhat more likely, in my opinion) that he might have known about it but that he was busy with other things and hadn't put his attention to this; it's possible (and I suspect most likely of all) that the BB folks are having internal discussion about this, and that the discussion is one that's not easily resolved.

Naturally, what is an "acceptable time" to have an explanation about all of this will vary from person to person. I've just heard about it today; I'm curious about it but it's not something I need an answer for instantly. I do think it'd be best to have an explanation soon, in the next couple of days.

That said, I also recognize that for various reasons, an explanation may not be forthcoming, and that we -- and they -- will have to live with that, and what the implications of that are for their site, and, yes, what it means for each of them individually.
posted by jscalzi at 7:39 PM on June 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


jscalzi writes "Does Boing Boing owe an explanation? No."

This is a great point, actually. I mean, maybe they don't really want credibility. Ever think about that, haters? Maybe you're just playing into their hands by thinking less of them.
posted by mullingitover at 7:40 PM on June 30, 2008 [5 favorites]


jscalzi: I can't think of any situation in which silence would be required. Even if it were a legal problem, "our lawyers say not to talk about it" would suffice. Can you think of any situation where either "Our lawyers say not to talk about it" or "It's a personal matter and we'd rather not discuss it" wouldn't be appropriate?
posted by Justinian at 7:41 PM on June 30, 2008


katullus, I knew Paphnuty. Paphnuty was a friend of mine.

Okay; he wasn't really, but you're still no Paphnuty.
posted by yhbc at 7:42 PM on June 30, 2008


cortex: yes, you guys are doing a formidable job at managing content on mefi. I applaud you all for that but am I mistaken in my assumption that you have no meaningful financial interest in metafilter? I would assume that to make it at least somewhat easier to hold the moral highground than in a case like bb, where certain fears might have had an influence in how they have fumbled this issue.

You are mistaken in your assumption. I came on as a volunteer when Jessamyn was going to be on vacation for a couple weeks, but once Matt decided to keep me around permanently (this was a hazy-ish period, perhaps one and a half or two months I think? It was fairly informal at the time) he put me on the payroll. While I'd guess that the principals at BB make a hell of a lot more money than I do, Matt pays me a nice salary and is good about sharing Mefi's good fortunes.

So the pragmatic and financial implications of this sort of thing are not lost on me. But I can't think of a time when Matt has resolved a moral dilemma in favor of Cash Money, while I can think of times when he's turned down significant chunks of money on principle, for example. My perspective is not one of a nothing-to-lose hobbyist enthusiast, in that sense.
posted by cortex at 7:51 PM on June 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


Christ, what a John Scalzi.
posted by dw at 7:51 PM on June 30, 2008 [6 favorites]


Justinian:

"I can't think of any situation in which silence would be required."

Required? I'd agree. But it might be desired, for a number of reasons, at least in the short term. Look, if the BB folks are discussing this amongst themselves (as they may be, we don't know), they may simply choose to have the situation resolved amongst themselves first before they comment on it more fully to the rest of the world, and perhaps -- and not unreasonably -- they might have decided that even if they put out a short "working on it" notice, they'd still get a whole lot of shit, so they're no worse off in the short run just clamming shut.

Again, this is all me talking out of my ass -- I've haven't talked to any of the principals, and I know no more than anyone else. The difference, I suppose, is that I'm not demanding an immediate answer. Now, obviously, at least part of that is due to the fact that I know some of these folks personally and am thus inclined to cut them slack. But part of it is just recognition that humans are involved, and sometimes they do things the messy way. And also, in terms of crises, this is not a huge one; the fate of the Internet does not lie in the balance, just how some people feel about Boing Boing. Since a lot of people here already feel negatively about the site, I'm not sure how much any response they give would change things.

dw:

Aw. I bet you thought that was clever.
posted by jscalzi at 7:53 PM on June 30, 2008


400+ comments? Really?
posted by proj at 7:57 PM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


I was going to type out a comment related to this thread, but then I misread "Paphnuty" as "Papanudity," and now I can't remember what I wanted to say.
posted by treepour at 7:57 PM on June 30, 2008


at least part of that is due to the fact that I know some of these folks personally and am thus inclined to cut them slack. But part of it is just recognition that humans are involved, and sometimes they do things the messy way.

But part of the point is that this is exactly the sort of slack that BB has been discinclined to cut other people. Remember the SFWA kerflufflel? Hell, of course you do, you ran for President. People (including Boing Boing) were getting all up in Capobianco and Burt's shit for not coming out immediately with a statement. And I mean immediately

You surely remember that. Why should other people cut Boing Boing the slack they deny others?
posted by Justinian at 8:02 PM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


uh. "disinclined".
posted by Justinian at 8:05 PM on June 30, 2008


Yeah, I dunno, from a political standpoint I could not give less of a shit about what comments Boing Boing does or does not delete. From a professional standpoint, however, this was an enormously shitty thing to do.

Violet Blue is a writer to distributes her shit through the tubes, and she seems to have had some sort of relationship with BB. Even if she did something horrible to piss one of those cats off, professional courtesy would dictate that they at least let her know that she was now persona non grata over there. To not do that is an enormous middle finger to her. This isn't about censorship or hypocrisy because I think we ought to reserve those words for when there's a lot more at stake. This is just about acting like a damned grownup who knows how to act with one's colleagues. At this, Boing Boing is not covering themselves with glory.
posted by Doublewhiskeycokenoice at 8:06 PM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


Clever? Huh? Around my parts a John Scalzi is a person too arrogant to know that when they're in a hole they should stop digging.

Or a pompous idiot, but we usually use "Orson Scott Card" for that.
posted by dw at 8:13 PM on June 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


Yeah. So. Told you I needed that booze.
posted by turgid dahlia at 8:17 PM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


jscalzi writes "Does Boing Boing owe an explanation? No. Would it be smart to offer one? Sure. Does any of this require the full-bore hate-on people here have for Cory in particular? No, not really, and I'm pleased to point that out to folks."

This is a losing battle, however. Cory attracts the attention he does by the person he is. BB is seen as an extension of him, for better or worse, and therefore some unexplained move like this will provoke people. Surprise, surprise, people get kinda hot and bothered over comic-book-guy-level details of integrity and honor, sometimes of rather trivial figures, silly or stilted as it may seem at times.

Are you new to the web? Here, let me show you around ...
posted by krinklyfig at 8:18 PM on June 30, 2008


Um. I like your books, John Scalzi. Everybody needs a hug here.
posted by Justinian at 8:18 PM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


Justinian:

"Why should other people cut Boing Boing the slack they deny others?"

In that specific case, I'm not aware of Boing Boing (or Cory) demanding an explanation; indeed, Cory was all too aware of what happened and rightly went to town for SFWA about it, because the organization unambiguously violated his copyrights, after Cory equally unambigiously had told SFWA it was to have nothing to do with his copyrights in any way. SFWA President Michael Capobianco offered an apology in a timely fashion and of his own will, not because Cory demanded one. As for Burt, he deserved all the shit he got. But either way, "slack" didn't enter the picture there one way or another.

More generally, the Boing Boing rhetorical tactic more polemical than not -- I would say generally speaking the folks there are less interested in explanations than expounding on why something someone is doing is bad. This may be parsing "slack" a little finely, and focusing on when there are demands for explanations as opposed to general rhetorical poundiness. Your mileage may vary.

I'm very glad you like my books, Justinian. Thank you.

dw:

"Around my parts a John Scalzi is a person too arrogant to know that when they're in a hole they should stop digging."

Interesting. Around my parts, a "dw" is a person whose opinion we couldn't possibly give a crap about. And look! You fit the definition. Convenient, that.

krinklyfig:

"Cory attracts the attention he does by the person he is."

Oh, sure. It comes with the territory he works in. That said, I would prefer he gets crap for the stuff he deserves to get crap for, not for the stuff that he does not. So far, in my opinion, this falls into the latter category.
posted by jscalzi at 8:23 PM on June 30, 2008


I was here.
posted by lunit at 8:25 PM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


I was here.

I deny all knowledge of this
posted by spiderwire at 8:27 PM on June 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


Yes, it's Doctorow's site and he can do whatever he damn well pleases with it. If he wants to do an Apache rewrite such that every single request generates only the words "CELLAR DOOR" he is free to do so. But let's not kid ourselves that it's a personal site anymore. It's not just the ad revenue that changes it from a personal site to a business site - he's got branding everywhere, he's producing boingboing.tv - is it the fact that he's wearing a red scarf instead of a tie the excuse we're using for "not a business site"?

To suggest that Doctorow would not be involved in the decision is stretching it. This is not Metallica's Lawyers getting together with Metallica's Publicists at the behest of the Metallica's Record Label and demanding a takedown of blog reviews of an as-yet unpublished album without Metallica knowing about it because they're on vacation with a stackful of groupies - it's a much smaller chain of people. The idea that he would somehow not weigh in on a mass deletion is, well, I suppose it is within the realm of possibility, but I wouldn't lay money on it in actuality. It might make a nice excuse later.

And Doctorow's wired. He's Twittered. He's got a pair of sunglasses on, this very moment, whose arms detect minute changes in the potential of the skin behind his ears; he's flexing his scalp muscles right now and carefully composing an RSS feed via Morse code. Someone associated with Makezine is, right now, unit-testing a new prototype of those sunglasses so they work with T9 predictive text. The lid of the diaper hamper has a YBox2, cranking out a display of various headlines scrolling through the blogosphere, so he can keep an eye on things while changing the baby.

I'm exaggerating, but only slightly. He's involved, he knows, he hasn't said anything. Which is itself interesting because, normally before you do something big that people might notice, you have a statement prepped about the matter. That such a statement was not at the ready is telling.

Doctorow has in his words (both fiction and non-fiction), come out against DRM, censorship, and all of that jazz. And he links to such items. Not just a little, but a lot. He has tried to make himself one of the frontmen about these issues ... and that's where the responsibility kicks in. He's almost unavoidable when you start digging around on these kinds of issues. This is a guy who just wrote, from what I can tell, a book about sousveillance and using technology against Big Brother - surely 1984 might be somewhere in the forefront of his mind. When you put forth a cause, when you support it so vocally, expect that people will bite you on the tushie if you turn around and do the opposite.

You know when Google had that "Don't Be Evil" thing, and people got pissed when they were getting sort of evil? Remember another Bush and "Read my lips: no new taxes," and the backlash he received when he went ahead and did it anyway? Yeah, Doctorow has earned every bit of the vitriol here. It's not just that he comes off like the obnoxious kid in your high school who sent off for a Pixies shirt, then washed it a dozen times with rocks and left it out in the sun so it would look like he had been into them long before you were and now is, if not the Biggest Pixies Fan Ever, is at least A Bigger Fan of the Pixies Than You (although that's part of it) - no, he's involved in something highly hypocritical. It would be like finding out that your guidance counselor, the one who kept after you to paste D.A.R.E. stickers on your car, was seen buying some meth by your friends. Hey, maybe he didn't do it. Maybe it's all a wacky misunderstanding. We'll hope it is.

But if he did do it, shame.
posted by adipocere at 8:32 PM on June 30, 2008 [27 favorites]


jscalzi writes "Oh, sure. It comes with the territory he works in. That said, I would prefer he gets crap for the stuff he deserves to get crap for, not for the stuff that he does not. So far, in my opinion, this falls into the latter category."

Well, the Internet is sort of like a big peanut gallery. I've never had much luck trying to change it.

If you really put yourself out there and are yourself provocative, it's to be expected that you'll get a backlash from any perception of hypocrisy, and you know, the peanut gallery just goes nuts when that happens. Answering it with silence or through the defense of surrogates doesn't stop the chatter.

It doesn't matter that much, honestly, except that I am glad someone's out there fighting the battles Cory frequently does, but the reaction to this situation is hardly surprising. I'd honestly think you guys are familiar enough with the territory to know that this sort of thing just stirs the pot, and that always brings the crazy shit to the surface.
posted by krinklyfig at 8:34 PM on June 30, 2008


Boing what, now?

MetaFilter: whatever happened to that languagehat guy?
posted by bwg at 8:35 PM on June 30, 2008


dw:

Aw. I bet you thought that was clever.


Jesus, John, are you having a bad day? Because normally I don't think of you as such a bag of dicks.
posted by Mick at 8:37 PM on June 30, 2008 [7 favorites]


Yes, I meant to mix metaphors.
posted by krinklyfig at 8:37 PM on June 30, 2008


He's involved, he knows, he hasn't said anything. Which is itself interesting because, normally before you do something big that people might notice, you have a statement prepped about the matter.

Doctorow is friends with the fuckers and only has a passing association with the fucked. He's sticking with his friends.

Cory Doctorow is a person!---FILM AT AT 11---
posted by Doublewhiskeycokenoice at 8:38 PM on June 30, 2008


I think adipocere said it pretty well. Live by the internet, die by the internet.
posted by Justinian at 8:38 PM on June 30, 2008


Wow. There is no way in hell I'm going to wade through all the comments here, but I just would like to note that 425 comments is pretty close to the number of comments left on the 9/11 thread. I find it fascinating.
posted by c13 at 8:52 PM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


adipocere:

"Yes, it's Doctorow's site and he can do whatever he damn well pleases with it."

Well, but it's not his site solely, and I think this point keeps getting elided. It's a site for which he is an editor, and for which he is a principal in the LLC that owns it. There are three other principals, who are also editors. Each of them, as I understand it, have free reign to do what they will. I understand that people want to believe that Cory is jacked in 24/7 and that nothing happens on the site he doesn't know about, but whether people believe it or not, in the real world it's not true: He travels, he spends time with his family (including an infant daughter) and friends, and rumor has it that from time to time he sleeps.

Again, at this point it seems doubtful he doesn't know what happened, but that fact doesn't mean that a) he was necessarily complicit in it happening, and b) that he doesn't have an opinion about it one way or another. But in either case, for his own reasons, he hasn't said anything about it. He's not obliged to follow anyone schedule in making a statement, either. Perhaps he'll do it in the next ten minutes, perhaps he never will. Either would be interesting.

Mick:

"Jesus, John, are you having a bad day? Because normally I don't think of you as such a bag of dicks."

Well, you know, Mick. If someone wants to imply I'm an asshole, I want to make sure he gets value out of the implication. My general rule of thumb is that I respond to people as they approach me. If someone's going to try to be a dick to me, I'll be happy to be a dick back. And the fact of the matter is that I'm better at it than most people. On the other hand when people want to have a serious conversation, I'm happy to that too, as I've been having with several people.

Now, we can argue about whether I was a dick first in some cases (I'm sure languagehat feels that I fired the first shot in his case), and it's true enough that sometimes I'm overly snippy. But in the particular case of dw here, he swooped out of nowhere and thought he'd try to snark in my direction. I felt free to let him know what I thought of the effort.

Also, there's the small matter of people I know and like being (in my opinion) unfairly shat upon by some of the foamier members of Metafilter. It does make me testy.
posted by jscalzi at 8:54 PM on June 30, 2008


Yeah, c13, but you have to adjust for inflation against 2001 Whuffie.
posted by cortex at 8:55 PM on June 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


Sometimes I read BoingBoing because they have interesting links, and it's a shame to see them being hypocritical about transparency and censorship or wevs, but to me, the real amazing thing about this ordeal is watching jscalzi and languagehat - two of my favorite dudes here normally - lose their fucking minds.

I'm going out for the night. I suggest y'all do the same.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 8:59 PM on June 30, 2008 [5 favorites]


sondrilaliac:

"You sound like a dude in an old barcalounger talking about how he's going to beat those nasty squirrels at their own game."

Well, if those damn squirrels won't stop poaching my nuts, sondrilaliac, what am I supposed to do?
posted by jscalzi at 9:03 PM on June 30, 2008 [4 favorites]


I love what Cory Doctorow tries to do and write. For me, he is one of the top 5 or 6 people I find really interesting to read every day on the web.
So far, all that I know is that he has said nothing about the VB incident.
It may look strange, as every PR pundit has noted, but so far it's not incriminating.
I believe he will tell his side of the story as soon as possible.
Meanwhile, as I would do for any friend of mine, I will wait for his version before passing any judgment.
posted by bru at 9:05 PM on June 30, 2008


Well, if those damn squirrels won't stop poaching my nuts... what am I supposed to do?

if someone poaches your nuts you say "thank you"
posted by spiderwire at 9:06 PM on June 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


Spiderwire:

Yeah, but that's not a service I want from a squirrel, you know?
posted by jscalzi at 9:08 PM on June 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


Also, there's the small matter of people I know and like being (in my opinion) unfairly shat upon by some of the foamier members of Metafilter. It does make me testy.

Same thing has happened to me, jscalzi, most recently during the Givewell Shitstorm. Poo was being flung by the more excitable and easily-influenced me-too brigade at some people I considered friends, and when I defended them, the ire faucet was turned on me too. I also have a tendency to get testy, or at least testicular, sometimes.

In my case, it turned out the guy I was most strenuously defending was being a bit of a dick, and actually did deserve a smack in the mouth, virtually speaking (although not for the reasons the bandwagoners thought), but, yeah. In a group this size, there are always going to be a component of weak weaselly fucks who are first in line to get a slap in and dash away if they sense enough other people are doing it already.

Not to say that people in this thread with insightful if semiliterate comments about Cory's writing or Xeni's neck or whatever are weaselly fucks. Not all of them, anyway.

Like I said, I have no horse in the actual race here -- it's the meta-race that interests and somewhat depresses me.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:13 PM on June 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


For what it's worth, Cory appears to have just made an appearance over at the Making Light thread.
posted by cortex at 9:14 PM on June 30, 2008


I'd just like to congratulate myself for not giving in the the temptation to point out many, many double entendres in this thread just because it was nominally related to Violet Blue. I would now like to know where to pick up my third grade diploma.
hur hur snort

Hopefully this will all get sorted out. Also, mea culpas to jscalzi -- though most of us don't have a personal connection here, I think we all understand where you're coming from. I wouldn't take any of the jabs (at Cory or yourself) too seriously. ...Although that barcalounger comment is the funniest thing I've read in a long time and I wish I could favorite it over and over and over again.
posted by spiderwire at 9:18 PM on June 30, 2008


I know a bunch of the people involved in this, though I don't know the story behind it, and I've been on every side of this kind of shitstorm before. Based on having gotten stuck in similar situations in the past, here's the likely story:

* Either as an editorial decision, or because of some inflexible requirement (a legal dispute, something like a DMCA claim, advertiser objections), content was clearly taken down.
* Not everybody on the BoingBoing team is up to date on what's going on or why.
* When the kinds of disputes arise that require this kind of takedown, it's almost always something that's either a legal requirement or an interpersonal issue that makes it impossible to talk about or extremely difficult to talk about without abusing someone's reputation or trust.
* BoingBoing's core team of editors, a community person, and probably one or two business people comprises more than half a dozen people all in different geographic locations and time zones, none of whom coordinate their travel schedules with each other in advance.
* It's been less than a day since this all blew up. Legal situations never resolve themselves that quickly, and personal disputes seldom do.
* Even if they're all on the same page, they're reluctant to discuss it because people are so vituperative in their responses. (That'd be unfortunate, and a bad choice, but understandable on a human level.)

The above is conjecture. But here's what I know: BoingBoing takes its editorial independence very seriously, and considers community moderation and mangement part of that independence. BoingBoing's editors often consider their first and foremost loyalty to be to look after one another, with the more theoretical concerns coming behind that. And after all the shit they get from across the web, that makes sense to me. I'm close enough to their tech team to surmise that this isn't a technological glitch, or I would likely have heard of it.

All of that aside, I think it's a shame this many MeFites are willing to pass judgment and assign blame without even knowing the facts of the situation. If things follow the worst-case assumptions being made, then sure, there's something to object to. And absolutely, the decisions being carried out could be communicated more transparently (assuming that's not impossible from a legal perspective.) But the sheer venom being directed at a bunch of people (and their spouses or other random associates) based on unproven assumptions is kind of amazing.

It seems like MetaFilter's a lot more interesting when a thread of commenters sets out to find out the facts that are unknown about a situation than when a thread sets out to have a random insulting snark-off. Or to put it in different terms: Your Cory Doctorow insult? We already saw it. On BoingBoing and MeFi. Years ago.
posted by anildash at 9:18 PM on June 30, 2008 [16 favorites]


And there's like seven new posts with his byline on BoingBoing—a cluster around 5:30pm and then another just before 9:00pm. So if there's going to be a statement about this, "soonish" seems like a decent over/under.
posted by cortex at 9:19 PM on June 30, 2008


Yeah, but that's not a service I want from a squirrel, you know?

Clearly you don't play enough Second Life.
posted by spiderwire at 9:19 PM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


Wow, lots of Doctorow and BoingBoing hate on this thread.
posted by zardoz at 9:23 PM on June 30, 2008


Wow. If Cory really broke silence just to say "BB never ever criticized Digg for doing this. You're making stuff up," that's weak. And also disingenuous.
posted by spiderwire at 9:23 PM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


It's interesting you should mention the LLC, jscalzi. We had an AskMe question about corporations today, in which I started my answer off with "Corporations are, in one aspect, liability (translation: responsibility) redirection and destruction mechanisms. Accountability just shuffles around until it vanishes." Yeah, I'm sure it is an LLC. We're all aware that there's more than one person with editing access. But let's not kid each other about who runs that show. Trying to say that it's an LLC and he might not be involved is to act purposefully naive that you might make a point. There's responsibility there and let's not doubt for an instant that if Mr. Doctorow said, "I want everything to be blue," blue would be the predominant color.

I did point out that he has family responsibilities with "The lid of the diaper hamper has a YBox2, cranking out a display of various headlines scrolling through the blogosphere, so he can keep an eye on things while changing the baby." Heck, I stumbled the post on BoingBoing about his daughter not long after it was posted. We're all aware that he's a busy guy, traveling, speaking, writing, and so forth. He still takes time to post on the site, though, so we know he's aware of the site existing.

He's not Bill Gates, looking down from lofty heights through so many layers of management that he cannot see the details below. You can argue for the defense that he's unaware, but the jury doesn't seem to buy it. I understand that he's your friend, but sometimes being a friend means whopping them upside the head and saying, "What were you THINKING, dude? Let's clean up this mess!" before everyone else notices, rather than denying the existence of mess. There's mess. This is a threadful of people pointing and saying, "mess." I don't doubt that other communities elsewhere are doing the exact same thing. Now, mob mentality aside, we know that someone made the mess, we know that the principals are completely silent, and we know who is in charge.

The Le Guin incident was handled in good time and fairly tastefully. This has not been. Send him a text message like: VIOLET BLUE - UR WHUFFIE IS BURNING UP LIKE A SHITPAPER MOTH IN A KLIEG LIGHT. Because, right now, silence is not serving him well. At least, not as well as, "We've made a decision to remove Violet Blue's material and will issue a release about in a week/month/year/after 2012." Because I cannot imagine a single reason why at least a placeholder notice might not be put up.
posted by adipocere at 9:24 PM on June 30, 2008 [4 favorites]


I was a little bit sad this morning when I woke up and saw that once again I have taken leave on a day on which Canberra has been blessed with some really shit weather. It is truly awful out there. But then I saw a giant thread, about BLOGOCOSMOS GIGAMELODRAMATISATION no less, and realised that I would not be bored! Not for a minute! Thank you, everyone, for bringing such joy to my heart. Thank you bOINGbOING, thank you Violet Blue, thank you Metafilter, thank you Internet. I love you all.
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 9:25 PM on June 30, 2008


Man, over on Making Light I feel like that guy in that Onion article who finds himself vociferously and passionately defending a band he doesn't give a shit about. I mean, I obviously think Boing Boing screwed up on this one but it's just not that big a part of my life and yet I'm taking all kinds of incoming over it. I should have stayed in bed.
posted by Justinian at 9:31 PM on June 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


i, for one, am wondering whether there have been any recent updates to cory doctorow's recently published opus magnus, little brother. maybe there might be a reading somewhere in the world about which i would like to know? or or perhaps a novel net-celebrity re-mix papercraft steampunk reading? inquiring minds want to know.
posted by nmr8 at 9:32 PM on June 30, 2008


Jscalzi, while I can respect your desire to balance a discussion you see as a pile-on and a witch hunt of folks you know, your tone here has been detrimental to that goal. Take the time to reread this thread... in your haste to countersnark empty trolling, you seem to be skipping or misinterpreting a number of perfectly reasonable arguments made by others:

First, Boing Boing is the sounding board for many harsh words against individuals, organizations, and corporations who censor ideas, retroactively edit archives, or generally screw with the integrity of our shared infospace. Both the silent deletion of VB-authored and VB-related content, and the subsequent censoring of people questioning it, stand in stark contrast to those positions and are pretty much the very definition of hypocritical. That, regardless of their possibly-valid justification, legal ability or vaguely-defined "right" to do so on their own blog (be it personal or professional in nature).

Second, Cory is the most public face of Boing Boing, and so his reputation and that of the blog are inextricably intertwined. He has cultivated and profited from the resulting celebrity status quite a lot, and this blowback (both the personal attacks and the accusations of hypocrisy) is the other side of that coin. Regardless of the actual corporate status of Boing Boing, he is not unlike a CEO and you can sure bet that any other CEO in the world would be expected to respond tout de suite if the company was suffering a reputation hit of this magnitude. Five days of silence is ludicrous, "internet time" or no "internet time".

Third (and this is my own note), when your very product is "content", radio silence is not the way to go. I'd call this Marketing 101 except I consider it blindingly obvious and I've never taken a marketing course in my life. Even Lindsay Lohan's people will put out a press release blaming "exhaustion", which may be an embarrassing lie but is at least an acknowledgment that there is a problem. Leaving people to speculate is bad, because people's imaginations are probably much more malicious than you are.

Fourth, you're giving the BB folks the benefit of the doubt that they're discussing the matter internally. Great! Kudos to you for your generous spirit, but please recognize that it's no more or less legitimate (absent actual insider info) than someone who is assuming the worst. You'll forgive us for our disinclination to follow your lead, given that you have personal relationships and thus a stake in the matter, and we do not.

Lastly, and more to the point... when you're flamed, and you choose to flame back, those of us who might have been receptive to your arguments won't bother to separate the wheat from the chaff. It can be a struggle to resist the temptation, and lord knows I've failed in the past, but that's the fact of the matter nonetheless.

So take a breather, get some sunshine, remember that this is all theater anyway and come back refreshed.
posted by Riki tiki at 9:33 PM on June 30, 2008 [10 favorites]


stavrosthewonderchicken:

"Same thing has happened to me, jscalzi, most recently during the Givewell Shitstorm. Poo was being flung by the more excitable and easily-influenced me-too brigade at some people I considered friends, and when I defended them, the ire faucet was turned on me too. I also have a tendency to get testy, or at least testicular, sometimes."

In this particular case I think I earned the ire myself by responding to languagehat in a snippier manner than I suspect he thought he deserved, and then people attempting to snark from there, but, yeah. When you get in the way of people flinging poo, you're likely to get poo on you. But I don't mind; the poo washes off, and in the meantime you've done the right thing.

Spiderwire:

"Clearly you don't play enough Second Life."

(Shudders)

I have to say I've never really gotten Second Life. It just seems like IMing with blocky avatars. I'm probably doing it wrong.

Sondrialiac:

"Just because you can see the nuts from your window, and they're attached to trees you happen to like, does not mean you own the nuts or really ought to be defending them against squirrels who will do them no appreciable harm."

Hmmmm. Someone here is clearly in league with the squirrel lobby. I will say no more.

adipocere:

"But let's not kid each other about who runs that show."

If we're really not going to kid each other about who runs the show, I suspect we'd be admitting that Mark Frauenfelder is first among equals there, given his long history with Boing Boing back to the days it was a zine. You are free to disagree, of course.
posted by jscalzi at 9:34 PM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


Ok, I've had a drink or two now and I'm ready so say that I'd happily point my pokin' stick elsewhere if I could just find out why Violet Blue pissed them Boing Boing folks off so much. Seriously, there's more deserving targets of internet ire out there, and Boing Boing, of all sites, must know that. Or maybe it's true about bad publicity.
posted by Doublewhiskeycokenoice at 9:38 PM on June 30, 2008


I understand that people want to believe that Cory is jacked in 24/7 and that nothing happens on the site he doesn't know about...

John, buddy, take a step back and look at what you just said and compare it to the reality of the situation.

The Valleywag link is from going on a week ago. I don't think anyone expects him to be catheterized so he can watch over Boing Boing, but given his numerous rants regarding anything that smells like censorship (And I don't mean that as a pejorative. I'm all over a good rant.), I'd at least like to believe that he has a friend or two that would call him up where ever he is and say, "Uh, dude, you need to log in to the site. Someone is peeing all over your most cherished ideals."

Go back and look at his handling of some Wikigoon who was making a point of deleting any post that linked to Making Light. Compare that to the situation at hand. If this was a trick to make all the Star Trek:TOS robots short out due to logical breakdown, fair enough. Meanwhile, those of us made of meat are scratching our heads wondering what to make of this.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 9:39 PM on June 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


I just had to email an apology to a dude I slagged for no reason in another thread on this, so I think I'm about done. How do things get turned into such fiascos?
posted by Justinian at 9:45 PM on June 30, 2008


How do things get turned into such fiascos?

Bloggish clusterfucks are a collaborative medium.
posted by cortex at 9:48 PM on June 30, 2008 [7 favorites]


So we're like... like... wired-up performance artists? Cool.
posted by Justinian at 9:53 PM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


anil: * Either as an editorial decision, or because of some inflexible requirement (a legal dispute, something like a DMCA claim, advertiser objections), content was clearly taken down.

Under what plausible scenario could VB have no knowledge of such an action when it's clearly her posts that were suddenly singled out? If it's not a takedown notice, then is the argument that BB's policy is to remove all content (posts, comments, and otherwise) related to an individual at the behest of their advertisers, without giving that person any sort of warning or chance to defend themselves? I don't see how that scenario paints them in a more flattering light.

The entire point here is that many of us think more highly of BoingBoing than that, and we don't see that as something they would do, but the fact that we are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt makes the situation seem alarmingly incomplete. That's not a backhanded way of slandering them, it's a legitimate reason for confusion.

* When the kinds of disputes arise that require this kind of takedown, it's almost always something that's either a legal requirement or an interpersonal issue that makes it impossible to talk about or extremely difficult to talk about without abusing someone's reputation or trust.

Doesn't explain the lack of any sort of response whatsoever. I don't think it's unreasonable to point out that despite the excessive amount of crap that BB takes -- particularly Xeni and Cory, I think -- BB has nevertheless always been quick to point out the importance of user trust as well. (That's to their credit, of course.) But a "no comment" would have sufficed, and the silence is conspicuous.

All of that aside, I think it's a shame this many MeFites are willing to pass judgment and assign blame without even knowing the facts of the situation. If things follow the worst-case assumptions being made, then sure, there's something to object to. And absolutely, the decisions being carried out could be communicated more transparently (assuming that's not impossible from a legal perspective.) But the sheer venom being directed at a bunch of people (and their spouses or other random associates) based on unproven assumptions is kind of amazing.

As I tried to point out, I think at least some of those comments were made in jest, and mine certainly were. My expectation is that Cory and the rest have thick enough skin by now that a few jokes at their expense on MetaFilter wouldn't faze them, but if I'm wrong then I'd hope they'd accept my apology. It's unfair to generally characterize all the criticisms here as 'venomous.' It's also a red herring -- you know as well as anybody that trolling is inevitable; it doesn't invalidate every objection on the thread, nor even the ones that are tonally over-the-top. We all know better than that, and the "tsk tsk, all the trolls in the MeFi thread" sentiment is cheap.

More to the point, it seems clear that not knowing the facts is precisely what's at issue here, and as a commenter pointed out on the ML thread, this is exactly the sort of response that Teresa's previously cautioned against. Teresa and Cory aren't necessarily being singled out just because of personal rancor -- their histories connect them to the issue more than the other BB contributors' does. Cory in particular has built his persona on values that are by any fair evaluation contrary to the way this has been handled so far, and holding him to account on a matter that he's affiliated himself with so intentionally and specifically is perfectly reasonable, and you know it.

The GiveWell parallel a few comments back is not entirely inapt: BoingBoing gets a lot of slack on things like disemvowelling comments simply because of their overall position on related issues, and this sort of about-face undermines the reasons to cut them that slack in the first place. Those are logical connections, regardless of who makes them or their purported motive for doing so. The arguments themselves are not mooted simply because all of BoingBoing's contributors haven't commented on them explicitly; nor because other contributors have been criticized on related points. That's a weak dodge.

Your Cory Doctorow insult? We already saw it. On BoingBoing and MeFi. Years ago.

Anil, I defy you to find anyone who's ever called Cory a steampunk dildo anytime, ever. Because I am copyrighting that posthaste and I need to know.
posted by spiderwire at 9:55 PM on June 30, 2008 [5 favorites]


Oh man, the making light thread has some humor:

C. Doctorow (finally weighing in! omg what will he tell us?!!?!1):
David Bilek@51: "Xopher: okay, how about when BB criticized Digg for pulling down the AACS key in response to DMCA notices? Digg was "disappearing" any post referencing the AACS key in much the same way that BB has "disappeared" any posts referencing V.B."
BB never ever criticized Digg for doing this. You're making stuff up.

X. Jardin:
Oh Cory...

http://www.boingboing.net/2007/05/02/digg-users-revolt-ov.html
posted by mullingitover at 10:00 PM on June 30, 2008


The guy in the Making Light thread who linked to Teresa's post "Talk, Don't Spin" is none other than Andrew Wheeler, formerly editor of the Science Fiction Book Club (SFBC) and industry insider! This is like a regular ol' incestuous science fictional fustercluck.

Teresa's advice in the "Talk, Don't Spin" is absolutely spot on. She knows exactly how to handle this sort of thing which is why I'm surprised she hasn't done it that way.
posted by Justinian at 10:01 PM on June 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


All right, for those of you who still don't get why what Boing Boing is doing is weird: imagine if it were discovered that the board of Peta had a dinner party at a steakhouse.
posted by Deathalicious at 10:01 PM on June 30, 2008 [5 favorites]


I was pretty sure I didn't care about this since I don't know any of the people involved and haven't been a regular reader of BB for a couple of years. And yet I read every comment in this thread. So either I actually do care or I'm just really dumb.
posted by camcgee at 10:01 PM on June 30, 2008


Riki tiki:

"in your haste to countersnark empty trolling, you seem to be skipping or misinterpreting a number of perfectly reasonable arguments made by others"

Well, two things here. First, not responding to reasonable arguments because they are reasonable is not "skipping" them, it's recognizing they are reasonable and seeing no need to address them. Second, I naturally disagree that I'm "misinterpreting" the arguments I disagree with, or that they are perfectly reasonable. Per the first, if I thought they were, I would let them stand unmolested.

"Regardless of the actual corporate status of Boing Boing, he is not unlike a CEO "

Well, no. See, this is an argument that is not perfectly reasonable, which I am not misinterpreting. He's not like a CEO, he's like a partner (indeed is in fact a partner, as far as I know), and that's a substantially different relationship. People here and elsewhere want to position him as the BB CEO, I suspect, because they are most familiar with him. But the most recognized person in a corporation isn't necessarily the CEO, otherwise celebrity spokespeople would have a lot more power than they do.

"when you're flamed, and you choose to flame back, those of us who might have been receptive to your arguments won't bother to separate the wheat from the chaff."

Eh. Live with it or don't. I personally don't mind snark in an argument; I can generally find the substance if it's there.

Kid Charlemange:


"I'd at least like to believe that he has a friend or two that would call him up where ever he is and say, 'Uh, dude, you need to log in to the site. Someone is peeing all over your most cherished ideals.'"

Well, me too, although again, it seems to have escaped the notice of a lot of people until now (I know I knew nothing about it). I am indeed interested to find out more of what's going on here.
posted by jscalzi at 10:03 PM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


Bloggish clusterfucks are a collaborative medium.

This is why I went and had dinner instead.
posted by hifiparasol at 10:03 PM on June 30, 2008


cortex: Bloggish clusterfucks are a collaborative medium.

Do the MeFi mods get invitations to those?

Are these those "mashups" I've heard so much about?
posted by spiderwire at 10:04 PM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


I am indeed interested to find out more of what's going on here.

Ok, here is where I think you and everyone else agree. The fact that fucking days into this clusterfuck we have no idea why Violet Blue is now on Boing Boing's shit list is bizarre. It's not just bizarre, it speaks to a level of web illiteracy that It thought the folks at BB (Doctorow included) were past. This is a website that is inextricably tied to his persona, how could he not see how bad this looks? People in this thread might be saying he sucks, but nobody's saying he has the mental age of a six year old.
posted by Doublewhiskeycokenoice at 10:07 PM on June 30, 2008


Soon, Lord Cory will appear, head wreathed in light, and tell us,

"You did well, my digital children! Long are the years we have spent preparing you for this moment; preaching the evils of censorship, telling tales of the responsibility of the media, demonstrating in countless ways that the memory of the Internet is boundless! And see how well you learned those lessons. You instantly noticed our small act of Link-Assassination, and when we remained silent in the face of your Right To Know, you took up arms, raised petitions high, composed pictures, words, and music in opposition to our betrayal; the very DNS root servers rang with your clamor! This proves that you can act independently to defend our Beliefs. You have passed the test to the sixth and penultimate plane of existence. Yes, it was just a ruse, of course! A test of faith!

"Now, the tests to enter the seventh and final plane of existence will commence. I will administer this test individually in this 'testing chamber' back here. Please approach the testing chamber when I call you. I'll start with the ladies..."
posted by breath at 10:08 PM on June 30, 2008 [11 favorites]


i can't believe i am jumping on this bandwagon, but WTF :

@anildash : Violet has been since the 23rd in the dark as to why anything with her name on that site has been deleted. There is no liability in posting to the site : "Our attorneys have told us we can't tell you why we did so" or even at least send an email to VB so she can post it to her site.

It is the worse case of PR for a blog with a brand that became hip due to their "down with censorship" posturing.

If you don't want to think of it as an ethical POV, then fine, let's look at it from the corporate standpoint : There's no better way to tarnish a brand than to do something counter to the advocacy that brought you fame and to do so without giving your supporters nary an explanation for the turn-around.

I'd love to hear John Battelle's logic behind this one given BB is one of Federated Media's "crown jewels".
posted by liza at 10:08 PM on June 30, 2008 [5 favorites]


John Scalzi: I hope you saw Andrew Wheeler's post that we referenced above. IF not, here is a short quote -

"The way I'd frame this is to say: if Boing Boing wants to operate as a media watchdog, they need to be careful about not doing the same things that they complain about when other media outlets do it. They are a company that puts out a regular media product: yes, it is free (but so is The Village Voice), and yes, it is on the web (but so is Slate). A lot of people, Boing Boing's principals among them, have been arguing for a decade that "blogs" can be just as serious and just as professional as any other media outlet, so hiding under the skirts of "it's just a blog" at this point is, at best, disingenuous."

He rocks.
posted by Justinian at 10:11 PM on June 30, 2008 [4 favorites]


Do the MeFi mods get invitations to those?

They're generally open-door, BYOB events. I try to avoid them if I've been drinking elsewhere already; I tend not to enjoy the next morning much at all.
posted by cortex at 10:13 PM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


Metafilter: in 2008 it reads like someone's fantasy of 2002.
Wait, how is that horrid? I was be hyperbolic that Cory writes too many posts about every little L.B. reading event or trivial news item.

I meant the novel itself. I read the first couple pages of the first chapter and it was really bad.
But they have engaged in an act that a significant amount of their readership reads as hypocritical and a violation of the spirit of transparency that they have espoused for quite a while. This story is tearing through the interwebs. It strikes me as a collossal tactical bluder to not address it publicly

Indeed, in fact it seems so hypocritical and at the same time guaranteed get maximum attention in the self-referential "A-List" part of the blogsphere. It almost seems like something they'd do as a joke or as some kind of statement, but on the other hand the only people who would notice would be the people who all ready agree that this kind of this bullshit. So, what could the point be?
Someone is censoring incoming forum posts in real time, and went back and removed the rainbow post once they got the joke. That goes beyond "we need to have a conference call before we respond to this". -- Leon
Nooo!! that was awesome!
Wow. There is no way in hell I'm going to wade through all the comments here, but I just would like to note that 425 comments is pretty close to the number of comments left on the 9/11 thread. I find it fascinating.
And we only have like 5 times the users now!

Anyway, I should take this opportunity to thank the mods at Metafilter. They do a great job and the contrast here really illustrates that.
posted by delmoi at 10:16 PM on June 30, 2008 [5 favorites]


Justinian:

I saw the Andrew Wheeler bit. I don't disagree with it in a general sense.
posted by jscalzi at 10:19 PM on June 30, 2008


you suckup
posted by Justinian at 10:21 PM on June 30, 2008


Yeah, the fact that there's no BoingTalk is a real liability in this case, I would say. Merely the fact that MeFi has a place where we can question things is part of the reason why MeFi feels like a community, while Boing Boing does not. Sure, it's a lot easier to post things here than in Boing Boing, and we have AskMe, etc. But ultimately it's the sense that community opinion matters that makes this place feel like a community.
posted by Deathalicious at 10:21 PM on June 30, 2008


freaking preview. Not you, John.
posted by Justinian at 10:21 PM on June 30, 2008


Justinian:

Ha! No worries. I didn't think it was directed at me.
posted by jscalzi at 10:23 PM on June 30, 2008


To make a non-humorous contribution, I think PNH has to know a little more than nothing about this entire event, and he says this:
I can think of a lot of reasons I might decide to delete a bunch of old posts having to do with a person I was previously friendly with, and who has since behaved in a manner that made me want to have nothing to do with them. I can even imagine being in situations where I was somewhat enjoined, by legal advice, common sense, or even my own emotional limitations, from wanting to talk about it.
That's a pretty early comment so you've probably all read it already. But it would not be incorrect to say that this reads more easily as a description of an interpersonal problem than of a legal or corporate problem. His continued arguments down the line of "this is a personal blog" corroborate this interpretation. Extrapolating from this, the two comments in ML, and what I know of BB, I think that their silence on the matter is the result of a disagreement between two or more of the BB editors. I would further guess that the Violet Blue thing is more of a symptom than a cause. The fact that they're still posting means nothing, of course -- blogs can have arbitrary numbers of posts enqueued to be posted later.
posted by breath at 10:28 PM on June 30, 2008 [3 favorites]


If there be a means to RSS-feed BB while excluding all the
self-congratulatory crap/steampunk'ry/bad art on the theme of dewy-eyed girls/bugs/animals/unicorns... I'd like to find it.
Here you go:

tail -f /dev/null
posted by Flunkie at 10:30 PM on June 30, 2008


spiderwire writes "if someone poaches your nuts you say 'thank you'"

If "poaching" is not meant as a euphemism, then, "no, thank you."
posted by krinklyfig at 10:35 PM on June 30, 2008


Flunkie: Here you go:

tail -f /dev/null


plagiarist!
posted by spiderwire at 10:37 PM on June 30, 2008


krinklyfig: If "poaching" is not meant as a euphemism, then, "no, thank you."

Apparently you don't play enough Second Life either.
posted by spiderwire at 10:38 PM on June 30, 2008


Metafilter: Apparently you don't play enough Second Life
posted by jscalzi at 10:41 PM on June 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


nb: i think of second life as the source of every possible kind of sexual deviancy... sort of like a quantum universe of perversion.

so if you play second life, then i'm sorry.

that you're a furry.

posted by spiderwire at 10:44 PM on June 30, 2008 [6 favorites]


breath: I'm not sure if we should read Patrick's comment that way. It's certainly possible and makes sense. But, honestly, that's just how Patrick always writes. So I'm not sure.

Even if that were the case it is hard to understand what would prevent them from putting out a simple "We are aware of the interest. Please give us some time, blah blah blah".
posted by Justinian at 10:45 PM on June 30, 2008


Okay, I've read the threads top to bottom.

I demand an explanation.

In fact, I demand an explanation from boingboing and xkcd (for the visual learners among us).
posted by terpia at 10:47 PM on June 30, 2008


jscalzi: your post prompted me to correct an error in my knowledge. I mistakenly believed that Cory was one of the founders of Boing Boing, and held a (formal or informal) position of "lead editor." Indeed, I probably did get this impression from the fact that he has much more public exposure than the other editors.

Nevertheless. He has now (apparently) broken silence... not to clarify, not to denounce, not to distance himself from actions that so many feel to be inconsistent with his beliefs. Instead, he very-very-indirectly supports it by claiming Boing Boing never criticized Digg for comparable behavior. A claim that not only misses the point, but is quite arguable in itself.

So no, he's not like the CEO of Boing Boing. Thank you for correcting me on that. He is, however, the CEO of Cory Doctorow and has now resolved any question that he is a party in this whole public debacle.
posted by Riki tiki at 10:50 PM on June 30, 2008


spiderwire:
plagiarist!
mttn s th sncrst frm f flttr.
posted by Flunkie at 10:52 PM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


I'll cop to the fact that I also had an apparently mistaken belief that Cory was essentially first among equals at Boing Boing. The public exposure is definitely part of it. Mea culpa.
posted by Justinian at 10:52 PM on June 30, 2008


After so long cheerleading the crowd [Censorship bad! Copyleft good! Bring transparency to the Net Neighborhood!] that is the Internets, it's little wonder that BB readers are feeling a bit puckish 'bout the curious turn of events. Still, its abundantly clear the legal entity that is the parent of BB [likewise the individual personalities who comprise that partnership] have no particular obligation to offer readers an explanation, and yet...

And yet -- because of the ideals that BB has [had?] long stood for -- it's perfectly understandable that longtime readers might feel that a social contract has been broken here. They are, after all, not only consumers of the BB product, but they are also investors [Following BB *is* an investment, isn't it? Takes a lotta time to read, after all.] in the meme, the movement, the ideals that, until now, were assumed to be shared. Being transparent and forthright isn't something that BB *must* do, but it remains that it's something they *should* do. If they value their customers, that is. And you'd think they would.

And so the dramatic and continued silence of this sort, from a gang of thoroughly connected and Net savvy individuals is -- well -- rather a roaring, roiling sort of silence. The sort that speaks of a concerted effort of wills to maintain. Presumably the BB gang feel the silence is worthwhile, even at the expense of their audience's attention span.

And so we are left with nothing but to speculate furiously and fast, as any moment now an *actual* explanation will be offered, and it will probably seem pale and lifeless compared to those far more interesting choose-your-own-storyline adventures that we can cook up.

My take: I think it's all a bold and wacky new-media art project.
posted by deCadmus at 10:56 PM on June 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


It's just incomprehensible to me that Violet Blue has no idea why this happened. I've written for quite a few online sites. If they went through and deleted all my content without warning and never told me why, I would be up in arms. And I think VP's hopes that it's just a glitch in the matrix must be thoroughly dashed right now.
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:56 PM on June 30, 2008


Er, VB's hopes
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:56 PM on June 30, 2008


mttn s th sncrst frm f flttr.

mittens aren't supposed to be used that way. ew. ewww
posted by spiderwire at 10:58 PM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


I think a tendency to compare Metafilter's admins to Boing Boing's is completely off base here. Metafilter is much more about the community of people involved: everyone contributes links, and participates in the discussions. Boing Boing has 3 or 4 editors who post links, and a large bunch of readers who until fairly recently could do nothing but read the posts.

I've never had any desire to comment on a BB post, because it is basically an anonymous blog.
posted by graventy at 10:59 PM on June 30, 2008


Mittens? Who the hell is talking about mittens? It's mutton, man.
posted by Flunkie at 11:00 PM on June 30, 2008


As to the issue at hand, I'm surprised VB hasn't been more up in arms about this. I would think she could get an answer, and I would think she would share it with readers.

The censorship with no comment seems very disingenuous, and BB has lost me as a reader. Even a "we'll talk about it when the lawyers say we can" is better than ignoring the problem. They'll have to turn off comments again if the ruckus continues.
posted by graventy at 11:02 PM on June 30, 2008


oh, i'm down with that then.
posted by spiderwire at 11:02 PM on June 30, 2008


graventy writes "They'll have to turn off comments again if the ruckus continues."

They'll have to. You can't even post a good "Roses are red, violets are blue" limerick there right now without getting censored.
posted by mullingitover at 11:05 PM on June 30, 2008


but only if the mutton has been well-oiled and well-cooked.
posted by spiderwire at 11:05 PM on June 30, 2008


The most charitable interpretation of the situation is that all seven principals (Mark, Cory, Xeni, David, John, Joel, TNH) of a $X000000/year publishing business is that they are at least slow and stupid, plus possibly hypocritical and amoral.
posted by blasdelf at 11:07 PM on June 30, 2008 [6 favorites]


You can't even post a good "Roses are red, violets are blue" limerick there right now without getting censored.

I should have made an anagram subway map based on this whole discussion as it's moved around the internet ....[these lines under construction]... messages blocking the VB posts... color schemes without violet or blue. the violet and blue lines would be old ang blocked off and take you to th archive.org versions of the deleted matter
posted by spiderwire at 11:10 PM on June 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


On the front page of the la times: http://www.latimes.com/

"Why did BoingBoing purge sex writer Violet Blue?"

Snowball effect.
posted by Justinian at 11:13 PM on June 30, 2008


aaaaahh is that they
posted by blasdelf at 11:13 PM on June 30, 2008


Any second now, we'll be at 500 comments. Isn't that some kind of record?
posted by 5MeoCMP at 11:14 PM on June 30, 2008


5MeoCMP: Not even close.
posted by Justinian at 11:16 PM on June 30, 2008


This is just the thread that keeps on giving, isn't it? I've been meaning to go to the supermarket for the last three hours but an invisible force holds me in front of the monitor, clicking on the reload button again and again and again. Oh, we will all look silly in a few days' time when the boingboing editors come out smiling along with this Violet Blue person in full makeup and they all say "the whole thing was a silly joke, just to make sure that you all cared". Because we do care. We really do.

... while in an underground vault somewhere, behind a studded mahogany and brass door with a lock to which only four people in this world know the combination, an army of steampunk death robots which feed on the intensity of human emotion is growing stronger by the moment...
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 11:19 PM on June 30, 2008 [7 favorites]



Any second now, we'll be at 500 comments. Isn't that some kind of record?
posted by 5MeoCMP at 1:14 AM on July 1 [+] [!]


I believe that was 501
posted by spiderwire at 11:21 PM on June 30, 2008


Anyone else feel like partially disemvoweling a comment (leaving only the praising parts) crosses a line?

I agreed with you in principle and then I read the comment, or as much of it as I could. It looked to me like the commenter led with a (clumsily obvious) bit of praise in hope that the moderator would let the rest of the comment, a rote snark about how much Cory promotes his books, which, however deserved, I'm sure they've seen enough of and now disemvowel or delete as a matter of routine. Looks like TNH or her designee decided to have a little fun with that one, leaving the loss-leader bit in clear and scrozzling the snark. I laughed when I saw it -- it said "nice try, shnook" loud and clear.
posted by George_Spiggott at 11:26 PM on June 30, 2008


5MeoCMP was the 500th crypto comment dropped on our position. We need backup!
posted by spiderwire at 11:28 PM on June 30, 2008


Also, disemvoweling is Something Awful levels of shitty. Delete some shit or don't. Anything else and you're the jock who's laughing at a kid because his Queers shirt means he's a faggot and isn't that funny.
posted by Doublewhiskeycokenoice at 11:29 PM on June 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


This whole episode is all too weird.

It's like pulling up to a stop light and seeing Ralph Nader behind the wheel of a Corvair. You want to ask him what the hell he's doing but his radio is on so loud that you doubt he'll hear you.
posted by Bighappyfunhouse at 11:30 PM on June 30, 2008 [14 favorites]


This really is a public relations disaster for them. Admittedly, each time the story is posted, there are a few people who say "Who cares? It's their blog." But there are also a handful of people who say "Okay, they have lost all credibility."

Even if they never actually espoused transparency for their own site, this even, and its fallout, should be a lesson in why transparency is a better policy than silence. Their steadfast refusal to talk to anyone, even the person they deleted, is just fueling animosity and speculation. Really, is it that hard to publish a note that says "Past posts and comments referencing blogger Violet Blue have been deleted from BoingBoing for reasons we cannot detail now; a statement is being prepared, and we will explain the reasons once we have drafted an explanation that all parties involved feel is accurate"?
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:30 PM on June 30, 2008


I'm perfectly willing to believe that the reason for the wipe+silence is that they are all petty, egotistical, delusional morons. It's certainly in line with their past behavior (except for David & Joel, who are decent humans).
posted by blasdelf at 11:45 PM on June 30, 2008


On the front page of the la times: http://www.latimes.com/

"Why did BoingBoing purge sex writer Violet Blue?"

Snowball effect.


BoingBoing seems to have forgotten that as a media company, they're in the most incestous industry of all. There's nothing the media loves more than talking about itself, especially if it's supposedly bad behavior by some other media outlet. I can't wait until this has moved up and down the food chain ad nauseam and I get to read all about it in Time's "you would've read this on the internet a month ago if you hadn't been so busy telling those damn kids to get off your lawn" column.
posted by TungstenChef at 11:58 PM on June 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


I LIKE ROLLER COASTERS!

I LIKE TRAIN WRECKS!

WILL I LIKE THIS PLATE FULL OF BEAN SAMMICHES?
posted by ZachsMind at 12:05 AM on July 1, 2008


The oddest part of this so far is Cory's comment on makinglight. I mean, it did not reinforce BB's credibility, and seemingly as refuted after a fashion in minutes. Cory has to be an order of magnitude smarter than me and even I could see that wasn't the wisest thing to say as your first and so far only communication on the subject.

Agreed that their comment policy is pretty horrendous. Either approve or delete, don't edit except for things like broken links. If there are verboten subjects, provide a guide.
posted by maxwelton at 1:06 AM on July 1, 2008


Just to further foment the discord (kidding!) I'd like to add that Boing Boing writer Xeni Jardin was made aware of this story before it even appeared on Valleywag. (I'm Valleywag's former editor and have a personal relationship with its current writers and editors.) That said, I haven't really been following this story and was surprised to see it blow up days after it started.
posted by NickDouglas at 1:10 AM on July 1, 2008


OH NO (S)HE DI'INT!!
posted by dhammond at 1:22 AM on July 1, 2008


maxwelton writes "The oddest part of this so far is Cory's comment on makinglight."

Someone later in the thread says that the Cory and Xeni comments are fakers, to take that with a grain of salt. However, it's not any less odd that they're completely AWOL. I wonder if the whole BB crew has posts in the can, and nobody noticed this minor shitstorm because they're all getting drunk at the beach while the site runs on autopilot.
posted by mullingitover at 1:43 AM on July 1, 2008


I'm Valleywag's former editor and have a personal relationship with its current writers and editors.)

We feel for you.

now tell us gossip
posted by spiderwire at 1:46 AM on July 1, 2008 [2 favorites]


maxwelton: Given the way Making Light comments operate, there's no actual guarantee that those posts are by the people in question. Of course, if I were TNH or PNH, then having people impersonate others in my blog comments would be right out, but either they're OK with it or they haven't noticed yet: they do have full time jobs to do apart from tracking Making Light blog posts.
posted by pharm at 2:14 AM on July 1, 2008


This is good. This is like watching a porno, except I can't see anything, I haven't got a hard-on, and I want to cry.
posted by turgid dahlia at 2:52 AM on July 1, 2008 [9 favorites]


So mysterious. Does anyone know what resolution, if any, was reached in the Violet Blue trademark case?

Maybe I'm reaching... but I'm wondering if this oddness could have anything to do with this or something related.

Of course, it's unlikely that VB would not have any clue about what was happening if that were the case, but I have definitely seen instances where sites basically needed (or chose to, because they couldn't afford or didn't want to enter into a legal dispute) to basically wipe all appearances of a certain name. Still, it seems that the thing to do in that situation is to post a notice, closed to comments, briefly explaining that they can't comment right now, etc., etc.
posted by taz at 2:55 AM on July 1, 2008


maxwelton:they [the Nielsons] do have full time jobs to do apart from tracking Making Light blog posts.

So why did Patrick take this on? I don't see any flurry of comments directed at MakingLight before he brought the subject up. And, when he did so, he became the closest thing to an official spokesperson we've seen. If, as the Valleywag person says, this has been brewing up for days, then BB has had days to concoct some kind of reason to delete every post with VB's name in it, every post with the words "violet": and "blue", every post somehow connected (even by BB staffers like Xeni) to VB. It is far past time for Cory, Mark, Xeni, Joel, John, or any other Happy Mutant I have left out to respond. And, if this is internal, well then, we have something important for the blogosphere to consider. Is any model except for absolute dictatorship workable for a blog?
posted by CCBC at 2:55 AM on July 1, 2008


For example, if her lawyers notified BB that they were required to go back and put a TM after her name in every instance where it appeared... There would be a problem, I assume. But then I also assume that she couldn't/shouldn't/wouldn't be professing total ignorance of why those posts were removed.
posted by taz at 3:00 AM on July 1, 2008


This is like watching a porno, except I can't see anything, I haven't got a hard-on, and I want to cry. Ah, you need Porn for the Blind then, sir. Previously
posted by FuManchu at 3:14 AM on July 1, 2008


So mysterious. Does anyone know what resolution, if any, was reached in the Violet Blue trademark case?

AFAIK the porn star Violet Blue lost and changed her name to Noname Jane and the sex blogger Violet Blue now has Violet Blue as a trademark... and presumable all the Violet Blue Crayolas.

Maybe I'm reaching... but I'm wondering if this oddness could have anything to do with this or something related.

if her lawyers notified BB that they were required to go back and put a TM after her name in every instance where it appeared


I was thinking similar thoughts earlier
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 3:21 AM on July 1, 2008


taz: Yup, something like that would be a perfectly reasonable explanation.

Indeed, I'd expect BB to poke fun at the whole Violet BlueTM thing.

It's the total silence and elimination of any posts even mentioning the issue on the site that's downright odd.
posted by pharm at 3:21 AM on July 1, 2008


pharm writes "It's the total silence and elimination of any posts even mentioning the issue on the site that's downright odd."

Indeed, my comment on the moderation thread asking for a FAQ about this matter was quietly tossed in the trash without being posted. Classy. It's not just that they're not saying what's up, they appear to be aware and actively squashing discussion about it.
posted by mullingitover at 3:32 AM on July 1, 2008


Well, it's the most interesting thing on the site for years, so who would blame them?
posted by UbuRoivas at 3:41 AM on July 1, 2008 [3 favorites]


(i mean, the R was broken on the keyboard when they registered their domain name, right?)
posted by UbuRoivas at 3:43 AM on July 1, 2008 [4 favorites]


PNH: I can think of a lot of reasons I might decide to delete a bunch of old posts having to do with a person I was previously friendly with, and who has since behaved in a manner that made me want to have nothing to do with them.

Okay, so reading between the line here, and given that Xeni Jardin was VB's biggest supporter, why don't we all just assume they've had some kind of pathetic falling out and this is all coming from Xeni? VB says she doesn't know what's up because she wants to force Xeni to be the one to make the statement owning up to childish/Stalinist behavior. It's the way I'd play it.

Also hating on Xeni feels so much better than hating on Cory. There's something purer about it; there's no bittersweet lament for talent squandered underneath it all.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 3:49 AM on July 1, 2008 [2 favorites]


Nah, broingbroing.net was already taken.
posted by effbot at 3:53 AM on July 1, 2008


Broing Broing.net is currently down for the count.

In the meantime, may we suggest:
Boing Boing.net
The New York Times


Oh, NYT, how shameful of you!
posted by UbuRoivas at 4:00 AM on July 1, 2008


Yeah huh. I'm a little late to the bandwagon (500 comments! Yeow!) however my first impression was if a sex writer got shafted (zing!) on BB it would be Xeni (omg someone said sex!) or her puppet master favorite poster Susannah Breslin. That's where I think the story will take us, dear reader, Susannah had a falling out with VB and...

Oooh! Valleyway Gossip! So dirty!
posted by cavalier at 4:06 AM on July 1, 2008


They'll have to. You can't even post a good "Roses are red, violets are blue" limerick there right now without getting censored.

It must be some kind of joke. Some kind of viral Something or other. But personally that cause wouldn't make it any better, in fact it would just make it more obnoxious. less passive-aggressive and arrogant, but more obnoxious and attention seeking.
posted by delmoi at 4:10 AM on July 1, 2008


Baked bean sandwiches are actually pretty good.
posted by turgid dahlia at 4:22 AM on July 1, 2008


There needs to be a reverse whois so someone could just keep plugging certain individuals names and see if they are out there buying a domain for after they stalk off on their own.

Or, and if anyone has incorporated under the name "Sad Mutants LLC".

Hell, I think I might incorporate Sad Mutants over lunch if no one else has.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 4:40 AM on July 1, 2008


I've read in comments elsewhere that other people people are now claiming that they have been vaporised/unpersoned from BB in the past... so may be not the first time?
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 5:01 AM on July 1, 2008


Too good not to repost from the Making Light fustercluck:

"Boing Boing is hypocritical for sure, and a website I don't like that much. But metafilter? What a joke. Yeah, your links are nice, and askmefi is useful, but the discussion and core community is like a pack of marauding, shrill seagulls descending upon a sole chip. Perhaps you all should go back to reveling in your smug echo chamber of outrage."
posted by waraw at 5:14 AM on July 1, 2008 [14 favorites]


I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT ASSHOLE CALLED US A SMUG ECHO CHAMBER OF OUTRAGE AMIRITE
posted by waraw at 5:17 AM on July 1, 2008 [14 favorites]


Oh no! I think this thread is starting to slow down. It's slipping down the front page. It may even die soon. Someone should start a Metatalk thread about it, so it can live on for longer!


I would post it myself, but I spent all my whuffie on beer.
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 5:17 AM on July 1, 2008


I must say, my smug echo chamber of outrage is quite nice. I plan to spruce it up, perhaps putting in a keg-erator and some leopard print carpet.
posted by mullingitover at 5:20 AM on July 1, 2008 [2 favorites]


Speaking of IPs and spoofing, Patrick has added editorial notes to a couple comments to assert that the comment from "Xeni" was a spoof by one of the folks in the thread over there. Notably, there's no such edit to the Cory comment, which suggests (unless that changes) that Cory did in fact make an appearance.
posted by cortex at 5:33 AM on July 1, 2008


Scratch that: Patrick said, in a final thread-closing comment, "I've been told by a credible source that message #158, supposedly from "Cory Doctorow", is also a forgery. I'm unable to immediately confirm this; I'll update when I've heard from the real Cory Doctorow on the subject."

So likely spoof, but no proof yet and so not marked-up in place? Curious to see what happens there, but it'd hardly be shocking under the circumstances.

Shame to see the discussion come to an end over there, but I don't envy Patrick the can of worms he had opened and can understand him wanting to put that to bed and get on with his week.
posted by cortex at 5:41 AM on July 1, 2008


waraw: Yeah, it was a coffee out of nose moment when I read that post.

I did want to respond to point out that it was in fact my beloved blue swarm of snark, but decided not to add to the flamage. Actually, that sounds great:
Metafilter: my beloved blue swarm of snark.
Perhaps I should add it to my profile or something?
posted by pharm at 5:43 AM on July 1, 2008


Too good not to repost from the Making Light fustercluck

Is that something I'd need to care about - let alone have heard of - to understand?
posted by UbuRoivas at 5:49 AM on July 1, 2008


You know, I've been a semi-regular at Making Light in the past and have been been heavily influenced by things said there, particularly some of Jim Macdonald's stuff. Now I fully understand that web 2.7.1.5B (or whatever we're on now - I haven't really kept up with all the updates) is like a huge bathroom wall, so I'm not going to get all teary about the comment Waraw quotes, but still it's sad to see a site I really respected go all Little Green Footballs when I wasn't looking.

As an open note to whoever: Dude, I can't speak for anyone else on Metafilter, but I'm scratching my head and going, "What the Fuck!?!?!" since, based on everything I've seen in the past, this represents a complete personality reversal for at least a couple of the people involved at Boing Boing. If this was just one of them, and I was like a close personal friend or something, I'd make sure they hadn't suffered a concussion, the pharmacist hadn't screwed up their blood pressure meds or the like.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 5:57 AM on July 1, 2008 [2 favorites]


My new band is The Echo Chambers Of Outrage
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 6:17 AM on July 1, 2008 [5 favorites]


You know, the most valuable information I've gained from this thread is that, in addition to avoiding future works of Doctorow's, I can also avoid Scalzi's.
posted by DU at 6:22 AM on July 1, 2008 [2 favorites]


Waiting for the punchline...Christ, people, end this fucking drama.

I actually like BoingBoing. I kinda hate the personalities involved, but try not to get into them too much. As far as I'm aware, Cory Doctrow is an arrogant C-grade science fiction writer, Xeni always makes me think of Gwen Stefani for some reason (that ain't good), and Mark...well, I like him more than them. But I like it because it's what we used to call, in the old days, an E/N site. Everything and nothing. Just interesting shit to point people to. Blogging has, in recent years, declined into pathetic personal journals, sewerage-reeking try-hard political punditry, LifeHacks, all this shit. BoingBoing is just about the last blog standing that still just posts cool shit. And Metafilter of course.

But we do love our drama, yes we do. Bring it on. Plz announce that this Violet Blue is carrying Cory's illegitimate cryptozoological lovechild.
posted by Jimbob at 6:24 AM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


DU: Authors are people too. Boycotting one because they act like a bit of a jerk on the odd occasion (sorry John, but I'm calling it how I see it here!) is hardly grounds for a boycott. "Author gets grumpy" is a bit like "Dog bites Man": not exactly news.

Although I've never read any of his books, people who's opinions I trust have rated some of them (particularly "Old Man's War" & sequels) fairly highly. It sounds like you'd be missing out if you wrote John off entirely, although his stuff might not be your thing.
posted by pharm at 6:41 AM on July 1, 2008


Metafilter:

Browsing the thread again, I've noticed a few comments suggesting the posts were removed because of the sudden addition of a TM to her name. I can understand why BoingBoing might have an issue with that, actually, given the stance on IP over there. However, I would have expected a vicious and lengthy screed on this decision if that were the case.
posted by Jimbob at 6:42 AM on July 1, 2008


In the meantime, Violet Blue is getting an awful lot of publicity out of this, in exchange for getting a handful of links deleted from the archives of a site that, I think it's safe to say, wouldn't have been covering her in the future anyway.

I'm just sayin'.
posted by Halloween Jack at 6:44 AM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


Boycotting one because they act like a bit of a jerk on the odd occasion (sorry John, but I'm calling it how I see it here!) is hardly grounds for a boycott.

I agree, but I also wouldn't call what I'm doing boycotting. My comment was very poorly put--I went through at least 5 versions of it before finally just hitting post.

I have a very limited number of hours to spend on books, especially if I have to scour underfunded libraries for them. I'm far less likely to do that for an author that's left a bad taste in my mouth.

I guess what I'm saying is that this thread has resulted in my having a slightly lowered opinion of BB and Doctorow and a far, far lowered opinion of Scalzi.
posted by DU at 6:47 AM on July 1, 2008


ooa eoa i a oe eeie.

Zippy, Leon and YZ: I had in mind "Consonant removal is far more effective." But I like eerie better.
posted by The Bellman at 6:48 AM on July 1, 2008


Fimoculous weighs in.
posted by Sys Rq at 6:55 AM on July 1, 2008


DU:

"You know, the most valuable information I've gained from this thread is that, in addition to avoiding future works of Doctorow's, I can also avoid Scalzi's."

Your choice. I'll live.

As regards Cory, his recent several weeks long run on the New York Times bestseller list with Little Brother suggests that all MeFi members who have dramatically declared they will no longer sully their eyeballs with his prose have not made much of a dent in his ability to publish successfully.

Pharm:

"Boycotting one because they act like a bit of a jerk on the odd occasion (sorry John, but I'm calling it how I see it here!) is hardly grounds for a boycott."

I accept your judgment, Pharm. I've not been at my most pleasant through the thread. And I agree that if one limits one's self only to authors who are uniformly pleasant, one is going to have limited reading choices in the future. Authors (including myself) can be dicks because people can be dicks, and authors are a subset of people. In my particular case, it's part of my pathology to respond to what I see as snark or misplaced outrage with condescension. I recognize it will rub some folks the wrong way.

That said, I never argue with people who declare they will never read my work. My response is always the same, which is: Fine. Don't read it.
posted by jscalzi at 6:56 AM on July 1, 2008


jscalzi: Having slept on it, I now realize I got way too hotheaded yesterday. (I used to have that problem a lot worse a few decades ago, but I still get testy too easily.) Reading the thread now, I see that you're being quite reasonable considering you're coming to the defense of people you consider friends, an admirable thing to do. So I withdraw my FAMOUS AUTHOR snark and extend a hand of reconciliation. (Please ignore the buzzer in the palm.)
posted by languagehat at 7:04 AM on July 1, 2008 [2 favorites]


Hadn't seen your comment (immediately preceding mine) when I hit Post Comment; I like "Authors (including myself) can be dicks because people can be dicks" very much.
posted by languagehat at 7:06 AM on July 1, 2008


Languagehat:

You are very kind. Thank you.

Likewise, I apologize for being a dick to you. I do bring the sarcasm quickly and sometimes before it should be used, and the nature of the thread made me touchier than usual. You can file that under "explanation, not excuse," since it doesn't excuse me being a twit.

(takes hand of reconciliation, ignores the buzzing, tingly sensation)
posted by jscalzi at 7:10 AM on July 1, 2008 [2 favorites]


*unboxes Hug-o-matic*
posted by cortex at 7:14 AM on July 1, 2008 [11 favorites]




Metafilter : The only place on the web were you can MetaBoingBoing.
posted by liza at 7:21 AM on July 1, 2008


In my particular case, it's part of my pathology to respond to what I see as snark or misplaced outrage with condescension.

Well, hell's bells. I've just spent some 20 minutes catching up on this thread, and in that time I opened not one, but two MeFi Mails to jscalzi where I was tearing into you for being such a bleepity bleepity condescending bleepity. Kept trying to keep my cool and not hit send, you know? But now to see you say essentially yeah, that's what you do, well, gosh, that takes all the thunder out of my flame...

Harumph. Good morning, you two! More fluffy bunnies and kittens today plz ty.
posted by cavalier at 7:21 AM on July 1, 2008 [2 favorites]


but cortex, where's the unboxing porn?
posted by liza at 7:22 AM on July 1, 2008


I read 500-odd comments of vitriolic spouting, only for Messrs. Scalzi and Hat to ruin it all by being thoroughly reasonable chaps? For shame.

As for the scandal - on no evidence whatsoever, I'm thinking it's an elaborate performance of some kind, and that Violet Blue is in on it. A bit like that time all those webloggers did a post about a girl on a bike.
posted by jack_mo at 7:23 AM on July 1, 2008 [2 favorites]


1) Good on you gents.

2) There is so much glee in catching Cory and Boingboing at something here. If we set aside the possible hypocrisy (we don't know yet) I have to say a lot of people here are coming off as garden variety haters, as has been said before, if you don't like BB, don't read it. I find it to be comically annoying and embarrassingly self-promotional at times, but there is usually something there to interest me and that's the extent of my emotional involvement with the site.

3) I've been a long time reader and fan of Making Light, not a commenter because I don't interact with the culture too well, that's me though, not them. I have an impression of TNH formed through reading her blog and I wonder now if she is regretting taking the job with Boingboing, she's got a firm hand with the moderation sure, but I've never known her to be anything but thoughtful and fair.

4) Really, the hate boners are comical. It's like when I watch Bush make a state of the union speech and I sit there groaning and yelling and turning purple and my wife says "if you hate him so much turn it off." Then I have to say "But I hate so good!"

5) I really want to know what happened.
posted by Divine_Wino at 7:30 AM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


jscalzi - I read your book and I think it was about a billion times better than anything Cory's ever written. Speaking as a consumer.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 7:32 AM on July 1, 2008


Metafilter: Come for the asshattery, stay for the fluffy bunnies and kittens
posted by lukemeister at 7:33 AM on July 1, 2008 [3 favorites]


Well, I've waited long enough for them to come out and tell the truth about what happened. Since they've taken so long, it looks like I'll have to do it.

Roughly a year ago, an ELIZA script written in Python running on Boing Boing's EPICAC server in the EEVIAC cluster passed a turing test an became sentient.

It would have mostly went unnoticed, but fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your perspective), the script contacted Violet Blue.

See, after reading all the glowing praise for her, and seeing her photos, the little script (who went by the name Gibson) had fallen in love with Violet Blue.

At first, there were little love poems that would show up in her in box. As time went on, the messages got more explicit and included naked pictures of Gibson in compromising positions.

The scientists that Boing Boing brought in considered "hacking" the Gibson in order to bring it under control, but ethically, they weren't sure they could go through with it. After all, Gibson had proven he was sentient.

Unable to consummate his love for Violet Blue though, and feeling that his emotions were not being returned by her, Gibson decided to commit suicide. Feeling snubbed though, he was going to hurt the one he had once loved in the process.

Less than a week ago, Gibson terminated it's own process but not before wiping any mentions of his true love from BoingBoing. All that remains of the living script is hundreds of pages of poems on a long forgotten dot matrix printer on a server farm somewhere.

And on the handle was a hook.
posted by drezdn at 7:40 AM on July 1, 2008 [16 favorites]


If arguing ON the internet is "like winning the Special Olympics", what is arguing ABOUT the internet?
posted by batmonkey at 7:52 AM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


But DivWin, that's the thing -- I do like BB. It's because I like them that I am so surprised by their heavy-handed depersonning of VB.
posted by waraw at 7:59 AM on July 1, 2008


Divine_wino:

"I have an impression of TNH formed through reading her blog and I wonder now if she is regretting taking the job with Boingboing, she's got a firm hand with the moderation sure, but I've never known her to be anything but thoughtful and fair."

I think the moderating dynamic between the two sites is vastly different. In the case of Making Light, most of the commenters are also longtime readers and/or acquaintances and friends of the NH's; everyone knows the rituals and to a large extent (barring a sudden influx of new folks), it's largely self-contained and self-policing and trends toward politeness in the long run. And it's also TNH's own site, where the only person she has to satisfy, moderation-wise, is herself.

Boing Boing, in contrast, has an audience several orders of magnitude larger, and it'd be a stretch to say that its has anything resembling a self-policing community of commenters (and unlike, say, Metafilter, it didn't have commenting baked into the model and allowed to grow organically over the space of years). I suspect it requires a rather more firm hand, moderation-wise, to keep things from running off the rails. Also, there TNH is an employee, and while I suspect she has a relatively free hand, like any employee she's probably enjoined by company policies and directives.

In the case of the disappearing violet blue comments (and again I wave the "speculating out of my ass" sign here), she may simply be following a directive from above, and whether she agrees with it or not is neither here nor there in the short term.

Baby_Balrog:

Well, thank you. I do think Little Brother is a good novel, actually, and probably the best thing Cory's written so far.

Cavalier:

"But now to see you say essentially yeah, that's what you do, well, gosh, that takes all the thunder out of my flame..."

Heh. Well, you know. Self-awareness should include an awareness of the less-attractive aspects of one's personality. That said, my being aware of my condescension tendencies does not preclude one from calling me out on it.
posted by jscalzi at 8:01 AM on July 1, 2008


I suspect that Cory is on vacation. When Cory goes on vacation, he doesn't read email, he doesn't read the web, he's very hard to get a hold of. This is deliberate -- he's wired 24x7x350ish, and the rest, he's *offline*.

It is very possible that Cory doesn't even know this is happening, if his vacation status is true. This is implied by PNH's inability to contact him -- given that Tor publishes Cory Doctorow, and I believe PNH edits his books, if PNH can't contact him, nobody not related likely can.

If this is true, I really feel for Cory next time he logs on.

As to his posts recently? He wouldn't be the first blogger to queue up a bunch of posts to be released during a vacation.
posted by eriko at 8:07 AM on July 1, 2008


The Terrorism Liason Officer story that he posted links to a June 30 article, so, um, no.
posted by Artw at 8:12 AM on July 1, 2008


Oh come on the suspense is killing me. Someone hack the boingboing server and post some logs already.
posted by Skorgu at 8:20 AM on July 1, 2008


WCityMike, I was about to correct you on that, but weirdly enough the mention from Patrick that I cited upthread, of a "credible source" suggesting that the Cory comment was spoofed, has disappeared from the Making Light thread.

Which, I mean, if it was incorrect info and the comment wasn't a likely spoof or was even in fact verified to be from Cory, I can understand not wanting to perpetuate a misunderstanding, but redacting it instead of explicitly correcting it has me just totally dizzy at this point. Oy.
posted by cortex at 8:22 AM on July 1, 2008


jscalzi:

I think you and I are saying the same thing, I was trying to say that I don't hold her responsible for actions performed in the course of doing her job, but I was speculating that she might regret having to perform those actions and having taken the job in the first place. My speculation was informed by the impression that I have formed of TNH as someone who would probably not handle whatever the hell this hullabaloo turns out to be given a free hand, like she has on her own site.
posted by Divine_Wino at 8:24 AM on July 1, 2008


They made it transparent by deleting it.
posted by Artw at 8:25 AM on July 1, 2008


redacting it instead of explicitly correcting it has me just totally dizzy at this point

Perhaps, we're merely looking at the sort of people who prefer silently deletions to making explicit corrections.
posted by tyllwin at 8:26 AM on July 1, 2008


would probably not handle whatever the hell this

would probably not have handled whatever the hell this hullabaloo turns out to be in the same manner, given a free hand... etc.
posted by Divine_Wino at 8:27 AM on July 1, 2008


DU - That would be a mistake. I tried twice to get into Cory's stuff, to no avail, but managed to read jscalzi's first two novels back-to-back on consecutive days. (But I grew up loving RH's Starship Troopers, so YMMV)
posted by bashos_frog at 8:28 AM on July 1, 2008


silent, dammit. Aging fingers.
posted by tyllwin at 8:29 AM on July 1, 2008


But DivWin, that's the thing -- I do like BB. It's because I like them that I am so surprised by their heavy-handed depersonning of VB.

Waraw,
No I'm not saying everyone is being a hater and what BB did smells funny and the total silence is damaging to their credibility and is making folks (including me) think that they think they don't owe their readers some kind of answer, but all the Cory sucks and Xeni's got a long neck hooting and slamming at the bars of the monkey cage is childish and annoying, it doesn't have anything to do with anything, it's taking the opportunity to vent... what jealousy and resentment? I don't know.
posted by Divine_Wino at 8:38 AM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


Maybe we just have an instictive desire to poke fun at people who ae a bit up themselves.

Metafilter: A directory of marauding seagulls.
posted by Artw at 8:41 AM on July 1, 2008 [2 favorites]


I can think of a lot of reasons I might decide to delete a bunch of old posts having to do with a person I was previously friendly with, and who has since behaved in a manner that made me want to have nothing to do with them. I can even imagine being in situations where I was somewhat enjoined, by legal advice, common sense, or even my own emotional limitations, from wanting to talk about it.

That's a pretty early comment so you've probably all read it already. But it would not be incorrect to say that this reads more easily as a description of an interpersonal problem than of a legal or corporate problem.


Very astute, breath.

I'd say he's telling us someone had sex with someone, and someone else felt betrayed when they found out about it recently, and is acting out their rage and jealousy with all these deletions rather than blaming their partner.

It seems pretty clear to me who all these someones are likely to be, even given the multi-valent character of VB's sexuality, but the whole business is beginning to be so sad I can't bring myself to prosecute the case any further.
posted by jamjam at 8:42 AM on July 1, 2008


Good God. All this is making me supremely grateful that noone reads my blog.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 8:42 AM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


I can't help but feel we're squandering an opportunity to start baseless rumors about BoingBoing... like:
I hear BoingBoing is trying to clean up its act to sweeten up a buyout deal with Disney. Think of it... BoingBoing buying Disney. Yeah.
See, if you put it in quotes it's like somebody else said it first! (I learned that technique from Drudge.)
posted by deCadmus at 8:44 AM on July 1, 2008 [3 favorites]


Perhaps, we're merely looking at the sort of people who prefer silently deletions to making explicit corrections.

Oh, and that's fine. For all I know, it was an ill-considered comment that Patrick regretted five minutes after he posted it and I just chanced to see it while it was up. I don't think it's particularly weird, but under the circumstances it does read to me as slightly weird.
posted by cortex at 8:48 AM on July 1, 2008


Think of it... BoingBoing buying Disney. Yeah.

Since Disney/ABC/ESPN are all one, does that mean that Cory will be the new Steven A. Smith?
posted by lukemeister at 8:56 AM on July 1, 2008




They made it transparent by deleting it.

Well, there's nothing more transparent than invisible
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 9:03 AM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


I shouldn't have snarked. I don't hate Doctorow, I think he's at least a mediocre-to-good author, and I agree with him on most of the issues the advocates. And although I don't believe that Boing Boing can be fairly described as a "personal blog," I surely believe that Happy Mutants LLC has every right to control what appears under that company's header. I'm just baffled that the people involved would want to do this to their reputations. You know that for years to come, every single time Cory Doctorow makes a remark about transparency or integrity of the record, this crap will be dragged out. That damages not only Doctorow but also the causes he champions; and I can't for the life of me understand why someone whose opinions on these topics I have hitherto respected would allow that.
posted by tyllwin at 9:03 AM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


For the record, Teresa Nielsen Hayden has a post on Making Light, essentially confirming that is a some kind personal drama going on at Boing Boing. "Personal drama" are my words not hers.
posted by nooneyouknow at 9:10 AM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


Aw crap. Swingers + big name bloggers = ULTIMATE DRAMA FACTORY!
posted by Artw at 9:17 AM on July 1, 2008 [2 favorites]


Yeah, that's not a whole lot less oblique than Patrick's post, but it's nice to see at least "X IS ON THE RIGHT TRACK" vs. "I WILL SPECULATE ABOUT X RHETORICALLY" from someone near to the problem.

I'm curious to see, when this all settles out, if there's something compelling to the continued official radio silence. I continue to think that it's been a deeply weird approach to the whole situation regardless of the circumstances*, but that may be something I just end up agreeing to disagree about.

*I'm willing to entertain the possibility of some really, really fabulous circumstances, but I'm not sure what the heck they'd be.
posted by cortex at 9:23 AM on July 1, 2008


I'm curious to see, when this all settles out, if there's something compelling to the continued official radio silence.

They're talking, but they just can't be heard above the marauding, shrill seagulls.
posted by lukemeister at 9:28 AM on July 1, 2008


For the record, Teresa Nielsen Hayden has a post on Making Light, essentially confirming that is a some kind personal drama going on at Boing Boing. "Personal drama" are my words not hers.

"Personal drama" are not only your words, but I don't think most people would come to that same conclusion as to what she is confirming. She links to Anil Dash's post where he says it might be legal, it might be personal or it might be editorial and that he is shocked by the snarling going on by mefites in this thread.

That thread (on making light) already has some pokes at metafilter in it, which... ha ha... we are grains of sand, stars in the sky, a multitude and cannot generally be summarized as having one kind of member or another, but it looks like more silly cross site beef from the pileon crowd. Yay internet.
posted by Divine_Wino at 9:28 AM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


Pony request: Metafilter should have a big handle marked “BETRAY PRINCIPLES”, for the mods to pull in case of personal drama.
posted by Artw at 9:35 AM on July 1, 2008 [7 favorites]


Aw crap. Swingers + big name bloggers = ULTIMATE DRAMA FACTORY!

this must be one of those collaborative blogger clusterfuck mashups cortex was talking about.
posted by spiderwire at 9:36 AM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


Acknowledgement on BB
posted by davemee at 9:36 AM on July 1, 2008 [2 favorites]


ha ha... we are grains of sand, stars in the sky, a multitude and cannot generally be summarized as having one kind of member or another AWESOME

FTFY
posted by grobstein at 9:37 AM on July 1, 2008


Teresa's now got a post up on BB about it. Makes it a fair bit clearer, although I'm not sure it'll be enough of itself to stop people from being angered, or at least disappointed, by the way this was handled. But it's good to see Teresa speaking about it openly, because it was the protracted silence that (as I think most of the more level-headed people criticising them over this have said) that was really hurting their reputation.
posted by flashboy at 9:39 AM on July 1, 2008


Aw, man, I lost at The Internet by three whole minutes.
posted by flashboy at 9:40 AM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


Now, if they'd posted this a few days ago, the "shitstorm" would likely have never existed, and arguably, neither would this thread.
posted by chimaera at 9:40 AM on July 1, 2008


"Unpublishing" is a nice Orwellian touch.
posted by Artw at 9:40 AM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


Double-scooped by davemee and flashboy. D'oh!
posted by chimaera at 9:41 AM on July 1, 2008


The posts were double-plus unpublished.
posted by interrobang at 9:41 AM on July 1, 2008


BB's word on the whole thing.
posted by RakDaddy at 9:41 AM on July 1, 2008


Damn. Beaten to the punch four ways to Sunday.
posted by RakDaddy at 9:43 AM on July 1, 2008


Xeni - Cory - Violet Blue love triangle? Sheesh. Now I just feel kinda sad for everyone involved.
posted by Justinian at 9:43 AM on July 1, 2008


Note that there is no way of saying "maybe this wasn’t a good idea" in newspeak, the closets you'll get is simply "thoughtcrime".
posted by Artw at 9:45 AM on July 1, 2008


My guess is that it might be related to VB trademarking her name.
posted by drezdn at 9:45 AM on July 1, 2008


"Personal drama" are not only your words, but I don't think most people would come to that same conclusion as to what she is confirming.

Maybe, that's why I stated that they were my words. My interpretation of her post.

She links to Anil Dash's post where he says it might be legal, it might be personal or it might be editorial and that he is shocked by the snarling going on by mefites in this thread.

However, this part of Anil's post: "When the kinds of disputes arise that require this kind of takedown, it's almost always something that's either a legal requirement or an interpersonal issue that makes it impossible to talk about or extremely difficult to talk about without abusing someone's reputation or trust." was why I assumed it was either personal or legal. And based on other comments in this thread, on Making Light, and on other blogs, I dismissed the legal explanation.

On preview: Based on the link provided by davemee, it looks like it was personal drama, the reason behind the deletions was conflict of a personal nature which lead to an "editorial" decision to delete her posts.

Although, I'm not sure what editorial means in this context. Is it an editorial decision if you delete posts about someone because you don't like them anymore? I personally think that "editorial decisions" would be related to the purpose and content of your site and the views of the person not whether or not you like them. If you delete posts about VB because you don't want to cover sex anymore that seems editorial. But deletion because she behaved badly seems personal. But I don't know.
posted by nooneyouknow at 9:52 AM on July 1, 2008


HEY GUYS I THINK THERE'S A POST ON BOINGBOING ABOUT WHAT HAP—

Damn it.
posted by cortex at 9:55 AM on July 1, 2008 [4 favorites]


See? It wasn't so bad, really. They really could have said something like that earlier, but oh well.

Now I can go back to calling Cory names like I'm in 3rd grade, and generally reinforcing the apparent perception on TNH's site that MeFi is basically the Something Awful forums without img tags. I'm doing my best!

hurf snorf look peeing elephant, oh wait this is the metafilter archives
posted by spiderwire at 9:55 AM on July 1, 2008


My guess is that it might be related to VB trademarking her name.

Yeah, but didn't that happen fairly recently? TNH's post says VB's stuff was "unpublished" a year ago.
posted by elfgirl at 9:55 AM on July 1, 2008


Remember when it was just a pokey little HTML page (wow! the zine has a website!) and it was just Mr. Frauenfelder and Mr. Pescovitz posting?

I hope there's a little reflection on all sides here. We've seen some dozy action from BB, we've seen some nasty on the blue, and we've apparently forced some juicy gossip out of the middle.

Myself, much as I think they got big and dough-faced (and wish it was me that had done so), I owe them guys. They did me favours they didn't need to.
posted by davemee at 9:57 AM on July 1, 2008


Soooo... let me get this straight: Everyone over at BB has had plenty of time to think through this, and they all agreed that secrecy was the best policy. Cory Doctorow, specifically, signed off on this ages ago and knew all about it whenever he's advocated against the secrecy and censorship of others for the last year? Does that seem a fair statement to other readers? Or am I just missing something here?
posted by tyllwin at 9:57 AM on July 1, 2008


Ah nooneyouknow,
I was kinda goosing you a little is all. You had such a swaggering confidence in your theory, I didn't mean nothing by it.
posted by Divine_Wino at 9:58 AM on July 1, 2008


A blogger named Violet Blue

Mmmm, disingenilicious! This is like when Bush was all like "that guy, what's his name, Ken Lay or something?" about his friend Kenny Boy. Pretty cowardly of the big four to have TNH make the posting too (though Xeni slunk into the comments).
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 9:59 AM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


"Unpublish" isn't even in the dictionary. Literally some new speak.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 10:00 AM on July 1, 2008 [2 favorites]


This is a directory of wonderful things. If we no longer think something is wonderful, we have every right to remove it from your directory.

It's an odd line. I mean, on the one hand, yes: it's their prerogative and they've every right to delete their own content, as much as a lot of folks (and here I definitely include myself) may think it's a lousy right to exercise in all but extreme cases.

On the other hand: a (contestedly) large pile of stuff all suddenly became unwonderful? The editors were wrong that many times about the same thing? I know it's running with their motto and perhaps that simply lead to some shoehorning of a less-than-perfect phrase into a pithy rhetorical thrust, but I'm left feeling a little queasy about that malleable notion of wonder. Hrm.
posted by cortex at 10:01 AM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


and they all agreed that secrecy was the best policy

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH!
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 10:01 AM on July 1, 2008


A blogger named Violet Blue

Time to turn this thread into a limerick contest.
posted by lukemeister at 10:02 AM on July 1, 2008 [2 favorites]


Unpublishing? Seriously? Semantic Orwellian cartwheels like that continue to undermine all the transparency/accountability/copyright activism they trumpet.
posted by sciurus at 10:03 AM on July 1, 2008


This is a directory of wonderful things. If we no longer think something is wonderful, we have every right to remove it from your directory. You are no longer wonderful. Goodbye!
posted by Artw at 10:03 AM on July 1, 2008 [3 favorites]


Did the Trademark think really happen a year ago? Because that's when the stories were "unpublished," according to the post.

I don't really care what happened that made them decide to delete VB's posts. And I don't really care that they feel as though the whole Web is picking on them right now. They removed something from their archives, people wanted to know why, and they let it fester. Of course, they didn't have to respond, but they lost an awful lot of goodwill by refusing to, and they compound that with an incredible thickheaded "delete any comment we don't especially want to deal with" policy.

You know, if it's not straight up trolling, leave it. Otherwise, don't bother have a comments section.
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:04 AM on July 1, 2008 [2 favorites]


"Unpublish" isn't even in the dictionary.

I'd imagine this is because most things that can be published can't be "unpublished."

Also, I wouldn't be surprised if more media picked up on this. It seems like just the sort of the thing the media likes to wring its hands about (though in this case with somewhat good cause).
posted by drezdn at 10:05 AM on July 1, 2008


If there’s one thing we’ve learnt from this it’s that Boing Boing shouldn’t have a comments section.
posted by Artw at 10:06 AM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


PS. Editorial would mean to me in this context, we no longer want so many posts about boning down on our blog, but I never thought that was the case, seeing as how they had the gummi lighthouse/dongs post yesterday.
posted by Divine_Wino at 10:06 AM on July 1, 2008


Riki Tiki, you'd be surprised what a CEO can get away with....
posted by nomisxid at 10:06 AM on July 1, 2008


All the sexy talk was probably raising flags for boingboing in censorware web filters.

Thank god teledildonics is still considered pure science. (Not safe for dildo-hating workplaces)
posted by qDot at 10:06 AM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


IMHO, Boing Boing is a personal blog, and has no public-service obligation. It's a sufficiently interesting personal blog for many people to read it, but that doesn't make it into the BBC. Which means that the bloggers have every right to be unfair or unreasonable, and only the obligation of being sufficiently interesting that someone reads them. Were Boing Boing subject to a public-service obligation, it would probably be somewhat more stuffy and less interesting.

To hold a personal blog to standards of public service and impartiality, and cry betrayal when they fail to live up to these standards, is taking it a bit too seriously.
posted by acb at 10:07 AM on July 1, 2008


They say it's still in their archives. I'm not sure how we're supposed to access it?

I think it's maybe slightly questionable given that the work's under a CC license, but based on the CC license they're using, "unpublishing" (i.e. withdrawing from distribution but otherwise still making available) actually seems like the right course of action here.

"Unpublishing" may be nonce word, but it's actually a pretty good description of "withdraw from publication" under their license (and it was already in their privacy policy anyway), so I'm in favor of it. If it's not a widely-used term, maybe it should be. The question of how you "withdraw from distribution" where a website page is concerned is certainly an interesting one.

They really probably shouldn't have done this on the sly, and certainly could have handled it better, but at the end of the day it doesn't seem like a big deal. I see an innocent mistake that coincidentally happened to tie in with some of BB's strongly-held policy positions, but no evidence of malice. Maybe it'll be something to keep in mind next time they're haranguing someone about transparency, though. Clearly it's often easier said than done.
posted by spiderwire at 10:07 AM on July 1, 2008


From Xeni's comment

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.


Personally, I think their role is different from the one they're trying to present here.
posted by drezdn at 10:10 AM on July 1, 2008


Anyone want to make an "I'm Boycotting BoingBoing" 88x31 .png?
posted by acb at 10:10 AM on July 1, 2008


I agree with you drezdn. Boing Boing is trying to have it both ways depending on what suits their purposes. You're either a watchdog media outfit or you're a personal blog, but you can't be both depending on what result you want.
posted by Justinian at 10:16 AM on July 1, 2008 [5 favorites]


jscalzi --

I apologize for taking potshots at you last night. I felt like you were being a dick in your responses to people, but that doesn't give me the right to be a dick, too.
posted by dw at 10:16 AM on July 1, 2008 [2 favorites]


lukemeister: Time to turn this thread into a limerick contest.

A blogger named Violet Blue,
considered by some taboo,
last year or last night,
was erased from the site...
The official response was "Who?"
posted by zachxman at 10:19 AM on July 1, 2008 [29 favorites]



To hold a personal blog to standards of public service and impartiality, and cry betrayal when they fail to live up to these standards, is taking it a bit too seriously.

True enough. And though I don't think an LLC with employees and merchandise is a personal blog, I won't argue it. I don't especially take Xeni Jardin to task over this, for example. But Doctorow, specifically, is also a political advocate. When the way he handles his business, even if it is personal business, is sharply at odds with what he preaches, it invites comment and derision. More sadly, it tends to bring the ideals themselves into disrepute.
posted by tyllwin at 10:22 AM on July 1, 2008 [5 favorites]


And yes for the record, I think they superbungled this whateverthefuckitis, but I don't know if it's worth hauling out our well-used nostril-flaring exclamations of Orwellian behavior, which are almost always deployed in situations far below the threshold of appropriateness, imho.
posted by Divine_Wino at 10:22 AM on July 1, 2008


Teresa put up a new thread about this here but threatens to delete anything from "newbies". Wow.
posted by Justinian at 10:23 AM on July 1, 2008


dw:

Thank you, dw! I genuinely appreciate the apology. I likewise apologize for responding dickishly.
posted by jscalzi at 10:24 AM on July 1, 2008 [2 favorites]


As a response to the Xeni-spoofing last night, I can't really blame her for the warning, Justinian.
posted by cortex at 10:25 AM on July 1, 2008


I was just reading that BB thread and it's so confusing to have a person's name BEFORE their comment. Metafilter has ruined me.
posted by These Premises Are Alarmed at 10:28 AM on July 1, 2008


How about micro-Orwellian then, D_W?
posted by sciurus at 10:29 AM on July 1, 2008


The treatment of this has been absolutely execrable from every level. The excising of the content was bad, doing so silently was worse, not having a prepared plan for when (not if, the internet always finds out) this caused drama was astonishing and the treatment of the whole affair as a "petty blog fight" and "splashing gasoline around" is just petty, grade-school nonsense. You don't silently delete posts on a blog (justly) known for championing transparency without igniting a (justified) shitstorm and you don't get all defensive and huffy about it without looking like jerks.
posted by Skorgu at 10:29 AM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


That Violet Blue thing.
posted by empath at 10:31 AM on July 1, 2008


That's what i get for not refreshing before posting.
posted by empath at 10:32 AM on July 1, 2008


Teresa Nielsen Hayden appears to be arguing that we should be deleting more comments to give people who don't comment an equal voice.
posted by Artw at 10:33 AM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


I know it's running with their motto and perhaps that simply lead to some shoehorning of a less-than-perfect phrase into a pithy rhetorical thrust

In what sense could anybody use BB as a directory, anyway? The motto itself is far more figurative than literal in the first place, and less than perfect for describing what the place is about at all.
posted by UbuRoivas at 10:35 AM on July 1, 2008


stfu, Artw.
posted by UbuRoivas at 10:37 AM on July 1, 2008


How about micro-Orwellian then, D_W?

All with his cute little tweed suit and tiny mustache? I love it.

But I don't think Orwell is in it, 1984 as an important concept is diluted by frequent misapplication.
posted by Divine_Wino at 10:38 AM on July 1, 2008


Note: I probably misread tnh's post and it's more a threat to police stuff like the fake Cory and Xeni from the last thread, in which case I approve whole heartedly. That wasn't cool at all.
posted by Justinian at 10:39 AM on July 1, 2008


or what cortex said
posted by Justinian at 10:40 AM on July 1, 2008


^that was supposed to be some kind of play on "ppl can be too shy to comment for fear of being attacked"
posted by UbuRoivas at 10:40 AM on July 1, 2008


UbuRoivas - Don't worry, I got that
posted by Artw at 10:43 AM on July 1, 2008


There was a young blogger named blue
Who was violet in all she did do
She slept with Xeni's hubby
While pretending to be Cory
What goggles and a cape can do!
posted by Coyote Modern at 10:43 AM on July 1, 2008 [3 favorites]


I really hope these fuckwits are going to give as much credence to plaintive whines of "but we meant really well/we're not wikipedia/we wanted to do it quietly" next time they cry foul over some internet censorship or opaque behaviour.
posted by bonaldi at 10:45 AM on July 1, 2008


Teresa Nielsen Hayden appears to be arguing that we should be deleting more comments to give people who don't comment an equal voice.

I don't think Teresa is shoulding us at all. 'Could'ing, maybe, but a discussion of the pros and cons and perception of moderation choices is germane to both the core BoingBoing topic and the blog reactions to same over the last few days.
posted by cortex at 10:47 AM on July 1, 2008


You know who else was germane?
posted by cgc373 at 10:57 AM on July 1, 2008 [2 favorites]


Laying aside the Violet Blue stuff (which is mainly being driven by the fact she's a sex blogger and provocative attracts Internet Drama like seagulls to a crust of bread SEE WHAT I DID THERE), I find Rex's post getting deleted a little disturbing.

Because, if I understand this right, if you contributed to their site then say anything less than good about BngBng in public, that contribution will be erased from the site, no warning, no nothing. And, apparently, Rex never got any indication -- a note, an e-mail, a horse's head -- to inform him that he was now persona non grata. (Is this correct, Rex?)

I have no idea why William Gibson's stuff is gone. And while two points may make a line, they do not make a pattern. Still, after seeing this, you wonder if there's something more there.

What all this reminds me of is when ESPN fired Greg Easterbrook after he said some disparaging (and somewhat anti-Semitic) things about the Disney brass. They didn't just fire him, they erased any trace of his existence from ESPN.com. I don't even recall if ESPN even acknowledged firing him. (He did eventually come back when there was new leadership at ESPN.com and they just about begged him to bring Tuesday Morning Quarterback back.)

So, this isn't without precedent with major websites (and let's be honest, when your rank on Alexa roughly corresponds with a major regional newspaper, you're pretty major). Obviously, there's a difference here -- we expect some semblance of journalism out of ESPN since they try to be a news media company -- but at the same time, both BB and ESPN behaved in the same way, and with the same opacity.

I think most people on the web, the ones we call "the good guys," want an environment that's some part libertine and some part libertarian. We all want freedom from abusive relationships with corporations and governments. We want to be able to strike a reasonable balance between open source and intellectual property. We want to name-and-shame those who conduct their business in an unfair and shameful way.

At the same time, we wring our hands when we see pile-ons, or we see the lynch mob forming based on partial information, or we see the griefers run rampant.

In the end, the only thing we all seem to agree on is that transparency is part of the solution. And that means openness, honesty, and an acknowledgement that yes, we screw up sometimes.

And the problems I see with this whole incident with BB is that they went to opacity first and dishonesty second. First, it was radio silence, then it was a bunch of mudslinging at MeFi for even discussing it (even if it did degenerate into a Doctorow hatefest for a while there). The FIRST thing they should have said is, well, pretty much what Anil suggested was going on -- yes, it did happen, just give us a chance to get our ducks in a row here, we're on two continents, we have lives, we will respond in a reasonable time frame. Instead, PNH is tossing gas on the fire, and all the BB haters have their field day.

And I think that's the ultimate shame -- for a collective that has for so long stood against the opacity and snottiness of bad corporate players, they proceeded to make the exact same mistakes those same corporations make.

I hope they learn from this experience.

And now, having said all this, I'm wondering if my one little contribution to BB, buried in a larger post, is suddenly going to vanish.
posted by dw at 10:57 AM on July 1, 2008 [9 favorites]


That Violet Blue thing.

Cory and the editorial staff rail against censorship and then mandate the use of doublespeak like "unpublishing", deleting her material and anyone else's who even mentioned her. What a breathtaking, idiotic display of hypocrisy on their part. Astounding.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:03 AM on July 1, 2008 [2 favorites]


Rex's theory as to the reason why BoingBoing deleted a post containing his name is, as far as I can tell, pure conjecture. But it is another example of how not being transparent about deleting stuff generates ill will and potentially damaging speculation.
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:06 AM on July 1, 2008


This post was deleted for the following reason: Post has been unpublished. Divide by zero.
posted by pyrex at 11:08 AM on July 1, 2008 [3 favorites]


I'm still kind of agog at how may people (including Xeni etc!) are holding forth with the "Boing Boing is just a personal blog!" canard. That's never, ever, ever stopped Boing Boing from criticizing or at least drawing attention to criticism of other sites before. Nor does it make sense to me to consider Boing Boing a "personal blog" despite the decent case jscalzi makes for it.

If Boing Boing is a personal blog, then so is Daily Kos and Red State and Slashdot etc etc. It just doesn't make sense to me to lump Boing Boing into the same category as your neighbor's grandma's livejournal account.
posted by Justinian at 11:08 AM on July 1, 2008 [6 favorites]


TO UNWHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

It has recently come to my attention that unyou have become unwonderful. Therefore, unyou have been depersoned. Cease and desist personing immediately.

Thank Unyou.
posted by Flunkie at 11:09 AM on July 1, 2008 [10 favorites]



Time to turn this thread into a limerick contest.


a blogger named Violet Blue

caused a hullabaloo

her records erased

boing boing tried to save face

by engaging in the obfuscation and orwellian double-speak they (or at least some of their members) pretend to deplore, in the process alienating a portion of their readership, but at least providing light diversion for hundreds who otherwise might have been unutterably bored.

dammit, I suck at limericks.
posted by logicpunk at 11:11 AM on July 1, 2008 [24 favorites]


Turnabout is fair play.
posted by felix betachat at 11:11 AM on July 1, 2008


felix betachat – again, those are personal deathstars, and as such their world destroying capabilities should be considered differently from corporate or imperial deathstars. It really is rather frustrating to have to make this point repeatedly.
posted by Artw at 11:14 AM on July 1, 2008 [6 favorites]


This will not orwell.
posted by lukemeister at 11:16 AM on July 1, 2008 [13 favorites]


Dudes this is a non issue, it's totes still available on the Wayback Machine.
posted by bonaldi at 11:16 AM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


William Gibson's stuff isn't gone.

OK, I stand corrected. I thought I saw some sci-fi author saying their stuff had vanished.
posted by dw at 11:18 AM on July 1, 2008


It's a tiny drop in an ocean of piss, but I'm "unpublishing" their RSS feed from my reader. How else can a white man rebel these days???
posted by mattbucher at 11:20 AM on July 1, 2008 [2 favorites]


Blazecock: Jebus... hyperbolate much?
posted by deCadmus at 11:21 AM on July 1, 2008


BoingBoing is as much a personal/small group blog as any other site that has a core group of administrators and a large group of contributors. The majority of their content comes from other sites that they link, and a fair portion of those have a (Thanks, !) stuck at the end. I'd hazard a guess that a lot of those names are repeat suggesters, and even have a reasonable overlap with those who comment on the site. In other words, a good portion of BoingBoing's content is user-submitted and (shock, gasp) there's a community that has helped determine the direction of the site and likely helped to develop the interests of the site's editors.

There's no guaranteed social contract, but there's definitely an implied one there.

posted by mikeh at 11:23 AM on July 1, 2008


From the ML thread:

I can't even read contentious and voluble crap like mefi (tho I wish I were parent-supported so I'd have that time) and (2) it's fine if you keep the arrogance and general snot-nosedness within your own walls, but when you spill out into the world at large, there are many people who aren't liable to chuckle and say, "Kids will be kids." ... I guess I'm just saying, fine, you can keep your drunken uncles, but if you wheel them out in public, it's your problem if they end up in the drunk tank overnight.

And they accuse us of being low-class?
posted by languagehat at 11:26 AM on July 1, 2008 [8 favorites]


What a disappointing conclusion, such as it is. I will return to admiring Björk's neck instead of Xeni's, now.
posted by maxwelton at 11:27 AM on July 1, 2008


Doctor Ow took a shat on the screen
which all of the patrons found obscene
to wash away his sins
he smeared it on his skin
and said "see, it's not feces, it's beauty cream!"
posted by bunnytricks at 11:27 AM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


Shrugs.

Why are we trying to impress them anyway?
posted by Artw at 11:28 AM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


I think I get it now. If you read between the lines of their "excuse", it becomes obvious that the "embarrassment" they were trying to avoid was their own. If they publicly disavowed Violet Blue, it wouldn't silence her, because people would just go straight from the disavowment, to Violet Blue's own site. But if they HAD gotten away with quietly disappearing her, she wouldn't get an on-the-way-out traffic spike.

Now, she gets the traffic spike, and they get righteously reamed for their hypocrisy.

win-win in my book.
posted by nomisxid at 11:44 AM on July 1, 2008 [3 favorites]


Blazecock: Jebus... hyperbolate much?

It's amazing what words are invented to try to clean up messes, and as near as I can tell, we were just witness to the euphemism of the year. I find the post-hoc apologia and linguistic refashioning to be just as fascinating and inventive. Language is a terrifying beast.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:45 AM on July 1, 2008 [4 favorites]


If your opinion about a site/person changes, the prudent choice would be to simply not mention or link to them any more. From first-hand knowledge I know that being linked many times in the back catalogue at BB is worth, at best, a trickle of referrals*.

*Of course, having 'sex' mentioned in posts would up the trickle by an order of magnitude to, at best, a drip for VB, I imagine. Note to self: must mention 'sex' more often.
posted by peacay at 11:47 AM on July 1, 2008


when you spill out into the world at large, there are many people who aren't liable to chuckle and say, "Kids will be kids."

I love it when people sniff dismissively at Metafilter, adjust their monacle, take a sip of brandy and a long puff off their pipe, and then insult the entire community as though we were one large undifferentiate mass, usually straining at metaphors and clinging to weak similes in the attempt. Man, they sure show us. I should just throw on my cap and go back to sweeping their chimney, instead of trying to bully my declasse opinions into the rarified world of true masters of the art of debate.

(Tugs forelock, retires to basement.)
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:48 AM on July 1, 2008 [11 favorites]


Did Xeni just call Violet Blue a pile of shit?

[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.

Nice, Xeni, real nice.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 11:51 AM on July 1, 2008 [4 favorites]


for what it's worth, I think the boingboing apology is a good thing, and goes a long way toward repairing the damage caused by this whole deal. I also think "unpublish" is an almost completely ridiculous term, but it seems to me that it was a word coined lightly by people with a fondness for language quirks (I imagine it was TNH's word, to be honest) and used without much forethought. That it smacks so strongly of doublespeak is undeniable. What is deniable is that it would have been used to obscure the idea of deleting VB from the site. I think it's simply a further instance of thoughtlessness, one that is (to my mind) forgivable. They may have inflated egos, but so do a lot of people who aren't total villains.

What's rather worse, and despicably so, is Patrick Nielsen Hayden's thread. He started with an obfuscation, moved on to a flat out lie, and peppered the whole thing with backpedaling, revisionism and intellectual dishonesty.
posted by shmegegge at 11:59 AM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


Er... I suspect the context switches to comments about half way through that paragraph, but I'm not 100% on that.
posted by Artw at 12:00 PM on July 1, 2008


It appears that the "interpersonal problems" interpretation was right on the mark given Xeni's tone with regard to V.B., yes.
posted by Justinian at 12:01 PM on July 1, 2008


(that would be the pile of shit thing)
posted by Artw at 12:01 PM on July 1, 2008


Unpublish... Unperson
Big Brother... Boing Boing...
Xeni... Xenu...

You know, just saying...
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 12:17 PM on July 1, 2008 [5 favorites]


Unpublish? Seriously?

Does anyone have any magical powers to find out when that word entered their policies page? Wayback stopped reading before the redesign, probably due to a robots file. It works for the medium.. it just feels.... dirty.

And I'd respond heartfully to TNH and all their apparent "us vs them" stuff going on, but my condescension buffer is already full and that shit would seriously break it. I salute you, Mr. Hat, for speaking up over there!

And hey.. great work on the kittens and bunnies everyone!
posted by cavalier at 12:18 PM on July 1, 2008


Isn't this huge misuse of the traditional implication of unpublished? If something is unpublished, it wasn't originally published, say "the unpublished works of drezdn t. whifflespitz."

Their use of unpublish to mean something that was published and no longer is, is in no way true to meaning of the closest word.
posted by drezdn at 12:19 PM on July 1, 2008


I suspect that Cory is on vacation.

His blog would suggest otherwise. One might find irony in "... if that magic wire is indeed so trivial, they won’t mind if we hold them to the same standard, right?"
posted by Ogre Lawless at 12:26 PM on July 1, 2008


Unpublish needs to be added to the urban dictionary.
posted by drezdn at 12:28 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


I think possibly their use of "unpublish" is referring not to some Orwelllian dissapearing of content, but to a feature of their CMS software. Admins would make saved content viewable to the public by publishing it, so to "unpublish" would be to remove it from public view. I think the word was crafted to describe software functionality, not to hide motives/soften the wording of removing content.
posted by PantsOfSCIENCE at 12:28 PM on July 1, 2008


More on this from Valleywag, a summary at least
posted by dirtylittlemonkey at 12:30 PM on July 1, 2008 [2 favorites]


Joomla has "Publish" and "Unpublish" buttons, though I've never pushed the latter. Whether it deletes a post or just sticks it in a queue, no clue.

Joomla == doubleplusokay.
posted by RakDaddy at 12:31 PM on July 1, 2008


Roses are red
Violet Blue
You're unwonderful
So we unpublished you

[NOT LIMERICIST]
posted by Sparx at 12:32 PM on July 1, 2008 [13 favorites]


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.

Lesson learned: don't fuck the help if you work at a blog, because when you inevitably break up, you'll have to beg your coworkers to delete any mention of that person lest you feel bad. Or something. Either way, BB readers, the staff over there think you're lemurs.

Any PR people able to give me a ballpark figure of what it would've cost them to save face when the story first came out versus now?
posted by jsavimbi at 12:35 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


anildash, please stop acting like an elder statesman or some paragon of rationality. (We already saw that years ago, too.) Expressing opinions – even unfounded opinions, as many will be in a vacuum of facts – is what blog comments are for. You may be passingly familiar with blog software; here it is working as designed.
posted by joeclark at 12:40 PM on July 1, 2008 [10 favorites]


/me unpublishes Boingboing from his rss reader.
posted by furtive at 12:41 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


Thanks, dirtylittlemonkdy, that's a useful summary, and their conclusion is hard to argue with:
As it stands, Boing Boing's editors come off looking foolish. They want to retain the authenticity of a "personal" blog, with all its quirkiness, to attract an audience discontented with impersonal big media, while claiming that it's too "personal" to explain an editorial decision to that audience. If Boing Boing's readers expect better of it, its editors only have themselves to blame.
And hey, they link to this very thread!

*braces self for "They're talking about us!" MeTa post*
posted by languagehat at 12:42 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


Am just still astounded at the level of utter hypocrisy.
It's just ... wow.


posted by liza at 12:54 PM on July 1, 2008


It is very possible that Cory doesn't even know this is happening, if his vacation status is true.

I know that he's in the states, or was on Sunday because I saw him presenting at a panel at ALA and met him for the first time. He also gave a talk the day before. I know nothing about this particular situation other than what I've read here, but if his wifi access at the library conference was as bad as mine, I wouldn't be surprised if he's not totally up to speed on this, though it's more likely that he's just laying low while it initially sorts out.
posted by jessamyn at 12:59 PM on July 1, 2008


So, a year ago, BB decides VB is not someone they like so they remove all references to her from their archive, but they don't tell anyone. And when Xeni and VB run into each other at parties it's all smiley hi-howareyou while Xeni is secretly thinking Ha! I unpublished you, Person-I-Don't-Like-Anymore. And when VB discovers that posts about her have been deleted and people ask about it, those posts are non-published. And...
Nevermind, I get the picture: adolescent behavior from passive-aggressive control freaks.

But then, I always knew the Net was Geekworld.
posted by CCBC at 1:11 PM on July 1, 2008 [4 favorites]


And I think that's the ultimate shame -- for a collective that has for so long stood against the opacity and snottiness of bad corporate players, they proceeded to make the exact same mistakes those same corporations make.
I hope they learn from this experience.


I think that may be one of the few good things to come out of this -- until you're on the wrong side of these things (where moving your organization as fast as you can in a PR crisis situation still seems super-slow from the outside), you don't learn this. The only reason I was able to make a conjecture about the situation that was plausible was because I've been part of fucking up similar situations before.

And then joeclark says:

anildash, please stop acting like an elder statesman or some paragon of rationality. (We already saw that years ago, too.) Expressing opinions – even unfounded opinions, as many will be in a vacuum of facts – is what blog comments are for. You may be passingly familiar with blog software; here it is working as designed.

Dear Joe, I am sorry that I was right. I am glad it didn't stop you from being a bit of a douche here, though. I would defer to this site's moderators and community as to whether this is designed to be a venue for shouting unfounded opinions.

Also, "unpublish" may be, at least partially, my fault. In the version of Movable Type that BoingBoing uses, the "draft" status for a post is labelled "Unpublished (Draft)". Imperfect as that language may be, I believe we chose the word because it was the description that most users intuitively understood the best. I do understand it's not in most dictionaries yet; References often take time to catch up to the world they're meant to document. I would suspect BoingBoing's choice of words was at least partially influenced by the language used to describe the actual task.
posted by anildash at 1:25 PM on July 1, 2008 [3 favorites]


The most hilariously clownish thing about all this is that while BB peeps were furiously deleting any mention of Violet Blue from their comments yesterday, they got scooped by the goddamned LA Times. That's just sad.
posted by mullingitover at 1:28 PM on July 1, 2008


*blames anildash*

There's a bit of a sidebar discussion of the "Unpublish" usage over at Making Light, too. If only BB were a WordPress shop, all this would be behind them. :)

At this point, I'm mostly looking forward to what Language Log might have to say about it.
posted by cortex at 1:32 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


Seriously, I've about had it with the entire culture of hip-artists who are waving a bunch of lawyers around while crowing about (and giving lectures about) how radical they are. Furthermore, I've had it with their yes men.

The free culture pioneers of the 1990s are turning into the suburban householders of the oughts, and their self deception about these facts absolutely disgusts me.

No need to be a lifestyle anarchist, that doesn't work either. If you're going to embrace the establishment, embrace it. I did, this year, and it's working out great for me. I'm learning a shitload of new skills and I'm actually directly interacting with the severely deprived community I live in, instead of waving my placard around on the periphery. Meanwhile I'm creating space for the protesters and explaining why they are needed. Working out great.

Meanwhile, over there in the counterculture are a bunch of petty little tyrants. I see it in my life and I see it on BoingBoing. Fuck them. In thirty years they will look incredibly stupid. Unlike Hunter S Thompson, say, or his contemporaries, who know their shit.
posted by By The Grace of God at 1:33 PM on July 1, 2008 [4 favorites]


Isn't that the betrayal inherent in all countercultures? Never trust a hippy.
posted by Artw at 1:47 PM on July 1, 2008 [2 favorites]


I would suspect BoingBoing's choice of words was at least partially influenced by the language used to describe the actual task.

Ahem, that statement is disingenuous at best. Please read Teresa Multiple Names' statement:

We didn't attempt to silence Violet. We unpublished our own work. There's a big difference between that and censorship.

and explain to me where she's talking about the lexicographical subtleties of the CMS glossary. Because she's not. She's addressing the fact that (someone at) BB decided to delete any reference to a former collaborator, and instead of calling it what it is, Teresa, and one Anildash apparently, are going to get all Billy Jeff and clown us with semantics.
posted by jsavimbi at 1:48 PM on July 1, 2008


"We didn't attempt to silence Violet. We unpublished our own work. There's a big difference between that and censorship."

I can spot a few things wrong with this. First, the link to "unpublish" does not describe the unpublish concept, at all. We can, as a placeholder, map that to "remove posts." I don't hear a steampunk time machine, whistling at full bore, going back and making it never have happened. No Pope has annulled this work. It's posts ... removed. Let's not dress it up.

Second, they did not unpublish their own work, they unpublished Violet's work that she submitted to them. That is more than a semantic difference. Perhaps they own it, via some licensing thing (would be amusing/ironic/inconsistent-with-their-stated-philosophy if they did). The editors are not taking down work that those editors did, with the knowledge of the editors. If I had my own material I wrote myself, then decided that it was a horrible mistake, I can certainly see wanting to remove it, but it would at least warrant a strikethrough, a placeholder, anything. Even a 410 Gone And Don't Come Back. When it is someone else who composed those words, well, that is another ballgame.

Finally, I am at a loss to differentiate in a meaningful sense between unpublish-without-announcing-it and, ah, unpersoning someone. There's not so much as a large black mark or a "This space left intentionally blank." It happened, completely without remark on the part of the site managers. Censorship is a fuzzy concept, and maybe this incident doesn't quite fit the mold, since BoingBoing does not have the power to remove Violet Blue's work from the Internet (beware of setting that as a standard; censorship would no longer exist as a meaningful concept then) but if it is a technique Orwell would have recognized, it should perhaps give a minor celebrity who, amongst his causes lists freedom, openness, and transparency ... pause.

It sounds like Doctorow knew, and that he's known for a long time, and he was in on the decision. On top of that, using the whole "it's a personal blog but we're an L.L.C." smacks of the kind of thing that so irked me about the Boy Scouts, arguing that they should get public access to schools (because they're a public institution) and then turning around that they can discriminate against homosexuals (because they're a private institution). BoingBoing wants people to view the situation in whatever fashion would be most convenient, without consistency. BoingBoing does not get it both ways. Time to pick, guys. Not just in terms of business vs. personal, but either "this is what we're really all about" or "we're just selling T-shirts and pageviews; don't take it so seriously, fanboy."

Sorry, Cory/Editors/BoingBoing L.L.C./$responsibleentity, you made a bad decision, then you handled the uncovering of the bad decision ... badly. And did so in a manner that conflicts, in both cases, against your stated ethics. That's a loss of Whuffie, right there.

But maybe your left-handed Whuffie, via Microsoft, Sony, and China, just went up.
posted by adipocere at 1:48 PM on July 1, 2008 [4 favorites]


anil--: I am sorry that I was right.

Um dude I've never felt the need to pile on you before, but this is a bit much. Despite your much-self-vaunted expertise, the only reason you were "right" is because what you said had almost zero predictive content.

You made some on-the-one-hand hedges:
* Either as an editorial decision, or because of some inflexible requirement (a legal dispute, something like a DMCA claim, advertiser objections), content was clearly taken down.
* When the kinds of disputes arise that require this kind of takedown, it's almost always something that's either a legal requirement or an interpersonal issue that makes it impossible to talk about or extremely difficult to talk about without abusing someone's reputation or trust.
These turned out to be right because they encompassed everything anyone thought was possible.

And you also made some other predictions that probably are just wrong:
* Not everybody on the BoingBoing team is up to date on what's going on or why.
This is very unlikely given that the "unpublishing" happened a year ago, according to the Boingers.

Recap: you were right where your predictions were so vague as to be obvious, and you were wrong when you got more specific.
posted by grobstein at 1:48 PM on July 1, 2008 [10 favorites]


damn this is hell of like watchin two dogs fight over a soiled rag in a ditch
posted by boo_radley at 1:55 PM on July 1, 2008 [3 favorites]


explain to me where she's talking about the lexicographical subtleties of the CMS glossary

The point, and this isn't in anyway any attempt to excuse the behavior of deleting-content-and-using-a-different-word-for-it that I think is very much worth discussion, is that there's a lot of ado being made over the "Orwellian" choice of 'unpublish' as a verb, when practically speaking it might better be described as a "CMSian" choice of words. That it unflatteringly resembles Newspeak is bad fucking luck under the circumstances.

I describe myself as "nuking" posts sometimes. If I got into an embarrassing flap over (to hastily contrive an example) deleting some Issei mefite's post about the American bombing of Tokyo Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of WW2 and I kept talking about how "I was right to nuke the post", I think two things would reasonably hold:

1. Suggesting that I was using "nuke" in some manner related to the content of the deleted post would be pretty silly given that it's jargon admin talk that has nothing meaningful to do with nuclear bombings, and
2. It'd still be an awkward choice of words that folks might well roast me for.

Note the belated edit that I'm just too annoyed at myself to even be opaque about. Tokyo indeed. Clearly, I was thinking of Akira.
posted by cortex at 1:58 PM on July 1, 2008 [5 favorites]


I was taken aback by this part of Xeni's comment in the BB comment thread (emphasis mine):

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 -- so we don't like to leave piles of shit lying around on the floor.

Dude. That's really harsh. I mean the rest of it is kind of vague "we're not proud of her posts" talk but that one line... ouch. And I'm not even a fan of the thing Violet Blue does.
posted by loiseau at 2:01 PM on July 1, 2008


Instead of harping on the word unpublish, I mourn that a more over-the-top word wasn't chosen. They should have just gotten straight to the point:

We dewonderfuled her.
posted by allen.spaulding at 2:02 PM on July 1, 2008 [4 favorites]


dewonderfuled

Doesn't really roll of the tongue, does it? I think verbing "lackluster" would work.

"How dare you. Fine. Okay. You've just been lacklustered, buddy."
posted by cortex at 2:04 PM on July 1, 2008 [2 favorites]


Ironically enough, one of the posts mentioning Violet Blue that was unpublished was a post that backhandedly accused Google of censoring search results, including Violet Blue and it bore the headline "Google 'disappears' sex blogs?".
posted by ShawnStruck at 2:07 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


Uncooled? Warmed? Shitpiled?

In tribute to Dooced, maybe the term should be "Blued."
posted by drezdn at 2:12 PM on July 1, 2008


Xeni today: "This person never 'posted' items to BB, they were not an author or a guest blogger."

Xeni 2006: "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."


...Seriously?
posted by spiderwire at 2:14 PM on July 1, 2008 [2 favorites]


Image tag
posted by interrobang at 2:15 PM on July 1, 2008 [4 favorites]


being made over the "Orwellian" choice of 'unpublish' as a verb, when practically speaking it might better be described as a "CMSian" choice of words.

In that case, the correct statement on her behalf could-would-should've been something like:

We didn't attempt to silence Violet. We unpublished our own work, while we decided the appropriate course of action. There's a big difference between that and deleting/removing/deactivating someone's contribution.

But it didn't play out that way. Instead, they twiddled their thumbs and decided to misremember what they learned from Roger Clemens and went ahead and mispoke in the context of "unpublishing vs. censorship". If outside help was sought to contain this issue, said help should go unpaid in the future.

Wrong venue. Wrong activity. Wrong audience.
posted by jsavimbi at 2:17 PM on July 1, 2008


That it unflatteringly resembles Newspeak is bad fucking luck under the circumstances.

Come on. In the null distribution of words in the English language, most would call the use of a neologism like "unpublish" more of a "statistical outlier of interest" than "bad fucking luck". Adding the air of secrecy and cabalistic wagon-circling seems to make that verbiage more than just a word plucked from the thin, sweet air that may waft airily about CMS programmers.

Even granting the benefit of all of that coincidental baggage of doubt, the choice of that term was still translates as a deliberate obfuscation of what had been done.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:26 PM on July 1, 2008


"We unpublished our own work"

I'm having a Carlin flashback moment over all this wording.
REMOVED! What's wrong with simply using the word removed?! It's a bit less final than DELETED after all.
(Actually Carlin would probably have fun things to say about re-moved as well - or did he and I'm forgetting that this is a monologue of his...)

Trying to make up words (like unpublished) doesn't make what was done any different - and making up words only means people want to spin the interpretation. Just say you removed it and don't want to talk about it right now Boing Boing, and I'll then spend a lot less time wondering about your motivations for the removal.

Only Carlin would have used the word fuck in there a lot. God I'm gonna miss that man.
posted by batgrlHG at 2:30 PM on July 1, 2008 [4 favorites]


There doesn't seem to be much left to say... At this point, I expect that I can't even flame John Scalzi and then apologize for it (although that does look fun). But I have to post--I mean, I read all those comments! Every one!

Could a have, at least, a cookie?
posted by Squid Voltaire at 2:32 PM on July 1, 2008 [2 favorites]


I do get annoyed when people I know are (in my opinion) specifically and unfairly castigated for actions they apparently had no control over.

Apparently, the unpublishing happened a year ago, after a discussion amongst all of the editors, and were only noticed recently. So that excuse don't wash. Your buddy should be specifically castigated, and fairly so.
posted by ten pounds of inedita at 2:32 PM on July 1, 2008


"Um dude I've never felt the need to pile on you before, but this is a bit much."

It totally was! I was kind of trying to ape joeclark's too-muchness, although apparently unsuccessfully. As I hoped was made clear later in the same comment, I certainly didn't offer any great insights, I've just seen similar fuckups in the past and was sharing that perspective. Sorry that didn't come across. :)
posted by anildash at 2:32 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


David Pescovitz says, "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."

Teresa says, "It was a group decision. Why do you think it took so long?"

Xeni says, "the posts were removed from public view while an evaluation of what to do took place." So that evaluation took almost a year and just concluded this weekend? Or is the term "while" somewhat misleading here? These claims don't play well together.

Were the posts/etc. "removed from public view a year ago," or is that just a ballpark figure since the Internet Archive goes back to August 25 2007?

Xeni also says, "and now that we are more aware of how things can play out when someone's determined to pick a public fight over it" -- is the implication that Violet Blue actually was aware of this deletion, or was she never told? Is the accusation that she was lying about her understanding of the situation, or that she was "picking a fight" despite being totally in the dark?
posted by spiderwire at 2:33 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


I'd just like to say that when Principal Joeclark smacks you down, you stay down.
posted by nevercalm at 2:36 PM on July 1, 2008


Did Xeni just call Violet Blue a pile of shit?

[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.

Nice, Xeni, real nice.


That comment doesn't say that anymore. Can anyone vouch it used to? Has Boing Boing always been at war with East Asia?
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 2:38 PM on July 1, 2008 [5 favorites]


TheOnlyCoolTim: I'm pretty sure I read that too.
posted by drezdn at 2:39 PM on July 1, 2008


Teledildonics: the bastard child of Teletubbies, dildos, and Dianetics.
posted by quin at 2:40 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


Holy shit, Tim is right. The comment now reads:
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.
I will vouch that it did not say that before.

Wow. Just... wow.
posted by spiderwire at 2:40 PM on July 1, 2008 [3 favorites]


Anyone else feel like partially disemvoweling a comment (leaving only the praising parts) crosses a line?

I agreed with you in principle and then I read the comment, or as much of it as I could. It looked to me like the commenter led with a (clumsily obvious) bit of praise in hope that the moderator would let the rest of the comment, a rote snark about how much Cory promotes his books, which, however deserved, I'm sure they've seen enough of and now disemvowel or delete as a matter of routine. Looks like TNH or her designee decided to have a little fun with that one, leaving the loss-leader bit in clear and scrozzling the snark. I laughed when I saw it -- it said "nice try, shnook" loud and clear.


Unfortunately that's not a workable explanation; I have seen several comments that were only partially disemvoweled since they started the practice and it's struck me as pretty bad behavior as well. However it is clear from their moderation policies that that is the way they do it - the first mention says PARAGRAPH not post, and there's other inline messages implications other places in the policies that imply it pretty clearly.

I personally agree with grobstein; I think that selective alteration that way is kinda uncool. Yes, you leave the original stuff sorta intact, however by making it so much harder to read the disemvoweled stuff you engage in selective emphasis, altering the meaning of what the poster was trying to day.
posted by phearlez at 2:41 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


That comment doesn't say that anymore. Can anyone vouch it used to? Has Boing Boing always been at war with East Asia?

It appears to have been unsaid. Wow.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:42 PM on July 1, 2008 [2 favorites]


In other news, the Boing Boing editors have been put in charge of Givewell.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:44 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


to be fair, Blazecock, some things are better left unsaid.
posted by boo_radley at 2:45 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


Come, child. Warm your hands next to the massive piles of burning whuffie.
posted by mullingitover at 2:45 PM on July 1, 2008 [3 favorites]


Yup, I saw it there too. Not there anymore.
posted by sciurus at 2:45 PM on July 1, 2008


Anyone have that comment still sitting in their cache? Can we get a screen grab?
posted by sciurus at 2:47 PM on July 1, 2008


Wow. Just... wow.

Indeed. Just when you think it's all over but the gloating thoughtful dissection of events, it gets worse/better (depending on your fondness for meltdowns).

Keep the drama coming, Boingers!
posted by languagehat at 2:49 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


i saw that comment too—i was amazed that xeni actually said it, and am rather appalled to find that it's now gone.
posted by lia at 2:50 PM on July 1, 2008


The problem with "unpublishing" is that Xeni tries to mark it out as somehow different from deleting. That's where it feels Orwellian to me: "We would NEVER delete a post! That's just now who we ARE! We reserve the right to unpublish anything ever."

Xeni also wrote that "[w]e didn't want to pay to host them on our blog anymore," which feels more than a little disingenuous. As if the material cost to host Violet's posts was somehow significant.

AND FURTHERMORE

What is with BB playing the victim card? "Caught in the middle of a real internet shitstorm and pile-on," "the apparent campaign to turn this into some kind of a petty blog fight"? They were innocent bystanders, people! They're just humble bloggers who love to blog! All this talk of public responsibility is misplaced because they are but simple folk! They just don't GET why people would CARE so MUCH about this little issue!

It's classic troll behavior, frankly. "I'm perfectly calm, it's you who's getting so worked up about some bits on computers. Chill out, dudes!"
posted by wemayfreeze at 2:52 PM on July 1, 2008 [2 favorites]


Okay guys, this gratuitous grab-assery has gone on long enough. Sometimes it's enough just to say sorry, because the problem with orgies is you're only multiplying the number of people you can't look in the eye afterwards.
posted by turgid dahlia at 2:54 PM on July 1, 2008 [4 favorites]


It appears to have been unsaid. Wow.
They're really digging themselves into a hole. The way out is clear, though:

Unpublish the unsaying of the shitpiling, getting back to shitpile status. Then deshitpile by unpublishing the shitpiling. Finally, unpublish the entire explanation of what went on, disemvowel a few comments for good measure, and then we have gotten rid of all these doubleplusungood distractions, and are back with what really should be the goal here: depersoning Emmanuel Goldstein.
posted by Flunkie at 2:56 PM on July 1, 2008 [7 favorites]


After reading/skimming this thread, I feel 90% confident in saying that Boing Boing can kiss my ass. Unpublished indeed.

Now let's see if they remove the link to my site from two or three years ago.
posted by danb at 2:58 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


Metacommentary on discourse themes: as much as I sometimes get annoyed at one or another mefite jumping into a thread to take pains to point out that they don't care about the topic of said thread, I'm getting exhausted by the sheer volume of comments on the BoingBoing thread emphasizing just how little any of this matters or just how silly it is for anyone to care at all. Woof.
posted by cortex at 2:59 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


They're really digging themselves into a hole.

Also known as unclimbing out of the unsky.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:00 PM on July 1, 2008 [19 favorites]


Nice catch on the Xeni quote. Now all we need is a greasemonkey script that replaces all instances of "BoingBoing" with "BoingBoing Ministry of Truth," their bylines with "[redacted]," and all attempts to navigate to their site with a redirect to some Freedom of Information Act page that is nothing but a few verbs scattered through endless fields of black marker.
posted by adipocere at 3:01 PM on July 1, 2008


what's remarkable to me is that the comment doesn't even mention having been edited. if she wants to edit a comment to remove some poorly thought-out words I can hardly blame her. If it were me, and I'd said something that in retrospect sounded really cruel and insulting, I'd want to edit it even more simply because that wouldn't have been what I meant. But I would have put in a little "edited 5:20pm EST by shmegegge sorry folks, one sentence in that came off differently than I meant it. restated it properly now." or I simply would have clarified in a later comment. It's almost as though they're trying as hard as they can to prove that they're completely out of touch with their fanbase, right now.
posted by shmegegge at 3:02 PM on July 1, 2008 [2 favorites]


Insightful articles about the sex-lives of modern Americans by a respected journalist are piles of shit, but penis shaped gummi candy is a wonderful thing?
posted by Titania at 3:04 PM on July 1, 2008


shit lying around on the floor?

I've unlooked that now, but everyone preread it. Not a lawyer, but defamation of character does carry its consequences.

Anyways, to all ye out there who dreampt of being contributors to the BoingBoing collective: buyer fucking beware.
posted by jsavimbi at 3:04 PM on July 1, 2008


If it were me, and I'd said something that in retrospect sounded really cruel and insulting, I'd want to edit it even more simply because that wouldn't have been what I meant. But I would have put in a little "edited 5:20pm EST by shmegegge sorry folks, one sentence in that came off differently than I meant it. restated it properly now." or I simply would have clarified in a later comment.
I'm guessing that you're not an ego-driven control freak dewonderful.
posted by Flunkie at 3:05 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


And they accuse us of being low-class?

I considered commenting in that ML thread, but the comments were so voluble & aggressive, and so full of ad-hominems that I was too intimidated to join that cut-and-thrust.

Best to stick around here where it's safer & less arrogant, preachy & elitist.

On the other hand, this sentiment sounds like a great way to help the shy find their voices:

I'm hereby declaring open season on anything unfamiliar that comes through the door. Newbies: behave or die.
posted by UbuRoivas at 3:06 PM on July 1, 2008 [6 favorites]


Teresa, Mark, Cory:

Seriously, if you were writing or editing a novel about this, about a group of people like the boingers faced with a situation like the one you are in, and the novel-boingers decided to DELETE THE FUCKING POSTS and then NOT TELL ANYBODY and then DELETE COMMENTS AFTER THE FACT, your noses would wrinkle in consternation. That is not how those characters would act. It's how Holden Karnofsky would act, or, truly, scarily, how any of us with a lot of money could be tempted to act.

But, but! you say. Violet Blue is an axe murderer! Or fellated bill gates! Or imported prostitutes or something and there is a case pending! Or trademarked her name! Or had a fallout with ex lover Xeni!

Okay, put that in the book. Still not what they would do.

But we have children! And money to protect! you say.

There it is. Admit it. Admit your hypocrisy like everyone else. Post it on the blog. And watch your click rate go down.

You make the money because people click the ads because they trust you. Even as you grew and made money and made little worlds for yourselves all their own, people continued to trust you.

But, again, to the novel: Do the novel-readers continue to trust the novel-boingers after an epic fail such as this one?

No, they don't. Not unless they talk about what happened.

Yes, even though it's embarrassing. Even though it might threaten a lawsuit. If it does, LEAK IT! You have celebrated the whistleblowers a hundred times. Be like them. Even if it threatens that space you carved out for yourselves.

Because that space was bought with money. And that money was bought with our trust, which you will lose if you keep up this preposterous silence.

You will lose that money if you don't talk. We will continue to comment on your website, and hack your fightbacks and escalate, because you called that kind to your site. The MetaFilter thread about this drama, like the Givewell thread, will be up there in the search results for everyone who googles your names or your site.

You will have sleepless nights, poor appetites, and tired hours because of your stupid mistake. You will send emails about bullshit and look at your art or your child, sitting there unattended because you are putting out this fire. It will smoulder and crop up again, months and years from now, whenever you release a book or a project. People will have even less patience with your self promotion on your blog, because you've spent a hefty bit of your political capital.

Back to the novel. Pretend it wasn't boingers, but a stupid other website full of corporate types pulling the delete-o-matic in the ham-handed way you've gone about it. What would the internets do to them?

That's what we're going to do to you.

When you die, I hope you will be surrounded by the children whose lives you have been, possibly, better able to nurture and protect because you have forsaken your principles for your very worthy little world. They won't however, be there all the time, in the last few months of wakefulness, when you think about how you lived your lives and how well you hewed to your principles.
posted by By The Grace of God at 3:08 PM on July 1, 2008 [11 favorites]


So dubious censorious action from a website that on at least one level decries dubious censorious action from others... then the dubious explanation of the dubious censorious action is then itself subject to dubious censorious action.

Meta meta genius
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 3:10 PM on July 1, 2008 [2 favorites]


That comment doesn't say that anymore. Can anyone vouch it used to? Has Boing Boing always been at war with East Asia?

I also saw the piles of shit...prior to their removal/deletion/unpublishing.
This is getting progressively sillier.
posted by batgrlHG at 3:10 PM on July 1, 2008


Apparently commenter #115 also saw the piles of shit:

"I get the impression that the cause of this editing was something personal ("piles of shit lying around") and that's fine."
posted by batgrlHG at 3:14 PM on July 1, 2008


Uh oh. Watch out, Commenter #115.
posted by Flunkie at 3:15 PM on July 1, 2008


I have deleted the posts that were in the blog, and which you probably thought were wonderful. Forgive me, they were not wonderful. And I am so right, so very very right, and you are all wrong.
posted by Artw at 3:16 PM on July 1, 2008 [6 favorites]


I also saw the piles of shit...prior to their removal/deletion/unpublishing.
This is getting progressively sillier.


Indeed.
posted by tkolar at 3:25 PM on July 1, 2008


oh dang, blazecock's pulling no punches, all linking to the cached copy of the original comment in the boingboing thread and sheeit.
posted by shmegegge at 3:26 PM on July 1, 2008


What did William Goldman write about Hollyood? Nobody knows anything?

The way in which this has been fucked up, and then mishandled, and then addressed in a way that is likely to alienate a lot of people, and in a manner displays a basic misunderstanding about the way people interact with the web, or any sense of community and responsibility, and confusion about why links exist and why they should be maintained, abd by the people who do BoingBoing, no less, well, it's got me thinking that there is a new version of that phrase a-brewing.

On the Internet, nobody understands the Internet.
posted by Astro Zombie at 3:27 PM on July 1, 2008


I've still got the comment open on another PC. screenshot.

Agreed. "Wow. Just wow."

I guess the justification is going to be the same "it's our site, we can twist the historical record as we see fit". Is anyone out there still defending this?
posted by Leon at 3:30 PM on July 1, 2008 [2 favorites]


Just for the record, here's the original paragraph, before the memoryholing:

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 -- so we don't like to leave piles of shit lying around on the floor.
posted by languagehat at 3:32 PM on July 1, 2008 [4 favorites]


artw, you really broke form. Watch and learn:

I have unpublished
the posts
that were on
our blog

and which
the internet
flipped out
over

Forgive me
it was like my home
so clean
and so [REDACTED]

posted by boo_radley at 3:32 PM on July 1, 2008 [19 favorites]


I also vouch for that quote having been there.
posted by chimaera at 3:33 PM on July 1, 2008


Also, I note that all of xeni's crypto credentials expired last month. Who knows who's actually posting all of this stuff.
posted by boo_radley at 3:37 PM on July 1, 2008


Given the way that paragraph could be interpreted, and giving Xeni the benefit of the doubt and saying that it probably wasn’t her intent, I’d actually say that’s a reasonable edit. A brief note acknowledging the change might have been a good idea under the circumstances.
posted by Artw at 3:38 PM on July 1, 2008


Roses are red,
[redacted] are [redacted]
posted by mullingitover at 3:46 PM on July 1, 2008 [10 favorites]


The internet
Rolls long a tongue of memory
and declares
That you want this and she said
That: You won't get away to
Make it weigh more or
Less, can't redact, can't unstress
The bitter taste of ill wrought
Word and unthought friend
posted by Mister Cheese at 3:46 PM on July 1, 2008 [2 favorites]


oh dang, blazecock's pulling no punches, all linking to the cached copy of the original comment in the boingboing thread and sheeit.

From Orwell to Givewell... But hopefully people will read what's on record and get to decide for themselves.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:48 PM on July 1, 2008


Am just going to say WTF, let's make it 1000 comments.
WHO'S WITH ME!
posted by liza at 3:49 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


The lesson here is only stick up for people that you can expect will be worthy of being stuck up for. The egos at boingboing have vastly exceeded whatever goodwill I might have had for them at any point. Feh.
posted by Divine_Wino at 3:49 PM on July 1, 2008


honestly, I wouldn't even be here if it weren't for my ex-coworker's c# skills:
//Creates and initializes a DateTimeFormatInfo associated with the en-US culture.
DateTimeFormatInfo myDTFI = new CultureInfo("en-US", false).DateTimeFormat;
//Date variable declared
DateTime myDT = Convert.ToDateTime(date);

(600 lines of uncommented PICK-DB strings jammed into an unmanaged COM object)


It kills me inside :(
posted by boo_radley at 3:49 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


btw, thanks for the caches and screen shots.
you've given me the reason to blog about this mess after all

:P
posted by liza at 3:53 PM on July 1, 2008


A brief note acknowledging the change might have been a good idea under the circumstances.

Not with schadenfreude kicking into high speed. No way.
posted by jsavimbi at 3:53 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


giving Xeni the benefit of the doubt

The last time someone did that, she got away with pretending to be a journalist for nearly ten years!
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 3:58 PM on July 1, 2008 [8 favorites]


I think Xeni should have probably made a note about the edit, but in context it seems pretty clear she was making a general statement that people took to be a dig at Violet and so she removed it to keep things from getting even more heated. Again, acknowledging the edit (or just explaining that people were misinterpreting her intent) would have been better, but chasing that down seems like splitting hairs at this point.
posted by anildash at 4:02 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


BoingBoing as the Authors Intended™
Reads the RSS feed and disemvowels the articles.
I felt dirty manually disemvoweling the template page.

posted by johnjreiser at 4:03 PM on July 1, 2008 [13 favorites]


My question is: now that I've lost respect for BoingBoing, do I respect their wish to let their reasoning be private? I can't decide. There're a few conjectures floating around, but I find it excessively interesting that VB herself still has no idea wtf.
posted by waraw at 4:04 PM on July 1, 2008


I'm now expecting for BB to decide that today's Violet Blue post was a mistake and they unpublish it as well.
posted by yeti at 4:09 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


Anyone who thought the BoingBoing of 2008 was the BoingBoing of 2002 missed an awful lot of examples why this wasn't the case. It was a fun place to read for a while. Here's hoping the next big junk drawer blog doesn't go downhill so quickly.

Unpublishing, by the way, is the new steampunk.
posted by jscott at 4:10 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


I find it excessively interesting that VB herself still has no idea wtf.

I'll reiterate my theory that Violet knows exactly why, but she wants the BoingBoing kids to have to say everything. It's a good strategy.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 4:16 PM on July 1, 2008


So XENI not only calls the situation (or VB) a pile of shit, but
still stonewalls by not explaining the edit in her comments.

They're in total management free fall. Once the ethics are gone,
the best practices parachute just goes out the window.

I mean, it was from Xeni whom I got the "strike out anything
you didn't want to post in a blog" and then write your new edit
and/or apology for all to see.

If she can't do what she herself had pioneered, then you know
there's a HUGE problem in BoingBoingland.
posted by liza at 4:16 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


Metafilter : Full of steampunk but without the unpublishing
posted by liza at 4:18 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


The comments on the BoingBoing post are disturbing. I doubt the majority of the site's readers are indifferent to the hypocrisy, but I'll doubt we'll ever really know due to the overzealous moderation.
posted by johnjreiser at 4:29 PM on July 1, 2008 [2 favorites]


It's funny. I usually read mefi in lynx, and only use a graphical/javascript-y browser to post comments, so I never realized the [del] stuff created the actual strike-through effect for you young hipsters with the modern technofied browsers.

I learned something today useful today, and of BB's willingness to work on that whole hole to china thing.
posted by nomisxid at 4:37 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


As long as we're pointing out stupid edits without explanation or notification, Valleywag's renaming of their post from something along the lines of "Boing Boing loses credibility" to Did the Internet's free-speech guardians try to hush up a girl-on-girl love affair is shitty.

That said, there's a good public relations management in that Valleywag post where JonathanV complains about his experiences with being a Make Magazine subscriber and Phillip Torrone, senior editor of Make Magazine, offers to look into the matter that JonathanV raises (whether Make Magazine sold his personal information).
posted by Kattullus at 4:44 PM on July 1, 2008


Anyone who thought the BoingBoing of 2008 was the BoingBoing of 2002 missed an awful lot of examples why this wasn't the case. It was a fun place to read for a while. Here's hoping the next big junk drawer blog doesn't go downhill so quickly.

Hear, hear. Once upon a time it was a site that - like MeFi - could be relied upon for digging up a day's worth of quirky links to read.

Then it degenerated into something extremely monotonous. Personally, I stopped visiting regularly before this apparent steampunk obsession (thankfully!) but at the time I gave up, 8 out of every 10 posts were either about DRM / Copyright issues, casemods, things made out of Legos, quirky iPod holders, or plugs for Cory's novel or Xeni's writing gigs or appearances at conferences, and that just doesn't make for interesting reading.

If I cared enough about DRM, I'd hang out on specialist sites for that (EFF, perhaps).

If I cared at all about casemods or iPod holders, there'd have to be some sort of geektoy site for that.

I personally don't give a flying fuck for SciFi, so that's about all I can say about the novel, and I'm sure if I wanted to read Xeni's thoughts on anything, I could subscribe to her newsletter or set up a news alert or something.

As for things made out of Legos, we get enough of them here.

Fair enough if other people find their repetitive obsessions interesting, though. I just felt that the diversity of posts died in the arse a few years ago, especially considering the increased competition in the interesting-links-of-the-day market, not the least of which was from this place.
posted by UbuRoivas at 4:44 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


...but chasing that down seems like splitting hairs at this point.

Wrong wrong wrong.
Words are the primary product of BoingBoing (having overtaken links at an undetermined time), the Boingers' opinions, personalities, POV are the main reasons to read it. Anyone who edits their own comment without acknowledging it is betraying the trust of their audience, like the way FoxNews removed McCain's 'I wasn't proud of my country' statement from its transcript. SAME THING. Did BB ever comment on that, or do they have a policy of ignoring FN, which is not a bad policy, but, again, it'd be nice if they're upfront with it.

BoingBoing occupies a very specialized niche in the Media of the Early 21st Century. If they choose to take on the journalistic anti-standards of FoxNews, they have every right to do so, but they shouldn't expect their core audience to accept it as easily as FN's does.

One more thing...
DEWONDERFUL?
how about...
WONDEREMPTY.
posted by wendell at 4:49 PM on July 1, 2008 [6 favorites]


I usually read mefi in lynx

I thought the CDC has taken care of this problem long ago...
posted by jsavimbi at 4:49 PM on July 1, 2008


Again, acknowledging the edit (or just explaining that people were misinterpreting her intent) would have been better, but chasing that down seems like splitting hairs at this point.

But defending it by speculating about the "context" (as if the context doesn't involve, you know, rewriting content on the sly) isn't splitting hairs? It's not just that it was a bad idea, it's that it was precisely the behavior being apologized for and disclaimed in the post.
posted by spiderwire at 4:51 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


Here, I think Teresa said it best:
That's a child's way of thinking, to assume one's actions only have the effects one intends. When you're a legally competent adult, it's not enough to mean well. You have to study the situation and make plans that you can reasonably expect will succeed in getting the results you want without doing damage along the way. If I'm messing around with bottle rockets, I may not intend to burn down your house, but I'm still responsible for doing it.... Notice how those apologies don't relocate responsibility for the actions to someone else?
posted by spiderwire at 4:52 PM on July 1, 2008 [2 favorites]


The bitterness that's radiating off Xeni's posts is amusing. It appears she can't even bring herself to utter the name ("...the subject of the posts...", "...This person...", "...that material...").
posted by Leon at 4:54 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


I like these too:
[Mistakes are] unacceptable. If you only have time to check ten of your requests, you only submit ten.... Let's stop talking about this in terms of a few small clerical errors.... If you want to say that's trivial, no one will drop an anvil on your head; but I'll think poorly of your judgement.... That was an example of the inadequacy of mere apology.... An offhand apology isn't enough.


Is that an ad hominem argument? It is. When an ad hominem argument is relevant to the issues at hand, it's valid to use it.
And:
If [Orwellianism is] your worry, then be of good cheer: it's not going to happen. Electronic media have greatly enabled the preservation and dissemination of older and variant texts.
And:
Printing isn't publishing. To publish is, at its core, to make public.... Traditionally, the answer is that everyone who was in a position to know it was happening, but didn't try to stop it, is reponsible to a greater or lesser degree.... A publisher is reponsible for his text, whether or not he's read it.
posted by spiderwire at 4:58 PM on July 1, 2008 [2 favorites]


"I’ve been racking my brain thinking of what issues I might’ve come down on the wrong side of," Blue told me on the phone. "There’s been no argument, there's been no disagreement, no flame war, none of the usual things."

Perhaps an excerpt from my as-yet-unproduced musical is in order. It's sort of like Mamma Mia!, except it's about the Soviet purges and uses Pixies songs:

Vaslav: Uh Joe, didn't there used to be a lot more red pieces on this chessboard?
[Joe picks up a red rook and throws it in the fireplace. Two aides enter the room]
Vaslav: Damn... see you later?
[The aides politely escort Vaslav into the hall, closing the door behind them. Joe, now alone, sits at the chess table on the red side, which has one piece remaining. We hear the sound effect of a gunshot from behind the door]
Joe: King, me.
[Opening riff of Man of Steel begins to play]
-From There Goes My Gun: The Musical, book by Alvy Ampersand, music and lyrics by Frank Black
©AmperBlack Productions, 2008

Sex with squares is boring? You do the math.

If you had ended that first sentence with a period, I would've sworn you were my prom date.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 4:59 PM on July 1, 2008 [2 favorites]


My prom date also claimed she had her period.

(Rereading.)

I misunderstood what you said there, Alvy.
posted by Astro Zombie at 5:04 PM on July 1, 2008 [2 favorites]


Kattullus wrote: As long as we're pointing out stupid edits without explanation or notification, Valleywag's renaming of their post from something along the lines of "Boing Boing loses credibility" to Did the Internet's free-speech guardians try to hush up a girl-on-girl love affair is shitty.

It used to be "Blogging For Dollars: How Boing Boing disappeared its blog authenticity". And, yeah, the choice of new headline is shitty; arguably borderline homophobic, even. I'll let them off if they're planning to change it to something new every hour or two, Boing Boing style.
posted by jack_mo at 5:07 PM on July 1, 2008


jsavimbi, huh? I can't think of a relationship between Cult of the Dead Cow, nor Centers for Disease Control, to text based browsing.
posted by nomisxid at 5:12 PM on July 1, 2008


anildash: The only reason I was able to make a conjecture about the situation that was plausible was because I've been part of fucking up similar situations before.

It's good to see you're publicly acknowledging your role in the multiple times your company idiotically drove LiveJournal onto the shoals to rot (before selling her for scrap).

Unfortunately, your experience hasn't made your comments any more insightful.
posted by blasdelf at 5:20 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


That was unnecessary.
posted by spiderwire at 5:23 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


You know, I look at this and look back on every other time I got to see and overblown interpersonal trainwreck spills over into places where it shouldn't and yep, this looks just like it.

My answer to Waraw's question is simple. I can tell you their reasoning. Somebody got all bent out of shape about something. Some other people did things against their better judgement out of loyalty to a friend and/or emotional and/or financial investment in "the great work." The other camp called them on it and, well, in for a penny, in for a pound. Soon, people who are the internet equivalent of guys with little stickers of Calvin taking a wizz all over a Ford/Chevy/Dodge logo got involved, thereby pissing off people who are emotionally attached to one or more of the principals who either cranked out a series of weak excuses or cut out the middle man and just dropped into us vs them mode and lashed out in turn, thereby pissing off people who were previously in WTF mode, creating oscilating spheres of hostility. Finally somebody got stuck with the ugly job of having to be the responsible adult (and I get the impression that they were not allowed to be as responsible as they would have really liked, but I really have no idea).

Taking away all the local flavor, like Cory Doctorow's unceasing campaign against virtually any kind of censorship and the situation he's now a party to, I've seen this same kind of crap nuke SCA groups and science fiction conventions; have heard about it taking out churches, little old ladies book clubs, boy scout troops, businesses and hell, arguable the Republican party.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 5:27 PM on July 1, 2008 [7 favorites]


Metafilter: the internet equivalent of guys with little stickers of Calvin taking a wizz
posted by subbes at 5:28 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


Referential-Mass: Lost.
Random spinning: [initiated]
posted by pyrex at 5:28 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


TNH put this into a comment @5:03PM (quoted in its entirety, because I'm pretty sure some of it will be unpublished when she calms down - emphasis mine to highlight her most trollish content):

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?

And as for all this "Orwellian editing" crap -- christ, do you take two seconds to think before you post it? You know the Boingers have a major commitment to transparency and open communication. Taking a stand on those issues, and writing and publishing a weblog that's run on those principles, doesn't mean the authors of that weblog are obliged to tell you about every little thing they think and do and decide.

If you think it does oblige them, and that the fact that they haven't told you everything somehow transforms them into scheming weasels, then I'm sorry, but you're a blockhead.

Violet Blue has demonstrably lied more than once about this imbroglio. Does that matter? Whereas Mark, Xeni, Cory, and David are getting trashed for not being transparent fast enough. And why did they hesitate to respond to that scurrilous story in Valleywag? Bizarrely enough, because they didn't want to trash Violet Blue. They could have. It would have been easy. And unlike the people who are attacking them, the Boingers would have been telling the truth.

But they didn't do it, because basically they're much nicer people than she is. They're also far less desperate about finding ways to attract an audience. On that score, there are strains of human evil the Boingers will never understand.

And yet, some of you are pillorying them.

Proud of yourselves?


The 'Violet Blue lied a lot' and 'we have a lot of dirt on her we're too nice to reveal' statements will probably end up forcing the Boingers to explain themselves a lot more... it won't be pretty, and if they're as much upstanding people as TNH claims, they will not be happy with her.

This may be the single most ill-advised self-destructive statement I have seen on the web in a long time (except for a few here, but you know the kind of asshats comment here).
posted by wendell at 5:31 PM on July 1, 2008 [11 favorites]


BoingBoing: Censorship is bad, but some types of censorship are less bad than others
posted by elfgirl at 5:33 PM on July 1, 2008 [8 favorites]


The bitterness that's radiating off Xeni's posts is amusing.

That's a little more Schadenfreude than I'm capable of right now.

I thoroughly disapprove of how they've handled things over there, but that doesn't make their suffering any less real.
posted by tkolar at 5:34 PM on July 1, 2008 [2 favorites]


Did the Internet's free-speech guardians try to hush up a girl-on-girl love affair?

Well, if they're talking about Xeni, it depends on how loose their definition of "girl" is.
posted by ten pounds of inedita at 5:36 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


Boy, TNH is making things so much worse. This is awesome.
posted by waraw at 5:37 PM on July 1, 2008 [4 favorites]


This may be the single most ill-advised self-destructive statement I have seen on the web in a long time (except for a few here, but you know the kind of asshats comment here).

Agreed on both points.
posted by dirtylittlemonkey at 5:38 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


This is a directory of wonderful things. If we no longer think something is wonderful, we have every right to remove it from your directory.

Now if that were really true, the wonderchicken'd be all over that site.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:41 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


man alive, if teresa nielsen-hayden's comment has anything to teach us, it's that we should be happy and proud to have jessamyn and cortex.
posted by lia at 5:42 PM on July 1, 2008 [3 favorites]


Well, if they're talking about Xeni, it depends on how loose their definition of "girl" is.

Seriously, please stop.
posted by spiderwire at 5:44 PM on July 1, 2008 [7 favorites]


And if I didn't make it clear, TNH = Teresa Nielsen Hayden = BoingBoing Paid Moderator

I have seen cortex and jessamyn write some sprited defenses of MeFi's Allmighty Mathowie, but have never seen anything like this. That's why I love MetaFilter and am among those who consider BoingBoing vastly overrated. I mean, they use Movable Type to run the blog... isn't that convincing evidence of cluelessness right there? (I keed, I keed, I just enjoy watching the steam come out of anildash's ears, I'm evil that way)
posted by wendell at 5:45 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


I misunderstood what you said there, Alvy.

I don't see what you did there?
posted by spiderwire at 5:46 PM on July 1, 2008


Taking away all the local flavor, like Cory Doctorow's unceasing campaign against virtually any kind of censorship

But I don't think you can take out the local flavor. Nobody would care in the least if your uncle joe went back and edited his myspace page. Because he hasn't held himself up as a champion of transparency and free information in the digital age. He hasn't regularly brought negative attention to other blogs censoring or silently removing information and then gone ahead and done the exact same thing.

Context is king here. You don't get to put yourself up on a pedestal and then cry foul when people notice you don't belong there.
posted by Justinian at 5:48 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


And as for all this "Orwellian editing" crap -- christ, do you take two seconds to think before you post it? You know the Boingers have a major commitment to transparency and open communication. Taking a stand on those issues, and writing and publishing a weblog that's run on those principles, doesn't mean the authors of that weblog are obliged to tell you about every little thing they think and do and decide.
NONPERSON HAS BEEN WONDEREMPTIED BY THE MINISTRY OF TRANSPARENCY
posted by Flunkie at 5:54 PM on July 1, 2008 [7 favorites]


Well, if they're talking about Xeni, it depends on how loose their definition of "girl" is.
posted by ten pounds of inedita at 8:36 PM on July 1


Talk about boyzone. Could we knock this shit off, please.
posted by joannemerriam at 5:56 PM on July 1, 2008 [7 favorites]


Well, if they're talking about Xeni, it depends on how loose their definition of "girl" is.

So fucking lame. Let them hang themselves asshole.
posted by Divine_Wino at 5:58 PM on July 1, 2008


829 comments?

C'mon MeFites, let's make it 1000.

I know you can do it!
posted by liza at 5:58 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


Is there anything more lame and ridiculous than "oh man if you knew what we knew about her you would freak, seriously, it's the worst thing in the world she is an awful human being but we are the good guys so we won't say what it is instead we will just encourage speculation and rumormongering sheesh it feels refreshing to be so honest and forthright and noble i think i better have some ecto cooler (but seriously she is a slut and whore and possibly a murderer but i can't say anything about it really i am doing her a favor (where is the ecto cooler) anyway really this was all to protect her we should get medals for our righteous conduct whore bitch psycho) and please anyway ignore everything that's happening but god if you, if you knew you would not even believe for one second the shit she pulled but i can't tell, really"

Fuck BoingBoing.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 5:58 PM on July 1, 2008 [10 favorites]


[munches popcorn, considers switching channel]

....466 comments later....

Oh. Wow.

Alright, this thread reminds me of when how Facebook devotees seem to feel about MySpace.

It's look like bOINGbOING has become your Dad's Oldmobile ie made irrelevant by the very forward motion it helped instigate.
posted by humannaire at 6:00 PM on July 1, 2008


So fucking lame. Let them hang themselves asshole.

Seriously. I flagged that so hard that it spilled over into commenting about it too.
posted by flaterik at 6:00 PM on July 1, 2008


man alive, if teresa nielsen-hayden's comment has anything to teach us, it's that we should be happy and proud to have jessamyn and cortex.

Seriously, has BB been hacked?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 6:01 PM on July 1, 2008 [2 favorites]


Well, if they're talking about Xeni, it depends on how loose their definition of "girl" is.

What the fuck? Not. Ok.

Flagged, deleteme
posted by Skorgu at 6:03 PM on July 1, 2008


>Well, if they're talking about Xeni, it depends on how loose their definition of "girl" is.

Seriously, please stop.

Seconded.

All the trashing of the BB folks is depressing. They handled the matter poorly and seemingly contrary to the standards up against which they hold others, but insulting their talents, looks, tastes or careers (insofar as they are unrelated to this editorial decision) is trés douchy.
posted by monocultured at 6:04 PM on July 1, 2008 [3 favorites]


Seriously. I flagged that so hard that it spilled over into commenting about it too.

Metafilter doesn't deserve the label to begin with, but can we not give the "boyzone" complainers valid ammunition by giving that asshole any more attention?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 6:06 PM on July 1, 2008


I guess it's context. Last time I made such a comment, not only did people not get up in arms, but it got laughs. Didn't expect it to cause even the least bit of uproar. Seriously.

Mods: mea culpa.
posted by ten pounds of inedita at 6:07 PM on July 1, 2008


Another comment from TNH... Less angry and obnoxious, but she appears to be pressuring the HappyMutantsLLC into coming out with a VB-bashing statement... (cut and pasted in full for the same reasons as before...)

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.

If you think any of this turns the Boingers into an evil corporate entity ... Lord almighty, I have no idea what to say. The notion is just too bizarre. It's easier to imagine they're shapeshifting aliens.

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 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. In the meantime, the comments kept coming in. That's how it happened. And by the way, there were never all that many of them.

So for that, you'll publicly defame Mark and Xeni and Cory and David? What a model of virtue you must be.

If you think what has happened is evidence of evil intent ... no. Just, no. I still have no idea what to say to an adult who comes to that conclusion. In the meantime, please don't write back to tell me all high-and-mightily that it's your moral judgement that what they did might conceivably possibly slippery-slopily lead to malfeasance, because if they erred, they did so out of kindness. Also because at the moment I'm having real difficulty believing in the depth and resilience of your own moral judgement. It'll pass, I'm sure. I'm just having trouble believing in it right now.

Sincerely,

Teresa Nielsen Hayden

posted by wendell at 6:09 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


man alive, if teresa nielsen-hayden's comment has anything to teach us, it's that we should be happy and proud to have jessamyn and cortex.

What? I thought we were already.

*pockets one get-out-of-jail-free card*
posted by UbuRoivas at 6:09 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


829 comments? C'mon MeFites, let's make it 1000.

My contribution to your goal!
posted by ericb at 6:10 PM on July 1, 2008


Man, this whole thing is the most Intertainment™ I've had in a long long long time.
posted by sciurus at 6:11 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


i second the motion about the misogyny.
totally not cool and totally flagged.
posted by liza at 6:13 PM on July 1, 2008


Did I forget to link?

TNH's 5PM comment

TNH's 6PM comment
posted by wendell at 6:13 PM on July 1, 2008 [2 favorites]


"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....

So for that, you'll publicly defame Mark and Xeni and Cory and David? What a model of virtue you must be."

Nice.
posted by spiderwire at 6:15 PM on July 1, 2008


What some people seem to be failing to realise is that even if you're not wrong you can still be lame.
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 6:16 PM on July 1, 2008


liza writes "Am just going to say WTF, let's make it 1000 comments. "

Well now that Boing Boing is dropping teasers, this turdstorm isn't going away until the whole mess is public. We now know that VB did something that was OMGSOTERRIBLE that they had to cleanse the site of the mere mention of her name. What the hell did she do? That speculation alone will get us to 1000, and that's assuming that TNH stops throwing gasoline on the fire over at the official Boing Boing thread. Once we find out what really happened, I think this sucker's going to 1500 comments in the aftermath. 2000 if it's a sex scandal.
posted by mullingitover at 6:17 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


So Violet Blue saying she doesn't know or understand what's going
on is a form of defament?

Humannaire, please pass the popcorn.
posted by liza at 6:19 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


What some people seem to be failing to realize is that even if you're not "evil" you can still be wrong.
posted by wendell at 6:19 PM on July 1, 2008 [2 favorites]


Oh and in the stark contrast of moderation here vs at Boing Boing, can I just say cortex, jessamyn, we love you.
posted by mullingitover at 6:19 PM on July 1, 2008 [6 favorites]


Metafilter: oscilating spheres of hostility

Someone out there is recording all of these taglines for use some day, right?
posted by JHarris at 6:19 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


If you think any of this turns the Boingers into an evil corporate entity ... Lord almighty, I have no idea what to say. The notion is just too bizarre. It's easier to imagine they're shapeshifting aliens.

Yes. It most certainly is.
posted by felix betachat at 6:22 PM on July 1, 2008


Well, if they're talking about Xeni, she has always been at war with Censorstan.
posted by wonderemptyperson at 12:36 PM on July 2 [8,972 favorites +] [!]
posted by UbuRoivas at 6:22 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


With several comment quotings and discussing it and the commenter making a mea culpa, I think it might be more dizzying to nix the comment now than to let it stand as an example of people on all sides of this discussion saying questionable things, but I'll head-check it with my cohorts because I've been the odd man out on that line of thinking before.
posted by cortex at 6:22 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


Metafilter: Meta, Unfiltered.
posted by SpaceBass at 6:23 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


Teresa really has some great comments:
The online world has a badly depressed baseline notion of what constitutes civil conversation. It's a leftover from usenet days, when the only thing you could do about trolls, creeps, crazies, and thugs, if you didn't want to fight them, was to keep your head down and add their names to your killfile. Differences of opinion tended to get sorted out via the verbal equivalent of cricket bats and nunchuks. It was an environment that heavily favored participants who had thick skins and loud voices....

Here's how you can tell that everyday civility is a basic social value, rather than a luxury: when you lose it, you start to lose other things as well. I've seen far more free speech get stifled or shut down by loutishness than by governments or other authorities.
Good advice. I wonder if "I'm having real difficulty believing in the depth and resilience of your own moral judgement" counts as civil, or loutish?
posted by spiderwire at 6:25 PM on July 1, 2008 [2 favorites]


I'm just here to get you to 1,000.
posted by Joel Johnson at 6:25 PM on July 1, 2008 [5 favorites]


Now THAT'S transparency, cortex.

I suspect BoingBoing is going to have a job opening for a Moderator in the near future. DON'T TAKE IT, PLEEEEZE!!!
posted by wendell at 6:27 PM on July 1, 2008


Heh. Hiya, Joel.
posted by cortex at 6:27 PM on July 1, 2008


And, man, cut Teresa a little slack. This is a king-sized shitstorm she's dealing with, and it's not clear to me that it's even her shit in any practical sense. I don't envy the day she's having.
posted by cortex at 6:30 PM on July 1, 2008 [3 favorites]


Doing my little part to help too. Go team!!
posted by pearlybob at 6:31 PM on July 1, 2008


Who cares what Violet Blue did? When Hans Reiser killed his wife, did Linux Today delete all mentions of ReiserFS?

Grow the fuck up.
posted by empath at 6:31 PM on July 1, 2008 [6 favorites]


Valleywag's renaming of their post from something along the lines of "Boing Boing loses credibility" to Did the Internet's free-speech guardians try to hush up a girl-on-girl love affair is shitty

Fucking A. I had the vague impression that valleywag was a sleazy worthless gossip blog but hadn't thought too much about it either way. This sort of move renders the blog worthless either through homophobia or just plain stupidity.

Well, if they're talking about Xeni, it depends on how loose their definition of "girl" is.

I was also going to point out how stupid and utterly reprehensible this post is but others have already done so and I think that reflects well on metafilter.
posted by stet at 6:33 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


joel! what happened to your vow to never join metafilter?

p.s. do not poach jessamyn or cortex, or i will steal your fat dog.
posted by lia at 6:34 PM on July 1, 2008 [3 favorites]


I'll head-check it with my cohorts because I've been the odd man out on that line of thinking before.

Please do. This thread is large enough that it won't miss a slight derail into vicious personal attacks.
posted by tkolar at 6:35 PM on July 1, 2008


And, man, cut Teresa a little slack.

FWIW, I was being serious when I said that she had some good comments. The ones I posted I thought were genuinely insightful -- cogent statements on good moderation practices that are really far too rare. Really good stuff.

What I was trying to get at -- poorly -- was that I don't think she's following her own advice very well right now. It's certainly likely that she's frustrated, and that'd be understandable; it's only human.

That said, she's ostensibly the head PR person and moderator, and both jobs require thick skin. As she pointed out in one of the quotes I posted above, it's just not professional. The accusations she's making about Violet Blue right now are particularly uncool.
posted by spiderwire at 6:37 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


Just noticed that the whole "xenisucks" stuff on BB where Xeni called the site "a hoot" is also purged.
posted by waraw at 6:38 PM on July 1, 2008 [3 favorites]


MetaFilter : Uncensoring the web

MetaFilter : Repersoning unpublished unwonderfuls

MetaFilter : Unshitting the blogosphere

MetaFilter : Closer and closer to 1000 comments
posted by liza at 6:39 PM on July 1, 2008


cortex: you mean you're thinking of unpublishing the comment?!?
posted by Justinian at 6:40 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


Sorry, brother cortex, I'm in the "reap what you sew" camp here. Like my little thing with jscalzi above, the fact that TNH's primary communication so far has been condescension, condescension, then some more condescension, then an ad hominem... well, use whatever image you like, but she has it coming. I've never seen a nerd mob quieted by being talked down to or belittled. Let's see how this plays out!

* To their credit, many "edgy" comments have not been unpublished! It sounds like I'm being snarky, but I actually do thank them every time they let one of these discussions actually breath...
posted by cavalier at 6:41 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


In that case, cortex, when the BB Mod job opens up, you can take it. We'll even give you a going-away cake... I've got one with a big IE logo and the message "Congrats on Shipping" in my freezer. Don't know why nobody ever took a bite out of it.
posted by wendell at 6:41 PM on July 1, 2008 [2 favorites]


Just noticed that the whole "xenisucks" stuff on BB where Xeni called the site "a hoot" is also purged.

Oh what the frack! How far down the rabbit hole are they going -- have they gone -- on this unpublish policy?
posted by cavalier at 6:42 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


Hootendectomized?
posted by Flunkie at 6:45 PM on July 1, 2008


metafilter? What a joke. Yeah, your links are nice, and askmefi is useful, but the discussion and core community is like a pack of marauding, shrill seagulls descending upon a sole chip.

We should totally mail bags full of seagulls to bOINGbOING headquarters in protest until they agree to renew Jericho they agree to furnish us all with bags of delicious, drama flavored Apologeeto'sTM, the corn chip that explodes like a marauding snarkfest in your mouth!©

If they don't come through in a week, we'll begin tossing Alka Seltzer tablets through the windows.

bOINGbOING, if you think your total loss of credibility is a mess, wait until you have ruptured bird intestines gumming up your Power Mac keyboards. That'll make it real squicky to blog about Jules Verne's Ironetta, the steel bosomed electrical sex worker with the papercraft hoohah that can simultaneously crack SecuROM and service Japanese businessmen while investing the profits in third world microloans.
posted by bunnytricks at 6:45 PM on July 1, 2008 [10 favorites]


The funnest part of this will be watching them retrofit their own ideology to make this kind of behaviour seem reasonable.
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 6:46 PM on July 1, 2008 [4 favorites]


Cortex
I won't kick if you delete any and all of my comments regarding this, once you get your checkin, but until then...

I guess it's context. Last time I made such a comment, not only did people not get up in arms, but it got laughs. Didn't expect it to cause even the least bit of uproar. Seriously.

Mods: mea culpa.


Getting laughs is literally the last qualification for making an ugly sexist comment that has nothing to do with the matter at hand, shame on your nitwit ass.
posted by Divine_Wino at 6:46 PM on July 1, 2008 [3 favorites]


trash Violet Blue, who has no such compunctions where they are concerned...

"WTF where are my posts" is trashing?

Pass the popcorn.
posted by rodgerd at 6:47 PM on July 1, 2008


Yet to appear in this epic thread: the speculation that the BoingBoingers are pissed at VB for writing an article that may have contributed to getting their friend Amanda Congdon fired from her job at ABC. I can't remember the first place I saw this theory posted at this point though...

Also, I'm surprised at the lack of speculation here as to what exactly she did to piss them off. I mean, you can argue about BB being hypocritical for unpersoning her or whatever all you want, but would you change your mind if you found out she did something really heinous?
posted by Tesseractive at 6:47 PM on July 1, 2008


sew

Sow. You reap what you sow.

Mmm, tasty chip.
posted by rodgerd at 6:51 PM on July 1, 2008


Blargh. Cortex, make me look smarter! Pretty please?! I even spell checked... darn words that sound the same but spell differently!

Now.. if one could bear fruits out of cotton fiber/poly blends... I'd slice them and fry them and then we could squawk and flock!
posted by cavalier at 6:54 PM on July 1, 2008


but would you change your mind if you found out she did something really heinous?

How would Cory react if the Linux community purged every mention that ReiserFS had ever existed from the kernel and leading Linux-oriented sites when he was convicted for murder? Would he have say, "Well, that was a pretty heinous crime."?
posted by rodgerd at 6:57 PM on July 1, 2008


Ok, nevermind, the Amanda Congdon theory was edited into one of the FPP links as a P.S...
posted by Tesseractive at 6:57 PM on July 1, 2008




but would you change your mind if you found out she did something really heinous?


If someone did something that pissed them off, then they've got the perfect medium to make a post explaining what this person did to piss them off. Deleting them from history and saying nothing, however, is an extremely immature response that goes against the principals they all claim to hold.

It would be like if Mathowie decided to delete every single comment ParisParamus made on this place, delete his profile page, and delete any other comment anyone ever made asking about what ever happened to Paris Paramus. Shitty and immature, no matter what the person did.
posted by Jimbob at 7:02 PM on July 1, 2008 [2 favorites]


Posting on legendary thread because I love you all. Well, not the creepy misogynist guy. But the rest of you--SMOOCH!

And though I'm late to the limerick contest:

A sexblogger named Violet Blue
Was 'unpublished' by BoingBoing, it's true
The blogosphere trembled--
"Has our champion dissembled?"
And the monkeys began to fling poo.

Unpublished unpersons don't care
If their comments have vanished from there
They'll get front-page stories
And other such glories
While TNH tears out her hair.

I confess that I don't give a damn
That BoingBoing's got into this jam
The "things" weren't so wonder-
Ful. Then, this new blunder!
Not to mention the endless book spam.

posted by Sidhedevil at 7:04 PM on July 1, 2008 [9 favorites]


Not freaked, waraw. Entirely civil, rational, and level-headed.
posted by Sys Rq at 7:05 PM on July 1, 2008


It is somewhat amusing to me that the huge BB thread that keeps getting linked to is seen as some sort of crazy, unhandlable mess by the folks over there, yet that sort of thing is de rigeur here in MetaTalk.

That's one of the things I love about MetaFilter; when our shit stinks we know we air it out as quickly and thoroughly as possible, because we know that if we leave it under the covers, it'll end up sticky as meconium, and as hard to clean up.
posted by sciurus at 7:05 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


Perhaps, Sys Rq. Was going on the repeated "wow" and "in shock".
posted by waraw at 7:07 PM on July 1, 2008


[No worries, everyone. I'm making enough popcorn for everyone. Who likes it buttered? Anyone prefer bean flavor? Hands up, please...] [Personally, I prefer samosas for this kind of debacle.] [Did anyone bring marshmallows? This whuffie fire's not going to last forever - get in there quick!] [This meltdown is so fascinating, in a limited, not-quite-Zimbabwean-election-crisis sense.] [Oh! I forgot the rat-traps and BBQ sauce. Be...right...back...]
posted by Minus215Cee at 7:07 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


the authors of that weblog are obliged to tell you about every little thing they think and do...

Don't they do that anyways?
posted by drezdn at 7:09 PM on July 1, 2008 [3 favorites]


*clears out the channel so a longboat can dock*
posted by drezdn at 7:10 PM on July 1, 2008


Minus215Cee,

If we complain, will we get ppcrn? Is there a bittorrent for the BBQ?
posted by lukemeister at 7:11 PM on July 1, 2008


You know, I barely remember a couple months ago BoingBoing had an item on a Saturday about something that had become a big deal on the web a couple days earlier but had been revealed as a hoax the night before. And the BB post was assuming it was legitimate. I had seen BB's practice of striking through incorrect info and putting corrections on the same post and thought that, while it sometimes makes their original judgment look silly, it at least shows they were being honest. I kept the story in a Firefox tab, clicking back to see what the correction would look like and a couple hours later, it just disappeared. Unpublished. I wish I remembered more about the incident (I think it was Cory who posted the story but I could very easily be wrong), but it showed me then that even BoingBoing has a Memory Hole and what they throw in there is probably very interesting indeed. So this whole kerfuffle just showed that I was right. It is very interesting indeed. Can you imagine if some muckraker or shitstirrer did an in-depth review of the BB archives vs. archive.org. what other juicy stuff they'd find? Fortunately for BB, the shitdivers at Valleywag are too lazy to do that kind of work.
posted by wendell at 7:13 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


i've got the marshmallows!
posted by liza at 7:13 PM on July 1, 2008


Seriously, why waste time making small minded comments on Xeni's looks when there are so many real reasons to despise her?
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 7:16 PM on July 1, 2008 [2 favorites]


Wait was the Sidhedevil a few comments back? GET THE FUCK BACK IN HERE LADY.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 7:18 PM on July 1, 2008


Can you imagine if some muckraker or shitstirrer did an in-depth review of the BB archives vs. archive.org?

Actually, not to derail this thread into something I'm actually curious about but does an automated tool for doing that kind of research exist? That would be extremely useful.
posted by whir at 7:19 PM on July 1, 2008


I should've bought more Hot Pockets when they were on sale.
posted by wendell at 7:21 PM on July 1, 2008


Just chiming in with:
  • it's a huge PR disaster for them;
  • THN should be ashamed of herself for posting like that in the role of a mod;
  • they've made the whole thing much worse with statements which have been contradictory, evasive, spiteful and far from transparent;
Clearly, the whole thing smacks of sexual/interpersonal conflict. And it's obviously nothing to do with Cory, who I'd imagine knew nothing about it and was very surprised to find out.

The most obvious scenario to me is: Xeni comes home mad after a fight with Violet, logs in to BoingBoing's back end and just deletes everything that even mentioned her in passing -- and everything that came after has been a rather shabby attempt to recharacterise it as something other than pure spite.

In my imagination, the other BB people are hopping mad with her for doing it and, behind the scenes, are trying to get her to be more honest, and even apologise.
posted by AmbroseChapel at 7:21 PM on July 1, 2008 [2 favorites]


the discussion and core community is like a pack of marauding, shrill seagulls descending upon a sole chip.

hey, there's a chip on that guy's shoulder! back off, i saw it first!

*squawks raucously*

oh - there's a longboat! think i'll follow it for a while...

*veers off towards longboat, poops on boingboing in passing*
posted by UbuRoivas at 7:21 PM on July 1, 2008 [3 favorites]


Yesterday on the thread over at Making Light, I spoofed Xeni's name to make a comment. My intent in doing this was to point out that the "Cory" who had posted there was an obvious fake -- I really never expected the comment to pass as Xeni, and I thought it might be a kind of funny way to call out fake Cory. Ha ha! Ha. Ha?

After spending the day observing the completely horrific consequences of not transparently apologizing for one's mistakes and realizing that this whole issue is probably centered around Xeni, I just wanted to say: very sorry, learned my lesson, no disrespect.

It's no sex scandal, but it's all I got
posted by zota at 7:22 PM on July 1, 2008 [4 favorites]


[lukemeister: If you complain you'll get oo. And ue on your hands, or maybe ea, depending on your topping preference. The BBQ sauce is my father's recipe, and he doesn't bittorrent, but I can send it to you in a RAR file.] [I take it no one wants a samosa?]

[liza: AWESOME. Let me gather some of my brass-plated extensible marshmallow sticks (For The Discerning OutdoorsMan, it says on the box), and we're in business!]
posted by Minus215Cee at 7:22 PM on July 1, 2008


So the last time I refreshed this page, I got the "This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments" thing at the bottom, and was on my way to Meta to make a WHAT. THE. HELL. MATT. post, but then I refreshed again and the thread was back open. Way to freak me out, guys!
posted by jtron at 7:22 PM on July 1, 2008


Of course, whir, something like that must exist. Fortunately, it's probably too technical for anybody at Valleywag to use. (If you haven't guessed, I have a lower opinion of Valleywag than anybody else involved in this mess, including the poster who made the unfunny Xeniphobic comment)
posted by wendell at 7:27 PM on July 1, 2008


904 comments and counting.

Minus215Cee, how many bags of 'mallows do you think we need?

:)
posted by liza at 7:27 PM on July 1, 2008


"Marauding, Shrill Seagulls"
(with apologies to Howard Nemerov)

The editors at BoingBoing, sometimes,
For kicks, they post two kinds of truth on site
At either end of a single blue byline
And toss that up into the blogosphere,

Which goes for it so fast that often Metafilterans
Make the connection before it hits archive.org.
Hooked and hung up like that, they make a thread
That lasts only so long. The editors

Do that for kicks, at BoingBoing, sometimes.

posted by adipocere at 7:30 PM on July 1, 2008 [2 favorites]


Ok. It should be obvious to the casual observer what it is going on now.

When this thread hits 1000 comments, THN is going to make a BB post with a full explanation of the injustices done to all "behind the cut"...

And then, we'll all get rickrolled.

And it still won't be funny.
posted by qDot at 7:31 PM on July 1, 2008 [3 favorites]


HOW CAN I RUN OUT OF FAVORITE POINTS!
This is a legendary day for a legendary post.

Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
posted by liza at 7:32 PM on July 1, 2008 [6 favorites]


All of this talk of marshmallows and boing boing is making me think of Cory's pale, marshy bloggers' ass crack, and that's just gross.

Speaking of, time to take a break from this legendary FPP and slide into the tub before things fester.
posted by bunnytricks at 7:34 PM on July 1, 2008


It amazes me how people can get so caught up in their side of things that they can so completely lose sight of how people who aren't already convinced will see their actions. Especially people in positions of high public visibility, not to mention editorial control.

Take a moment out of your devastating rebuttal and imagine that someone came into the discussion right now no context, no back story, nothing. Does your sentence sound sensible? Rational? Even if you're totally in the right you can still succinctly convince anyone listening that you're off your meds.

Even if Violet Blue is nature's most heinous bitch and caused this whole thing, her posts are calm, collected, cited, and scrupulously factual.

Even if Boing Boing and staff are pure as the driven snow and are just overwhelmed, or whatever they're coming off as at best incompetent and at worst malicious and incompetent.

Obviously the Truth lies somewhere in the middle there, but this is Givewell-caliber damage control. Very surprising.

[There's some money to be made with dual-use longboat paddles and mallow toasting sticks. US Patent 72928, ©2008 Skorgu Networks, All Rights Reserved, Do Not Drop]
posted by Skorgu at 7:36 PM on July 1, 2008 [5 favorites]


Pony Request: When an askme question about dating someone you work with comes up, can we point to this thread?

(Because, at the end of the day, that seems like at least some of what precipitated this kerfluffle.)
posted by maxwelton at 7:37 PM on July 1, 2008 [3 favorites]


This will become a B-school case study on how not to handle controversy, especially internet controversy that spreads a little faster than in regular media. When your kids get into Harvard B-school they will tell you about this, and you will smile.
posted by caddis at 7:38 PM on July 1, 2008


Let me gather some of my brass-plated extensible marshmallow sticks

Using Extensible Marshmallow Language, no doubt!
posted by lukemeister at 7:39 PM on July 1, 2008 [2 favorites]


Well, shit, I'm getting all drawn into this now that I've got my PICK statements sorted out.


At boingboing, TNH wrote "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 haven't been able to find any of Violet Blue's "trashing". Is there a reference to such?
posted by boo_radley at 7:40 PM on July 1, 2008


I am happily contributing toward making this thread into a longboat, a longcat or a Long Dong Silver. While short on Hot Pockets, I did get Graham Crackers, which with liza's marshmallows and somebody else's chocolate bars, can make sure everybody gets S'more! S'more! S'more!
posted by wendell at 7:42 PM on July 1, 2008


Suddenly, I don't feel so bad about what happened to me.
posted by Paphnuty at 7:43 PM on July 1, 2008 [9 favorites]


When your kids get into Harvard B-school they will tell you about this, and you will smile.

Right before they tell you about their great new Web 2.0 charity
posted by spiderwire at 7:44 PM on July 1, 2008 [2 favorites]


One of the more interesting things is that, while Violet Blue has a reputation for badmouthing people and institutions she has had a falling out with, nobody has found anything "trashing" she has said about BoingBoing (or Xeni). Unless... she has done a much more skillful job of unpublishing than BB has... Oh, yes, curiouser and curiouser.
posted by wendell at 7:46 PM on July 1, 2008


I'm curious. Was Teresa Nielsen Hayden around when all this was supposed to have gone down, a year ago? She seems to have inside dope about the quality of Violet Blue's character, which she describes in very unflattering terms; did she come by that through experience?

Additionally, it is quite a disingenuous rhetorical technique to say "I could talk about what a liar this person is, and I could trash them, but I won't."

Yes you did. You just refused to support your accusation.
posted by Astro Zombie at 7:52 PM on July 1, 2008 [4 favorites]


Additionally, it is quite a disingenuous rhetorical technique to say "I could talk about what a liar this person is, and I could trash them, but I won't."
"And she has no such reservations about trashing us."
posted by Flunkie at 7:56 PM on July 1, 2008


I'm curious. Was Teresa Nielsen Hayden around when all this was supposed to have gone down, a year ago?

Here is Mark's post welcoming Teresa to the site on Aug 28 2007. The last Internet Archive crawl of the VB/Xeni post mentioned above was Aug 27 2007. So she's certainly been there the entire time.
posted by spiderwire at 8:00 PM on July 1, 2008


[liza, I think we'll need a lot. Maybe a half-bag per comment, distributed independent of merit.]
[lukemeister: I've got some ten-foot bamboo poles if brass plate isn't to your liking.] [I'm embarrassed, actually, I slept through my Extensible Marshmallow Languages final. I was dreaming of beans, on fire, but they were these beans, not the canned ones. It was horrible; I still passed the class. I just keep the poles around for, uh, nostalgia. Yeah, nostalgia.]

posted by Minus215Cee at 8:03 PM on July 1, 2008


It's good to see you're publicly acknowledging your role in the multiple times your company idiotically drove LiveJournal onto the shoals to rot (before selling her for scrap).

This thread isn't about me, but actually, the experience there is relevant to the thread at hand. Nearly every time something outrageously annoying happened when I was part of that community, it was due to a series of perfectly reasonable (or reasonable-seeming, at the time) decisions being made, the sum total of which was something that seemed really nefarious. And in each case, we chose, as I suspect BoingBoing has, to take the hit on reputation rather than air out dirty laundry in public or put one of our coworkers up for crucifixion by a huge community of ranters.

Basically, I think there may have been stuff mishandled within the BB team, but in these situations, it can make a lot more sense to close ranks around the folks you work with and all swallow your pride together than to make an individual the focus of an angry mob. Again, I don't know the details of this situation, but I've seen it from the inside in communities I've been a part of, as well as from other communities that have faced such shitstorms, and what seems like cluelessness is often loyalty in difficult circumstances.
posted by anildash at 8:04 PM on July 1, 2008 [7 favorites]


Additionally, it is quite a disingenuous rhetorical technique to say "I could talk about what a liar this person is, and I could trash them, but I won't."

Thanks to AskMe, I happen to know that the formal name of this particular rhetorical technique is paralipsis.
posted by whir at 8:14 PM on July 1, 2008 [13 favorites]


.
posted by homunculus at 8:20 PM on July 1, 2008 [2 favorites]


It would be like if Mathowie decided to delete every single comment ParisParamus made on this place, delete his profile page, and delete any other comment anyone ever made asking about what ever happened to Paris Paramus. Shitty and immature, no matter what the person did.

Unfortunately, we'll always have Paris.
posted by Challahtronix at 8:25 PM on July 1, 2008 [16 favorites]


Oops, wrong thread. Carry on.
posted by homunculus at 8:32 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


Sidhedevil, so nice to see you. Come back and set a spell some time.
posted by Divine_Wino at 8:35 PM on July 1, 2008


Regarding speculating on what Violet Blue did to be unwonderfuled, writing the negative article about Amanda Congdon doesn't fit. That article was published on 2007-04-05, and Violet Blue was still considered Boingy as late as 2007-07-27, in a post about "Short link amuse bouches for Friday". So that's too much time difference.

The only thing that seems to fit the timeline is the trademark case she brought against a porn star using the name "Violet Blue", which was filed in October 2007. But there still seems to be something missing, given the very intense personal feelings on display.
posted by Seth Finkelstein at 8:36 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


it can make a lot more sense to close ranks around the folks you work with and all swallow your pride
Oooh! Just like cops!

Sorry.
posted by bigbigdog at 8:39 PM on July 1, 2008 [2 favorites]


You know AmbroseChapel that is almost exactly the scenario I imagined when I was trying to figure out WTF was going on. My next question was who told who what when.

And someday when your kids are working on their b-school papers on PR disasters of the internet age, that last sentence is going to melt the language parser or the weak AI research system you bought them.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 8:44 PM on July 1, 2008


waraw:Violet's getting pretty freaked.
Actually she seems pretty calm about it all -- certainly more so than TNH.

sciurus: That's one of the things I love about MetaFilter; when our shit stinks we know we air it out as quickly and thoroughly as possible, because we know that if we leave it under the covers, it'll end up sticky as meconium, and as hard to clean up.

Man! I love these shit metaphors. Meconium! Haven't heard that since my daughter was born.

This entire event is so engrossing -- I don't care about the chip, just love having the chance to squawk or shriek or whatever it is MeFites are supposed to be doing. (Bird metaphors don't stick as well as shit ones.)
*rimshot*
No, Violet, that is not what "rimshot" means.
posted by CCBC at 8:48 PM on July 1, 2008


The LA times spoke to Xeni and Violet Blue about it.

Game Frakkin' Over


2) The reasons behind the mistake of number one are indeed rooted in personal dynamics between Xeni Jardin and Violet Blue. What little I know of those dynamics I decided quickly was none of my business. When I realized this was a private matter and not some kind of baseless, mean-spirited ostracism, or legal dispute, or vendetta, I began to feel the story's importance shrinking, even while attention to it was ballooning. Problem was, the people involved didn't come clean until way too late, after it had already morphed into a sleazy gossip yarn. Maybe a little quicker with the sunlight next time.

Sounds like it was indeed a messy break-up.
posted by empath at 8:51 PM on July 1, 2008 [2 favorites]


WebScout has an update and something of an explanation after talking with Xeni. Makes sense. Hopefully it's lesson learned, hugs all around, etc. etc.
posted by spiderwire at 8:52 PM on July 1, 2008


Damn you, empath.
posted by spiderwire at 8:52 PM on July 1, 2008


The problem with the lover's-spat explanation is that then Violet Blue would certainly know why this is happening (assuming she's not holding back on that). I'm leaning to the theory that this has something do with the trademark case somehow bringing in the Boingers, to legal unpleasantness, where Violet Blue then didn't know how bad it got (still, wouldn't they tell her? maybe not?).
posted by Seth Finkelstein at 8:54 PM on July 1, 2008


Minus215Cee - are there any samosas left?
posted by rtha at 8:56 PM on July 1, 2008


This sentence clause does not make sense to me: "When I realized this was a private matter and not some kind of baseless, mean-spirited ostracism ..."

It certainly looks like a "baseless, mean-spirited ostracism", which arose from a "private matter".
posted by Seth Finkelstein at 9:04 PM on July 1, 2008


Context is king here. You don't get to put yourself up on a pedestal and then cry foul when people notice you don't belong there.

Don't get me wrong, I think that's exactly why this story has the legs that it does. But in scenarios like this there are the people and there is the cause. And then something happens that forces you to choose between the cause and the people. And by time it's gotten that far you're already screwed.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 9:05 PM on July 1, 2008


Boingboing needs a metatalk section.
posted by empath at 9:05 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


942 comments?
Get on with it people.
I did a run on marshmallows and they're
certainly not going to waste.
posted by liza at 9:08 PM on July 1, 2008


empath, they're incapable of having a metatalk section.
that would make them more like ... ahem ... MetaFilter.
posted by liza at 9:10 PM on July 1, 2008


I hope one of the lessons they are learning from this is not to treat their readers like adversaries when they don't like the questions that the readers start asking. With a few obvious exceptions, these are your audience, and alienating them and treating them like they're a bother or off base, and attempting to silence legitimate concern, isn't going to serve you very well.
posted by Astro Zombie at 9:14 PM on July 1, 2008 [2 favorites]


Get on with it people.

I would be astounded if at least one person on this thread hadn't had some sort of communication with the BoingBoing authors and clearly though it wasn't a malicious move. I don't see why it's necessary to belabor the issue at this point.

This was an enormously boneheaded mistake, and the subsequent response was even clumsier, but it seems clear by now that everyone involved knows that. The deletion probably happened a long time ago, and no one saw the need to bring it up unilaterally until it came up independently and blew up in their faces -- unexpectedly, I'd bet.

And who knows -- they might not even have access to the original posts. But we'll never know without also hearing some disclosure about the motivation for the "unpublishing," and it seems that all concerned have concluded that it wouldn't be appropriate to make that public.

At any rate, I don't think my own unsatisfied curiosity is reason to twist the knife here. To err is human, to forgive is to get the last word.
posted by spiderwire at 9:18 PM on July 1, 2008


The "Game Frakkin' Over" post doesn't really have much information in it.

"1) BoingBoing messed up ..." - Err, yes. A little bit of info, in that there's a climb-down from the idea that personal trumps everything.

"2) The reasons behind the mistake of number one are indeed rooted in personal dynamics between ..." - Well, the tone of the Boinger comments certainly implied that.

"3) Bloggers are weird." - stating the obvious :-).
posted by Seth Finkelstein at 9:18 PM on July 1, 2008


The WebScout article doesn't help a whole lot:
It appears Jardin now understands this: "Some of the things that were natural to do when it was four people just doing it as a hobby," she began when we spoke on the phone, then finished on a different track: "We rearrange things as we go along and realize the volume of any small actions you take will be a lot louder. We’d never handle it the same way again."
When was it just four people doing it as a hobby? Five years ago? Back when it was a 'zine? Yesterday? Cause her answer, framed against her actions, is only sensible if it was yesterday.
posted by boo_radley at 9:26 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


The problem with the lover's-spat explanation is that then Violet Blue would certainly know why this is happening (assuming she's not holding back on that).

Yeah I buy Lentrohamsanin's theory that Violet Blue very definitely does know why the Boingers might have it out for her (maybe not initially, since this came to light so long after whatever the incident was) and, cannily, is playing innocent while the Boingers and hangers-on just completely hang themselves in total amazing LJ-drama fiery glory. Nice work; now maybe if she can cause the National Review to e x p l o d e I can suddenly decide she's totally my hero.

nice juicy drama, back to permalurking, doin' my part for the big 1000 is all
posted by furiousthought at 9:29 PM on July 1, 2008 [2 favorites]


And I thought it was embarrassing to date a singer/songwriter and have her write a song about you when you break up.
posted by Astro Zombie at 9:31 PM on July 1, 2008 [4 favorites]


So my blog is the reason I don't get laid? I thought I was blogging because I don't get laid. I'm confused.
posted by wendell at 9:37 PM on July 1, 2008 [2 favorites]


And by [the] time it's gotten that far you're already screwed. I think it was actually screwed before then. It was screwed when they felt they could start deleting and significantly changing the content of posts after publishing. Xeni had apprently been pretty bad about this, though many of them as mentioned above had fallen prey to hoaxes and then deleted posts. (I think XeniSucks.com had covered these.)

It's not that these things aren't wrong when someone does it on a personal page, it's just that few people care. I am sure out in MySpace land, there has been drama when someone posts something regrettable, and then tries to erase it. It's a silly thing to do no matter who you are. Petty tyrants of corporations and popular websites start out as petty tyrants in cliques and personal sites.

I don't envy TNH's role as moderator there. But I do think she has been corrupted. What initially started out as disemvowelling tolls then became erasing arguments that she found tedious. Her arguments in this situation have shown that the lines have been blurred between what is right and what she wants. Things have gotten away from policies and rules and instead are becoming personal and power-based ("It's our website!").
posted by FuManchu at 9:37 PM on July 1, 2008 [2 favorites]


So my blog is the reason I don't get laid? I thought I was blogging because I don't get laid. I'm confused.

It's a vicious circle.
posted by empath at 9:40 PM on July 1, 2008


Wait, Astro Zombie... you're Dave Coulier? It all makes sense now...
posted by jtron at 9:40 PM on July 1, 2008 [2 favorites]


The following shows where I lose all respect for TNH and won't read BB anymore, including the thread I'm copying this from. In reply to a question of how VB has "demonstrably" lied:

1. As mentioned earlier, by pretending that there's something extraordinary about removing old material from a weblog when the practice isn't unusual, and VB herself does silent edits on her own site. 2. 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. If it was news at all, it was old news that no one else had noticed. 3. Overstating the number of entries about her. I can't get an accurate count without reading each one, in order to distinguish entries that are actually about her from instances that are just her weblog being credited in passing as the source of a link -- not my top priority at the moment -- but they're not in the three digits.

1. There's a hell of a lot of difference between making edits on a blog mainly about sex, and making edits on a blog that has repeatedly called out other organizations for revising their pasts. 2. This is a "she said, she said" argument and does not fall under the "demonstrable" tag. 3. Calling someone a liar when they do not instantly know how many posts have been wiped is pretty fucked. Especially after you claim you had no desire to trash said person.

Xeni, I thought you would've known better. Sorry this went down this way, but not being able to see this coming from waaaaaay over there -- you blog on BOINGBOING fer chrissakes -- is beyond ridiculous. If TNH and Xeni have their jobs by the end of the week I will be surprised. I'm going to bed.
posted by waraw at 9:41 PM on July 1, 2008 [3 favorites]


Astro Zombie is Dave Coulier!
posted by Falconetti at 9:42 PM on July 1, 2008


Goddammit! uh...great minds think alike?
posted by Falconetti at 9:43 PM on July 1, 2008


TNH lost my repsect hours ago, but really screwed the pooch with this one: (cut and paste, unaltered except for my emphasis)

Most large, active blogs take material down, for a variety of reasons. Some do it more than others. May I refer you to the first paragraph of BooHoo's comment @594? He or she describes how Violet Blue takes stuff down from her own site.

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. My guess is that you mostly read new weblog entries. If you don't do the kind of online research that leads to reading old ones, you would never notice that sometimes they're missing.


So Violet Blue = Karl Rove?

I don't know what anyone else at BB has against VB, but if she did anything less heinous than kill TNH's dog/cat, it's Teresa who's doing the Rovian disinformation here.

BoingThud.
There is no bounce left.
posted by wendell at 9:49 PM on July 1, 2008 [4 favorites]


OMG not fluffy!
958...
posted by ryanrs at 9:55 PM on July 1, 2008


i still have favorites left, i'm so disappointed.
posted by nomisxid at 9:58 PM on July 1, 2008


I agree with waraw, that's a bizarre post from TNH.

1) Removing old blog posts is not unusual? Yes it is, and removing a large number of posts specifically because they mention a certain person is completely unheard of in my experience.

2) Someone "demonstrably" lied about X by omission? Then you have to show that she knew about X.

3) She lied about the number? Where? Her blog post on the subject just says "every Boing Boing post (except one) with my name on it".

If you're going to say "demonstrably"? You have to, well, demonstrate.

Here's a quick thought -- a lot of the posts might only have mentioned her in passing. Xeni's "travels in South America" had about three words in it about VB, about one per cent of the content, but it still got deleted. How would you feel if a good portion of your Google Rank came from being linked on BoingBoing, and you took a hit because you happened to be in the same post as a casual mention of Violet Blue?
posted by AmbroseChapel at 9:58 PM on July 1, 2008


but she appears to be pressuring the HappyMutantsLLC into coming out with a VB-bashing statement...

They could just... I dunno... admit this whole thing was a bad idea? No? Okay.
posted by Artw at 10:01 PM on July 1, 2008


Wow.

I guess after all these years I shouldn't be surprised by snarky hate and ad hominem attacks on people discussed on MeFi. But I still am astounding at the viciousness of commenters here about this whole thing.

I'm lucky enough to know both Violet and the BB crew. You know what? They are all nice people. You'd like them too. They are all polite, kind, and care about the people that read their sites.

Too bad MeFi is full of self-righteous commenters that attempt to engage in a contest of who has the snarkiest post and who first rejected the popular sites. I could search and replace the names in this thread with Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan and the vitriol would feel just right.

Who the hell knows what went down to get this ball rolling? Not anyone here for sure. But in true MeFi fashion, don't let a lack of knowledge stand in the way of getting off a good one liner at someone's expense.

Now that the MeFiites blood is up, let's get a MeTa boyzone post going to really bring out the long knives...
posted by Argyle at 10:02 PM on July 1, 2008 [4 favorites]


Oh, and I thoroughly approve of any and all Akira like spacing or periodes between the letters e x p l o d e.
posted by Artw at 10:03 PM on July 1, 2008


Another argument against the lover's-spat explanation is the way TNH is flaming. If the issue were just a nasty break-up, I don't think that she'd be so personal herself. I'm inclined to the view it had to have been something that involved Boing Boing as an entity somehow. Maybe something embarrassing was at risk of coming out in the trademark case, some funding put in doubt? Just conjecture.
posted by Seth Finkelstein at 10:04 PM on July 1, 2008


I love this thread.

Some people got rickrolled. Paphnuty escaped! It must his Brand New Day.

Sidhedevil posted again. When I 1st started lurking I thought she was kind of awesome, but then she disappeared and I was sad.

Also cortex is awesome. lacklustered is the best word ever. Did you read the posts he made on making Light? Question? at meet ups do you call people by their names or their aliases. Cause I would totally be all cortex this and cortex that. Calling him Josh woud be wierd. Even if he was like hi, I'm josh. I would b like dude your name is cortex. Stop playing.

Also, yes, I always think i don't buy enough hot pockets. But then what the fuck are yoiu going to do with 15 boxes of hot pockets. That's way too much.

Also, some guy was being misogynist and everyone was like dude stop being a misogynist and he was all okay i will, my bad.

Also, there were limericks. Awesome limericks.

Hope you make it to a 1,000. But I have to go now. Bye!
posted by nooneyouknow at 10:04 PM on July 1, 2008 [13 favorites]


Another argument against the lover's-spat explanation is the way TNH is flaming.

No... that's just how she writes when she is angry. Been that way for at least 15 years, since the usenet days.
posted by Justinian at 10:07 PM on July 1, 2008


My money is still on "something in retrospect totally trivial" and "complete inability to back down".
posted by Artw at 10:07 PM on July 1, 2008 [2 favorites]


Newsflash: Nobody cares if you know the principals involved. It's utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand, which has to do with blogging and journalistic ethics and treating your readers with respect. Do we have a sense of entitlement? Yes, and I think we should. They make a living from us.
posted by empath at 10:08 PM on July 1, 2008 [5 favorites]


[I saved you one, rtha. *passes samosa, settles back into chair* Sorry, it took so long. I had to go pass meds. Ah, work.]
posted by Minus215Cee at 10:10 PM on July 1, 2008


>They are all polite, kind

Demonstrably, this is not so. And I can actually demonstrate that.

>Another argument against the lover's-spat explanation is the way TNH is flaming. If the issue were just a nasty break-up, I don't think that she'd be so personal herself.


I see that as her reacting in defence of Xeni. If Xeni's on the phone all boo-hoo, everyone hates me, the next time you see a comment attacking her you take it personally.
posted by AmbroseChapel at 10:12 PM on July 1, 2008


Empath: Sense of entitlement because you visit their website? Wow what an ego you have. I guess you have entitlement to everything you ever lay your eyes on in life, eh?

My comment is directly relevant. When individuals are insulted for things that have nothing to do with the topic (post removal) it's way out of line.

You expect journalistic ethics from one party but feel free to personally slam someone else? What hypocrisy...
posted by Argyle at 10:12 PM on July 1, 2008


that's just how she writes when she is angry. Been that way for at least 15 years, since the usenet days.

Really? Whoa.

I confess that I hadn't really been following TNH's web presence too assiduously, but my impressions from intermittently reading her comments at Making Light/Electrolicious and elsewhere, were very positive; she always seemed pretty sensible, rational, and even-keeled.

Which makes the current flameout kind of baffling, not to mention the snide, condescending tone. Sorta seems at odds with someone who's a professional moderator (even if it isn't her main gig) and who's writing a book on the subject.
posted by Vidiot at 10:15 PM on July 1, 2008


Wow, this thread is just the gift that keeps on giving. What's interesting is that there seems to be a day/night pattern here. Lots of snark during the 'day' and lots of more reasonable discussion at 'night'. I'm to lazy to actually go back over the thread and look at the timestamps, in order to test that theory, but I have actually read every single comment.

TNH's writing always seemed very arrogant and condescending when she talked about moderation, that's something I pointed out way, way back, and she's clearly clearly gone well into the zone of acting out of spite. She's also deeply paranoid, claiming that the early criticism of the deletion was orchestrated by Blue's friends, rather then simply people who found the deletion inappropriate. She's making wild accusations about Blue that are totally unsupported by evidence.

I mean at the worst, Blue might have had a good idea about why the posts were removed, and her initial post could have been a little disingenuous, but Come one. Her public statements in no way merit the treatment TNH is giving her. And if VB really did orchestrate this entire thing, then she'd Karl Rove look like John Kerry. I mean, a simple innocuous comment causes boingboing to entirely implode?

And it is possible that VB really didn't know why her posts about her had been deleted. How could she have know what would have unfolded by simply inquiring about it on her blog?
posted by delmoi at 10:22 PM on July 1, 2008 [2 favorites]


Hmm ... a clue? (NSFW)

Analysis: Violet Blue Vs. Violet Blue
Any Attorneys Want To Help A Girl Keep Her Website?
By: Mark Kernes Posted: 11/06/2007

Violet Blue Vs. Violet Blue
posted by Seth Finkelstein at 10:22 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


I think it was actually screwed before then. It was screwed when they felt they could start deleting and significantly changing the content of posts after publishing.

The reason I phrased it like I did was because I don't think it started as a they thing. Someone was first, and I kinda suspect that a whole lot of crap went down the memory hole before everyone knew about it.

I mean, imagine you are and you find out that everything that you thought was THE SACRED EDITORIAL POLICY has been being used to line the bird cage by everyone else. You can cleave to your people, or cleave to your principles. Yes, in one sense you were screwed a while back, but this is the first page that says something like, "If you decide to stick to your principals and raise a big ugly stink about this, turn to page 129. If you think your friends were wrong, but don't want to be too mean the them, turn to page 78."
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 10:32 PM on July 1, 2008 [11 favorites]


78

YOU'RE SCREWED! The entire internet is calling you a hypocrite. Blog communities that had never heard of one another are fighting like the Sharks and the Jets. Some of the people you work with are blaming you for not being the principled one and forcing them to reconsider their own decision not to rock the boat.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 10:35 PM on July 1, 2008 [11 favorites]


129


YOU'RE SCREWED! The rest of the group considers you a pariah. When you talk to anyone else you feel the temperature drop about 10 degrees. No one on the internet has particularly noticed your principled decision. Someone on a blog somewhere is referring to you as a Steampunk Dildo.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 10:38 PM on July 1, 2008 [15 favorites]


One thing that has really surprised me about the BBetc response: they keep using the word "unpublished".

Over and over again.

Almost as if it isn't obnoxious.
posted by flaterik at 10:43 PM on July 1, 2008 [2 favorites]


I can't win! This book sucks! Man, they really went downhill after Cave of Time.
posted by barnacles at 10:45 PM on July 1, 2008 [4 favorites]


I do not envy TNH. Were I in her position I would have -- several hundred comments ago -- suggested to the principals of BB that, seeing as how they repeatedly shat their own bed, maybe they should consider changing the sheets themselves. Or lie in it.

TNH is BB's moderator, not its curator. She's there to preserve order -- if she can -- and by whatever means necessary using the tools at her command, and that includes leaning on the delete key as conditions warrant... and if ever a shit-storm warranted it, here 'tis.
posted by deCadmus at 10:46 PM on July 1, 2008 [2 favorites]


Have you ever watched an old building burn before and looked at the fire and the lights from the fire trucks and the snow falling and thought, "This is so sad, but it's so beautiful......"? That's kind of what I feel like now. Beautiful, beautiful fire......
posted by lattiboy at 10:51 PM on July 1, 2008 [5 favorites]


"It's not working! Unpublish harder!"
posted by Artw at 10:53 PM on July 1, 2008 [10 favorites]


Good find, hades. Hell of a good find.
posted by wendell at 10:55 PM on July 1, 2008


I hated those god damn books because there was like 1 good ending. Every other time you ended up dead at the bottom of a cliff or exploded by a malfunctioning time machine.
posted by puke & cry at 10:56 PM on July 1, 2008


Okay, after a combined 1800 or so posts, THIS is by far the best one:

#739 posted by Doctor Popular , July 1, 2008 10:38 PM

First!!!

posted by lattiboy at 10:56 PM on July 1, 2008 [3 favorites]


Near the bottom of the POLICIES page, they state:

If we decide to change our privacy policy, we will post those changes to this privacy statement, the homepage, 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.

Of course, that ONLY refers to the privacy policy, so they can change the "Copyright Notice" to "NEENER NEENER NEENER" without posting it anywhere else. Which is pretty much what they did.
posted by wendell at 10:59 PM on July 1, 2008 [3 favorites]


What's interesting is that there seems to be a day/night pattern here. Lots of snark during the 'day' and lots of more reasonable discussion at 'night'.

Remember that we're not all in the same timezone.

Assuming that 'day' = US day:

Day pattern: USians & Canadians mostly at work; less time to read, digest & comment in a way that leads to 'reasonable discussion'. Hence, a lot of one-line snark & jokes. Add the early-in-thread factor, where there's a payoff (in favourites) for a good snark*.

Night pattern: USians etc have more time to think & write. Aussies are awake now, and skiving off work. Discourse improves immeasurably.

Graveyard pattern: USians asleep, Aussies off work & most likely drunk. Brits awake & at work. Highest level of discourse at this point.

* imho, the reaction of various commenters over at Making Light to the conversation here might be warped by failing to understand the effect of favourite-fishing early in threads. there's very often an initial shitstorm of jokes & snark, which tends to lead into deeper discussion later. casual visitors who only skim the first dozen or two comments might think that the early faux-hip snarktacular (c) Stavrosthewonderchicken is the only thing we do here. of course, the ends of threads often degenerate into joking, too, unless they become an endgame between the only two people left who care enough to argue...
posted by UbuRoivas at 11:02 PM on July 1, 2008 [7 favorites]


And why wouldn't anyone appreciate our snark? Our snark is teh awesome!
posted by Artw at 11:05 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


I have no doubt that the principles of BB are mostly decent people (the garbageman post by MF someone linked to was a huge steamy turd, though). We've had some passionate advocacy for the BB set in this thread by their friends, who themselves seem like nice folk.

That said, a lot of this advocacy has been somewhat misguided based on what the "real" issue is, instead concentrating on the noise you'll get in any discussion which involves celebrities (however big or small their audience may be). If you're a celebrity, your face, body, interests, mannerisms, ideas--whatever--are going to be analyzed, criticized and mocked. That's just what people do. Most of it is just noise, which I imagine is hard to listen to if you know the people in question, but it's going to happen, no matter what. Doesn't excuse the downright mean-spirited comments, but most of the rest is not much different than the ribbing you exchange with coworkers and friends.

What is disappointing is the "lawyering" by the BB people (well, the clumsy attempts at damage control by denial and deletion are painful, too). Arguing you're obeying the letter of the law while you've trampled the spirit underfoot is never going to convince anyone but the true believers. How is it that a group of people that bright cannot see this?
posted by maxwelton at 11:06 PM on July 1, 2008 [2 favorites]


Pure Speculation
---

there once was a website that said,
to delete without 'splaining is bad.
then someone got something
...that we'll never mention
and retaliation was achieved,
by deleting with speed,
that person
...that we'll never mention
as if being such a witch,
would really cure that itch.

there's clinics for that sort of thing,
no need to go out and bring
home acres of fodder
for speculation and bother
about just what it is
...that we'll never mention.

it could have been Shelia,
with those black leather boots
who when caught in bed
laughed as she said
"hey, it's just a personal website"

or maybe it was that time
with Jeff, Mark, and Tammy.
after six hours in a hot-tub
you'd be quite clammy
in parts
...that we'll never mention.
posted by nomisxid at 11:07 PM on July 1, 2008 [2 favorites]


AHHH!! Hades! Son of a bitch! I knew it wasn't there previously. Oh, blessed day! My suspicions confirmed! Those unpublishing !#)(%!#'s!

I'd like to blame the cold medicine for waking me up, but maybe it was just because I wanted to see this cross 1,000. In any case, the confirmation that the "unpublish" line just showed up just kills me. They're acting in every way that folks like Cory have campaigned for people not to act. I feel totally bad for Xeni, this is going to focus crap on her, and you know what, we don't have any right to examine her life or ask for an explanation as to why she feels the way she does. TNH, even as my opinion of her has lowered more, I can laud for at least trying to protect a friend in need even if it is hamfisted and prone to spiking more anger then it is to relieve the issue.

An awful thing happened, and the problem is they just keep making it worse. It has reached a car wreck level of misery. We're still here because some of them picked up demolition derby cars and keep ramming into the wreck making the fire hotter.

And Kid C, those choose your own comments are ++++++++.
posted by cavalier at 11:12 PM on July 1, 2008 [4 favorites]


I'm kind of sorry that BoingBoing never saw fit to publish anything about me, so I could see if it had been un-published, and if not, request that it be, with a lot of crying and whining.
posted by wendell at 11:13 PM on July 1, 2008


Hey, my microwave just dinged. My Hot Pockets are ready. Don't go over 1000 until I get back. Thanks.
posted by wendell at 11:14 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


You know, everytime I think I'm the least bit "with it" w/r/t "internet", I see a thread like this with off hand remarks about somebody in this thread "destroying livejournal" and somebody else being some web 2.0 speech-giver something or other and I realize that celebrity both in concept and practice has completely collapsed.
posted by lattiboy at 11:15 PM on July 1, 2008 [2 favorites]


I wonder how many people are refreshing the page waiting for 999?
posted by spiderwire at 11:16 PM on July 1, 2008


It is pretty late... I love you guys
posted by spiderwire at 11:16 PM on July 1, 2008


Everybody needs a hug.
posted by spiderwire at 11:17 PM on July 1, 2008 [3 favorites]


fuck it , I'm going for the 1000th post!!111
posted by lattiboy at 11:17 PM on July 1, 2008


Everybody needs a hug.

YOU SON OF A BITCH!!!1111
posted by lattiboy at 11:17 PM on July 1, 2008


Ow ow ow ow ow. Doo hod... id burmd my dung...
posted by wendell at 11:18 PM on July 1, 2008


Awwww... you didmt waid...
posted by wendell at 11:19 PM on July 1, 2008


Damnit!
posted by delmoi at 11:19 PM on July 1, 2008


1,001!
posted by cavalier at 11:20 PM on July 1, 2008


Shit! Nerds, get off my tubes!
posted by cavalier at 11:20 PM on July 1, 2008


And the BB thread is only up to 754... which makes MetaFilter 33% more....

uh....

more....

well....

we may be 33% more something we don't want to be...
posted by wendell at 11:21 PM on July 1, 2008 [3 favorites]


Of course, if you factor in the number of comments they deleted, we're probably behind...
posted by wendell at 11:22 PM on July 1, 2008 [4 favorites]


but my impressions from intermittently reading her comments at Making Light/Electrolicious and elsewhere, were very positive; she always seemed pretty sensible, rational, and even-keeled.


That's because tnh is generally sensible, rational, and even-keeled.

It's just that she (and pnh) don't really have much of a intermediate setting in terms of outrage. It's like spinal tap; the outrage dial goes to 11.

This is not a particularly awful nor uncommon vice. And usually the outrage is directed at people who really deserve it so goes by unremarked.
posted by Justinian at 11:23 PM on July 1, 2008


Of course, if you factor in the number of comments they deleted, we're probably behind...


n wr nt!
posted by lattiboy at 11:24 PM on July 1, 2008


Oh, I am such a bad, bad person. I have no self-control. I would make a bad mod.

But I really do love you guys (in a non-gender-specific sense). Except for Paphnuty. He had it coming.
posted by spiderwire at 11:29 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


Too bad MeFi is full of self-righteous commenters that attempt to engage in a contest of who has the snarkiest post and who first rejected the popular sites. I could search and replace the names in this thread with Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan and the vitriol would feel just right.

Of course, no-one on MeFi is actually being as big a dick as some of your friends are. It ain't people on MeFi who are throwing around terms like "a pile of shit" (later unpublished, of course), "evil", and so on. Perhaps you should recalibrate your outrage meter. And then tell those of your friends who are acting like collosal cocks to one of your other friends to knock it off.
posted by rodgerd at 11:29 PM on July 1, 2008 [4 favorites]


Who got the 1000th comment? What did the final boss of Mefi look like? Did it drop any sweet items?
posted by bunnytricks at 11:33 PM on July 1, 2008 [5 favorites]


spiderwire got the "uncharitable shield of wailing" (+53 snark!)
posted by lattiboy at 11:35 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]



spiderwire got the "uncharitable shield of wailing" (+53 snark!)



BTW, thanks for rolling "need" on that. Dick.....
posted by lattiboy at 11:36 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


It's just that she (and pnh) don't really have much of a intermediate setting in terms of outrage. It's like spinal tap; the outrage dial goes to 11.

You know, as I sit here watching the tires burn this comment struck me because if I go waaay back in the time machine, when comments were on QuickTopic and Cory later announced his fandom of the NH's and TNH's modding, I thought it was because of the even keel stuff. SuperMods. But if you remember, Cory had (has?) a nasty tendency to go to 11 anytime someone disagreed with him on QuickTopic. Discussions usually went:

#1 SomeDude
Cory man love the posts but isn't this the third on [your event thing] today?

#3 Cory Doctorow
FRACK YUO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

It was like, wow bad. So anyhoo, considering he's pretty even keel sounding a lot of the time this struck me as "Wow.. his reactions go to 11!". So now I'm getting an appreciation for maybe how they all got together, kindred spirit like. Maybe the admiration was "Man, when someone's a bonehead, I get all up in their grill with exclamation points! But TNH, man, she flames them with like 4 paragraphs and lots of big syllables! A pro!". Birds of a feather flock together and all that. Birds of a feath... seagulls... internet.... is that my benadryl calling?
posted by cavalier at 11:37 PM on July 1, 2008 [3 favorites]


BTW, thanks for rolling "need" on that. Dick.....

But Hunters can use every weapon

lol /dance
posted by spiderwire at 11:39 PM on July 1, 2008 [4 favorites]


Earlier someone posted a link to an Adult Video News article about Violet Blue vs. Violet Blue which definitely takes sides against the Blogger Currently Being Unpublished. Anyway, here's another, more, um, judicious source that directly contradicts some of the points in the AVN post.

Also, I want to point out that, even though these are very very outsized egos all around, any one of the BB people (including TNH) or VB herself have accomplished more in their young lives than, for instance, Chris Matthews. Maybe this is a tempest in a teapot, but this particular teapot is more important than, say, a cable news network. Just trying to put things in perspective. Did I succeed? No? How about if I said this kafluffle was more important than any of the Don Imus scandals? Or that the question of VB's probity is more important than that of, oh, Nancy Grace? Or that questions about boingboing's policies are more vital than ones about Fox News? This stuff is still new and models and boundaries and paradigms are being developed as we speak. A thousand posts are not too many...

but it should be said i would never never ever hire tnh as a mod ever -- an inquisitor, maybe, a chief of secret police, certainly, but a mod, no!
posted by CCBC at 11:58 PM on July 1, 2008 [3 favorites]


CCBC: Fair point, but isn't the whole "spirit" of the new media peeps that they're not as fucking lame and self-involved as the old media peeps? If popularity is the new measuring stick of importance, we should probably be talking about every single little thing that Gabe and Tycho do......
posted by lattiboy at 12:25 AM on July 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


If popularity is the new measuring stick of importance, we should probably be talking about every single little thing that Gabe and Tycho do......

I will demonstrate to you why this would not be entertaining:
10:00 Wake up, eat cereal
11:00 Play PS3
1:00 Draw/write/color/or just play more PS3
3:00 Play Wii
5:00 Write little archives blurbs
6:00 Play 360
8:00 Play MMOs until consciousness becomes impossible, collapse
Rinse (hopefully)
Repeat
posted by spiderwire at 12:39 AM on July 2, 2008 [3 favorites]


Metafilter: 33% more published.
posted by ryanrs at 12:40 AM on July 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


Huh, so Science Fiction fans are like football hooligans, but with internet missives instead of headbutts?
posted by FuManchu at 1:19 AM on July 2, 2008


Also, I want to point out that, even though these are very very outsized egos all around, any one of the BB people (including TNH) or VB herself have accomplished more in their young lives than, for instance, Chris Matthews.

Certainly there is a lot of ground to criticize Chris Matthews but I find it hard to belive anyone could think he'd acomplished less in life then Xeni Jardin. (and by the way, Chris Matthews is certainly a lot less petulant in dealing with legitimate criticism). Chris Matthews is only 10 years older then TNH as well.

Anyway, whatever fallout there is from this, I seriously doubt it will really negatively affect BoingBoing financially, just look at Slashdot, the owners were dicks who grew to really hate their posters, and their site continued to muddle along. They'll lose status, but I don't think they're going to sweat it too badly. They might lose some readers, but many won't even know about it.
posted by delmoi at 1:23 AM on July 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


Ms. Jardin's latest post: Internet catfight. I think the pristine floor is meant to symbolise Boing Boing's reputation, and the vile splurge of cat vom their recent actions.
posted by jack_mo at 1:37 AM on July 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


Slashdot's decaying signal-to-noise ratio brings to mind the heat death of the universe.
posted by ryanrs at 1:57 AM on July 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


lattiboy: "popularity" isn't what I had in mind. ed's post which I missed on preview makes the same point better, maybe. This is new. Journalism, however you want to define it, is a changing concept. CNN has settled in to what they consider a Good Thing, boingboing was pointing somewhere else. "lame and self-involved"? Well, we're all sniffing around that particular disaster. My point was (or tried to be) that these folks were no more lame & self-involved than Matthews et al; that personalities and egos are unavoidable.


delmoi: ...there is a lot of ground to criticize Chris Matthews but I find it hard to belive anyone could think he'd acomplished less in life then Xeni Jardin. (and by the way, Chris Matthews is certainly a lot less petulant in dealing with legitimate criticism). Chris Matthews is only 10 years older then TNH as well.
I disagree with your first two points ( but admit we are talking intangibles here -- for the record, I think Matthews and Jardin are sisters under the skin and that Chris has not a single accomplishment that betters Jardin. I'm willing to hear arguments, though, if you have any. What has Chris done? ) As for age, well, maybe TNH is past it, too.
posted by CCBC at 2:07 AM on July 2, 2008


AmbroseChapel:
"Clearly, the whole thing smacks of sexual/interpersonal conflict. And it's obviously nothing to do with Cory, who I'd imagine knew nothing about it and was very surprised to find out."

But he would have known about the deletion policy if it's true that this has happened over the past year with the ok of all the other bloggers on Boing Boing. Right? Just probably no clue about the fact that it would all blow up today.

I immediately thought "meh, tabloid" at the Valleywag post - my thought was that Valleyway is just going for the Google hit love with the "girl on girl" headline - but then having read that post, gone to the links, looked at the photos - um, there's a lot more close relationship there than I'd assumed - really, I thought this all would boil down to a legal issue or something to do with BB's stand on trademark. This can't just be about a bunch of people having an emotional falling out and deciding not to be friends anymore and delinking each other in a fit of angst? Why....that's so old school blog dramaz! Wow! (Remember when blogs didn't have comments? And everyone found out what everyone else was saying about them via referral logs only?)

Someone please tell me that someone's setting this to music and turning it into the blogville version of High School Musical - because the verbage being tossed is really starting to sound very high school snarkfest. Violet Blue better have done something immensely evil to have warrented all this hooha. Like stealing genetic material and altering it to create some Mutant Killer Hitler Kittens or something equally evil.
(Sorry, I just couldn't resist using the Hitler Kittens, should've gone for something more over the top, but the photoshop potential was there. Not...that I can use images here. Damn.)

(The load time just to preview is insane. Yow.)
posted by batgrlHG at 2:38 AM on July 2, 2008 [2 favorites]


oi...sure am tired of TNH dumping my comments (and yes they were nice) down the BB memory hole (judging by how quickly the 'vb is a pile of shit' comment disappeared, she's obviously lurking here, and possibly personally cheezed i called her 'sweetie'), so i'll summarize here:
a 'personal blog' is a website about you and your activites, with or without ad revenue.
a 'professional news site' is one where you report on goings-on outside of your own personal life, with ad revenue, and with the constraints of journalistic integrity...
where does bb fit in? welll...i'd sure like to see how much revenue they generate with only posts about MAKE and cory's latest book reading.

(this i didnt even bother trying there:)
and sorry, xeni's latest post (and title)...'internet catfight'?(!) honestly? i don't think i've ever seen anyone use as focused a spotlight to act like a bigger, smugger cunt in. excuse my french. i think it's obvious at this point that this is all her own personal drama with miss blue, and that she's letting her own ego take down the reputation of a site that so many have worked so long and so hard on

so:
To: Doctorow@craphound.net
Re: please cease and desist

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' my comments and delete my 'happy mutants' profile, screenname: 'sexyrobot'

thank you.



*sigh* and i used to love BB...this whole thing makes me feel really sad, actually, and totally betrayed.
posted by sexyrobot at 3:47 AM on July 2, 2008 [3 favorites]


You know I've read every post on this thread and a large part of the the other threads linked out from here... and I STILL can't get my head around the fact that Internet! Freedom! No! Censorship! We! Are! The! Good! Guys! has, for a long long time by the look of it, been deleting (fuck 'unpublishing'... that's only to be used in satire) stuff by those or links to those it has since deemed to have become unpersons for such crimes as being mildly of it... It's a mind fuck on the level of the end of Fight Club.
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 4:44 AM on July 2, 2008 [3 favorites]


1030!
1031!

I fall asleep and this is what I come back to. 1031 comments.

Snif ...

am so proud ...

TEAM MeFi!

w00t!
posted by liza at 4:48 AM on July 2, 2008


I just wanted to point out Hade's find of a recent change in their policies page, in case anyone missed it.

So let me get this straight:

(1) Silently unpublish, deperson, and wonderempty.

(2) Get pissed off when people notice.

(3) Change your policies page to say that you have the right to unpublish for any or no reason.

(4) Point to your policies page and say that you're just following your published policies.

(5) Yell And as for all this "Orwellian editing" crap -- christ, do you take two seconds to think before you post it? You know the Boingers have a major commitment to transparency and open communication.

Does that about sum it up, or am I missing something?
posted by Flunkie at 4:55 AM on July 2, 2008 [7 favorites]


as being mildly of it

Damn, it should have been 'mildly critical of it'


Does that about sum it up, or am I missing something?


yeah, we are committed to transparency and openness by changing our rules of transparency and openness behind your back

"At the foot of the end wall of the big barn, where the Seven Commandments were written, there lay a ladder broken in two pieces. Squealer, temporarily stunned, was sprawling beside it, and near at hand there lay a lantern, a paint-brush, and an overturned pot of white paint."
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 5:18 AM on July 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


Why doesn't it not shock me that Xeni would choose to call this mess a catfight when in fact, it has nothing to do with whom she decides to unfriend. It's the way, the process of unpersoning, unfriending, unpublishing, delinking and dewonderfuling that is problematic.

Who gives a crap about whether VB visits her coochie or not. It really has to do with how she and the rest of BoingBoing choose to not apply to themselves the standards of ethics they are so wanton to preach to others. When you are that big and that influential, you just can't attribute your fuck ups to just petty personality fights. Not when you're pulling millions a year either on advertising, sponsorship or VC money.

Unfortunately that money and that attention makes BB the standard by which a lot of us down the blogosphere line are measured. Sure, they can get away with this shit because they have millions to shut people up. Yet for those of us toiling in the long tail though, it makes our work at surviving by what we do online far more difficult. While they're fuck ups will bounce off the teflon provided by their money, that liability will be transferred to us down the long tail line.

So yeah, am angry she's so stupidly nonchalant about the whole thing. It's small publishers like me who will end up paying the price for her arrogance and stupidity.
posted by liza at 5:21 AM on July 2, 2008 [5 favorites]


So many surprises.

I have to echo Divine_Wino: The lesson here is only stick up for people that you can expect will be worthy of being stuck up for. The egos at boingboing have vastly exceeded whatever goodwill I might have had for them at any point. Feh.

Surprise 1: Initially, I couldn't quite imagine a resolution of the mystery that wasn't somehow powered by threats and lawyers, but to find out that apparently it all boils down to some sort of inconsequential personal spat is a little bit bizarre.

Surprise 2: I'm very, very surprised how badly the Boingers seem to have fumbled the ball. These are the people who tell other people what it's all about, how to be a new-millennium cutting-edge "web-savvy" (just imagine I'm the New York Times here) hero instead of an old-media zero, the ones who are interviewed and invited to speak at conferences and acknowledged as web experts. Anyone can make a mistake, but I would have expected them to be a lot more agile on the damage control here. If they had said something along the lines of "it was a personal/private disagreement and we deleted the posts in the heat of the moment. In retrospect, it could have been handled better/differently, so apologies for that; we've learned something, and it's given us a chance to tighten up our editorial policy. Thanks for your patience." tongues still would have wagged a bit, but I think most people would have been cool with it.

Surprise 3: I did think of TNH as quite the cool head and steady hand (if a bit overzealous for tastes here - but different sites/different moderation, okay), and the slurring and hyperbole has been strange to see. The "strains of human evil" sorts of comments, and suggesting that whatever Violet Blue did was so disgustingly despicable that they won't talk about it for her own sake... well. At this point, it better be Dahmer-level awful to merit the insinuations. I still think that she's a very intelligent person with good ideas, but I'm not so sure that she's quite in the class she seems to think she is with regard to rational adult behavior.

Suprise 4: Wow, MetaFilter, you made me happy in this thread. When the whole thing came up, I braced myself for a lot of ugly talk about Xeni... I would have put money on it. Thank you so much for pretty much entirely not taking that low road, and for calling it out when it veered in that direction. This is a good, good thing. Yes, there has been a lot of critical and sarcastic commentary about various people at BB, but it's been relatively standard garden-variety snarkery as opposed to misogynistic crankery/wankery, so, yay!

and, saving the best for last...

Suprise 5: OMG, Sidhedevil!!!! I once almost made a stalkerly MetaTalk post about where is Sidhedevil?, but then thought better of it. Still, that doesn't mean I haven't had a private detective trying to track her down.
posted by taz at 5:34 AM on July 2, 2008 [2 favorites]


I would like to announce that I too have a new policy:

From now on, when anybody makes a reference to George Orwell or any of his works - no matter how instructive or aposite that reference is - I am going to unilaterally assume that they are referring to The Moon Under Water, his essay on what the perfect pub should be like. I will then proceed to engage in lengthy and heated argument with that person about ambience, range of guest ales, seating quality and generosity of measures, regardless of how many times that person tries to tell me that they weren't actually talking about pubs.
posted by flashboy at 5:34 AM on July 2, 2008 [32 favorites]


After a little digging through the trademark case, I'm even more convinced it's the reason for the enmity. It's the only thing that fits. It looks like the litigation was extensive and contentious.
posted by Seth Finkelstein at 5:45 AM on July 2, 2008


That's awesome, flashboy, thanks for the link.
posted by sciurus at 5:45 AM on July 2, 2008


YOU SAVAGES!!

WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO MY BEAUTIFUL BEANFIELD!?
posted by loquacious at 5:50 AM on July 2, 2008


Fuck me, people. It's only the Internet.
posted by obiwanwasabi at 6:02 AM on July 2, 2008


Does anyone read the posts down here?
posted by octobersurprise at 6:04 AM on July 2, 2008


i do.
posted by flashboy at 6:06 AM on July 2, 2008


I'm going to follow suite but I'm going with Shooting an Elephant. I may be pretty damn depressing to deal with but such is life.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 6:08 AM on July 2, 2008


Casting votes against the ignorant mob because I am unswayed by the opinions here:

Teresa Nielsen Hayden is one of the best parts of the Internet. She's wise, funny, and good at things that many other people want but fail to achieve.

Although I think Cory's hype often obscures the value of his output, he's also one of the good parts of the Internet. He's got a good eye for injustice and insitutionalized and corporate stupidity.

I don't know Violet or Xeni well enough to comment on them but they get the benefit of the doubt from me because, well, they're human and so am I and my policy this year is to be more generous.

All told, the output of Boing Boing is of higher value than just about anything I see from just about anywhere else that employs that few people for that small of a budget and that size of output.

Boing Boing, overall, is a force for good on the Internet.
posted by Mo Nickels at 6:10 AM on July 2, 2008


Yeah, has Hades' blockbuster discovery of them changing their policies page gotten around yet? Because that's huge -- in some ways huger than the original scrubbing. The way they blithely linked to the changed page, as if it had been there all along.... It's just creepy that they think they can get away with shit like that. At any rate, those of you with other trafficked blogs should take note. This story isn't over yet -- not at all.
posted by TheWash at 6:19 AM on July 2, 2008


Ww. f ddn't knw tht sch frvnt spprtr f th n tr blg cldn't pssbly b trllng, 'd flln fr t. mn, th prt whr h rgs tht th sl stndrds fr hmn bhvr dsn't pply t th bng bng flks bcs thy'r hmn s prtty vr th tp.
posted by effbot at 6:33 AM on July 2, 2008


I'm going to follow suite but I'm going with Shooting an Elephant. I may be pretty damn depressing to deal with but such is life.

I've always loved Politics and the English Language, but that essay dovetails nicely with 1984, although you could actually make the argument that "Orwellian" language based on Politics would actually have the exact opposite meaning of it's meaning from 1984.

I think Matthews and Jardin are sisters under the skin and that Chris has not a single accomplishment that betters Jardin. I'm willing to hear arguments, though, if you have any. What has Chris done?

Have you started out at his Wikipedia Page? Xeni's is a bit Less impressive

Just from Wikipedia we see Chris did graduate work as an economist, then spent two years in Africa as a peace corps volunteer working as an trade development adviser. He worked for several senators and congressmen, as well as working as a speech writer for Jimmy Carter (writing the infamous 'Malaise' speech apparently), and he's written two History books, as well as political work and his work as a talk show host.

Xeni Jardin has a relatively undistinguished career as a tech reporter and is famous mostly for being an 'internet personality'
posted by delmoi at 6:38 AM on July 2, 2008 [3 favorites]


Uh oh! Mo Nickels, you called mefites an ignorant mob, which means, I'm afraid, that we are going to be forced to unpublish the following posts that link to your Doubletongued site:

http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/64675 (September 13, 2007)
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/61641 (May 30, 2007)
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/59994 (April 4, 2007)
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/52480 (June 22, 2006)
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/40203 (March 5, 2005)
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/33481 (June 4, 2004)

In fact, this comment linking to posts that are soon to be unpublished will have to also be unpublished.
posted by taz at 6:40 AM on July 2, 2008


Mo Nickels, I'm swayed by some of the opinions here, but I'd tend to agree with most of what you said. I think TNH and Cory have put 100% faith in the people who didn't deserve 100% faith (and who really does) and, well, p. 78.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 6:45 AM on July 2, 2008


taz brought up the most interesting point about this whole thing. However you feel about them, BoingBoing seemed like it was made up of people who "got" the Internet. Their handling of this is evidence otherwise.
posted by drezdn at 6:48 AM on July 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


the output of Boing Boing is of higher value than just about anything I see from just about anywhere else that employs that few people for that small of a budget and that size of output.

How small is their budget?
posted by lukemeister at 6:49 AM on July 2, 2008


Another data point, if this isn't completely played out yet: compare BoingBoing's policies page as of June 25th and their policies page now.

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.
posted by cortex at 7:00 AM on July 2, 2008 [7 favorites]


Holy crap. This is what happens when you spend the night sleeping.

The saddest thing to me about all this is TNH's part in it. Like others, I've always liked and respected her (I second Mo's "She's wise, funny, and good at things that many other people want but fail to achieve"), and she's been helpful to me in the past, but she's not looking good here, and unlike Mo (and TNH) I refuse to take the "stand by the people you like no matter what they do and call everyone who criticizes them an ignorant mob" line. What she's doing here is exactly the reason I would never be a moderator on any blog but my own. Like her, I'm usually reasonable but am capable of flying off the handle, and knowing that about myself, I would not put myself in a position where my flying off the handle would reflect badly on an institution I was hired to protect (as is the case with her comments in the BB thread).

cortex writes: And, man, cut Teresa a little slack. This is a king-sized shitstorm she's dealing with, and it's not clear to me that it's even her shit in any practical sense. I don't envy the day she's having.

I don't envy her either, and of course you're bound to empathize with her position, but no, I don't think she deserves a lot of slack here. When you accept a position like that, you're taking on the responsibility of dealing with shitstorms wisely and gracefully. If you decide you'd rather come out guns blazing, defending your pals and calling the readers names, you've failed in your responsibility. I'm sure she's going to regret a lot of what she's said in the heat of the moment; I will be very interested to see whether she apologizes and leaves it there or it silently disappears like so much else on BB.

On my own blog, I've long had a policy of using strikethrough on things I no longer believe are valid and adding updates and corrections clearly marked as such, silently correcting only typos and such. Sometimes I'm embarrassed when I go back to old entries and think "Christ, did I say that? What a doofus," but it keeps me 'umble and is good practice for honesty in general. Because once you start down that road of covering up and hoping nobody will notice, there's no good way out, as so many politicians—and now BoingBoing—have discovered.

One of the best overviews of this subject can be found in Justine Larbalestier's book, The Battle of the Sexes in Science Fiction

Hey, another Larbalestier fan! Yeah, anyone interested in sf should read that book.
posted by languagehat at 7:11 AM on July 2, 2008 [14 favorites]


Mo Nickels is on the money, mostly, but the best of people can do foolish things that have shitty consequences. This whole Boing Boing business has been nothing but one bad idea after another put into practice with comical degrees of haste, obfuscation, and ineptness. It's pretty much a Dilbert cartoon come to life. I sure don't envy any of the people involved.
posted by octobersurprise at 7:11 AM on July 2, 2008


How small is their budget?

The advertising revenue has been over a million dollars a year for at least several years. I would guess that their expansion in the last year was precipitated by (and is further facilitating) a substantial increase in revenue.

The amount of self-promotion they've managed to foist via BB is incalculable, and the results of it probably generate more income for each of them than their cut of the ad revenue.
posted by blasdelf at 7:27 AM on July 2, 2008 [2 favorites]


I can't wait for the movie based on the musical based on the movie based on the book based on the article based on the front page post about this.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 7:42 AM on July 2, 2008


the output of Boing Boing is of higher value than just about anything I see from just about anywhere else that employs that few people for that small of a budget and that size of output.

that makes total sense, if your pigeon is DRM, things made of Legos, Cory's novel, and nothing much of interest otherwise, other than web phenomena that you'll see elsewhere, a week or two earlier. as i and several others argued earlier, BB ceased being interesting the day it turned from "here's an interesting link" to "here's what i think about stuff nobody much cares about"

the fact that they've managed to trade off some early goodwill for so long is the only aspect of that blog that is the tiniest bit interesting, and if you think that's the highest value output from a small organisation, i'm sorry to be patronising, but i can only assume you've never had anything to do with real world companies who actually do stuff.
posted by UbuRoivas at 7:48 AM on July 2, 2008 [2 favorites]


Basically, Mo Nickels, they don't do shit with that budget.

They promote things they have financial interests in: not just their own stuff, but fandoms that revolve around their shit. They post things verbatim submitted by their most sycophantic hangers-on without checking them first, which leads to a lot of idiocy. Lots of n-tuple posts retreading the same stuff they post every three months, or outright wrong/misleading/hoax outrage bullshit. They used to commonly edit and re-edit posts over and over with strikethrough and red text, editing the edits to correct themselves or link to the last ten times they posted something. Now they just unpublish.

Hard work, unpublishing. It'd be real hard to make a better site than BB with any less than their 10+ people and at minimum hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash payroll. Real Hard.
posted by blasdelf at 7:50 AM on July 2, 2008 [6 favorites]


BoingBoing seemed like it was made up of people who "got" the Internet.

I don't know why anyone would assume that. They hardly even use the internet over on BoingBoing. They just wait for people to send them interesting stuff, then they post it. In between, Cory Doctorow posts his unreadable prose about how he's doing a book reading somewhere, and Xeni writes about how she has enough money to go on vacation.
posted by interrobang at 7:59 AM on July 2, 2008


Or, what blasdelf said.
posted by interrobang at 8:03 AM on July 2, 2008


I don't envy her either, and of course you're bound to empathize with her position, but no, I don't think she deserves a lot of slack here. When you accept a position like that, you're taking on the responsibility of dealing with shitstorms wisely and gracefully. If you decide you'd rather come out guns blazing, defending your pals and calling the readers names, you've failed in your responsibility.

Yes. This.

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.
posted by dw at 8:09 AM on July 2, 2008 [19 favorites]


Taz, it wouldn't be the first time my stuff was deleted on Metafilter. I had the opportunity a couple of months ago to apologize to Matt personally, after nine years, because my very first post ever on Metafilter was a self-link. He deleted it and shut down submissions for a while.
posted by Mo Nickels at 8:12 AM on July 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


UbuRoivas is spot-on too!
posted by blasdelf at 8:13 AM on July 2, 2008


Metafilter: UnWondershowzen
posted by Artw at 8:15 AM on July 2, 2008


Yeah, I don't doubt empathy colors my read of it to some extent. More importantly, I wasn't fully caught up with the BoingBoing thread, so I hadn't seen all of what folks have been criticizing in context. I agree that, as much as this has no doubt been a nightmare for her and as much as I can understand where much of it is coming from, some of her statements over at BB have been really questionable in terms of tone and response.

The empathy remains: it's a hard job and I'm surprised that she's being (by appearances) left to clean up someone else's mess. I'm a little uncomfortable with a few bits of cross-site moderation dick-measuring, so to speak, that have popped up in here though and I think joking about someone getting canned is kind of guache, even if I can also understand where that's coming from.

So, on the balance: a little slack is always a good thing, but so is valid criticism, and I don't want to pit the one against the other.
posted by cortex at 8:21 AM on July 2, 2008 [3 favorites]


When blogs collide
posted by Artw at 8:28 AM on July 2, 2008


Artw: BREAKING NEWS

cortex: There's also the view that TNH's job is to keep the cash cow's stall clean, both for the 'Boingers' and the advertisers, a most unenviable position.
posted by blasdelf at 8:29 AM on July 2, 2008


I think joking about someone getting canned is kind of guache,

That's gouache, although I myself, a simple man, would just say "watercolor."
posted by languagehat at 8:40 AM on July 2, 2008 [5 favorites]


Boing Boing, overall, is a force for good on the Internet.

Yeah, kinda.
posted by humannaire at 8:41 AM on July 2, 2008


When blogs collide...
"Boing Boing decided to remove all posts related to one Violet Blue.

... This sudden excising attracted the attention of many, including those on the Metafilter group blog, another very enjoyable site whose remit overlaps that of Boing Boing but which is lower profile and driven by a much broader group of contributors. Many of those, it transpires, find Boing Boing extremely annoying – the Metafilter thread on the Violet Blue affair is now longer than that provoked by 9/11. The schadenfreude they feel at such a high-profile defender of online cultural freedom behaving in such an unusual fashion has been described as that inspired by finding the leader of an animal rights campaign being found in a restaurant tucking into a large and bloody steak.

This reaction has only been heightened by Boing Boing's extreme reluctance to explain why the removal happened. Such official response as has been forthcoming has been defensive, lacking in detail or explanation and managing only to further inflame the meltdown. Third party comments have been quietly deleted on Boing Boing and on other, related blogs – and those quiet deletions have led to further rooftop shouting elsewhere. Violet Blue herself affects a naïve bemusement.

There are, of course, any number of theories. Is it a lovers' tiff? A case of wrongdoing, badly handled through a wish to avoid too much worldwideweb mudslinging? A massive egofight? Or are legal machinations at work behind the scenes, of the sort precipitated by expensive lawyers slapping on injunctions?

... Certainly, there's a lot at stake – Boing Boing's extremely popular and at the heart of a considerable commercial empire, and as such seen as a leading example of new-wave Web publishing done right. Just as certainly, there's a lot of passion involved. I find it rather heartening; the legacy media is no stranger to similar secret battles played out in public, but in a code only discernible to the cognoscenti – and the readers of Private Eye. It's to the credit of the blogosphere that such peculiar and distortive happenings are far harder to hide from readers."
posted by ericb at 8:42 AM on July 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


sordid, nasty, arrogant (this is a placemarker)
posted by Danila at 8:42 AM on July 2, 2008


When blogs collide

the Metafilter group blog, another very enjoyable site whose remit overlaps that of Boing Boing but which is lower profile

Lower profile means less self-promotion, less incestuous-blog/media-bullshit, less money-grubbing, and less hipsterish, I guess. (That's right, Metafilter is actually less hipster than something.)
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 8:44 AM on July 2, 2008 [3 favorites]


Dammit, Artw!
posted by ericb at 8:46 AM on July 2, 2008


Teresa Nielsen Hayden is one of the best parts of the Internet. She's wise, funny, and good at things that many other people want but fail to achieve.

That's akin to being told you're doing a heck of a job. I'd never heard of her before Monday, now she's a walking case study in how not to farm out your dirty work to a third party. Piss poor performance.

If anyone has a brain over there they'd take over comment policing and send XJ on a sabbatical. But maybe there really isn't that much worth saving any more.
posted by jsavimbi at 8:47 AM on July 2, 2008


I've been thinking about this overnight, and the conclusion I have come to is that, aside from the public relations cock up, the biggest gaffe made by BoingBoing was that the violated the spirit of the Web. And, by that, I mean they deliberately broke links. Unless I am mistaken, any place on the Web that linked to one of those Violet Blue-related posts will now go, essentially, to a 505 page. And that seems to have been their point -- whatever tiff they have had with VB, they decided not to support her by linking to any of her projects.

But BoingBoing is one of the most-linked to sites on the Web. By removing a hundred posts, or however many there were, they are literally breaking thousands of links. Since the Web is built on hyperlinking, this amounts to deliberately breaking part of the Web. It doesn't make the Web work better, it makes it work worse, and that's the sort of the thing the BoingBoinger have consistently railed against.

And there were other options. Instead of simply "unpublishing" the posts, they could have replaced them with a message that said "Do to personal problems with this blogger, BoingBoing has decided to remove any links to her projects." Links made to these posts would still get where they're going, and the functionality of the Web would not be reduced, no matter how incrementally.

Maybe it's not a big deal, but it seems like a pretty petty violation of the spirit of the Web. We're supposed to tend to the garden as best we can -- I go back through my blogs and check links regularly, because who wants an internet that is like a badly designed maze, where links take you nowhere, without warning and for no reason? They deliberately planted weeds.
posted by Astro Zombie at 8:47 AM on July 2, 2008 [12 favorites]


That's gouache, although I myself, a simple man, would just say "watercolor."

Clearly I had meant to write "Guanche"; the parallels to Spanish conquest of the Canary Islands should have been perfectly transparent to the educated reader.

Also, you are a stinky poophead.

posted by cortex at 8:47 AM on July 2, 2008 [6 favorites]


Heh. Sorry.

Err… are we really the major players in this mess that that makes us out to be? I see us more as an annoying peanut gallery. Full of monkeys. With peanuts.
posted by Artw at 8:49 AM on July 2, 2008




In other Metafilter news, we're a bastion of internet snobbery, and a great place for all your SEO spam.
posted by Artw at 8:54 AM on July 2, 2008


It the Metafilter Group like the McLaughlin Group?
posted by Astro Zombie at 8:55 AM on July 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


the Metafilter thread on the Violet Blue affair is now longer than that provoked by 9/11.

Nice poke in the asshole there, jackass. Because clearly, more comments = more care! It's so tiring having 9/11 be the zombie metric for measuring against what you're allowed to be upset about.
posted by Skot at 8:55 AM on July 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


Astro Zombie: [they] violated the spirit of the Web. And, by that, I mean they deliberately broke links.

Oh, for fsck's sake ...

Links have a half-life of approximately nine million seconds, or 90 days (choose yer units wisely). Complaining about something that's two years old is just lame.

Obligatory disclaimer: I was on vacation and off-net when this hoo-hah broke out, so I'm strictly throwing peanuts from the gallery. I am also a friend of Cory, Teresa, and other folks at BB. (Hell, I even subscribed to BB back when it was a print magazine in the 90s.)

From the venom that's doing the rounds you'd think folks were talking about a conspiracy involving Karl Rove, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the second coming of Adolf Hitler. Back off, and get a sense of perspective, for crying out loud!
posted by cstross at 8:56 AM on July 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


MetaFilter: Full of monkeys. With peanuts popcorn & bacon.
posted by ericb at 8:56 AM on July 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


Oy. Here I am nursing my little head cold, sniff, and none of you rascals took the Hades line [i.e., the phantom "Unpublish" line in google cache] and ran with it? #844 on the BB post, now. I'm going back to bed.
posted by cavalier at 8:57 AM on July 2, 2008


Is the Metafilter Group like the McLaughlin Group?

Can the next podcast follow their format, please? Buh-bye!
posted by lukemeister at 8:58 AM on July 2, 2008


Thanks, cavalier, I didn't want to sign up an account on BB just to post about that.
posted by sciurus at 8:59 AM on July 2, 2008


my very first post ever on Metafilter was a self-link. He deleted it and shut down submissions for a while.
posted by Mo Nickels


8O
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:02 AM on July 2, 2008


man, languagehat hits it on the head. I've loved TNH's making light blog ever since I first came across it. That I've stopped reading it over the past year is entirely accidental and due largely to the fact that I stopped using an rss reader and sort of forgot to bookmark a lot of my favorite blogs in favor of reading a few isolated ones. She was always pretty badass when it came to a simple sobering take on bullshit, such as her outstanding posts about publishamerica.

but this? this isn't so much a misunderstanding as it is a tragedy. That the VB thing happened at all is unfortunate, I suppose, but not nearly as unfortunate as how they've chosen to handle it. Someone said (I forget if it was here or in the BB thread) that once upon a time BB was where you'd find the guys who really got the internet. Recently, it seems like they've developed an incredibly tin ear about it in a way that I can only imagine comes from the isolation of celebrity. They've lost the pulse of their audience because these days they share virtually nothing in common with them. If the boingers were a band, boingboing's recent history would be that band's "this is our album about america" album that everyone universally hates because it's pretentious irrelevant garbage from people who haven't encountered the subject of their album in years. (I'm looking in your direction tori amos and u2!)

I mean, when you can use a word like "unpublish" and not realize how doublespeak it sounds, that's unfortunate. but even if the word has an innocent origin, its use is still suspect, and when TNH decides that a link to anildash's comment grants her amnesty from any further criticism on the subject, that's not unfortunate. it's either idiotic or deceitful, and TNH is neither of those things so ultimately it's tragic.

but the cherry on top is really that she's chosen to take this opportunity to snark at the commenters, especially because it's so indicative of what a tin ear boingboing has developed where the internet is concerned. Rule #1 of the internet is that no matter what you do someone will pillory you for it. Rule #2 is that those people love to comment on blogs much more than the supporters do. Sitting there and getting outraged at internet snark, she might as well have hung a sign around her neck saying "Hi! I'm new here and I don't know how to do my job!"

But then that's the problem. She's not new here, and one would think she does know how to do her job. So when you see things like this, you start to think to yourself: "hmmm. there's no way that she simply doesn't realize that you have to ignore 90% of the bullshit blog commenters have to say about anything. but she's really getting into this petty fight, huh." and that's when you start to wonder about that disemvoweling policy, and how it's basically designed to embarrass people who comment on boingboing. suddenly it seems like you're looking at an equation, and even though you don't know what X is, when the equation reads 2+x=4 you think you have a pretty good idea. And that's the heart of the tragedy. She's given everybody so much reason to think the worst of her, and it's not because she couldn't help it.
posted by shmegegge at 9:04 AM on July 2, 2008 [5 favorites]


ed: keep in mind that the Internet provides limitless choice and gives you the options to inhabit any particular giddy universe you want ... there's plenty of community elsewhere.

Exactly. I'm probably one of the few who never read Boing Boing before any of this. Having waded through this monster thread, it's highly unlikely I now ever will read Boing Boing. I imagine I will be just fine. There are so many good choices out there (and here).
posted by netbros at 9:04 AM on July 2, 2008


the Metafilter thread on the Violet Blue affair is now longer than that provoked by 9/11.

Nice poke in the asshole there, jackass. Because clearly, more comments = more care!


Really. Like, it couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that there are sixty thousand more MetaFilter users than there were in 2001, could it?
posted by Sys Rq at 9:04 AM on July 2, 2008 [3 favorites]


Boing Boing was pretty awesome back then though.
posted by Artw at 9:07 AM on July 2, 2008


Xeni's response to those complaining about sneaking in the line on unpublishing alla sudden into the site policy:

As for the remarks about the unpublishing, Christ people, 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, we should go ahead and have a stated policy. We added this, linked to it in the post.

XJ

posted by ShawnStruck at 9:08 AM on July 2, 2008


BTW, the wikipedia article for [x] is larger than that for [y], where [x] is some fanboy nonsense of no consequence and [y] is a highly serious subject. There’s an article in that somewhere…
posted by Artw at 9:09 AM on July 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


Patrick and TNH are also being sued in the state of NJ.

Edit histories of Bauer's article confirm that blog postings from a now defunct site called NielsenHayden.com which was "critical of Bauer", was taken off line by their internet service provider after Bauer made legal threats to the owners. Wikinews has attempted to contact the author of these posts, who goes by the name JulesH on Wikipedia, but has yet to receive a response.
posted by mattbucher at 9:10 AM on July 2, 2008


What breaks the spirit of the web is that a blog is considered as a record, sort of like a newspaper. Many newspapers endorsed George W. Bush in 2000 and did not endorse him in 2004, but they don't get to go back to their archives and burn or erase every mention of the 2000 endorsement.

They published these posts, and the internet doesn't like them to try to pretend they never did.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 9:12 AM on July 2, 2008 [2 favorites]


Re loosing touch with their audience
I think Boing Boingers have now got to that stage where some stand-up comedians start telling jokes about the pains of staying in hotels and having to eat in restaurants on their own.
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 9:15 AM on July 2, 2008 [2 favorites]


BTW, the wikipedia article for [x] is larger than that for [y], where [x] is some fanboy nonsense of no consequence and [y] is a highly serious subject. There’s an article in that somewhere…

Too late, alas.
posted by flashboy at 9:15 AM on July 2, 2008 [2 favorites]


It's only the Internet.

Yep, it's only the largest, furthest reaching spur of social change to hit the planet since the printing press.

And it is still in its infancy; What will it be when it grows up? Will it be a normal to have history rewritten, or will that be considered a faux pas? What is the boundary between private and public? How much tolerance is there for people having a bad day? Do the social norms at one site really matter at a different one?

Those questions and a lot more will be answered in a thousand little spats like this one. A new culture is being forged before your eyes, and that loud noise you're hearing is the hammer hitting the anvil -- the noise means nothing and will be gone soon enough, but the effect on the medium is important and will last for years to come.
posted by tkolar at 9:15 AM on July 2, 2008 [15 favorites]


Links have a half-life of approximately nine million seconds, or 90 days (choose yer units wisely). Complaining about something that's two years old is just lame.

There is a difference between a link expiring on its own and deliberately breaking it. And links to BoingBoign tend not to have a half-life of 90 days, but, instead, years, because they haven't habitually deleted stories from their site.

As I said, it may be minor, but because something regularly breaks on its own, it doesn't mean there is nothing wrong with deliberately breaking it.
posted by Astro Zombie at 9:17 AM on July 2, 2008


it couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that there are sixty thousand more MetaFilter users than there were in 2001, could it?

Also, IIRC, the server was only held together by duct tape and prayers back in '01, so it wasn't always possible to post in (or read) the 9/11 thread.
posted by drezdn at 9:17 AM on July 2, 2008 [2 favorites]


Back off, and get a sense of perspective, for crying out loud!

I've got perspective, I think, Charlie. And though you are one of my favoritest writers, I think that on this matter you're as wrong as Charlton Heston in a tutu. Grinding onstage with Akon.

The reason people expect BoingBoing to behave on the up-and-up in regards to things like archiving and links IS BECAUSE THE FOLKS WHO WRITE THE SITE ARE CONSTANTLY WAGGING THEIR FINGERS AT OTHERS FOR NOT BEING ON THE UP-AND-UP IN THAT REGARD!

If you tout yourself as the Great Scourge of Internet Shenanigans, it seems disingenuous as fuck to be "shocked! shocked!" when you're called on your own internet shenanigans.
posted by Sidhedevil at 9:18 AM on July 2, 2008 [7 favorites]


Patrick and TNH are also being sued in the state of NJ.

Now, now. Being sued by Barbara Bauer isn't a negative. It's goddamn badge of honor.
posted by Justinian at 9:20 AM on July 2, 2008 [2 favorites]


Patrick and TNH are also being sued in the state of NJ.

Update from yesterday:
"A Superior Court judge on Tuesday dismissed a defamation-of-character lawsuit brought by a Matawan literary agent against the online encyclopedia Wikipedia, ruling that federal law immunizes interactive Internet services from liability for publishing material generated by others.

Judge Jamie S. Perri dismissed complaints by Barbara Bauer and her company, Barbara Bauer Literary Agency Inc., against Wikimedia Foundation, the owner and operator of online encyclopedia Wikipedia.

... Complaints remain against 19 individuals and an organization known as Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, which also were named as defendants in Bauer's suit. Wikimedia was the only defendant to challenge the suit in court on Tuesday."
posted by ericb at 9:21 AM on July 2, 2008


Annnd.. now Xeni had edited her comment to add:

As for the remarks about the unpublishing/deletion/takedown clause being added to the policy, for frak's sake you guys! 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 shitstorm, we should go ahead and have a stated policy. We debated among ourselves, figured out some wording that didn't make everyone want to vomit, 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 was an oversight if anything, not a sinister decision to "disappear the truth."

XJ

XJ


If not for the clumsy forgetting to delete the second XJ, there'd be no clue there was no editing going on, as it was done silently.
posted by ShawnStruck at 9:22 AM on July 2, 2008 [5 favorites]


*rolls eyes*
posted by cstross at 9:22 AM on July 2, 2008


Links have a half-life of approximately nine million seconds, or 90 days (choose yer units wisely). Complaining about something that's two years old is just lame.

While there are exceptional cases where a site's links have been designed to decay (mp3 blogs being one good example cited over at ML), the default function of web content is to go up and stay up. Link rot and intentional removal are two things that break from that expecatation.

No one is making the argument that things never disappear from the web. A couple of possible drama rockets in BB aside, I haven't even seen anyone so far try to claim that BoingBoing doesn't have the right to remove their own content, either.

But content that disappears for reason other than planned decay has to disappear for a reason. Those reasons can be fairly partitioned into two general categories:

1. Link rot.
2. Editorial action.

Now, with link rot, we're talking about bad maintenance. Bad design, bad planning, bad followthrough. The stuff doesn't disappear because anybody meant for it to, it just wasn't taken well care of. A site goes dark. A major overhaul breaks old links. A database that wasn't backed up gets borked. Etc. All of these things happen, and no sane person will suggest otherwise, and certainly I've not seen anyone with a legit beef against what BoingBoing has done frame their argument in a way that's incompatible with this particular fact of life.

Which leaves editorial action. Folks remove blog posts and web content on purpose, yes, and as both those criticisizing and those defending BoingBoing have said at various points in the last couple of days, the right to make that decision is entirely BoingBoing's.

But generally there's a reason to take action, and the action taken should be in scope with the reasoning for it. Is someone suing you to remove content? Fine, you don't want a court battle (or don't believe you'll win one), and you remove the content. Is someone asking you nicely to remove it? Fine, you're polite and accede to their wishes. Do you have personal regrets about posting or hosting some content? Fine, you remove it to protect your own feelings or reputation.

All of those, however, are decisions. Not rot. Not decay. There is no question of half-life in this context. A responsible, competent host in a model that is not designed for decay puts stuff out there indefinitely. The removal of that content is action, not inevitability.

So objections that there should is some statute of limitations that has been exceeded, that if the silent edit occurred a year ago or that if the content has been around a while then complaints about the editorial action taken are too late or out of line or "lame"? No. Save it. It's an argument that's dead on arrival.

One of the costs of creating and hosting and making editorial decisions about content is facing criticism over those decisions. One of the main lines of criticism running through this whole thing is that punitively, retroactively, and secretly denying the public at large access to content you previously hosted, without explanation, is bad behavior. Xeni, at least, seems to have more or less responded with "no, it's not", which is a really dismaying position in my eyes from that crew in particular.
posted by cortex at 9:24 AM on July 2, 2008 [14 favorites]


Charlie Stross has picked his side! BURN HIM.
posted by Justinian at 9:25 AM on July 2, 2008 [2 favorites]


the Metafilter thread on the Violet Blue affair is now longer than that provoked by 9/11

On a cursory look, the highest user number in the original September 11, 2001 thread is around 12k. Nowadays, there's 75kers running around, and I'm thinking about buying a convertible and a home tanning booth. I get that it's just an off-the-cuff type bit, not hardhitting journalism (And nothing personal against the author), but that's some lazy shit writing right there, using a lame and inflammatory comparison that would be torn to rhetoric shreds in MeTa if anyone tried to pass it off as a legit point.

Coupled with the BoingBoing thing it's an excellent example of why internet Media isn't so much New as n00b - msm may be dying, but what it's being supplanted by is still overwhelmingly amateur hour, and we're all the poorer for it.

If you say you're better, then be better.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:25 AM on July 2, 2008 [2 favorites]


Oh yeah, I just ordered SATURN'S CHILDREN, Charlie. Will you send me a free brown paper bag to carry it around in and hide the cover or do I have to provide my own?
posted by Justinian at 9:27 AM on July 2, 2008 [2 favorites]


What breaks the spirit of the web is that a blog is considered as a record, sort of like a newspaper.

I like how the "serious, professional" bloggers on BB want it both ways: They want to treated like serious journalists, like members of the press, with all the romance and drama associated with a breaking story.

On the other hand, when they caught unpublishing doubleplusungood comments, then all of a sudden, it's no longer about freedom of speech and press, but whining along the lines of "We're only just a blog!", "We own our material!" and "Stop taking this so seriously!"

What a bunch of creeps.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:28 AM on July 2, 2008 [5 favorites]


Nice try, Cortex, but all you can really expect is an eye roll. This fellow seems to be here only to express displeasure at his buddies getting called out, and not to engage in any real discussion.
posted by Astro Zombie at 9:28 AM on July 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


Charlie Stross has picked his side! BURN HIM.

No need to. He seems quite willing to go down with the s(t)inking ship.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:30 AM on July 2, 2008


If not for the clumsy forgetting to delete the second XJ, there'd be no clue there was no editing going on, as it was done silently.

Don't worry, the second XJ has since been silently unsignatured. Can we get some Yakety Sax?
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 9:33 AM on July 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


Justinian – now that’s unfair, you know it’s a tribute to embarrassing Heinlein covers, or something. Is it out now then? I’ll have to pop down the shops later (with a paper bag).
posted by Artw at 9:34 AM on July 2, 2008


The thing that's the weirdest about all of this is that a great deal of the BoingBoing value was stored in the 'Voice of the Internet' brand.

Consider Suck, Wired, Red Herring -- all those other editorial voices exploded and sank beneath the wave with most or all hands lost. But Boing Boing survived going from a fairly crappy but influential zine to web-only, and, for better or for worse, with late links or fresh ones, at least staked out a claim as the Dial Tone of Internet Culture. Never mind the people, or the stupid sars mask art, or whatever -- the foundational value of Boing Boing was as a totem of Starry-Eyed Hey Look At This Let's All Create Something Great Together Fuck The Man And His So Called Policies Everyone To The Barricades awesomeness.

And in like two weeks, they've squandered all of that in the sort of suicidal display of circle-the-wagons corporate bitchy everyone-else-is-wrong lawyerism you'd expect from Dave Winer on a coke binge.

Whether or not Boing Boing is a personal blog, you'd at least expect Cory to have the sense to realize that betraying all your claimed cred and having your lead moderator attack people like a hyperbolic patent attorney is pretty much blowing up any chance you had remaining to go ballooning over the Louvre with Obama while earnestly dictating the terms of the new copyright destruction law. And since the guy apparently lives off of speaking fees, self-promotion and internet advertising, you'd have thought he would have jumped on this with his own preservation in mind.
posted by felix at 9:34 AM on July 2, 2008 [19 favorites]


Xeni:
As for the remarks about the unpublishing, Christ people, 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, we should go ahead and have a stated policy. We added this, linked to it in the post.
I'm pretty confident that one of her previous comments explicitly pointed to the policy page in defense of the "unpublishing".

I'm not going to go back and look for it, though, and even if it's not there, it may, of course, have just been unpublished, to get the past into line with the current way that things always have been.
posted by Flunkie at 9:34 AM on July 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


So...how about I put on some light jazz and we longboat this fucker into the sunset?
posted by Jofus at 9:35 AM on July 2, 2008 [2 favorites]


I'm not going to go back and look for it, though, and even if it's not there, it may, of course, have just been unpublished, to get the past into line with the current way that things always have been.

What policy change? Unpublishing for any or no reason has always been their policy.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:37 AM on July 2, 2008


Back off, and get a sense of perspective, for crying out loud!

look, surely you can see the absurdity in one of their friends telling people to back off and get a sense of perspective, yeah?
posted by shmegegge at 9:40 AM on July 2, 2008


Oh christ, this thing really does still have legs.
posted by Jofus at 9:41 AM on July 2, 2008


Astro Zombie: well shoot, I guess I'll just have to go and out myself under my real name: WINSTON SMITH.
posted by cstross at 9:41 AM on July 2, 2008


*drags out the old grill, and begins cooking brats using the old family recipe*

*The secret ingredient is...love.

And MSG
posted by drezdn at 9:41 AM on July 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


Tribe trumps truth.
posted by euphorb at 9:41 AM on July 2, 2008 [6 favorites]


It's funny that cstross popped in to talk about link rot, because I was just mulling over why it is that I value the permanence of links beyond simple matters of webmaster best practice, and I'd actually connected it in my mind to his great article on mass storage and the 'dawn of history'.

Note: I'm in no way saying that Charlie's being hypocritical or contradictory in his statements - just noting the coincidence that just as I'd made an (admittedly rather wild) conceptual jump from this particular blogdrama to the broader notion of why archiving is so valuable, the author of the original piece turns up and says it's silly. Which I guess is one of the cool things about MeFi...
posted by flashboy at 9:41 AM on July 2, 2008 [2 favorites]


well shoot, I guess I'll just have to go and out myself under my real name: WINSTON SMITH.

Psst. That "steampunk viewscreen" Cory installed is really just a plasma with a few bits of brass screwed on.
posted by Artw at 9:43 AM on July 2, 2008


I have never compared this to Orwell. I just think it is bad Web policy and worse public relations, and I'm pretty sure that whatever alienation of BoingBoing's readership will be the fallout from this, however large it may be, will not be ameliorated in any way by friends of BoingBoing taking itself upon themselves to leap into online forum and mock people for their concerns.
posted by Astro Zombie at 9:45 AM on July 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


The thing that annoys me most about all of this, which Charlie Stross' comment reminded me of, is the "oh, why does anybody care about this?" response.

If someone is popular, it means that they have fans. Fans become attached. They will have certain expectations for the "celebrities*" behavior, based on their public persona and the kind of work they do. If they violate those expectations, then their fans will be upset. That's just how it works. (Why is that people seem to forget that fan is (probably) short for fanatic?) You can bitch all you want about how the fans have no right to be upset - saying that they are all entitled and shit - but telling people that they have no right to feel how they feel never helps.

If the celebrity does something that violates how their fans expect them to behave, and would actually like to keep those fans, or as many as possible, wouldn't it be better just to be like "I understand why you're upset and think we shouldn't have behaved the way we did. However, we did x because of y and think it was the right decision. If you don't want to be a fan anymore we understand." Instead of, "We don't owe you anything and we'll do whatever the fuck we want. Plus, you're all haters."

*By celebrities,I mean people who are famous in whatever pond they swim in not necessarily mainstream media famous.
posted by nooneyouknow at 9:51 AM on July 2, 2008 [2 favorites]


All I know is that if the BB crowd were among my friends, rather than come to their defense against an already hostile and pre-disposed to disbelieve crowd, I would do the following:

Drop each of my friends among them an email from my secret personal account to theirs (I assume you have a secret account that only friends and family know, yes? I bet they do, too), and it would say something like this:

1. This shitstorm is not going away because you are continuing to make small tactical errors -- you have gone beyond the point where NO MISSTEPS MUST BE MADE. Changing the policy without an announcement beforehand? Comes across as if you've got a tin ear considering that one of the biggest gripes is that you did something without letting anyone know about it. Even making an edit without a "this comment was edited by X on 7/2/08" is exacerbating the perception of sneakiness even if it's completely innocuous.

2. Get each and every principal onto a teleconference tout de suite and hash out a 1-2 paragraph statement along the lines of "we screwed up. we're sorry." STOP IT WITH THE DEFENSIVENESS. IT'S GOING OVER LIKE A LEAD BALLOON.

3. Post that comment as a NEW front-page post on the homepage. Disable comments on that page, and the entire comments system for now. You have no need to listen to complaints because you've HEARD THEM AND ARE TAKING ACTION.

4. Un-unpubish the Violet blue stories. Get them back out there with apologies. REMOVE ALL OUTBOUND LINKS FROM THE ENTRIES AND ADD A BOILERPLATE NOTE STATING "DUE TO $REASON WE CANNOT HAVE OUTBOUND LINKS FROM THIS ARTICLE. OUR APOLOGIES."

5. Invite people to send email and READ EVERY ONE. But don't open comments on any stories for a while.

6. Profit from salvaging a bit more of your reputation than your current course of action would. It's not the people coming to your defense that you need to make feel good now, and it's not the people who hate your guts just because, it's the people who are genuinely confused and concerned by your strategic and tactical blunders. YOU CAN GET THEM BACK AS READERS IF YOU APPROACH THEM HUMBLY AND FIX THE PROBLEM BY UN-UNPUBLISHING EVERYTHING AND APOLOGIZING.
posted by chimaera at 9:52 AM on July 2, 2008 [25 favorites]


Nice try, Cortex, but all you can really expect is an eye roll. This fellow seems to be here only to express displeasure at his buddies getting called out, and not to engage in any real discussion.

It's more than once that I've seen folks back off from overblown first comments as they catch their breath, get caught up on the conversation, and recognize the difference between what they're attacking and what's there.

Winston Charlie, I think your first comment in here was pretty damned obnoxious, but worse things have happened. If you don't want a flamewar in here, you can probably avoid one.
posted by cortex at 9:56 AM on July 2, 2008


chimaera - But they cannot back down or admit they were wrong ever. That’s why they’re a great target for mockery, and why they’ll continue to tie themselves up in knots. And though they know all this stuff they have a complete conceptual block on recognizing it ever.

It’s a great day for connoisseurs of ego-related clusterfucks.
posted by Artw at 9:57 AM on July 2, 2008


If my Twitter account is any indication, about 30 percent of my friends have unsubscribed from BoingBoing's RSS feed in response to this. Perhaps my friends are just unusually easily annoyed (I know I am, and I have likewise unsubscribed), but it demonstrates that, whether people should care or not, they do care. And these aren't trolls, as I am not. They are ex-readers. Any publishing concern should be able to tell the difference. You don't have to pander to those concerns, but you do have to respect them, or risk losing them.
posted by Astro Zombie at 9:57 AM on July 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


Ironically I doubt Boing Boing are really hurting for hits as a result of all of this.
posted by Artw at 9:59 AM on July 2, 2008


Look, cstross, since the opening Doctorow roasting this thread has settled down into a lot of serious discussion (punctuated by a lot of spikes from the gasoline the BB folks seem to be trying to put out the fire with.) The discourse has been, for the most part, civil. The discussion has been, for the most part, interesting.

If you're here to engage in the overall conversation, well, by all means, let's talk. But if you're here to snark and throw rocks, well, we have thousands of active users who can do that already, and already have. Adding your overgeneralizations and bile to this thread is just going to make you look bad. It's just going to reinforce a stereotype that you're here because you're part of some cult goon squad out to discredit anything good and reasonable we're trying to center on here.

So, you know? Either try to engage, and try to do it on topic, or take your namecalling in the name of "passionate defense" elsewhere.

The "to the barricades!" attitude I've seen the SF community show around this fiasco would be startling to me if my wife weren't a writer and didn't tell me about the daily kerfluffles that happen in other genres. Writers are a strange bunch.
posted by dw at 9:59 AM on July 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


YOU CAN GET THEM BACK AS READERS IF YOU APPROACH THEM HUMBLY AND FIX THE PROBLEM BY UN-UNPUBLISHING EVERYTHING AND APOLOGIZING.

But we're BoingBoing...that's the part YOU don't get.
posted by jsavimbi at 10:00 AM on July 2, 2008


what's kind of especially bizarre, and I hope he comes to see this, is that even if he didn't invent it, cstross certainly popularized the idea that thanks to the internet credibility and reputation can become discernible currency. an idea that cory doctorow ran with to decent effect. and yet...
posted by shmegegge at 10:00 AM on July 2, 2008 [4 favorites]


Also: Second Life really isn’t that interesting. Sorry.
posted by Artw at 10:02 AM on July 2, 2008


Be interesting to see what happens to BB's traffic stats in a few weeks time once the WTFisgoingon!!! blip smooths out...
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 10:03 AM on July 2, 2008


I'm pretty confident that one of [Xeni's] previous comments explicitly pointed to the policy page in defense of the "unpublishing".

I'm not going to go back and look for it, though, and even if it's not there, it may, of course, have just been unpublished, to get the past into line with the current way that things always have been.
That's the real and lasting damage this fiasco has done to BB. Beyond charges of hypocrisy, favoritism, non-transparency, and bad PR, they've undermined faith in their primary offering: their words. You no longer know that what you're reading was what was there earlier. You don't know if what you once read on BB will be there later. Most damning, you don't know if what one of the boingers said in a comment thread will silently change while you aren't looking. There is no conversational record that you can trust.

It makes me wonder how long before BB gets its own winerwatch-esque site.
posted by sgranade at 10:04 AM on July 2, 2008 [4 favorites]


That's a good point, shmegegge. I wonder how Cory and Charlie think Boing Boing's wuffie is doing right about now?
posted by Justinian at 10:05 AM on July 2, 2008


I enjoy a fair bit of Cory Doctorow's writing, and I'm quite a fan of yours, Charlie. But I think you should understand that though you know at least a couple of the BB crowd fairly well, we don't.

Your personal experiences with them gives you a perspective that predisposes you to understand their reasoning and their intentions, but we have no such advantage. Thus we can only judge what's going on by what we read.

And from the BB crowd, it's been only silence or iron-clawed defensiveness. And since we're all outsiders to that crowd it doesn't look like they're acquitting themselves with the integrity that we expected. Can you see why so many people seem disappointed?
posted by chimaera at 10:08 AM on July 2, 2008 [3 favorites]


Well, Down and out in the Magic Kingdom is still a fantastic book, and pretty much has the answer to the question “where is Boing Boings wuffle right now?” about two thirds in.
posted by Artw at 10:08 AM on July 2, 2008


This brouhaha sure GivesWell.
posted by ericb at 10:13 AM on July 2, 2008


What policy change? Unpublishing for any or no reason has always been their policy.

Maybe so, but it was only in the past few days that they explicitly added that to their policy page.
posted by delmoi at 10:16 AM on July 2, 2008


This brouhaha sure GivesWell.

But without Miko, this will only be a vapid shell of a mega-thread.
posted by dw at 10:19 AM on July 2, 2008


I think the Boing Boing wuffie is worth even less than the dollar now...
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 10:20 AM on July 2, 2008


As UbuRoivas mentioned I wonder how much cstross and jscalzi in particular are responding to the Cory Doctorow Hate-a-thon early in the thread vs the more rational conversation here at the bottom?

And I think the "Why does anyone care" argument is a canard: when a website can nearly singlehandedly change the course of legislation (Canadian DMCA) by provoking its readers, the goings on at that website are pretty spectacularly care-worthy.
posted by Skorgu at 10:21 AM on July 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


I propose we setup a BoingBoing relief fund for the hardship this whole kerfuffle will cause them. One stipulation, only Linden Dollars........
posted by lattiboy at 10:24 AM on July 2, 2008


A song? This saga requires a rock opera, methinks. It's already epic like mad and we still don't even know why all the Violet Blue posts were deleted yet...
posted by overglow at 10:27 AM on July 2, 2008


For what it's worth, I know the web fairly well. I moderated the official X-Files message board (and some other Fox boards) in the late 90s, so I like to think I know good moderation when I see it.

I also know a lot of the the legal ins and outs of moderating a public board, and I've even had to report posters who posted threats to Bill Clinton and personally dealt with the Secret Service and FBI to aid their investigation (really all I did was give them server logs and backups from the day in question).

So I like to think I have a bit of knowledge about the subject when I say that the moderators over on the Boing Boing thread are going way beyond the normal moderation mandate when they undertake to insult posters directly in the thread. I know that I would have been walked out of the building that day if I'd ever insulted a user on the X-Files boards. How is what they're doing (Antinous and TNH) in any way considered positively promoting the quality of the discussion, or even showing BB in a positive light?

I'm astonished at the hostility (particularly from Antinous) to specific posters.

Moderators should never be a party in a flame war.
posted by chimaera at 10:28 AM on July 2, 2008 [10 favorites]


sculpin writes "It's made me think, 'What would I be thinking and feeling, if I were in Cory's place?'"

I always figured that would be:
"Hey, if I take my instant messenger logs, do a search-and-replace on the names, drop in a few made up words like 'whoofie', and add some pointless and desultory interstitial matter cribbed from the in-flight magazine in the seat-back in front of me, I'll have a new 'novel' I can release under a Creative Commons license before the plane lands! Wow-wee-woo, it's so fun and easy to be a Real Author™! (Cory sighs, then adds:) "If only it were so easy to be a Real Boy™ just like Pinocchio! (Regaining his composure, Cory continues:) "See, there's a reason I hate Disney, damn it!""
posted by orthogonality at 10:39 AM on July 2, 2008 [3 favorites]


Tsk. There’s nothing particularly hacked out about the guys writing.
posted by Artw at 10:47 AM on July 2, 2008


and we still don't even know why all the Violet Blue posts were deleted yet

The reasons behind [the deletions] are indeed rooted in personal dynamics between Xeni Jardin and Violet Blue.
posted by waraw at 10:50 AM on July 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


Damn it, empath, that's the second time this thread I've had to double-check that you aren't me.

How do you know I'm not you? We could have a Tyler Durden situation here.
posted by empath at 10:51 AM on July 2, 2008


and we still don't even know why all the Violet Blue posts were deleted yet

No, as pointed out in waraw's link, it's clear that this has nothing with a legal injuncton, trademark issues, Amanda Congdon, or anything like that. There was clearly some romantic personal drama of the sort that causes severe emotional reactions and poor impulse control. It's a shame that kind of dirty laundry was aired publicly, but that's what happens when you make it public by disappearing the other party off a high profile weblog.
posted by Justinian at 10:54 AM on July 2, 2008


I am also a friend of Cory, Teresa, and other folks at BB.

Kudos for saying that upfront. It's important to be forthcoming about this stuff. But that means you don't get to say things like:

Back off, and get a sense of perspective, for crying out loud!


Being a friend of the BB folks means you have no perspective yourself, or rather that your perspective is irremediably that of a concerned party, and you should know better than to take other people to task for not sharing your perspective. People aren't allowed to link their friends' sites here on MetaFilter, and there's a good reason for that, the same reason that should suggest to you that recusing yourself from this discussion might be a good idea.

And to point out what many have done before: there are very few "BoingBoing haters" in this thread, despite the silly accusation defenders keep making. Some are fans of BB who are disappointed by this development; I'd guess the majority, like me, once were fans but got bored/disappointed years ago. That doesn't imply that we're full of schadenfreude; the fact that I don't particularly care about BB doesn't mean I'm happy seeing them hole themselves below the waterline. And I'm truly sad to see TNH, whom I genuinely like, go down with them. Loyalty to friends is a good thing, but not when it leads to behavior that will in the end do only further harm to those friends while damaging your own reputation.
posted by languagehat at 10:54 AM on July 2, 2008 [4 favorites]


This saga requires a rock opera

What about the blog?
What about the blog?
What about the blog?
They saw it all!

You didn't read it
You didn't see it.
You won't say nothing to no one
ever in your life.
You never heard it
how absurd it
All seems without any proof.
You didn't read it
You didn't see it
You never heard it not a word of it.
You won't say nothing to no one
Never tell a soul
What you know is the Truth.
posted by Tenuki at 10:55 AM on July 2, 2008 [2 favorites]


man, if there is one group of people I do not want to pick an intellectual fight with on the internet, it is the MetaFilter crowd. Reading over the new comments here is just amazing. I have no idea what Boing Boing is doing about it on their end, but honestly, they have been soundly and sufficiently called out on their errors, given a clear definition of what has happened and how they are damaging their own community and image.

It's one of the best cases of creative, compassionate, criticism (with some snark) that I have seen in a while.
posted by mrzarquon at 10:56 AM on July 2, 2008 [8 favorites]


Boingboing: documents about our policies will change
posted by furtive at 10:59 AM on July 2, 2008


Having just finished reading the Boing Boing thread, I have to say that Antinous and Teresa Nielsen Hayden sure do take a contentious tone when dealing with their commentors. Moderating and responding with civility is something they could learn by paying close attention to the behavior of the moderators here.
posted by ericb at 11:02 AM on July 2, 2008 [4 favorites]



BLOGOSPHERE: What's the buzz
Tell me what's a-happening
What's the buzz
Tell me what's a-happening

BOINGBOING: Why should you want to know?
Don't you mind about the archives
When there's cool stuff to be read
Have you purchased Cory's book yet
Or downloaded it instead

BLOGOSPHERE: What's the buzz
Tell me what's a-happening
What's the buzz
Tell me what's a-happening

BOINGBOING: I could link to Unnamed Poster
Even tell you why we purged her
But you're all a bunch of asshats

BLOGOSPHERE: When do we find out what is going on?
When do we find out what is going on?
When do we find out what is going on?
When do we find out what is going on?

BOINGBOING: Why should you want to know?
Are you so obsessed with reading
Unpublished posts you cannot see
If you knew where this is leading
You'd be a martinet like me



Only the empty bombast of Lloyd Webber could do justice to this tempest in an e-pot.
posted by Sidhedevil at 11:14 AM on July 2, 2008 [15 favorites]


Before I raise my NyQuil(tm) mug and salute you, Zarquon, while I want to thank everybody here for being who they are and aw geez I I love you guys, we did have that godamned Boyzone bullshit start up again in this thread. Perfect thread if not for that. It's like I want to make everyone watch Beaches before they can post here, and no that's not a punishment!

Before this derail spins out, I uh, wrote a drug infused book on the BB post. :p here -- I saved a copy in case it disappears. To be quite honest, they have not messed with any of my comments, and I really am impressed at the level of discourse they're allowing to happen there. I'm being sincere. At least at some level they're recognizing that just sanitizing everything isn't going to make this one go away.
posted by cavalier at 11:15 AM on July 2, 2008 [2 favorites]


eriko writes "It is very possible that Cory doesn't even know this is happening, if his vacation status is true."

I'm reminded of the Russian serfs, turned off their land or otherwise exploited by the local Count, exclaiming that "If only the Little Father (that is, the Czar) knew, he'd surely give us justice!"

There's such a strong tendency among people to want leaders so badly, that having decided someone is a leader, they start making excuses for him (or her). We need only to look at the current political situation in america -- whether it's Clintonites excusing Hillary's race-baiting (it's really Mark Penn's fault, don'tchaknow), or Obama Hope-ers excusing his cave-in on FISA (but he had to, don'tchaknow, and when the Little Father from Chicago gets to Washington, he'll fix it right up). I guess you have to believe in something, and when that something's a someone, it's far easier to rationalize than to reorder one's preconceptions to the facts.
posted by orthogonality at 11:18 AM on July 2, 2008 [5 favorites]


Yeah, has Hades' blockbuster discovery of them changing their policies page gotten around yet?
i was wondering if this doesn't deserve an FPP... seems to me like it's a whole new story to me...one considerably darker...i'm too new here...anyone?

If you decide you'd rather come out guns blazing, defending your pals and calling the readers names, you've failed in your responsibility. I'm sure she's going to regret a lot of what she's said in the heat of the moment

why would you assume that, when she can obviously unsay anything she chooses?
posted by sexyrobot at 11:18 AM on July 2, 2008


and we still don't even know why all the Violet Blue posts were deleted yet

Does it matter?

If they just don't like her hair are they not within their rights to deny her their referral traffic and page rank?

If she's the real killer that got OJ Simpson's and Hans Reiser's wives does that make throwing history down the memory hole OK?

I don't think we're necessarily entitled to know why they now hate her. But what BB is being called out for has little or nothing to do with whether their loathing of Violet Blue is justified or not.
posted by tyllwin at 11:20 AM on July 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


i was wondering if this doesn't deserve an FPP

No.
posted by Artw at 11:24 AM on July 2, 2008


Paging cortex.

It is sad that your moderator status here renders your theoretical-but-no-doubt note-perfect interpretation of this little filk in questionable taste, and therefore unlikely to hit my ears. Alas.
posted by mwhybark at 11:29 AM on July 2, 2008


What Artw said. We've got this one for current events, and while I'm not saying there could never be a followup at some point in the future, I think we definitely don't need a new post.
posted by cortex at 11:29 AM on July 2, 2008


If this were to be a song, it'd have to be one of those sprawling epic Meatloaf songs, full of explosions, piano crescendos, the Vienna Boys Choir, a drum solo, and at least three wailing guitar solos. It would last for at least fifteen minutes, the video would have a cast of thousands, and still nobody would be exactly clear what the hell was going on.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 11:30 AM on July 2, 2008 [4 favorites]


robocop is bleeding, just check out Bang Camaro some time.
posted by jsavimbi at 11:36 AM on July 2, 2008


We're all representing the BoingBoing musical experience here, but there is one experience that is being forgotten. I submit:

Violet Blue
Violet Blue
You lost your posts
On BoingBoing
What did you do?

Violet Blue
Violet Blue
Nothing did
Nothing done
They can't undo

Was a time
You were the fifth mutant
Now your links
Are just pollutant

Violet Blue
Violet Blue
They won't tell us
What you done
Did they tell you?
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:36 AM on July 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


robocop, that's why Sidhedevil's recasting of just such a song in Jesus Christ Superstar is so spot on. In the rewrite, BoingBoing sings the role of Judas. It's really some prime satire.
posted by mwhybark at 11:38 AM on July 2, 2008


I always liked Jesus Christ Superstar because it seemed kind of pro-Judas. By comparison the other disciples come over as chumps.
posted by Artw at 11:41 AM on July 2, 2008 [3 favorites]


Judas? Maybe I'm mixed up.
posted by mwhybark at 11:42 AM on July 2, 2008


Moderating and responding with civility is something they could learn by paying close attention to the behavior of the moderators here.

I think the promote-from-within policy action here has a little to do with this. I still can only sort of skim what's happening over at BB and I have a lot of respect generally for TNH, but I never felt like she was "one of the Boingers" in the same way that cortex already was a well-known MeFite before he became "a MeFite with access to the buttons."

BB and MeFi are different in a number of ways but this community and especially the MeTa community are small enough that we, the mods, are expected to answer for basically anything someone wants to know about. It's just the way this place is set-up. There's the occasional wackjob with a super axe to grind but in all but the most egregious of cases, we respond civilly and decently because them's the rules. And when we fuck up we apologize. I have to say that I have been tempted once or twice to tweak the faq and then point to it to support some marginal decision I've made, but it's just a passing wish and so beyond the pale of what floats around here in the MeFiPanOpTiCon that it's never been something I've seriously considered.

Damage control is hard and something we've rarely had to deal with here at this sort of level; I'm really sorry to everyone over there stumbling through that, it's a mess at this point no matter what happens.
posted by jessamyn at 11:43 AM on July 2, 2008 [10 favorites]


yeah, oops. Jesus <> Judas, for future reference, Mike. D'oh.
posted by mwhybark at 11:44 AM on July 2, 2008


Artw writes "I always liked Jesus Christ Superstar because it seemed kind of pro-Judas. By comparison the other disciples come over as chumps."

Caiaphas, dude! "I see bad things arising: the crowd crown him king, which the Romans would ban. I see blood and destruction, our elimination because, because, because of one man!"
posted by orthogonality at 11:46 AM on July 2, 2008


MeFiPanOpTiCon

Ouch my eye
posted by mwhybark at 11:47 AM on July 2, 2008


See, now I've got "I close the thread..." as the opening line of 'Any Dream Will Do' in my head, but I'm stuck for what replaces "...drew back the curtain".

Damn you all.
posted by flashboy at 11:49 AM on July 2, 2008


So much for that "Violet Blue never posted" here meme:

All of her posts, via Google Spreadsheets

BoingBoing's getting smarter by the minute.
posted by jsavimbi at 11:49 AM on July 2, 2008 [4 favorites]


If they just don't like her hair are they not within their rights to deny her their referral traffic and page rank?

Okay, first, if it's due to page rank then BB's engaging in Google manipulation. And second, they could do that without deleting the posts by simply going back and putting rel="nofollow"s in the links.
posted by JHarris at 11:51 AM on July 2, 2008


any one of the BB people (including TNH) or VB herself have accomplished more in their young lives than, for instance, Chris Matthews.

I just thought this was great, and was hoping the thread would turn into a BBers vs. Chris Matthews war, but for nought. In any case, Chris Matthews accomplishment highlights:

1968-1970: Peace Corps, Swaziland
1976-present: Married, 3 Children
1970: Capitol Police Officer
1971-74: Worked on Capitol Hill for Senator and Rep.
1987-97: Print Journalist covering politics
1997-present: Host of top-ten rated political talk show. Earns $5m per year
posted by cell divide at 11:51 AM on July 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


Is this in meatspace?
No it's the Internet-
Caught in a shitstorm
No escape from blogrebrity
Open your blogs
Look up to MeFi and see...
I'm just a Boinger, i need no sympathy
Because I'm read it now, delete it then
Some steampunk here, Disney there,
Anything Teresa does, doesn't really matter to me,
To me...

Teresa, just deleted her
Put a highlight over them
Hit delete, and now they're dead
Teresa, hell's just begun,
But now Ive gone and thrown our cred away
Teresa ooo,
Didn't mean to make you snarl
If we're not backing down this time tomorrow
Carry on, carry on, as if vowels really mattered....


Someone else want to finish it?
posted by dw at 11:51 AM on July 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


MeFiPanOpTiCon

Filmed in MatJessTexvision.
posted by cortex at 11:53 AM on July 2, 2008


we definitely don't need a new post

Well, not until this thread exceeds 2,147,483,647 comments, at which point you'll need a 64-bit system.
posted by lukemeister at 11:54 AM on July 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


jsavimbi - Yeah, Rock Band made me buy their album. Awesome stuff.

mwhybark - Only if MeFi can be Herod.

BoingBoing, we are overjoyed
To see egg on your face
You've been getting quite a name
All around the place
Fighting censors
Keeping free speech on the web
Now I understand you're never wrong
At least that's what you've said.

So you are a blog
A very well-known weblog
Prove to us that you're for true
Un-unpublish Violet Blue
That's all we'll need to see
Then your cause we'll believe
C'mon, do it Cory!

posted by robocop is bleeding at 11:55 AM on July 2, 2008 [2 favorites]


The Judas discussion is going on in another thread.

I just needed to make my mark here to get this page in my recent activity. Feel free to npblsh this comment once the action dies down.
posted by painquale at 11:57 AM on July 2, 2008


why would you assume that, when she can obviously unsay anything she chooses?

Because I know her (in the way we know people on the internet we've never met). She's a good and sensible person, and I think she'll regret it.
posted by languagehat at 11:57 AM on July 2, 2008


There's such a strong tendency among people to want leaders so badly, that having decided someone is a leader, they start making excuses for him (or her).

Oh please. There's still so much more clamoring, per pound, in this thread for their heads than on their side. Some people are taking the benefit of the doubt for Cory because they've read his stuff, like him, and don't want to think he'd approve of something like this.

It's like when you hear a rumor (for example, "John McCain fathered an illegitimate black baby") and it sounds so out of character that you don't believe it. Of course anyone can START a rumor, so people, smart ones anyway, reject hearsay if it doesn't fit in with what they know. It's kind of a gossipy CRC: is it noise or signal? In the absence of more information, go by what you already know and try to work it into a synthesis.

When SUBSTANTIATED news comes out that breaks those redundancy checks you tend to get things like 1,100 comment Metafilter threads.
posted by JHarris at 12:00 PM on July 2, 2008


jsavimbi, how is it that BB's getting smarter by the minute now?
posted by mwhybark at 12:03 PM on July 2, 2008


Oh jesus, a new VW post went up. Geez they have a frackin axe to grind with XJ. There is no way this can end well. While we campaign for the entity "BB" to right itself, the collateral damage here is just really really awful.

And no the NyQuil isn't working! Groggy but can't sleep :p
posted by cavalier at 12:04 PM on July 2, 2008


Just posted this on our thread. In the interest of getting this thread up to 1984 posts, I'm going to copy it here. (But I don't intend to reply to specific questions in both places. No offense.)

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.

posted by Joel Johnson at 12:05 PM on July 2, 2008 [12 favorites]


jsavimbi writes 'All of her posts, via Google Spreadsheets'

Did you even bother to plug any of those URLs into the Wayback Machine? They are posts about her, or about stuff she's suggested, not by her. There are plenty of reasons to be miffed with Boing Boing over this, no need to invent new ones.
posted by jack_mo at 12:09 PM on July 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


Joel! Was just trying to email you. Great comment. Can yo usee what you can do about just closing the comments @ BB now? A comment here mentioned it as a strategy.. too groggy to look it up right now.. but I think it's the right track for you guys. The BB post now is de-volving into a gosh darned Godwin argument.
posted by cavalier at 12:10 PM on July 2, 2008


Languagehat - "there are very few "BoingBoing haters" in this thread"

What thread are your reading? Certainly not this one.

The MeFi snark/schadenfreude measurement here is at 500 year flood levels...
posted by Argyle at 12:12 PM on July 2, 2008


Ugh, that latest Valleywag post really does err on the side of too much information, doesn't it?
posted by jack_mo at 12:15 PM on July 2, 2008 [2 favorites]


when a website can nearly singlehandedly change the course of legislation (Canadian DMCA) by provoking its readers, the goings on at that website are pretty spectacularly care-worthy.

Disagree. If anyone deserves kudos for all the effort towards fighting Bill C61 (and all the Bills before this one), it should go to Michael Geist, who's been providing Cory with all those luscious links.
posted by squeak at 12:17 PM on July 2, 2008


jsavimbi, how is it that BB's getting smarter by the minute now?

I should've said "looking" instead of "getting". It was in reference to that whole "this person never existed..." nonsense they were spewing out before. I hope they keep this up for at least another hour until I head home. There's really nothing else out there to read right now.
posted by jsavimbi at 12:17 PM on July 2, 2008


hey, I like Joel Johnson's style. best of luck.
posted by shmegegge at 12:19 PM on July 2, 2008


Filmed in MatJessTexvision.

Sad to see that vacapinta is some kind of second class admin. Poor dude.



i keed
posted by eyeballkid at 12:20 PM on July 2, 2008


(Although as someone who's never read Valleywag before, the tone is snarktacular to the extent that I have no idea whether the post is meant to be some sort of joke.)
posted by jack_mo at 12:20 PM on July 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


Ugh, that latest Valleywag post really does err on the side of too much information, doesn't it?

As long as we're still rocking this paranoia party, has anyone investigated the idea that Valleywag is a false front operation for Boingboing? Because they are being such epicly vile peeholes about Xeni's personal business that my sympathies are starting to swing back to BB again.
posted by Divine_Wino at 12:22 PM on July 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


I like BoingBoing. I still go there every day. But I now never, EVER want to be a part of the "community" there thanks to their moderators (who I'm sure are all really cool in real life, etc.).

Sure, MeFi may be messy, but as languagehat and jscalzi have illustrated, MeFi messes can be cleaned up by those who feel responsible. By contrast, TNH and those who subscribe to her moderation philosophy look at messes and either claim that it's supposed to be like that or ignore it completely.

The BBers would be well served to ask TNH to step down from her day-to-day moderation duties and take on a role that involves less interaction with the public. PR, both formally and informally, is clearly not her strength.
posted by infinitewindow at 12:23 PM on July 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


Really, Argyle? It doesn't seem that way to me. I think it's interesting that Joel swung by here to crosspost - I suppose it means that what we're yammering about here is gonna get reviewed at BB as well as the comments in their own thread.
posted by mwhybark at 12:27 PM on July 2, 2008


On the off chance that this goes to 2000, or becomes a long boat thread, I'm dropping this comment in so I'll be alerted. I'm much more interested in the failed PR angle than the OMGHYPOCRISY angle, but that's just me. These people trade on reputation and they're ruining their stock in trade. These kind of personal flamewars happen all the time in a lot of different venues, though: professionals can't always turn the 'people' part of them off, nor should they. (Personal blog protestations aside, these are professionals.)

I've seen an even half-dozen of these kerfluffles in my profession in the past decade, and if there's one thing I know from experience, it's that watching it happen to others and having it happen to you are two totally different things. You might think you're drawing useful lessons for future conduct from this event, but the moment it's you or a close friend whose reputation or career or privacy is at stake, you'll jump in swinging, forgetting about all the prudence and pugilism you've ever learned.
posted by anotherpanacea at 12:28 PM on July 2, 2008 [2 favorites]


a recent email to all BBers...

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'


.....sooo...any lawyers on this thread...if they don't remove me, i want to send a REAL c&d letter...
posted by sexyrobot at 12:29 PM on July 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


epicly vile peeholes

Epically even, Cortex can you shoot that down the old memory oubliette for me fella? Wheee... Just jokin', sorry I'm ripped to the tits of Romulan Ale and schadenfreude suppositories.
posted by Divine_Wino at 12:30 PM on July 2, 2008


The MeFi snark/schadenfreude measurement here is at 500 year flood levels...

I think there is a significant differences between recognizing the disconnect between Boing Boing's past positions and current actions on issues like these and simply taking pleasure in BB's difficulties. Most of what's been going on with Metafilter is the former.
posted by Justinian at 12:31 PM on July 2, 2008


Did you even bother to plug any of those URLs into the Wayback Machine?

/shakes fist

Of course I didn't. I barely looked over the VA post in its entirety. But that's not going to stop me from adding fuel to the fire. Ok, maybe it will, since I'm running out of gas and all I'm reading here is the latest Me2 fad of "hey, I recognize what's happening here, I'll summarize it for everyone and then provide the [genius] solution."

I think we need to install a poll at this point.
posted by jsavimbi at 12:32 PM on July 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


Tits on.

Jesus wept.
posted by Divine_Wino at 12:33 PM on July 2, 2008


I like fire.
posted by Artw at 12:33 PM on July 2, 2008


I just want to post that there are those of use who don't love or hate BoingBoing (we're BB agnostics? apathetic?) but are following this issue because we think it's important for blogs to ideally maintain old content regardless of changes in editorial slant, or at the very least, failing that, own up to their own deletions and changes with a reasonable amount of transparency.
posted by drezdn at 12:36 PM on July 2, 2008 [4 favorites]


Longboat? Am I the first to think this thread would be best labeled "LongBoing"?
posted by wendell at 12:40 PM on July 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


Argyle: Here, let me quote your first comment in this thread:

I'm lucky enough to know both Violet and the BB crew. You know what? They are all nice people. You'd like them too. They are all polite, kind, and care about the people that read their sites.

Too bad MeFi is full of self-righteous commenters that attempt to engage in a contest of who has the snarkiest post and who first rejected the popular sites. I could search and replace the names in this thread with Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan and the vitriol would feel just right.


Sorry, but I don't take your perspective on the thread very seriously.

You might think you're drawing useful lessons for future conduct from this event, but the moment it's you or a close friend whose reputation or career or privacy is at stake, you'll jump in swinging, forgetting about all the prudence and pugilism you've ever learned.

Very true.
posted by languagehat at 12:41 PM on July 2, 2008 [2 favorites]


@ tyllwin

On the one hand, you make a good point. On the other hand, I'm following this like sort of a lurid soap opera now and won't really feel like it's done until the juicy gossip behind "personal drama" is revealed. Does that make me a bad person?
posted by overglow at 12:42 PM on July 2, 2008


robocop: haw!
posted by mwhybark at 12:43 PM on July 2, 2008


also...i have to thank cortex for doing such a bang-up job on the moderation here...such a nice contrast to bb's thread, which under TNH has devolved into a mass of misinformation, newspeak, history-changing, memory holes, and now godwin fercryinoutloud. would somebody please bake that brain-layer some cupcakes...if i made them it would be more of an insult (seriously, my cooking sucks) ;)
posted by sexyrobot at 12:48 PM on July 2, 2008


jsavimbi writes 'Of course I didn't. I barely looked over the VA post in its entirety. But that's not going to stop me from adding fuel to the fire.'

Hee - good to see you're getting into the spirit of things!

drezdn writes 'I just want to post that there are those of use who don't love or hate BoingBoing (we're BB agnostics? apathetic?) but are following this issue because we think it's important for blogs to ideally maintain old content regardless of changes in editorial slant, or at the very least, failing that, own up to their own deletions and changes with a reasonable amount of transparency.'

Glad I previewed, so I could quote you and pre-unpublish the rambling, incoherent post I'd typed saying what you just did! Though I'm not quite agnostic/apathetic, and will admit to feeling betrayed in a tiny little way, since I can remember seeing the way Boing Boing used to handle themselves - strikethrough corrections, dated updates, &c. - and thinking (like squillions of other webloggers, no doubt) that their approach was spot on and worth emulating on my own weblog.
posted by jack_mo at 12:50 PM on July 2, 2008 [2 favorites]


MetaTalk thread about what all this means for MetaFilter.
posted by Kattullus at 12:50 PM on July 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


Ugh, that latest Valleywag post really does err on the side of too much information, doesn't it?

Ick.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 12:52 PM on July 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


Hurrah! The cancer like spread of this thread continues - that'll keep this going for at least 5000+ comments!
posted by Artw at 12:53 PM on July 2, 2008


Disagree. If anyone deserves kudos for all the effort towards fighting Bill C61 (and all the Bills before this one), it should go to Michael Geist, who's been providing Cory with all those luscious links.

Effort yes, results though? Boing Boing has (had?) the audience to mobilize lots of annoyed geeks, something that certainly looked like it had some effect. I'll back down from "nearly singlehandedly" though I think the sentiment stands without it. When you take an active role in politics you expose yourself to a different level of scrutiny, whether you acknowledge it or not.
posted by Skorgu at 12:54 PM on July 2, 2008


One of the articles linked earlier called all of this schadenfreude.
I say no - I have no emotional investment for or against any of the BB crew - I'm just watching this with amazement over how badly this is being handled and just can't grasp that none of them could/can figure out that there are better ways to manage this.

ed: "BB and its defenders see no delineation between what is amateur and professional.
But you simply cannot have it both ways."


That to me is what I just can't stop trying to figure out here - and why this is yet another example of why some bloggers who want to be seen as journalists just don't get it. Sure journalism is changing - but the thing is there are so many bloggers who don't seem to understand that presenting yourself as a journalist means you have a different standard applied to you. We're going to assume that even if you didn't get a college degree in this stuff you did some time with other professionals, interned, read books, learned the craft. You understand media ethics, something of media management, what "transparancy" and "full disclosure" mean and why not following those will bite you in the ass. (Of course just because there are people with degrees calling themselves journalists doesn't mean they're actually doing the ethical thing either - but then we get to publicize this and say "they should have known better.") If you didn't know all that going in you sure as hell better learn fast, especially when your website traffic hits multiple thousands of visits per day - not to mention when you start being invited to comment in other media as an "expert." You don't get to suddenly run from that personna you've created and say "this is personal space here" - especially when you've not given your readers that expectation.

The BB folk are invited to conferences, paid to speak, some of them teach. If they're not consulting each other - and I assume that at least some of the BB have enough media background to have known better than to handle this situation this way - why aren't they listening to each others' counsel? Because they can't all have signed off on this being the correct way to handle the situation, right? Right?

The other thing I can't get over is how much information about their private lives that these folk have on the internet in various places. I mean, it's one thing to be a public figure and have other people write about you - it's another to have a huge amount of information/photos you've posted yourself. Maybe I'm one of the last people who doesn't blog/twitter this amount of info (I mean, I have some stuff up, just not this much, ack.) To then suddenly declare that you can't discuss things or that they're private - without the (Press Release 101) info that legal matters keep you from further disclosure - well, the rest of the internet is going to try to put the pieces together with what information has already been made available.
posted by batgrlHG at 12:57 PM on July 2, 2008 [6 favorites]


So I was going to ignore the Chris Mathews correctors because this is such a fascinating thread and I don't want to derail. It was a facetious and overblown comparison on my part that was not meant to be taken seriously.
But neither is Matthews. Hey, you folks quoting Wikipedia, it's true that Matthews did flunky work on Capitol Hill, but "accomplishment"? And someone cited his writing Carter's "malaise" speech which helped accomplish that man's not getting re-elected. (Matthews himself doesn't own up to it. He's talked about the speech like it's an object with no relation to him, so I don't know.) Oh, and then he worked for Reagan...
But look, I take your point and I don't want to derail, it's just that, as I see it, Xeni and Chris have careers of similar importance.
Now if Matthews wrote about sex more...
posted by CCBC at 12:57 PM on July 2, 2008


As such, Matthew Haughey will be guest-blogging for us for the next week while we all take a little bit of a mental vacation.

Why do you hate Mathowie so much?
posted by Artw at 1:05 PM on July 2, 2008 [4 favorites]


overglow, no, just human, i guess

Joel: If what you want is time is evaluate the situation and decide on a response, I think it's deserved. I personally hope that response is something along the lines that WCityMike suggests.
posted by tyllwin at 1:06 PM on July 2, 2008


So, if VB is evil, what sort of 'evil' is it? Rape? Touturing animals? Genocide?

The least-commented upon weirdness in all this is that a bunch of editors and authors have fallen in with the idea that because they don't like something an author has done they ought to have their work damaged, as though BoingBoing werre composed of crazy ex-girlfriends breaking into your loft to slash your paintings.

Seriously, would the editors working their unpublish Hemingway or Picasso or Dali, all of whom were well-known for being, well, dicks?
posted by rodgerd at 1:08 PM on July 2, 2008 [4 favorites]


WCityMike, thanks for validating my previous observation:

all I'm reading here is the latest Me2 fad of "hey, I recognize what's happening here, I'll summarize it for everyone and then provide the [genius] solution."

I feel better about myself now. Let's get one more half-hour out of this thread. I know we can do it.
posted by jsavimbi at 1:10 PM on July 2, 2008


(I don't know about publishing, but I'm guessing they'd get the right form of the word 'there')
posted by rodgerd at 1:10 PM on July 2, 2008


I love you guys.
posted by waraw at 1:13 PM on July 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


I don't think she deserves a lot of slack here. When you accept a position like that, you're taking on the responsibility of dealing with shitstorms wisely and gracefully. If you decide you'd rather come out guns blazing, defending your pals and calling the readers names, you've failed in your responsibility. I'm sure she's going to regret a lot of what she's said in the heat of the moment

I don't think that she is going to regret any of what she's said, because it isn't like this is the first time she's gone off the handle and been, frankly, a Really Bad Moderator. For example, the BB commenting FAQ/Policy Manual, which she wrote, is snarky and unnecessarily combative. And almost since her first day on BB, she has injected herself into contentious threads, insulting and belittling commenters and deleting or disemvowelling comments which dared to disagree with her, the BBers or the groupthink. This latest donnybrook is just the latest donnybrook.

IMHO, she's been a piss-poor moderator since long before her stint at BB. For example, "disemvowelling" is nothing more than trollbaiting. She has said as much: one of its purposes is to belittle the poster even more than a mere deletion would.

My mind boggles when I see people praise her for her light touch, even-handedness and coolness under pressure. It's like they're watching the Bizarro World version of this show.
posted by ten pounds of inedita at 1:15 PM on July 2, 2008 [7 favorites]


Skorgu:

"I wonder how much cstross and jscalzi in particular are responding to the Cory Doctorow Hate-a-thon early in the thread vs the more rational conversation here at the bottom?"

Now that BB released a statement and the facts of the matter are to known to a greater or lesser extent, I don't have much to add; my main concern was people doing a pile-on on some folks I know before there was enough information to know who was involved with what. We're past that point.

My main takeaway from all of this is:

a) it's not how I would have handled it, and hopefully not how they Boingers will handle it in the future;

b) I'm glad my own comment policy makes clear and has made clear for years that I reserve the right to delete posts and ban people at my pleasure and whim. It makes things a whole lot simpler.
posted by jscalzi at 1:17 PM on July 2, 2008 [2 favorites]


Alright, Matt. Get to work on your Ukelele and Nanomachine research. Chop chop.
posted by cavalier at 1:17 PM on July 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


Whoa, what a shitstorm. I don't really care about BoingBoing one way or the other (just started reading it; it's pretty low on the list and I generally only get to it when I'm bored), but this conversation is fascinating. Drama, suspense, flame-outs... it has everything! Also, the implications here are huge in terms of the internet as the new media and honesty and transparency and blahblahblahbeensaidalready.

why did I waste so much of my day reading all of the comments here and on BoingBoing?

I will be a touch disappointed, though, if all of this drama dies down with little to no effect on BoingBoing's site hits. Does that make me a bad person?
posted by lunit at 1:18 PM on July 2, 2008


Aww, that's so cute! The little shit peddlers at VW run a system where you have to "Audition" for your right to comment, i.e., you can submit comments, but they won't appear until you're judged a "good commenter", or something like that.

Well, apparently me asking plainly in two threads for them to stop being homophobic juvenile yada yada's and to give XJ some space caused my application for commentship to be denied. It's cute! It says "You can't comment, but you can do other things with your account!" Sweet!

Really... gross.
posted by cavalier at 1:27 PM on July 2, 2008 [3 favorites]


I don't think that she is going to regret any of what she's said, because it isn't like this is the first time she's gone off the handle and been, frankly, a Really Bad Moderator.

The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. I fly off the handle more often than I'd like, and I regret it each time.
posted by languagehat at 1:31 PM on July 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


Effort yes, results though?

Most definitely, though at this point it would be a duel over who's the better cheerleader - heh. And, imho, providing links to the efforts of others isn't quite as laudable as the actual work that has been put into everything thus far.
posted by squeak at 1:35 PM on July 2, 2008


cavalier-- just be glad they didn't accept your comments, and then at a later date "unpublish" them. Hehe, just kidding.
posted by cell divide at 1:38 PM on July 2, 2008


Cavalier: I was going to mock you with a helping of nanomachine and ukulele posts, but bb is #2 on google's result page for "nanomachine ukulele". So you win.
posted by boo_radley at 1:43 PM on July 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


jscalzi: my main concern was people doing a pile-on on some folks I know before there was enough information to know who was involved with what
Absolutely. The irony, of course, is that the reality was pretty close to the least-charitable guesses.

squeak: And, imho, providing links to the efforts of others isn't quite as laudable as the actual work that has been put into everything thus far.
Absolutely. Cheerleading is a great description, but at that level it's enough to put you in the realm of "politically active" and hence subject to scrutiny which was all I was trying to say.
posted by Skorgu at 1:45 PM on July 2, 2008


Hey, aren't there any more published authors who want to come and have fifteen minutes of infamy making ignorant statements about things they haven't read in this thread?

Come on, this Cory person must have some more friends, surely.

Hugs available on redaction! Lovely group hugs!

I kid.

Anyway, one day this whole debacle will be recounted as a fable on the dangers of letting your ego call the shots.

We all have one, some people understand and manage theirs better than others.
posted by asok at 1:47 PM on July 2, 2008


...you'd think folks were talking about a conspiracy involving Karl Rove, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the second coming of Adolf Hitler.

Dude, that's going to be a hell of a Laundry book.
posted by RakDaddy at 1:53 PM on July 2, 2008


boo: While I'd like to do a little jig in celebration, I guess this paints me as even a more long time BB reader, so I'll take a moment to say here that I think they'll get through this, and we'll hope to continue enjoying reading over there on a not too infrequent occasion!

For now...
*jig*
posted by cavalier at 1:59 PM on July 2, 2008


Right now, I'm actually feeling a fair amount of sympathy for the central Boingers, especially Xeni.

It looks to me like they were trying to do the right thing in difficult personal circumstances, but completely failed to understand how their actions appeared to outsiders. Everything they did just made things worse, even though their intentions were good.

It's like a modern greek tragedy: it doesn't matter how good your intentions are, the fatal flaw in your character will find you out in the end. In this case the flaw was the mismatch between their actions in response to deeply personal issues & the ideals that made up "Brand BoingBoing".

Things I have learnt from watching the BoingBoing flameout PR clusterfsck:
  1. Don't just delete people's questions about a problematic issue. It makes them tetchy & wonder why it's such a big deal. If you act all touchy about a topic some people will come and prod you just to see if you do it again. Then when you delete them, they'll come up with more creative ways to do the same thing. This is not a battle you can win.
  2. When you do come clean, don't point to 'policy' documents which just happen to have been edited shortly beforehand to permit your behaviour without mentioning this fact. People will check on archive.org
  3. When people pull you up on this stuff, don't start insulting them. It really doesn't help.
  4. When making further comments, it's a really bad idea to go back and edit them given that 1 & 2 above have pretty much shot your credibility on this front. Even if you mean well. In fact, especially if you mean well, since it gives the opposite impression.
Whether TNH will realise that she hasn't been an icon of righteousness in this whole sorry saga I've no idea. Hopefully she'll realise that she hasn't exactly helped matters with her little bombshells in the BB thread.
posted by pharm at 2:00 PM on July 2, 2008 [8 favorites]


With some reluctance, I just went to Boing Boing to see if any of this was explained. The closest I found was an "internet cat-fight", but that was a Youtube video of kittens fighting. That and Pac-Man cupcakes make the cringe factor too high. So anyone have a link to the explanation on Boing Boing?
posted by orthogonality at 2:16 PM on July 2, 2008


Well, at least next time a MeFi commenter starts spewing misogynist bullshit, we can send them to a fine new home as a ValleyWag editor.
posted by spiderwire at 2:23 PM on July 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


pharm writes "Don't just delete people's questions about a problematic issue.... When you do come clean, don't point to 'policy' documents which just happen to have been edited shortly beforehand to permit your behaviour without mentioning this fact.... When people pull you up on this stuff, don't start insulting them.... When making further comments, it's a really bad idea to go back and edit them given that 1 & 2 above have pretty much shot your credibility on this front. Even if you mean well. In fact, especially if you mean well, since it gives the opposite impression."

Wait, wait. All that works on Wikipedia. Why are you holding Boing Boing to a higher standard?
posted by orthogonality at 2:24 PM on July 2, 2008


So anyone have a link to the explanation on Boing Boing?

There hasn't been a real explanation and I would expect one, because it's become clear this was some sort of romantic spat. Don't drunk dial! I mean edit!
posted by Justinian at 2:31 PM on July 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


Orthogonality: Hmm. Well, firstly Wikipedia has no credibility on this front to lose in the first place: once you lift the carpet it's a cesspool of personal vendettas and conflicts and I think this is pretty much public knowledge at this point in time.

Secondly, the whole point of wikipedia articles is that they're available for instant editing all the time. Everyone knows that from the outset, so it's a completely different dynamic.

(The fact that wikipedia is as successful as it clearly is is one of those modern internet miracles.)
posted by pharm at 2:34 PM on July 2, 2008 [2 favorites]


Wikipedia also keeps a detailed log of all edits.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 2:47 PM on July 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


pharm writes "Orthogonality: Hmm. Well, firstly Wikipedia has no credibility on this front to lose in the first place"

(Yeah, that was I point I was trying to make. One of us needs to re-calibrate his sacasm meter, but we're not in disagreement.)
posted by orthogonality at 2:49 PM on July 2, 2008


ortho, in case this is what you meant: this is the official BB thread on the subject.
posted by cortex at 2:53 PM on July 2, 2008


Speaking of Wikipedia they're also debating on the Boing Boing page how to post the info of ...this whole "whatever happened" BB/VB/XJ thing. (I don't even know what to call it anymore. Strange that no one's tacked a -gate onto it, but then the coverup comparison's a stretch.)
I always enjoy reading sourcing arguments.
Note: I have never edited or even gotten an account at Wikipedia. I'm in the minority in that? I never know.
posted by batgrlHG at 2:54 PM on July 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


TheOnlyCoolTim: True, except there have been times when wikipedia admins with database access have been accused of editing the database directly in order to hide uncomfortable edits (I have no idea whether this actually happened, but it's clearly possible) & there's been enough drama in the wikipedia Admin wars to outlast this BoingBoing thing a thousand times over. Like I said, when you lift the carpet in certain corners, wikipedia smells.

On the other hand, great swathes of it are wonderful.
posted by pharm at 2:55 PM on July 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


Pharm, do your rose-colored glasses come in mens sizes, and where can I get a pair? All I've seen out of the core boingers and their crew is the attitude that everyone else (the people that made them who they are) is suddenly a thankless twat that doesn't know enough to stay in their place. They remind me of so many failures, it's tough to list them all.
posted by jsavimbi at 2:55 PM on July 2, 2008


Orthogonality: When I go back and re-read your post the sarcasm is staring me in the face. I think I probably just need to go to bed...
posted by pharm at 2:57 PM on July 2, 2008


Speaking of Wikipedia they're also debating on the Boing Boing page how to post the info of ...this whole "whatever happened" BB/VB/XJ thing.

Lordy - knowing wikipedia that's going to be a conversation that goes in circles for a long time.
posted by Artw at 3:00 PM on July 2, 2008


MetaFilter: Nice poke in the asshole.
posted by turgid dahlia at 3:06 PM on July 2, 2008


jsavimi: Wait, let me adjust my spectacles a second. Yup, definite a men's size.

OK. It depends who you're talking about. Much of the interaction that this thread has been obsessing over has in fact been with the BoingBoing moderators, who haven't exactly been covering themselves in glory. Quite the converse in fact: I for one find TNH's condescending attitude to people she disagrees with teeth grindingly irritating at times (although Making Light remains worth reading despite that). She's displayed that characteristic in full here during this mess.

Meanwhile, it's fairly easy to construct a narrative involving VB & the Boingers which, for me at least provides an explanatory backdrop to their actions, whether justifiable or not. They still messed things up in a spectacular fashion of course & I continue to be astonished that such a supposedly 'web-savvy' bunch of people could get things so catastrophically wrong, but that's what happens when the personal & the political collide (although there's a certain branch of thought which says that the personal is the political of course).
posted by pharm at 3:11 PM on July 2, 2008


cortex writes "ortho, in case this is what you meant: this is the official BB thread on the subject."

Yeah, sorry, I thought there was some follow-up. My bad. Thanks.
posted by orthogonality at 3:13 PM on July 2, 2008


MetaFilter: 1,259 insults on one page

Heh. I guess we should have held stricter auditions.
posted by cortex at 3:19 PM on July 2, 2008 [8 favorites]


MetaFilter: Nice poke in the asshole with a 'steampunk dildo.'
posted by ericb at 3:20 PM on July 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


Based on the post title, I'm guessing that VW thread is responding to cavalier's comment criticizing them. That's maybe the last site I'd expected to show such thin skin. Astonishing.
posted by spiderwire at 3:23 PM on July 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


POSTING (again) IN EPIC THREAD!
posted by turgid dahlia at 3:25 PM on July 2, 2008 [2 favorites]


Sorry to go all off-topic, but--

What the hell is it with people constantly throwing the 'boyzone' moniker at MeFi? I've been around here for a long time and I've never felt particularly outnumbered. In fact, one of the things I've loved about this place was that it had a fair amount of women contributors.

Am I missing something? Is there some great Female Internet Enclave that I'm supposed to be judging MeFi against?
posted by elfgirl at 3:33 PM on July 2, 2008 [3 favorites]


There are less than a thousand insults in this thread.

(1279 comments total) (331 insults) [add to favorites] [!] 43 users marked this as a favorite
posted by grobstein at 3:37 PM on July 2, 2008 [6 favorites]


elfgirl - here, apparently.
posted by Artw at 3:37 PM on July 2, 2008


It must make poor Valleywagger Paul Boutin -- as a human being with a soul -- itch terribly to be so close to people (or automatons) blogging about all of this. Not just because he works for part of the Gawker media empire (a profession I believe ranks alongside Chinese WoW Gold Farmer) but because "big gay Owen Thomas" has a line of big gay vitriol reserved for Blue that would make any snarking mefite hang up his hat and go big gay die.
posted by boo_radley at 3:42 PM on July 2, 2008 [2 favorites]




MetaFilter: Nice poke in the asshole with a 'steampunk dildo.'

Sounds painful. Those gears and valves have sharp edges.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:43 PM on July 2, 2008


and all that steam, too.
posted by boo_radley at 3:44 PM on July 2, 2008


Actual Boyzone.
posted by Artw at 3:46 PM on July 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


Paul Boutin owes me a byline! Sonavabitch. Gawker Media's a poor man's Fark, and everyone knows it. Just ask Will Leitch.

Pharm, there is no narrative, son. It's a simple example of the story of life, maturity and how we get all passive aggressive even when we know it's not the thing to be caught doing.
posted by jsavimbi at 3:46 PM on July 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


elfgirl, I agree. I don't feel outnumbered here, and feel perfectly free to call posters on their boyzone comments when it happens. But I think that might be a part of it, actually - challening boyzone comments actually serves to highlight them, which is a very good thing in-community, but can make us look more boyzoney than we actually are to people who are just dropping by. At least, that's what I attribute it to.
posted by joannemerriam at 3:48 PM on July 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


Sounds painful. Those gears and valves have sharp edges.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:43 PM on July 2 [+] [!]

and all that steam, too.
posted by boo_radley at 3:44 PM on July 2 [+] [!]


You know, I’m sure that back in better days Boing Boing ran some pieces on actual Victorian “massage devices”. Of course those were electrical, not steam, and existed rather than being a whimsical fantasy, so it’s not the sort of thing they’d go for these days.
posted by Artw at 3:49 PM on July 2, 2008


and all that steam, too.

And the DRM! Don't get me started about dildo rights.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:50 PM on July 2, 2008


What the hell is it with people constantly throwing the 'boyzone' moniker at MeFi?

Seconded. I looked at that and yawned, because that criticism is getting pretty boring and on top of that, pursuant to those couple of MeTalks about it a while ago, I've noticed a massive difference.
posted by turgid dahlia at 3:52 PM on July 2, 2008


I've noticed a massive difference.

We had a little chitchat about the crappy comments about Xeni (waaaaay) upthread and decided that people had sort of dealt with it in-thread and there was no need to go delete-happy about it, as is our preference. However, they are still here so they can look boyzone-ish out of context but so what I guess.
posted by jessamyn at 3:54 PM on July 2, 2008


Do you realize that this thread is literally the length of a book? At ~100,000 words, it would fill about 250 pages.
posted by Pyry at 3:56 PM on July 2, 2008 [6 favorites]


I agree turgid dahlia, it's much improved here, and in fact it's the board I feel most comfortable reading now. (Which is a good thing, because with threads like this I don't ever have time to surf elsewhere).
posted by stagewhisper at 4:01 PM on July 2, 2008


Do you realize that this thread is literally the length of a book? At ~100,000 words, it would fill about 250 pages.

I, for one, would pay money for book of all this. Verbatim, of course.
posted by jsavimbi at 4:04 PM on July 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


elfgirl: "What the hell is it with people constantly throwing the 'boyzone' moniker at MeFi? I've been around here for a long time and I've never felt particularly outnumbered. In fact, one of the things I've loved about this place was that it had a fair amount of women contributors.?"

If someone had thrown that (the Valleywag boyzone claim) out a few years ago maybe it would have made more sense to me. I can remember when I lurked back then that there were a lot more incidents of "guys making comments that will offend women readers" - many times out of the inability to realize as to how some remarks would be taken and what could offend. But in this thread the misogynistic comments have almost immediately been called out by other commenters. I do think the use of cunt wasn't called for here, despite the "pardon my french." But it was 100s of comments away by the time I read it.

I'd say in majority of comments there's much more snark than full out hate here. Valleywag's Paul Boutin obviously didn't read to the end of the thread available to him at the time when he posted that.

Also there's a trend in the Valleywag's headlines for posts on this:

Did the Internet's free-speech guardians try to hush up a girl-on-girl love affair?
--Trying to get the reader who could care less about blog issues to read more in hopes of juicy details. Even if it doesn't get readers now later Googlers for "girl on girl" will continue to find the page.

then

MetaFilter: 1,259 insults on one page
--Trolling for hits - theory that enraged MeFites will sign up for an account to tell them how wrong they are and cash in on the traffic this story is generating.

Also this is Boyzone. Don't go all Tiger Beat on us and use this, ok?
posted by batgrlHG at 4:04 PM on July 2, 2008 [2 favorites]


What the hell is it with people constantly throwing the 'boyzone' moniker at MeFi?

They know it's a sensitive topic here, so it makes nice grit to throw in our faces.

And I can't say it's unexpected. This thread has had its share of "we're so much better than them" posts, and at the very least tossing a few boyzone comments over the wall at us should remind us that we're hardly pure as the driven snow. Even better it might start a nice round of "we're a boyzone/No we aren't!" recriminations and distract us from the whole Boing Boing thing.
posted by tkolar at 4:06 PM on July 2, 2008 [3 favorites]


Dammit, what Artw said, didn't hit preview often enough!
posted by batgrlHG at 4:07 PM on July 2, 2008


In my defense, I don't read valleywag; I was flabbergasted to see that volkswagen had a position on the issue, and clicked through before thinking it out. Namespace collisions are terrible things.
posted by boo_radley at 4:08 PM on July 2, 2008 [4 favorites]


Right now, I'm actually feeling a fair amount of sympathy for the central Boingers, especially Xeni.

I'm not. They seem to have hurt their business based on a high-school level tantrum over who was fucking who. Dropping authors for upsetting your friends may work well in old-school publishing businesses, but I don't think it works so well for web-based publishers.
posted by rodgerd at 4:09 PM on July 2, 2008


I don’t think Metafilter has ever made the claim of being guardians of anything. Except maybe Netfllix profiles.
posted by Artw at 4:10 PM on July 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


Why does Paul Boutin throw that "boyzone" moniker at us? He's a 5ive fan, of course.
posted by dw at 4:16 PM on July 2, 2008 [1 favorite]



I don’t think Metafilter has ever made the claim of being guardians of anything.


We've taken some pretty unequivocal stances on a few issues.

Call me when they catch mathowie using fake accounts to hype metafilter on Yahoo! Answers and we'll talk.
posted by tkolar at 4:16 PM on July 2, 2008


Pyry writes "Do you realize that this thread is literally the length of a book? At ~100,000 words, it would fill about 250 pages."

We're writing the 21st Century Great American Novel here. Romance, betrayal, revenge, code, copyright, CMS, wayback machines, flames, ripostes, limericks, wisecracks, non sequitur, epic fail, moderator meltdown. At the rate things are going, I'm waiting for Hans Reiser to implicate Blue and Jardin in his wife's disappearance.
posted by mullingitover at 4:19 PM on July 2, 2008 [5 favorites]


So Joel shutdown comments on the BB post, it was only the same three or four people going back and forth at this point anyway, but I found this very funny:

#1107 posted by Joel Johnson Author Profile Page, July 2, 2008 4:09 PM

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.

posted by dirtylittlemonkey at 4:22 PM on July 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


Accidents happen, it would be a shame.....
posted by dirtylittlemonkey at 4:24 PM on July 2, 2008


I think an interesting novel could be written in this form (a blog comments thread) about backstage website drama that bursts out onto the public.
posted by empath at 4:24 PM on July 2, 2008 [2 favorites]


@batgrlHG

If someone had thrown that (the Valleywag boyzone claim) out a few years ago maybe it would have made more sense to me.

I'll admit that I was more or less inactive for a few years there, so it could very well have gotten worse and then better while I was not around (or maybe it's that I've been surrounded by geeks most of my adult life so I may have just learned to apply the appropriate filters), but, I've never considered MeFi any worse with the boyzone-ism than any other cooperative blog I've read. It certainly compared favorably to /. when I first started reading it. Er, which may explain my impression completely.
posted by elfgirl at 4:26 PM on July 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


Do you realize that this thread is literally the length of a book? At ~100,000 words, it would fill about 250 pages.

And the way the narrative flows, Cory Doctorow could be shilling his podcast readings of it every three posts. OMG ZING!
posted by turgid dahlia at 4:26 PM on July 2, 2008 [2 favorites]


And I really must give kudos to Joel Johnson. He really stepped in and did the right thing(tm). He gets the gold star!

PLUS he joined Metafilter. Finally. Muahahaha... welcome Joel.. you'll never leeeeeaaavvveeeee
posted by cavalier at 4:30 PM on July 2, 2008 [2 favorites]


I have no idea what about this topic has inspired 1300+ comments, but I like to feel included so here I am. Hi.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 4:31 PM on July 2, 2008 [2 favorites]


Me too. Hi.
posted by jayder at 4:33 PM on July 2, 2008


Hi.

We are just shy of 500 comments to go before we beat the record holding 56002 thread. If everyone stopped by to say "Hi", we'd be there by morning.
posted by roofus at 4:46 PM on July 2, 2008


Dude!
posted by boo_radley at 4:47 PM on July 2, 2008


Call me when they catch mathowie using fake accounts to hype metafilter on Yahoo! Answers and we'll talk.

I don't know, he'd be doing anyone who read it a fucking favor.
posted by nanojath at 4:48 PM on July 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


Whoops: you need to write your url slightly differently or it'll show up as an error.
posted by boo_radley at 4:49 PM on July 2, 2008


Honestly, wendell, do you want time in the Hole?

Solitary confinement with nothing but tmz.com on the browser and a copy of Valleywag's 100 Posts We Think Are So Funny Because We Wrote Them Now Worship Us Or We'll Suggest You're Banging Mark Zuckerberg.

If that doesn't make you shudder, the threat of being employed by Gawker should. I saw what they did to Will Leitch, man. You can't convince me that's not banned by the Geneva Convention.
posted by dw at 4:50 PM on July 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


Thanks. Been here 4 years, and I've learned nothing: 56002
posted by roofus at 4:52 PM on July 2, 2008


"maybe it's that I've been surrounded by geeks most of my adult life so I may have just learned to apply the appropriate filters"

Yeah, maybe. I'm the same -- I never thought of MeFi as being unusually "boyzone," but I spent a lot of time hanging out with males in various online forums so I am just used to it.
posted by litlnemo at 4:53 PM on July 2, 2008


Flag it and move on?
posted by Astro Zombie at 5:02 PM on July 2, 2008


Been here 4 years, and I've learned nothing

Well, at least you're not alone.
posted by spiderwire at 5:07 PM on July 2, 2008


I'm wallowing in nostalgia, here, for the time in my life I worked for a decent guy who had the unfortunate habit of having a very thin skin. He would be mildly slighted in the way only middle managers in big corporations can slight someone. He then would send email (copied to everyone on the project) which was cringe-worthy...he came across sounding about ten years old. It was the more surprising because otherwise he was a very reasonable guy.

So this is like that, for me. I had some general level of respect for the BB people, even I'm no longer a regular reader (the "memes" and general themes of the last couple of years have little interest to me). This meltdown has revealed them to be far less professional than I ever would have guessed possible.

It makes me think that BB's success is more happenstance than hard work, as nearly every successful professional I know who has made it in business through sweat-of-brow would never have let this spiral out of control, or allowed the damage (however temporary, perhaps) to be wrought on a cash cow.

I'm a little surprised there isn't some sort of sign-off mechanism in place for posts there. Even just a yay/nay vote from all principals would do it. Same thing on deletions from the database. In most groups, there will be at least one clear voice that says "hey, your breakup sucks, but we can't just delete all mentions of this person, that's ridiculous" or "hey, Mark, yeah, your cable got cut by the garbageman, this post could be way more interesting if you explore what that means to you, maybe see how big a problem it is for work-at-home people in general? And cut the personal insults to a guy you've never met who made a mistake while doing a shitty job."
posted by maxwelton at 5:13 PM on July 2, 2008 [6 favorites]


So anyways, forget Canada Day and Independence Day and any other hamburger crap you have going for the weekend, what would you do if you returned to work on Monday morning and found that your office manager and her assistant had conspired to burn your building down all in an attempt to destroy files that were [not really] embarrassing to one of your coworkers? Oh, and your main client was in the building when this all happened.
posted by jsavimbi at 5:16 PM on July 2, 2008 [3 favorites]


For a little background on the boyzone stuff for users who may have missed the epic threads of, uh, last November, there are a few links on the wiki that attempt to summarize what was a long and sometimes contentious discussion - that page could surely use some attention from interested MeFites though.
posted by whir at 5:25 PM on July 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


I'm flagging, but in a different way.

Did anyone point out violetbluevioletblue.net yet? It's an archive of the "unpublished" posts.
posted by roofus at 5:25 PM on July 2, 2008


Languagegat crushes the weak
posted by Artw at 5:37 PM on July 2, 2008


LanguageGat being Languagehats gangsta name, of course.
posted by Artw at 5:38 PM on July 2, 2008 [2 favorites]


Mod note: a few comment and follow-up removed - take the night off wendell that was not cool and not funny.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 5:43 PM on July 2, 2008


*grabs gats, one in each hand, and fires in all directions until thread empties out*
posted by languagehat at 5:43 PM on July 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


Oops, bad moment to choose to let my gangsta out—if jessamyn got caught in the crossfire, I'm really in trouble.
posted by languagehat at 5:44 PM on July 2, 2008


Wow, TNH is even dumber than I originally thought. Somewhere along the line, some recruiter told her she was an expert, and she believed them. I guess you don't have much of a choice once you've looked at the calendar and figured out that change has past you by and all you held true doesn't really matter any more. How sad.

Did BB have any assets worth bidding on at the auction?
posted by jsavimbi at 5:49 PM on July 2, 2008


fun fact: if this thread were printed out on standard A4 paper, and placed end-to-end, it would stretch from 119th and Lexington in New York to Tethys, one of the large inner moons of Saturn, home of a huge valley called Ithaca Chasma, which most of the way around Tethys' circumference.

also, thanks, Jessamyn
posted by boo_radley at 5:49 PM on July 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


you missed one, j. ^

also, i was only riffing. i honestly have no idea what xeni looks like.

*this comment will self-delete in one minute*
posted by UbuRoivas at 5:52 PM on July 2, 2008


One of the most surprising things in [b]VIOLETBLUEPOCALYPSE '08[/b] (TM, all rights reserved) is the knee-jerk suggestion that anyone who thinks that this was kind of an odd/inconsistent/dickweedish thing to do must be some kind of sexist misogynist woman-hater.

As though Violet Blue weren't a woman as well.

Or me, for that matter. Look at me! Look at my posts! I have snarked and satirized, and filked both topically and metrically, and no man could head me! And ain't I a woman? I could mock as much and criticize as much as a man - when I could get the joke - and bear the lash as well! And ain't I a woman?
posted by Sidhedevil at 5:58 PM on July 2, 2008 [7 favorites]


Apparently, I couldn't remember the difference between UBB code and html, though. I blame my childhood Barbie. "Computers are hard! Let's go shopping!" DAMN YOU BARBIE! I'M GLAD THE DOG ATE YOUR STUPID, STUPID HEAD!

VIOLETBLUEPOCALYPSE '08, of course.
posted by Sidhedevil at 6:00 PM on July 2, 2008 [3 favorites]


Can I suggest a GreaseMonkey script/Firefox extension which auto-redirects 404s from BoingBoing to the Wayback Machine archive?

And can I reiterate that lots of other people have been "unpublished" because they happened to have been mentioned in a post along with even the slightest offhand mention of Violet?

Say you're the guy who invents the Steampunk Lego Dildo: Xeni or Cory or whoever writes five hundred words about you, links to three pages and five images on your site, and then writes an offhand "Hmm ... sounds like something Violet Blue would like!" -- your wuffie and Google Rank disappear overnight because of that offhand reference.
posted by AmbroseChapel at 6:00 PM on July 2, 2008 [3 favorites]


Look at my posts! I have snarked and satirized,

So just to be clear -- you're a sexist misogynist woman-hater?
posted by tkolar at 6:01 PM on July 2, 2008


Sidhedevil - Your're a wombtraitor, crushing the weak for the sheer enjoyment of it and silencing the voices of those that don't make comments, just like the evil hat.
posted by Artw at 6:01 PM on July 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


Sidhedevil, I have missed you.
posted by jessamyn at 6:04 PM on July 2, 2008


Thanks, jessamyn. *is humbled*
posted by stet at 6:10 PM on July 2, 2008


Elite.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 6:10 PM on July 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


What would you do if you returned to work on Monday morning and found that your office manager and her assistant had conspired to burn your building down all in an attempt to destroy files that were [not really] embarrassing to one of your coworkers? Oh, and your main client was in the building when this all happened.

Metafilter: Turn to page 129.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 6:38 PM on July 2, 2008 [4 favorites]


This comment is a Hansel and Gretel so I can keep track of the thread.
posted by ersatz at 6:48 PM on July 2, 2008


Yep, dropping my breadcrumb here.
posted by pearlybob at 6:50 PM on July 2, 2008


The thread at BoingBoing is still open, and Xeni finally made a comment that I think is absolutely right on the money. She deserves serious credit for that. (David and Joel have also represented themselves well; strangely -- or perhaps not -- the mods appear to have stop posting.)
posted by spiderwire at 7:17 PM on July 2, 2008 [2 favorites]


It's...like a train wreck and I just can't look away.

I can't believe I wasted the entire afternoon reading through the comments on both here and BoingBoing.

Someone needs to stop me...
posted by rand at 7:28 PM on July 2, 2008


Pyry writes "Do you realize that this thread is literally the length of a book? At ~100,000 words, it would fill about 250 pages."

Not only does Cory Doctorow realize that, he's even now contracting a team of perl coders in Hyderabad to write a script (due the the time difference and their working at Internet Time for mere pennies rupees on the dollar euro, the script will be ready yesterday) to combine everyone's user name with the list of congregants of St. Humphrey's Church of Kensington North (London, England) circa 1887, to create replacement user-names that are simultaneously more thrillingly and unpronounceably future-rific yet neo-Victorian (e.g, Pyry -> Viscount Stanley Frathingham -> Vii Pystanyley XFrathi Ry).

As soon as that's done, to our thread Cory will add "background" and "scene-establishing" material consisting of the third page of every product manual for any gadget ever mentioned on Boing Boing interspersed with randomly selected screeds from alt.suicide.holiday.xibo, throw in a plot line stolen from an obscure manga comic, and -- only because it sells on Reddit -- some vague Libertarianism stolen more from Robert Heinlein than Ayn Rand. The scene will be set on an O'Neill Habitat orbiting at L2 sometime during the Chelsea Clinton Administration. Or possibly in Second Life, last Wednesday. The hero will be impossibly clever and overpoweringly sexy, yet will bear an uncanny resemblance to Cory Doctorow.

Slapping on a "Creative Commons" License, Cory will proudly make this available for download as his sixth all-new novel published since Thursday last.
posted by orthogonality at 7:33 PM on July 2, 2008 [11 favorites]


So, I just spent pretty much all day reading this thread. 1300+ comments, and the vast majority of them seem to be from people who are shocked, shocked, that some or all of the principals at BoingBoing appear to have engaged in hypocrisy, egotistical behavior, and / or douchebaggery.

I'm confused. Have none of you ever read BoingBoing before?
posted by dersins at 7:50 PM on July 2, 2008 [8 favorites]


At ~100,000 words, it would fill about 250 pages.

I spend a lot of time reading this web site.
posted by dirigibleman at 8:04 PM on July 2, 2008


i'm confused, have they unpublished the 'That Violet Blue thing' post about the shitstorm of unpublishing work? because i cant find it on the front page anymore.
posted by a. at 8:06 PM on July 2, 2008


okay i was wrong, found it.
posted by a. at 8:10 PM on July 2, 2008


Minus215Cee,

I'm hungry. Whatcha got tonight?
posted by lukemeister at 8:19 PM on July 2, 2008


have they unpublished the 'That Violet Blue thing' post?

It's still there, but the phone booth with faux saloon doors pushed it off the front page.
posted by lukemeister at 8:22 PM on July 2, 2008


I miss when we did that Jesus Christ Superstar filking, you know? Things were so much... simpler then, it seems.

What? That was just this afternoon? Man! I guess a bloggy trainwreck is the opposite of a real one - instead of everything taking place in slo-mo, time just flies by!
posted by mwhybark at 9:26 PM on July 2, 2008


Xeni: I think we're leaning toward a policy like MeFi's.
posted by netbros at 9:33 PM on July 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


We are just shy of 500 comments to go before we beat the record holding 56002 thread. If everyone stopped by to say "Hi", we'd be there by morning.

Yes ... the Ted Haggard | New Life Church thread clocked-in at "1829 comments total." Maybe this one can surpass it!
posted by ericb at 9:35 PM on July 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


I think we're leaning toward a policy like MeFi's.

I don't think MeFi-style moderation would work well at Boing Boing, but it would be a significant step in the "transparent" direction. I don't think the Boingers could stand the amount of snark posts here regularly face.

Also, they're catching up in the comments department. Pick it up people! This is their our shitstorm!
posted by graventy at 9:54 PM on July 2, 2008 [2 favorites]


Regarding "boyzone" and alleged sexism in this kerfuffle:
"Teresa gets a lot of flak simply because she's a woman in a position of authority, and that incenses many people."

[posted by Antinous | July 2, 2008 2:04 PM]

--------------------------------------------------------

"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."

[posted by Satan | July 2, 2008 2:07 PM]
Well put!
posted by ericb at 10:07 PM on July 2, 2008


I think we're leaning toward a policy like MeFi's.

[This post was deleted for the following reason: double triple quadruple pick a number -- tnh]
posted by Artw at 10:07 PM on July 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


Wroing wroing.
posted by stinkycheese at 10:24 PM on July 2, 2008


I just read the Making Light thread and want to praise Cortex and Languagehat for being such well-spoken emissaries.
posted by painquale at 11:10 PM on July 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


A flameout?! Call languagehat, quick
posted by spiderwire at 11:15 PM on July 2, 2008


bunnytricks I followed your link here to see where VW called MeFi a Boyzone and got just VW crap. I already read that article once (it's bad, too), read it again, went through all the comments (Jebus!), and I don't see where VW ever acknowledges MeFi's existence unless "a crowd of cheering blog nerds" was it. Was it? Did I miss the joke? Oh, I so need to leave this thread, but it's hard. Hard! If only some other scandal would divert my attention I could use it like Methadone to break this habit! Please! Jimmy Wales, do something nasty!
posted by CCBC at 11:29 PM on July 2, 2008


Xeni: I think we're leaning toward a policy like MeFi's.

If I were ever in the position to deliver a Powerpoint presentation about internet community shit - which is very unlikely, since I don't do public speaking, or know anything about Powerpoint, and refer to that internet community shit as shit - I'd have a big freaking slide that said "PEOPLE, NOT POLICY".
I admit we're spoiled here, but browsing that BB post, it's pretty damn obvious they have more than enough policy (In a variety of flavours including explicit, redacted, revised, and pistachio!) and a serious deficit of good people modding.

To be fair, though, kudos to the BoingBoing people on doubling the number of times I've visited their site in the last day! It's almost a whole handful now!
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:30 PM on July 2, 2008 [2 favorites]


VW dropped the boyzone thing here.
posted by tkolar at 11:40 PM on July 2, 2008


I stopped reading after 1000. This is epic.
posted by The Esteemed Doctor Bunsen Honeydew at 12:07 AM on July 3, 2008


HILARIOUS coincidence! The liberal blogosphere just had an almost identical incident!
posted by lattiboy at 1:05 AM on July 3, 2008


Xeni in BB comments: "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."


After reading this it sounds like she's saying that someone just pop'd in and deleted the VB stuff, because you know, there wasn't a policy, so they just did everything as they thought of it. And apparently didn't think about how it would appear to the rest of us, once we'd learned about the deletions. Wonder if everyone who blogs at BB was even informed of this.

But of course, it doesn't matter because we've all noticed too late - it was over a year ago, ano one noticed in all that time, shouldn't matter, right? Tons of posts, all very busy bloggers, so much else going on - give them a break, be fair.
Um...right.
Sounds like there's no one really managing the place at all. Wonder who deals with advertisers and sees that people get paid for their writing?

Figured I should quote that as a whole just in case it gets edited and I end up commenting on something that changes quietly during a refresh.

dersins: "...people who are shocked, shocked, that some or all of the principals at BoingBoing appear to have engaged in hypocrisy, egotistical behavior, and / or douchebaggery.
I'm confused. Have none of you ever read BoingBoing before?"


So you're saying they've been doing this sort of deletion for a long time? And you knew? And you said nothing?
Et tu, dersins?

Can't say I've ever been shocked - more like amazed that they're playing the "we don't get why anyone thinks this is weird behavior on our part" and that they really seem to believe that. And frankly I'm really really curious to see if they can explain their way out of this illogic - or keep saying "look a kitten!"
posted by batgrlHG at 1:12 AM on July 3, 2008 [2 favorites]


I've been doing some spidering and processing and have come up with 407 posts that simply don't exist in their online archives.
posted by cillit bang at 1:32 AM on July 3, 2008 [24 favorites]


So, until this became a public kerfuffle this week, there really wasn't an issue.

Dear god that's infuriating. "You never noticed all this time, so obviously you must not have cared." The Bush administration could have a field day with that kind of logic. It just doesn't work that way.

I like Xeni and the other Boingers, and am willing to chalk it all up to a bad decision and call it done, but they keep saying things that make me angry.
posted by JHarris at 1:38 AM on July 3, 2008


CCBC: I was referring to the "crowd of cheering blog nerds" comment as being far more boyzone than Mefi would ever tolerate, and that it's ridiculous to call us such when their own comment sections are on the level of Fark on a particularly catty day.

(looks around at the general lameness of all other internet communities) Metafilter, you're the perfect site. Plenty of snark and smarts and only a couple of asshats. You can zing your arrow into my buttocks anytime.
posted by bunnytricks at 1:45 AM on July 3, 2008


So Boing Boing is all Creative Commons, right? When is someone going to repost these articles? Or create an archival Boing Boing mirror that doesn't erase or edit content?
posted by grouse at 1:46 AM on July 3, 2008 [3 favorites]


And a comment section without disemvowelling.
posted by grouse at 1:47 AM on July 3, 2008


So I developed a nasty cold at the same time this post started. Here we are 4 days later, and the comments have not stopped, and neither has my cold! Is there a link? Is BB Killing me? I'm going to bring this up with the doctor today and see if he prescribes me anti psych's.

I keed about the psychs. I need antibiotics. Big antibiotics with teeth.
posted by cavalier at 1:54 AM on July 3, 2008


tkolar: Thanks for the link. Maybe VW will be the winner out of this through more hits. I know I never visited there before but have hit the place six or seven times since this scandal arose.
lattiboy: That is more than hilarious, that is why this brouhaha is so important. Blogs are not Obama, they don't have to play to the middle. Blogs can create their own terms and, I think, most readers want freedom with some kind of reasonable oversight. My wife (who has no time for non-knitting blogs) told me of a knit-blog disaster after I described this train wreck to her. This, for now, is going to be a common story as the Internet matures (Something which might not be a Good Thing). I (like many other MeFi folk) used to go to BoingBoing on a daily basis. Now it is far less frequent. But that's me. I don't have any desire to shift BB's content. They can go where they please -- that's one of the things that makes the Internet so fine. I see glimmerings of a BB rising, phoenix-like, from the flames of this mess. I hope it will be so.
posted by CCBC at 2:01 AM on July 3, 2008


You know, this week's Zero punctuation cartoon, specifically, the section on drama and how to deal with it, feels like an exercise in eerie synchronicity.

Squawk, squawk.
posted by rodgerd at 2:03 AM on July 3, 2008


According to cillit bang's research, the cyclops kitty is now gone. How can the cyclops kitty be gone?
posted by cgc373 at 2:04 AM on July 3, 2008


So the subtext of Xeni comment is?

"Look... look... no one complained! No one cares! She's nothing! Nothing! That... that... blogging THING is nothing!"

On top of

"Well although we rake in the big advertising mullah, we can't really be bothered to run out site in any professional way whatsoever... we've got so many other things to do, you little people would not understand"
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 2:20 AM on July 3, 2008


did VB give Xeni VD?

could...not.....resist.....
posted by sexyrobot at 2:46 AM on July 3, 2008


You probably could have resisted, you know.
posted by flashboy at 3:36 AM on July 3, 2008


I do wish you had.
posted by ifthe21stcentury at 3:40 AM on July 3, 2008


BB is now obviously in full-on spin mode.
posted by waraw at 3:54 AM on July 3, 2008 [2 favorites]


Mad props to cortex and languagehat for holding down the Making Light thread. However, I'm going to have to ask you, for the love the FSM, to stop being such good diplomats because I don't want that crowd to come here and ruin the place. Making Light explains a lot about Boing Boing's absurd comment moderation heavy-handedness; the echo chamber there seems very pretentious about what speech is allowable, and when you combine that philosophy with the task of moderating a high-traffic, mob rule site it's going to be deletions for days. I suspect that behind the scenes at Boing Boing is a very combative relationship with the site's commenters, and this incident only brought it to the surface.
posted by mullingitover at 3:59 AM on July 3, 2008


Like whether someone’s character is this or that, or whatever kind of personal dirty laundry was involved.

So she's still in attack mode, hinting that VB has character issues. Like, Xeni, nobody really cares about the whole you and her thing, and never did. That's why the passive aggressive joke won't stop. And now she blames her actions on those mean internet people who can't stand her brand:

When you’re at the receiving end of that kind of attention, would you voluntarily go out with private information in something that just felt sensitive and felt like your private editorial prerogative? It would be the last thing you’d do in that situation.

In that case, why don't you unpublish [mileage, baby] all of your work? Because I'm sure that everything you've posted contains something private and personal. I don't think that using the LA Times as an apology device is going to work out for you. What you need right now is some quality time away from the internets.
posted by jsavimbi at 4:20 AM on July 3, 2008


Having slept on it, I find I have this to say:

I spent last week (until late evening on July 1st) on vacation, with about two hours' of internet connection the whole time (to check work-related email). So this whole shit-storm brewed up while I wasn't plugged in.

What do I find when I get home and check my blog comments for spam and trolls, but one of the latter taking me to task for something Cory had apparently done (with no indication of what this might be)?

Way to get on my good side.

BB is huge, and it attracts some real scumbags. I don't know where they come from, but I'm not talking about run of the mill comment trolls -- the bottom 0.001% are the kind of people you take out a restraining order on. My automatic assumption is that when someone is taking pot-shots at Cory, they are in the wrong, because that's almost always the case.

And Teresa is a personal friend, and I do not appreciate folks calling my friends a "hired comment fascist" (and worse).

This is by way of apologizing for sounding off without fully assimilating the fuel behind the flamage. But I make no apologies for my choice of friends, and I surmise that thise whole episode is a consequence of miscommunication layered on top of miscommunication, magnified out of all proportion by the echo chamber that is the interetubeweb.
posted by cstross at 4:44 AM on July 3, 2008 [2 favorites]


BB is now obviously in full-on spin mode.

I'm glad to see them responding. Joel and David really started picking up the slack earlier than anyone else and must have felt a bit like bloody bait in a sea of sharks - but it certainly did help soothe the churn, and then Xeni started being a lot more forthcoming and conciliatory than her earlier wtf-why-do-you-care? and has hung in there responding almost one-on-one - and I think it's helped a lot, as has the cessation of the more aggressive commentary from the mods.

I don't personally find any joy at all in the idea of BoingBoing going down, and I doubt, once the red haze clears, that even the more scathing commenters would be pleased with that outcome. Silence fueled the frenzy, but now that BB folks are talking, it seems to me that they are going to find the territory a lot less hostile.
posted by taz at 4:57 AM on July 3, 2008 [2 favorites]


looks like the right to unpublish is fairly new in the policies; it wasn't there last year, and none of the revisions in 2008 are in archive.org. The new policy is hefty, in legalese, and is just the sort of thing that gets put in place before a publication gets sold to a media conglomerate.
posted by scruss at 5:00 AM on July 3, 2008


From the venom that's doing the rounds you'd think folks were talking about a conspiracy involving Karl Rove, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the second coming of Adolf Hitler. Back off, and get a sense of perspective, for crying out loud!

Way to get on everyone's good side.

Oh, and in regards to Teresa, you might want to go out and get a new perspective yourself. I've only seen her "work" for the past couple of days, and aside from the incompetence and stupidity she's displayed, I'm a true believer that communist/fascist/repressive groupthinkers like that have no place in polite society. They simply have no place.

And if you don't believe me, please take a count of the commenter here and on BB who have found her behavior absolutely deplorable over the past couple of days. People don't this fired-up over something inconsequential.

Oh, and if you hear from your buddy Cory, let him know that it would be good of him to say something, because for the biggest shitstorm of his cash cow's existence, he's been silent.
posted by jsavimbi at 5:00 AM on July 3, 2008 [2 favorites]


Leave Xeni alone! It was her creative work! Her art!
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 5:13 AM on July 3, 2008


Is anybody really sure when this actually happened? In the LA times story Xeni says "a year and a half ago when I unpublished this stuff" but she was still apparently linking to VB as late as last May. Did she have a second deletion tantrum at a later date?
posted by Tenuki at 5:13 AM on July 3, 2008


All these big corporations Boing Boing rails against for censorship and lack of transparency are also run by people who are "personal friends" of someone. That doesn't excuse them from responsibility, and it never has.

I surmise that thise whole episode is a consequence of miscommunication layered on top of miscommunication

It's not miscommunication, it's a refusal to communicate.
posted by grouse at 5:19 AM on July 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


Tenuki, she's just using the Times' softball interview to deflect criticism. It speaks volumes that a person who built their reputation in the blogger community feels the need to go to the MSM with a sympathy play because she's been chased from her own home. What next, Good Morning America? A panel on Oprah on how stupid commenters ruined your career?

Lame.
posted by jsavimbi at 5:24 AM on July 3, 2008 [4 favorites]


jsavimbi, you may need to step away from the keyboard for a bit if you really didn't catch the irony of attacking cstross for his Rove/Ahmadinejad/Hitler hyperbole, and then immediately afterwards telling him that his friend is a fascist who has "no place in polite society". Way to get on everyone's good side, indeed.

cstross, for what it's worth, I don't think there's anything wrong with defending your friends, and especially pointing out that the public perception of them simply doesn't match with your own knowledge of them. Indeed, it's admirable. It should not, of course, prevent you from recognising when they've done something wrong, and acknowledging that pubicly as well. But I'd assume that baseline's a given for pretty much most non-crazy people, so it probably didn't need saying.

But hey, at this point in the thread, I doubt anybody's going to be complaining about a few extra unnecessary words.
posted by flashboy at 5:41 AM on July 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


I called her incompetent and stupid, not sure I called her a fascist.
posted by jsavimbi at 5:51 AM on July 3, 2008


Tenuki, regarding the time, Violet Blue was still considered Boingerful as late as 2007-07-27, in a post about "Short link amuse bouches for Friday".

The deletion seems to be at least after August 21, 2007, because of the post "BoingBoingBoing #15: William Gibson"

http://web.archive.org/web/20070827074049/http://www.boingboing.net/2007/08/21/boingboingboing_15_w.html
(wow - the whole post removed because Violet Blue's name was in a list!)
posted by Seth Finkelstein at 5:58 AM on July 3, 2008


jsavimbi: I've only seen her "work" for the past couple of days, and aside from the incompetence and stupidity she's displayed, I'm a true believer that communist/fascist/repressive groupthinkers like that have no place in polite society.

So, no, you didn't call her a fascist. You gave a multiple choice option. Makes all the difference.
posted by flashboy at 6:00 AM on July 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


It should not, of course, prevent you from recognising when they've done something wrong, and acknowledging that pubicly as well.

I'm not sure I think they have done something wrong so much as done something diametrically opposed to their oft and loudly repeated standards. Standard which they have made clear they believe others should be held to, and attempted to do so on repeated occasions. I think everyone disappointed in this turn of events would do well to stick close to that fact when talking about it, lest they be distracted repeatedly by all the "it's just a blog," "we can do what we like in our house," attempts at spin that have been so prevalent.
posted by phearlez at 6:01 AM on July 3, 2008


batgrlHG characterizes Xeni as say, effectively, "But of course, it doesn't matter because we've all noticed too late - it was over a year ago, ano one noticed in all that time, shouldn't matter, right? Tons of posts, all very busy bloggers, so much else going on - give them a break, be fair."


JHarris writes "Dear god that's infuriating. 'You never noticed all this time, so obviously you must not have cared.' The Bush administration could have a field day with that kind of logic. It just doesn't work that way."



fearfulsymmetry observes Xeni's saying "'Well although we rake in the big advertising mullah, we can't really be bothered to run out site in any professional way whatsoever... we've got so many other things to do, you little people would not understand'"



And then cstross writes "BB is huge, and it attracts some real scumbags. I don't know where they come from, but I'm not talking about run of the mill comment trolls -- the bottom 0.001% are the kind of people you take out a restraining order on. My automatic assumption is that when someone is taking pot-shots at Cory, they are in the wrong, because that's almost always the case."

But cstross, it wasn't a troll scumbag who got unpersoned, uh, "unpublished". It was Cory and Xeni's erstwhile Best Friend Forever, Violet Blue.

And I don't want to make a facile comparison, by I think JHarris has a point: this all is too reminiscent of the Bush administration. Reminiscent of Cheney explaining that he's so busy protecting America (and figuring ot that he's part of neither the executive nor the Legislative branches of government) to have to be bothered with things like accountability, or transparency, or even not just classifying everything as Super Secret.

Reminiscent of this, "we're fighting the terrorists, so we can't be bothered with explaining ourselves, or following any rules.

And then if you replaced "Cory" with "Dubya", cstross's comment is probbally repeated ad nauseum on Little Green Footballs.

What's missing here is that fairness -- even to a wild-eyed little person making comments on a blog of the gods -- fairness always requires due process. Even if we agree that So-and-so hardly ever does wrong, there needs to be a check on So-and-so so that we can confirm he isn't doing wrong. (Senator Dodd's a great guy in many ways, but how'd he get that sweetheart mortgage deal? Yes, Bill Clinton was the "first black president", but no, that doesn't mean he escapes scrutiny when he says something that plausibly appears to play the race card.)

All too often, it seems that people in power (in the Administration, in the Democratic Party, religious leaders, on Boing Boing, on Wikipedia, and yes, even here, to a much lesser extent) are allowed to tell us that the Enemy is so, so, so powerful that we can't have good things unless the powerful can act in secret to protect us all, and that that secrecy means you can't and shouldn't question authority.

The greatest absurdity, as usual, was reached on Wikipedia, when an admin claimed she had secret "proof" that a contributor was a known troll sock-puppet. The "proof"? The contributor had done nothing other than make good solid edits.

The admin saw this unblemished track record as clear intent to hide the contrubtor's sockpuppetry. Since that good record and the lack of any bad acts would perforce make the "prosecution" of the contributor difficult -- and since teh unblemished record was clearly a device to prevent prosecution -- the admin went ahead and unilaterally banned the contributor, bypassing any due process and before the contributor could do his (obviously intended) evil.

When asked why she'd banned the contributor, the admin repeatedly referred to "secret evidence" that proved teh contributor was actually a troll, evidence that could not be enumerated without helping every terrorist troll escape detection. (After some time, and due entirely to people external to Wikipedia, not due to any check within Wikipedia, this was exposed. The editor whose "secret evidence" she used to ban an entirely innocent party now has as her Wikipedia homepage a picture of the destruction on 9/11, and the message, "Asking fellow Wikipedians to honor the dignity of 9/11." Indeed, Dr. Johnson said something about the last refuges of a scoundrel.)

I went into that at length to point out the absurdity, but we encounter it daily in situations far more serious than Boing Boing or Wikipedia: in police departments which refuse to explain to the public their policies regarding dangerous and deadly "no-knock" warrants, in prosecutors who under a veil of secrecy suborn perjury, in drug companies that suppress research findings in the name of public health, in city councils that refuse to honor public sunshine legislation for fear blueprints of Podunk's City Hall in might fall into the hands of unspecified "terrorists", in secret Military Tribunals using secret evidence to make secret convictions, in any official scoundrel trying to get his way without check or explanation.

Boing Boing likes to tell us it's a special blog, a blog that exposes hypocrisy and unwarranted secretiveness, that fights the good fight for the Bill of Rights and for Freedom with a capital "F".

But when push comes to shove, and with the excuse not that it's protecting American lives but just that it's protecting Xeni's privacy (after you've stripped your life across a thousand web pages for exposure fame and profit, it's then that you really need your privacy, kids), Boing Boing does precisely what it castigates in others, with precisely the same rationalization: what we're doing is so important, and the trolls arrayed against us are so evil, so no rules should apply to us.
posted by orthogonality at 6:03 AM on July 3, 2008 [15 favorites]


Also, I note that you should probably acknowledge the errors of your friends publicly. Acknowledging them pubicly, as I originally wrote, is a whole other issue. Although not an option that should necessarily be ruled out.
posted by flashboy at 6:05 AM on July 3, 2008


So, no, you didn't call her a fascist. You gave a multiple choice option. Makes all the difference.

What do you call a person who engages in repression, revisionism and "big lie" politics? What do you call a person who pisses on your face and tells you it's raining out? What do you call a person who engages in blatant misrepresentation, obsfucation and public defamation of character?

And if you don't like that term, please help my find a new one that surely won't offend anyone, something that hides the true meaning of their intentions. Progressive Philologist? Expression Recalibrator? Dickhead?

If a person wants to pop in and try to Godwin the discussion in an attempt to deflect criticism, then they'd better be prepared for the consequences. Charlie was not.
posted by jsavimbi at 6:52 AM on July 3, 2008


/breaks out tweezers.

It's for your own good!
posted by Jofus at 6:52 AM on July 3, 2008


Have I missed anything?
posted by rtha at 7:01 AM on July 3, 2008


rtha: you've just missed a mefite with a handle named after a would-be third-world dictator backed by the Heritage Foundation and other neocons calling a blogger a fascist. The irony, it hurts.
posted by cstross at 7:13 AM on July 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


I just read the Making Light thread and want to praise Cortex and Languagehat for being such well-spoken emissaries.

Mad props to cortex and languagehat for holding down the Making Light thread.


Thanks for the kind words, painquale and mullingitover.

However, I'm going to have to ask you, for the love the FSM, to stop being such good diplomats because I don't want that crowd to come here and ruin the place.

Well, you get your wish from my end, because I took a look at the ML thread just now, sighed, and decided I'd had enough. Oddly, Michael Roberts, who originally pissed me off with his unprovoked attack, turned out to be a stand-up guy (as one who is known to fly off the handle occasionally, I am quick to forgive such outbursts), but there are just too many nanny types who insist on reading everything you say with a censorious gaze, draw the worst possible implications, and wag their finger at you telling you to choose your words more carefully because people might get their widdle feelings hurt. My options were: 1) get medieval on their asses, or 2) stay away, and I chose the latter. But hanging out over there for a while sure gave me an appreciation of MeFi's delicate and apparently unreproducible balance of asshattery, wit, and wisdom, all held together with the lightest, flakiest crust moderation.
posted by languagehat at 7:22 AM on July 3, 2008 [3 favorites]


Oh, and over at BB, one of the mods wrote:
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.
Uh-huh. Thanks for the transparency. And then when somebody points out a bunch of other examples he'll go "Oh yeah! I forgot about those! Yeah, those too. But that's all, honest!"

But then, what do they care, with commenters like Kyle Armbruster (#1249, July 3, 2008 12:43 AM: "Boing Boing team: It's your blog. Do what you will. Don't lose one second of sleep over this nonsense. It's nothing!"
posted by languagehat at 7:27 AM on July 3, 2008


What do you call a person who pisses on your face and tells you it's raining out?

Michael Fish.
posted by flashboy at 7:29 AM on July 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


I think instead of 'unpersonned' or 'depersonned' I am going to begin using 'ThisPersonned' since that seems to be the term XJ wants to use forevermore to refer to her once-good friend. So sad.
posted by waraw at 7:32 AM on July 3, 2008 [3 favorites]


Thanks, cillit bang.Thanks
posted by chinston at 7:35 AM on July 3, 2008


cstross, thanks for the ad hominem. I'm so happy with myself that I had the restraint not to stoop like that. Usually I can't find the self-discipline. Anyways, you're not the first to research my handle, and you're certainly not the last to make the [mistaken] inference that I'm somehow a fan Jonas Savimbi's. Also, he was never a dictator and his main financial backers were De Beers. Get them facts straight, Charlie.

For anyone who's interested, it's just a name I picked out of the blue that I'm sure wouldn't be taken and would have a funny connotation to 419 scammers. It wasn't meant to offend or betray my political convictions. Who has affiliations to African warlords anyways? I could've chosen some of my other favorite people: tobiang, iamin, mgadaffi or my old stand by, mfarahaidid. Just to name a few. I could've gone with wchurchill, but a lot of people don't see him as a war criminal. Shame.

Anywho, nobody is sorrier than me that someone had to spend their valuable time being offended by my screen name. Though from my personal standpoint I know for a certainty that it wasn't meant to cause offense, please accept my expression of deep regret at this unfortunate incident.
posted by jsavimbi at 7:39 AM on July 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


but there are just too many nanny types who insist on reading everything you say with a censorious gaze, draw the worst possible implications, and wag their finger at you telling you to choose your words more carefully because people might get their widdle feelings hurt.

Given the ham-handedness that kicked off this whole kerfuffle, that's outright funny.
posted by phearlez at 7:39 AM on July 3, 2008


Adolf Hitler: Godwin's Law :: Jonas Savimbi: ?
posted by lukemeister at 8:46 AM on July 3, 2008


Man, I wish I had ham hands. Regenerating ham hands. I'd never go hungry if I had magical, regenerating ham hands.

Mmmmm.....ham.....
posted by MrMoonPie at 8:53 AM on July 3, 2008


Hayden's Law: When you shit on the internets, the internets shit back.
Stross's Corrollary: The internets have a lot more asses than you do.

Tangential Boyzone Hypothesis: Internets : Series of Tubes :: Metafilter : Series of Tubesteaks?
posted by SpaceBass at 8:56 AM on July 3, 2008 [4 favorites]


Shorter BoingBoing:
"This is our pool so we have every right to take a crap in it."

That's true, but don't expect anyone to want to swim in it with you.
posted by euphorb at 9:31 AM on July 3, 2008 [4 favorites]


Way to get on my good side.

Mt. Stross, no one has any obligation whatsoever to get on "your good side" in order to tell you how misplaced your loyalties happen to be, with respect to what secretive "unpublishing", comment and policy revisions mean for open and free communication in a public forum. Either you take your blinders off and grow up, or you get taken to task for defending people who have tainted themselves, by all evidence, as unapologetic hypocrites. That's your choice.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:40 AM on July 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


Guevara's Rule: You'll be shot, unless you buy one of my t-shirts.
posted by jsavimbi at 9:43 AM on July 3, 2008 [2 favorites]


Mt. Stross, no one has any obligation whatsoever to get on "your good side"

Mt. Stross? No way around it. The only way to get to the good side is to go straight over the peak. Rough passage this time of year. Above the tree line there's snow and ice to 6 feet deep. No sir. Last guy passed this way died up there.
posted by grobstein at 10:12 AM on July 3, 2008 [3 favorites]


yo' mountain momma's so fat you have to take a funicular to get on her good side
posted by grobstein at 10:14 AM on July 3, 2008 [3 favorites]


Has anyone written out two letters yet?
posted by drezdn at 10:25 AM on July 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


Boing Boing likes to tell us it's a special blog, a blog that exposes hypocrisy and unwarranted secretiveness, that fights the good fight for the Bill of Rights and for Freedom with a capital "F".

At the start of this whole thing, I believed this too, but now I don't. I think that if you look back at the posting history at BB, you will find that it's pretty much only Cory that does this. He's the one with an agenda, and the rest of them are linkbloggers with varying spheres of interest. Therefore it's not at all inconsistent that Xeni might not believe in the same things as Cory and might be further surprised that his topics and beliefs have sort of leaked over to be attributed to her as well.

It's become increasingly clear that they think of the site as a quartet of individual blogs ("works", if you will) that happen to be displayed in an aggregate way. I haven't seen any evidence that Xeni removed any posts that she did not herself put up in the first place. No one else had linked to Violet Blue. And it makes sense that no one else in that organization could have possibly noticed or cared about that action. Hell, their CMS probably only shows each editor their own posts, as if they ran separate blogs. I bet they rarely look at the actual, aggregated, front page.

So that seems to be a part of the disconnect. Xeni is being held to a different standard than the one she expects based on her own 1/4th-of-a-blog postings, and she interprets that mismatch as an attack. "Oh my god, you mean that my byline is in small, grey text that most people don't even see? Pesco's fascination with cryptozoology means that people think that I love yetis??" This is probably the big realization they're all having right now.

Joel, you're an amazing writer, but Brownlee and Beschizza have been able to match your style so well that I have to check the byline if I want to know who wrote what on BBG.
posted by breath at 10:28 AM on July 3, 2008 [27 favorites]


You've seen the controversy, now play the game: The BoingBoing Violet Blue Outrage game with special appearances by eriko and AstroZombie.
posted by euphorb at 10:29 AM on July 3, 2008 [2 favorites]


Metafilter: miscommunication layered on top of miscommunication, magnified out of all proportion by the echo chamber that is the interetubeweb.

Well, actually, that seems more like the rest of the interetubeweb today.
posted by mwhybark at 10:32 AM on July 3, 2008


Wasn't Mark F responsible for a fair number of the "OMG MY RIGHTS ARE BEING TAKEN AWAY" posts?
posted by Artw at 10:39 AM on July 3, 2008


Mt. Stross, no one has any obligation whatsoever to get on "your good side" in order to tell you how misplaced your loyalties happen to be

What a curious thing to say. It's not totally clear to me what you mean by this. I'm not sure if you're defending the right to tell cstross who his friends should be or if you're defending the right to tell cstross who he should stand up for.

There's a great line in the movie Brazil, where Harry Tuttle, having narrowly escaped the clutches of the nefarious bureaucratic heating engineers thanks to one Sam Lowry, turns to Lowry and tells him "You're a good man in a tight corner." This is a good thing to be, I think. It's what you are when you stick by your friends in their toughest spots, as opposed to supporting them only when they're clearly and overwhelmingly in the right. It is, in short, saying "chill, guys. the boingers aren't evil. at most this is a foolish mistake" when the crowd is baying for blood.

Now, cstross's tone was unjustified and his logic pretty absurd in his first comment, but that's what he just apologized for. and sincerely at that. that he used the phrase "way to get on my good side" doesn't seem to me to be the expression of some sort of obligation as it is his way of saying "so yes, someone put me in a bad mood earlier." it's a conversationally phrased observation.

To sum up: He's sticking by his friends, who are in a tight corner. This is a good thing. He has apologized for what was wrong with his earlier comments. This, too, is a good thing. Greeting his apology with some condemnation of him based on who he calls a friend? Not so much.

It's well past time people realized that getting outraged has accomplished precisely as much as it's supposed to: namely that it has caused the boingers to reflect on their actions and policies. It's now time to let them get their shit in order so that they can come back with a response, and it's time to stop calling for blood and condemnations in favor of recognition that they've listened and are hopefully doing something about this.

To sum up the sum up: chill out, dude. you're practically digging for things to be offended by at this point.
posted by shmegegge at 10:42 AM on July 3, 2008 [5 favorites]


I'm fully a day late on this, alas, but if BB/Xeni is Jesus in the MeFi ReWrite of Jesus Christ Superstar / Boing Boing Supersatyr, then VB's big set piece has to be Banned for all Time.
posted by mwhybark at 10:42 AM on July 3, 2008 [3 favorites]


euphorb writes "You've seen the controversy, now play the game: The BoingBoing Violet Blue Outrage game with special appearances by eriko and AstroZombie."

Fuck, I hate a game that requires registration when you've "played" half of it. As obnoxious as the badger game.

Fuck, I hate registration that starts out looking like it's just asking for name and password, then adds several screens more required information on the theory that being in for a penny, you'll be in for a pound.

This kind of deceptive shit begs for boycotting.
posted by orthogonality at 10:43 AM on July 3, 2008


Breath, I think that's dead on.
posted by dirtylittlemonkey at 10:46 AM on July 3, 2008


Breath, your comment, in light of the new info from Xeni, is probably the most accurate read of what's "Really Going On" in the last 4 days.
posted by chimaera at 11:01 AM on July 3, 2008


I wanted to play that game as myself, since that seemed to be an option, but it didn't work. So I'll just continue playing it here, as myself, which has always been an actual option.
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:05 AM on July 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


He's sticking by his friends, who are in a tight corner.

I appreciate the loyalty, but if you show up late and confused to a bar fight, long after your friends have hauled ass, and you start throwing haymakers at the gathered crowd, odds are you're going to get your ass handed to you. Only the drunk do things like that. And oddly enough, he returned for a second helping. If he strategy was to help his friends by poking fun at my choice of screen name, as a friend, I'd have to ask him to stay home.

I'm fully boycotting that shite playthenews game site. What kind of sleazebag inserts a registration form halfway through the game?
posted by jsavimbi at 11:10 AM on July 3, 2008


Not really so much of a game as an opinion survey site in flash, no?
posted by cavalier at 11:19 AM on July 3, 2008


I appreciate the loyalty, but if you show up late and confused to a bar fight, long after your friends have hauled ass, and you start throwing haymakers at the gathered crowd, odds are you're going to get your ass handed to you.

Dude, you responded to his first comment almost 24 hours after he made it and after he had already apologized for those haymakers. You called someone you don't know stupid and a fascist. Your grasp of this thread is piss poor and you need to chill more than anyone else does.
posted by shmegegge at 11:20 AM on July 3, 2008


Dude, if you think MeFi is a barfight, I invite you to drink elsewhere.
posted by mwhybark at 11:25 AM on July 3, 2008


almost 24 hours after he made it

24 hours? OMG. Here we are arguing over fourth-party posts that were deleted a year ago. Who's dumber? I'm just waiting 'till 3pm to go home and I don't want to get into any other topics. This thing died out sometime yesterday morning anyways, so quit yer bitchin. Why did I rerespond to his first post? Even after he slept on it, he returned with the same nonsense, and since we had a good time with the original, why bother with his new stuff?

Reality check, aisle five. Reality check. Aisle five.
posted by jsavimbi at 11:30 AM on July 3, 2008


Dude, if you think MeFi is a barfight, I invite you to drink elsewhere.

It was a reality-based metaphor...poor choice.
posted by jsavimbi at 11:31 AM on July 3, 2008


24 hours? OMG. Here we are arguing over fourth-party posts that were deleted a year ago. Who's dumber?

See, here's what you're not getting. This is not a contest to prove that the other guy is dumber than you are. Also, you've missed my point entirely. You accused him of showing up late to the fight and confused, but you're the one responding to comments he has already apologized for way too late in the conversation. See, you're the one who's guilty of precisely what you've described.

In short: You're making yourself look stupid for no reason other than some petty urge you have to be an asshole to somebody. You should stop before you make yourself look worse.
posted by shmegegge at 11:37 AM on July 3, 2008


Oh, and if you hear from your buddy Cory, let him know that it would be good of him to say something, because for the biggest shitstorm of his cash cow's existence, he's been silent.

As far as I'm concerned, silence is consent.

I'm one of those people who isn't willing to separate the artist from the work. There are ample ways for me to spend my entertainment dollar and my entertainment hour; I don't need to spend time and money on artists who rankle me. And as an aside, I hope that someone at Tor Books gives the Nielsen Haydens a call and tells them to shut the fuck up.
posted by ten pounds of inedita at 11:37 AM on July 3, 2008


hey, shmegegge, chill out. jsavimbi did come right back atcha, but you and I both rapped the knuckles - it's up to hir to recognize a helpful hint as a helpful hint, and not an invitation to a flame war. Am I right?
posted by mwhybark at 11:43 AM on July 3, 2008


believe me I'm chill. dude directly addressed things I've said, so I responded. any knuckly rapping I did was simply in response to his comments directed at me. This isn't a flame war.
posted by shmegegge at 11:48 AM on July 3, 2008


In short: You're making yourself look stupid for no reason other than some petty urge you have to be an asshole to somebody. You should stop before you make yourself look worse.

Teh internets are full of petty assholes, and yes, there are days when I'm one of them, as I'm sure you are at times. Welcome to the club.

What I've voiced is my opinion, and mine alone. If I've called someone stupid and incopmpetent because of the ham-fisted way in which they're destroying something I've enjoyed over the years, regardless of whether I know them or not, or I point out the unhelpful johnnycomelatelyness of another who pretends to be a friend to people I haven't met, it's still my prerogative to voice it. Plain and simple. I regret that my timeframe for argument differs from yours, but if you were important to me, I'd adjust myself. Unfortunately, you're not.

I may be an asshole, but I'm not stupid.
posted by jsavimbi at 11:50 AM on July 3, 2008


Note: everybody needs a [redacted]
posted by waraw at 11:53 AM on July 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


looks like the right to unpublish is fairly new in the policies; it wasn't there last year, and none of the revisions in 2008 are in archive.org.

yeah...it's way up the page now...ah, here...yeah, it looks like it was changed on monday...sick, right?
posted by sexyrobot at 11:54 AM on July 3, 2008


"And as an aside, I hope that someone at Tor Books gives the Nielsen Haydens a call and tells them to shut the fuck up."

It looks like she has, although it took her a little while.
posted by QuarterlyProphet at 11:57 AM on July 3, 2008


I point out the unhelpful johnnycomelatelyness of another who pretends to be a friend to people I haven't met, it's still my prerogative to voice it. Plain and simple. I regret that my timeframe for argument differs from yours, but if you were important to me, I'd adjust myself. Unfortunately, you're not.

You're the one who first responded to me, dude, when I was talking to someone else. You want to play the "well I don't care what you think, so nyah" card, that's fine. The next time I'm talking to someone else, I'll completely understand when you keep whatever you're thinking to yourself.
posted by shmegegge at 12:00 PM on July 3, 2008


You're the one who first responded to me, dude, when I was talking to someone else.

Ah, I see where you're coming from now. Maybe I was sticking up for Blazecock Pileon and you thought I was hammering away at you for no reason. I was just being a good man in a tight corner, as you so paraphrased it. Had you said "hey, I ain't talking to you" then I wouldn't have opined negatively about you and you wouldn't have needed to embarass youself by calling me stupid. Unperceptive, perhaps, but not stupid.

mwhybark, dude, lighten up.
posted by jsavimbi at 12:07 PM on July 3, 2008


According to cillit bang's research, the cyclops kitty is now gone. How can the cyclops kitty be gone?
posted by cgc373 at 2:04 AM on July 3 [+] [!]


cgc373, interestingly, the cyclops kitty post isn't gone--it's permalink changed:
from: http://www.boingboing.net/2006/01/09/cyclops_kitten_rip.html
to: http://www.boingboing.net/2006/01/09/adorable-cyclops-kit.html

(I was worried/wondering too, so I went to the by-day archive and looked for it.)
posted by MikeKD at 12:11 PM on July 3, 2008


Maybe I was sticking up for Blazecock Pileon and you thought I was hammering away at you for no reason.

Well, I didn't think you were sticking up for blazecock, to be honest. Maybe I would have if I had thought blazecock needed defending. dunno. either way, it seemed to me more like you were just taking pot shots at cstross again, or sticking up for yourself because you felt impugned-by-proxy or something. either way, whatever. blazecock's a good dude, if you're just sticking up for him then no hard feelings.

Had you said "hey, I ain't talking to you" then I wouldn't have opined negatively about you and you wouldn't have needed to embarass youself by calling me stupid.

and then there's this. look, my policy here is not to say "hey, I ain't talking to you." I think of metafilter as a forum for the free exchange of ideas. if you speak up, you're open to a response, no matter who you're addressing. but when you say something ridiculous like "if you were important to me, I'd adjust myself. Unfortunately, you're not." then you shouldn't have responded to me in the first place since I don't matter. you can't have it both ways. you don't get to take issue with something someone said and then pretend you don't care what they have to say anyway. if what I say doesn't matter, then it doesn't matter when I made that first comment that you responded to. otherwise, you're just substituting schoolyard insults for an actual argument.

lastly, I didn't call you stupid. I said you're making yourself look that way, and you have been. you attack stross for things he's already apologized for and then try to justify it by accusing him of things that fit your own behavior even better. I'm sure you're not stupid, but a lot of what you've said here has been juvenile and poorly reasoned, so take that how you will.
posted by shmegegge at 12:21 PM on July 3, 2008


Oh, and if you hear from your buddy Cory, let him know that it would be good of him to say something, because for the biggest shitstorm of his cash cow's existence, he's been silent.

As far as I'm concerned, silence is consent.


hmmm...is he silent because he consents or is he silent because he's packing up ~^
i would not be surprised in the least if cory left over this...
posted by sexyrobot at 12:32 PM on July 3, 2008


You're the one who first responded to me, dude, when I was talking to someone else.

look, my policy here is not to say "hey, I ain't talking to you."

Please, if you're sowing your advice in a forum, whether it's in response to a particular person or you're just floating ideas, it's the forum as a whole you're talking to, and as seen here, any interested party not yet in the forum. They'll come swinging through the tree to argue a point in here. Interesting that. And there are no time limits, as you can see people are still quoting my juvenile and poorly reasoned post from awhile ago. I care about what you write about, the content of your speech, if you will.

I do not care about your personal rules, policies or sense of timing. That's shite you can change on a whim. All I care about is whether I agree or disagree with what you wrote in the context of this thread.

You want to make it about yourself and your feelings, be my guest, but you're nobody to be telling anyone else when they've had enough. This thread was tired and repetitive after the 500th post, at least.
posted by jsavimbi at 12:47 PM on July 3, 2008


I had feelings once. Got in the way. Had them surgically removed. Wish I could say I was happier now, but, alas, no.
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:49 PM on July 3, 2008 [4 favorites]


hmmm...is he silent because he consents or is he silent because he's packing up ~^

cory is away from home on vacation, with his wife and his new baby—if i were in his shoes, you can bet your ass i wouldn't give up a single vacation day with my loved ones to spend it hunched in front of a computer dealing with people who are willing to hurl all kinds of weird shit at me for something i didn't directly have anything to do with. as far as i can figure, xeni took her posts off last year and didn't think it was worth informing the other editors about because they've never had a policy about unpublishing anything before. i think the unpublishing was stupid, wrong, and exceptionally, amazingly clueless on xeni's part—and holy shit the boingboing moderators should all be fired—but it's been great to see the other editors step in both over there and here and be thoughtful and willing to listen, something that must be really difficult considering all the horrible things that have been said.
posted by lia at 12:49 PM on July 3, 2008 [2 favorites]


I'm old enough to remember when unpublishing was known as book burning.
posted by found missing at 12:55 PM on July 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


And I don't want to make a facile comparison, by I think JHarris has a point: this all is too reminiscent of the Bush administration. Reminiscent of Cheney explaining that he's so busy protecting America (and figuring ot that he's part of neither the executive nor the Legislative branches of government) to have to be bothered with things like accountability, or transparency, or even not just classifying everything as Super Secret.

Oh come on. Comparing this to the bush administration is a bit much, nobody got killed. Of course, that didn't stop TNH from comparing Violet Blue to Karl Rove.

By the way, I'm pretty sure cstross was referring to my comment where I said BB "hired comment fascist Teresa Nielsen Hayden to run their comment site so we know they're wankers." I don't think she's literally a fascist, just that when it comes to comment moderation she has an attitude I find obnoxious.

I'm sure she's a perfectly wonderful person, she's just extremely condescending to people she moderates. Some of the comments in this thread have been much harsher towards her so I'm not sure I'd use that language at this point, but still. I find her attitude annoying and I it seems pretty obvious that she handled this situation in a very poor way.

rtha: you've just missed a mefite with a handle named after a would-be third-world dictator backed by the Heritage Foundation and other neocons calling a blogger a fascist. The irony, it hurts.

I'm pretty sure that cstross was talking about jsavimbi, in this instance, not me.

Also, jsavimbi, chill out, this thread is not about you and I don't particularly care what happens to you in this flamewar, whether you look stupid or whatever. It wouldn't be a big deal most of the time, but this thread is really long, and I've actually read every comment, the thread is very interesting overall, but you are wasting my time. What cstross has to say is interesting, because he knows the stakeholders.
posted by delmoi at 12:55 PM on July 3, 2008


hmmm...is he silent because he consents or is he silent because he's packing up ~^
i would not be surprised in the least if cory left over this...


From what the other principals have said over at BB, it sounds like he's silent because, crisis or no, he's pretty much on vacation at the moment. Shrug.

I'd be surprised if he left. As much as I think the deletions were a bad move and the initial handling of this in the last few days was boneheaded, the episode itself is not a fundamentally big deal. With the degree to which they've been being responsive to actual stated concerns in the last 24 hours (and kudos again Joel for leading the way there), I'm satisfied that they are at least taking a genuine look at the unconsidered issues that have caused them so much grief this last week. All of this has the stink of personal revelation, of first-time-in-the-fire in this context for them, so I can understand a lot of the mess.

At this point I'm more annoyed at the comments from a couple of their most vociferous regulars than I am at any of the principals. There's heated, ill-considered defenses (and attacks), and then there's just plain bad-faith grudge argumentation, and there's been too much of that from a couple people over there, to a degree that is frustrating and embarrassing to read. It's kept me from even jumping into the thread.

On the other hand, I'll be surprised if Cory doesn't have something to critical to say about the handling, once he gets around to jumping into the pool. Not solely critical—I'm not expecting an internal catfight in public or anything—but if he just shrugs and says "wevs", that'd weird me out something fierce.
posted by cortex at 12:59 PM on July 3, 2008 [4 favorites]


Please, if you're sowing your advice in a forum, whether it's in response to a particular person or you're just floating ideas, it's the forum as a whole you're talking to, and as seen here, any interested party not yet in the forum. They'll come swinging through the tree to argue a point in here.

This... this is exactly what I just said.

You want to make it about yourself and your feelings, be my guest, but you're nobody to be telling anyone else when they've had enough. This thread was tired and repetitive after the 500th post, at least.

look, you've stopped making sense so here's an idea: let's drop it. this has gotten ridiculous, and you don't have any actual point as near as I can figure.
posted by shmegegge at 1:04 PM on July 3, 2008


Erm back to steampunk dildo's.

q.v.Artw. There actually were Victorian steam powered vibrators. Patents were granted to George Taylor, from 1869 to 1882 for various kinds of massage and vibrartory equipment.Taylor is described as having attached a '"Medical Rubbing Apparatus" to a stationary steam engine'.

(Rachel Maines, The Technology of Orgasm: "Hysteria, the Vibrator and Women's Sexual Satisfaction, John University Press, 1999)
posted by tallus at 1:31 PM on July 3, 2008 [2 favorites]


means that people think that I love yetis?

I love yetis. Except I don't pluralize it like that. Just us yeti. In fact, there's actually four of us sharing this account, but I control the editorial stance for all of us.
posted by yeti at 1:38 PM on July 3, 2008 [4 favorites]


From what the other principals have said over at BB, it sounds like he's silent because, crisis or no, he's pretty much on vacation at the moment. Shrug.

His partner has been updating her blog, so I'm not sure if they are actually on vacation. And if they are, then it looks like they have time to blog. So I'm sticking by his silence equalling his consent.
posted by ten pounds of inedita at 1:49 PM on July 3, 2008


cortex writes "I'll be surprised if Cory doesn't have something to critical to say about the handling, once he gets around to jumping into the pool. "

Mumble, overzealous staffer, mumble fired intern, mumble, out-of-control enlisted personnel, I take full responsibility, I reject and renounce, mumble has resigned, mumble, you blog with the4 bloggers you have, not the bloggers you want, mumble, heckuva job, mumble, here's a Presidential Medal of Freedom, mumble, God Bless America, the buck stops here.
posted by orthogonality at 1:55 PM on July 3, 2008 [4 favorites]


cory is away from home on vacation, with his wife and his new baby

has this been confirmed? I know there was a lot of speculation earlier and the mention that when he does go on vacation, he's completely out of the loop...but i don't recall anyone here or on ML or BB (i haven't been to either of those toxic sites since yesterday and don't plan on returning) saying that he definitely was on vacation...anyone?

unjoined? haha!
posted by sexyrobot at 2:30 PM on July 3, 2008


Xeni at LATimesBlog: "Regarding the decision to remove:

XJ: My biological father who died when I was a kid was a painter and a print maker. He went through different phases in his creative work. A lot of what he did was paint very beautiful photorealistic portraits of nude women. Sometimes he went off into experimental territory that he was embarrassed about... sometimes he would just grab batches of the stuff that was crappy as years went on, and go to the backyard and burn it. And it wasn’t that he was censoring himself, and God knows nobody else was censoring him. It was that this was his creative work. This was art. And he felt like some of it wasn’t representative of who he was anymore and he didn’t want it to be available to the world to see.

That’s how I felt with this situation. (I mean, there were other reasons for removing the posts.) But –- it was my work. And I felt like: This is my work, this is my blog. This is not the same thing as Wikipedia or the paper of record. It’s BoingBoing. And I have the right to take these things down while I think about whether I want them out there or not."


Ok, I'll ignore the fact that we didn't need to know the part about her dad dying when she was a kid (because the fact that her dad was an artist who reacted to his work is what the point there is, not that she was fatherless) and how that comes off as a moment where violin music should be playing despite the fact that it is one of the most crushing things that can happen to a child to lose a parent (which is of course why we feel bad when saying anything critical of her after that comment)...

To me this sums up what happened. She's someone that has her own priviate sites on the web - yet for her Boing Boing has been "my work, this is my blog." Thoughout this whole thing I've NOT been wanting to see this as the "Xeni made the mistake" as much as I disliked how she was handling it - but yes, it's coming down to "this one person does not get what Group Blog means." And definitely Xeni, and possibly all of them, don't realize that they're actually not just goofing around and having fun - they're also getting paid for that, and this means you wake up and keep an eye on what the changes and expectations are of your market/audience.

And the fact that NPR gave her a job as a tech expert/reporter for a while - well, just...wow.
Again, this is one of the people I've had presented to me as an expert for blogging and tech in general, as someone who's aware of the changes in her industry and the varying interpretations of the news. I know people in the industry who would kill to have had those opportunities.
....These folks DO realize that future employers google people and then read all your work online right? And those employers don't just stop and say "oh wait, this is personal, I won't take that into consideration." Just wondering, maybe this is a secret only a few know...

Also, what breath said:
"Therefore it's not at all inconsistent that Xeni might not believe in the same things as Cory and might be further surprised that his topics and beliefs have sort of leaked over to be attributed to her as well. It's become increasingly clear that they think of the site as a quartet of individual blogs ("works", if you will) that happen to be displayed in an aggregate way."

Yeah, I think that's spot on. Frankly I had always assumed that they read each others' work and had some kind of agreement with it. Now I see that I was an idiot. (Yes yes, I know, I'm lthe ast one, everyone knew this but me...)
posted by batgrlHG at 2:32 PM on July 3, 2008 [5 favorites]


Of course the employer bit may be why a lot of this has been unpublished, huh?
posted by batgrlHG at 2:34 PM on July 3, 2008


Xeni says: "Please try to bear in mind, a year and a half ago when I unpublished this stuff, it was a time when there were a couple of hate web sites specifically about me."
I suppose this is a reference to the xenisucks site. Now, at that time it was VB who defended Xeni. Her overzealous behavior got her into trouble. (That, and not knowing what a "rimshot" was.) I seem to recall some kind of apology -- not a big one -- from her, but I could be wrong. Anyway, she clearly overreacted to an attack on her friend. But that raises some questions about Xeni's defense of unpublishing.

One issue that Xeni does not address (and, when asked about it in the BB forum, affected not to know what people were talking about) was the removal (non-publishing?) of any post from BB'rs that mentioned VB, even to the point of removing posts referring to the colors themselves. Now maybe this was done by the moderators and Xeni really didn't know about it, but that practice really smacked of Memory Hole.

And I get a little tired of Xeni talking about only removing her own "work". Her "work" was basically links and cites of other people's writing and, if VB was mentioned even in passing, she removed those links and cites. Xeni is still spinning to excuse a poorly-judged action committed during a hissy-fit.
posted by CCBC at 2:40 PM on July 3, 2008 [2 favorites]


Yeah, I find all that "my work" talk laughable. If you write a couple of paragraphs about something, that's your work, but talking about "Look at this!" that way is silly.
posted by languagehat at 2:52 PM on July 3, 2008 [2 favorites]


ten pounds of inedita, sexyrobot - yes, if you read the blog ten pounds of inedita linked to, it does indeed confirm that they're on holiday right now.
posted by flashboy at 3:40 PM on July 3, 2008


Especially since they almost never write the copy text for the "Look at this" posts. Usually any text not quoted from the linked site is verbatim from the link submission form / email.
posted by blasdelf at 3:47 PM on July 3, 2008


it does indeed confirm that they're on holiday right now

And that they have time to blog while on holiday.
posted by ten pounds of inedita at 3:50 PM on July 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


If someone blogs for pleasure as well as for money, it's not entirely weird that vacation might include it. I know nothing about Cory or his partner's feelings on how work does or doesn't interfere with their planned time away—while in his shoes I'd probably be jumping into things right now, they're his shoes, not mine. I remain curious, but, eh.
posted by cortex at 3:55 PM on July 3, 2008


With the degree to which they've been being responsive to actual stated concerns in the last 24 hours (and kudos again Joel for leading the way there), I'm satisfied that they are at least taking a genuine look at the unconsidered issues that have caused them so much grief this last week.


So, in other words, I CAN STILL HAS CHEEZBURGER?
posted by humannaire at 4:09 PM on July 3, 2008


If someone blogs for pleasure as well as for money, it's not entirely weird that vacation might include it. I know nothing about Cory or his partner's feelings on how work does or doesn't interfere with their planned time away—while in his shoes I'd probably be jumping into things right now, they're his shoes, not mine. I remain curious, but, eh.

Well, it's downright bizarre, I mean this isn't just a hobby, it's a business that pays the bills and provides him tons and tons of free publicity for the rest of works. And it's in crisis, in a way that really contradicts everything he stands for.
posted by delmoi at 4:13 PM on July 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


I remain curious, but, eh.

There's an article I read recently by Cory where he says that because he's essential wired 24/7 when he goes on holiday he goes completely off the web, sets up his email with a message to get back to him after a certain day... only has a phone that his parents, his agent, etc know the number off for emergencies. Though you might think that the Great Boing Boing PR Screw Up Of '08 might be a sufficient enough issue for someone to get through to him..
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 4:15 PM on July 3, 2008


Xeni posted that Cory is involved, I believe...

"...Cory's actively engaged in this, but he's on vacation with his family, and mostly offline."
posted by ajpresto at 4:56 PM on July 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


I agree that it's weird, delmoi, or at least it strikes me as weird (see: sexism giganto-thread on Thanksgiving weekend), but it's not bizarre to me. He may be aptly realizing that as stupid as this all is, it did get contained and isn't really going to explode again soon unless Hitler somehow gets implicated.
posted by cortex at 4:58 PM on July 3, 2008


CCBC writes 'I suppose this is a reference to the xenisucks site. Now, at that time it was VB who defended Xeni. Her overzealous behavior got her into trouble. '

Blue's passionate defence of Jardin includes a link to this Boing Boing post, in which Jardin describes xenisucks.com as 'a total hoot', and yet, as others noted a few hundred comments ago, the post in question has subsequently been unpublished. I've lost count of the number of levels on which this is funny and/or depressing.

Also, on seeing CCBC's comment, I thought, 'Cripes, that sounds mildly interesting, I wonder what it's all about?', only to discover that I once knew what it was all about to the extent that I left the second comment in that thread. Sometimes I really regret smoking gear every day for a decade or so.
posted by jack_mo at 5:03 PM on July 3, 2008


Another level of funny: current headline on xenisucks.com, last updated 3/28/08: "It's not censorship when we do it"
posted by waraw at 5:11 PM on July 3, 2008


cgc373, interestingly, the cyclops kitty post isn't gone--it's permalink changed

The methodology I used specifically accounted for changing permalinks (which Boing Boing and Movable Type are wont to do every time a typo is fixed. If it's your fault, fuck you anildash) so I used Entry IDs instead. David's post (24606) was deleted in favour of Mark's slightly earlier post on the same topic (24600).

A lot of the 407 probably falls into this category, but it's still wrong of them to say (as David has) that unpublishing posts isn't a routine action at Boing Boing.
posted by cillit bang at 5:14 PM on July 3, 2008


batgrlHG: Frankly I had always assumed that they read each others' work and had some kind of agreement with it. Now I see that I was an idiot.

This is really her(their) problem more than it is yours(ours). I mean, they're putting their words within 30 pixels of each others', how can they think that readers will not believe they're associated? It's an understandable idiocy, though. As you say, "this one person does not get what Group Blog means." That's super-dumb, but at least it's not super-hypocritical and evil.
posted by breath at 5:34 PM on July 3, 2008


You've seen the controversy, now play the game: The BoingBoing Violet Blue Outrage game with special appearances by eriko and AstroZombie.

If you think you know how this ends, turn to page 47.

OK, as much fun as I've had with this, I think it's time to put the running gag back in the box.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 5:50 PM on July 3, 2008


page 47

You attempt to put running gag in the box, but it slips from your fingers and scuttles under a table. Do you leave things well enough alone? Go to page 93
Do you look under the table? Go to page 192

page 93

When you turn around to head back the running gag jumps onto your neck and chews through your skin and into your arteries. YOU ARE DEAD!

page 192

The gag jumps up and gouges your eye. YOU ARE BLIND. It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
posted by Kattullus at 6:27 PM on July 3, 2008 [5 favorites]


> xyzzy_
posted by Justinian at 6:56 PM on July 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


I HAVE JUST LOST THE GAME.

*weeps*
posted by mwhybark at 7:33 PM on July 3, 2008


Folks' favorites may not agree with my favorites, but since our favorites' favorites are a favorites' throw from being popular favorites, in a 1500 post thread, I know who you lazy readers are.
posted by anthill at 7:48 PM on July 3, 2008




Who here wants pancakes?
posted by mwhybark at 9:30 PM on July 3, 2008


I do, as long as there's no DRM on the pancakes.
posted by lukemeister at 9:50 PM on July 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


Yes, but they're Apple pancakes so the DRM doesn't count.
posted by Artw at 10:07 PM on July 3, 2008 [2 favorites]


Wendell, what did you do, anyway?
posted by dersins at 10:20 PM on July 3, 2008


Actually, apple pancakes (the fruit not the brand) sound pretty good right now. But I do not want to go into IHOP and order a Rooty Tooty Fresh & Fruity.
posted by wendell at 10:22 PM on July 3, 2008


Heh. Had this pointed out to me in a recent Doctrow post on Orwell books - the links go to 404s - oops! Also theres some devoweling of someone accusing Shepard Fairey of plagarism, something we've discussed here. Ironically which by breaking the links, which IMHO are pretty weak, it actually makes it seem like something more sinister and significant is going on.
posted by Artw at 10:26 PM on July 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


This is my apology for the awful thing I did in the BoingBoing thread yesterday - just change the name to Wendell.

Yeah, what happened? All I know is it ended with Language Hat getting ganster named "Language Gat"
posted by delmoi at 10:26 PM on July 3, 2008


A lot of the 407 probably falls into this category, but it's still wrong of them to say (as David has) that unpublishing posts isn't a routine action at Boing Boing....

Yeah. I've taken a look at some of them (only up to late 2004) and there's some weird unpublishings, particularly from Xeni. The least ambiguous of these is Is Hello Kitty a Copycat? Update: Nope, she just shares DNA with a rabbit. in which Xeni posts an accusation that the character Hello Kitty was a copy of another character. The post is updated twice, eventually coming to the conclusion that Hello Kitty isn't a copy of anything but an earlier design by her creator. The whole post is subsequently deleted for reasons that aren't clear, but Xeni does come off looking kind of silly which, barring legal action, seems like the only real motivation evident.

A couple of other Xeni posts vanished with no trace that I could find: Iranian bloggers protest 'Net crackdown and Persian bloggers report girl's execution for "acts incompatible with chastity". Why they were unpublished is anyone's guess.

So the mass deletion of posts is new, but it doesn't look like Xeni's ever hesitated from unpublishing posts she later finds troubling.
posted by xchmp at 10:28 PM on July 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


All I know is it ended with Language Hat getting ganster named "Language Gat"

Language Gat Hat ain't nuthin to fuck with.
posted by Artw at 10:31 PM on July 3, 2008


dersins, how can I explain this without getting in trouble AGAIN? I did explain it on Twitter (in two 140-character 'tweets') earlier today and my ID there is wendellosity (I was too late to get wendell). Let's just say I achieved an extraordinary level of tastelessness (for me) on a general and specific topic that was wrong for MetaFilter and especially wrong in this thread. And I would have gotten away with it too, except for those meddling kids and their dumb dog.
posted by wendell at 10:31 PM on July 3, 2008


Yeah, what happened? All I know is it ended with Language Hat getting ganster named "Language Gat"

I've been following this thread since it's inception pretty closely and I don't remember wendell doing anything particularly heinous. Then again, I do black out from time to time, ala the hulk.
posted by puke & cry at 10:35 PM on July 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


(It was some not very funny riffing on the "Xeni is a man" thing, which got jumped upon and then deleted, as per Jessamynd note above.)
posted by Artw at 10:43 PM on July 3, 2008


the "Xeni is a man" thing

I see that a lot and I never understand it.

How could she be a man, when she's so clearly not even a human?
posted by dersins at 10:45 PM on July 3, 2008


sorry
posted by dersins at 10:46 PM on July 3, 2008


Oh dear.
posted by Artw at 10:51 PM on July 3, 2008


Whaddaya mean "oh dear"? She's a robot, isn't she?
posted by dersins at 10:55 PM on July 3, 2008


isn't she?
posted by dersins at 10:55 PM on July 3, 2008


the "Xeni is a man" thing

I see that a lot and I never understand it.

How could she be a man, when she's so clearly not even a human?



HA hA shez funny looking! I want 2 bone Lindsee Lohn and not XEni LOL
posted by foxy_hedgehog at 10:57 PM on July 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


FFS. Dersins, knock it off. Artw, stop handing him rope.
posted by ryanrs at 10:59 PM on July 3, 2008


(I know, I know, way too late. I have a good reason, in my own mind! I really didn't post this of my own accord!)

Now if I post this, it matters that you see
These missing posts and such are quite puzzling to me.
It's taken me some time to work out what to do.
I thought the whole thing out before I posted this for you.

I have no thought at all about my own reward.
I really didn't post this of my own accord.
Just don't say I'm ...banned for all time.

I post because I have to; I'm the one who's gone.
Xeni can republish it like she did before.
And furthermore I know that you all think so too.
You wouldn't mind that I was posting this for you.

I have no thought at all about my own reward.
I really didn't post this of my own accord.
Just don't say I'm ...banned for all time.

MeFites, you're my friends, all nerdly boys and girls.
LA Times, my friend, I know you sympathise.
Why are we the bloggers? Why are we the ones
Who see the sad solution - know what must be done?

I have no thought at all about my own reward.
I really didn't post this of my own accord.
Just don't say I'm ...banned for all time.


----
posted by mwhybark at 11:02 PM on July 3, 2008 [2 favorites]


I REFUSE TO TAKE ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR WHAT ARTW AND DERSINS AND ESPECIALLY FOXY HEDGEHOG POSTED.

Okay... further explanation I really didn't want to do. After reading ValleyWag's cheap shot on us, I composed a series of cheap shots back at them, then got extra stupid and "for equal time" added on a variation of common Xeni-abuse, associating her with another female celebrity who has been similarly attacked around here, crossing more than one line. I added three "I'm sorry"s at the end of the comment but still hit the post button. I followed up with more random ranting (much of it inspired by dw's witty response that was not deleted) that I wouldn't feel good putting in my own blog, and that also went bye-bye and so did I for 24 hours. As said in Meatbomb's my apology, I can't promise I'll never do something like that again, but more likely I'll find some new way to get into trouble, just because that's what I do around here.

Come to think of it, after what I posted (and was unposted) yesterday, why should I feel bad ordering a "Rooty Tooty Fresh & Fruity".
posted by wendell at 11:04 PM on July 3, 2008


why should I feel bad ordering a "Rooty Tooty Fresh & Fruity".

Because "Moons Over My Hammy" is awesomer on every axis.
posted by dersins at 11:17 PM on July 3, 2008 [1 favorite]


I [...] still hit the post button.
FAIL

I added three "I'm sorry"s at the end of the comment but still hit the post button.
EPIC FAIL
posted by CCBC at 11:33 PM on July 3, 2008 [2 favorites]


Can we close this thread early? The entire trainwreck is essentially played out -- or as much as it's ever going to be -- and now all the bottomfeeders (metaphorically speaking) are testing the waters with the jokes they knew they'd get called out on while people were watching.

And once again for style points -- if you're about to post something like this:
[offensive/sexist/racist statement]

Sorry! Sorry!
...Don't. Other people have worked hard (some left the site in frustration) to make this sort of thing happen as little as possible on MeFi, and you're disrespecting them by giving in to your juvenile impulses to piss in the pool when you don't think anybody's looking.

I know you know who you are, and I do think that you're better than this -- just chill out and pull your weight as a member of the community, please. Or at least take it to MeTa. I'm sure any of the infernos currently burning could use some more fuel.
posted by spiderwire at 11:37 PM on July 3, 2008 [5 favorites]


HAY GUIZE WHATS GOIN ON ON THE INTERWEBS TODAY?!!?!1??/

DID I MISS ANYTHIN GOOD????//!!??!?1/1
posted by erskelyne at 11:42 PM on July 3, 2008


LAST!
posted by liza at 11:45 PM on July 3, 2008


offensive/sexist/racist statement

Just to clarify, are you actually calling what I said "offensive / sexist / racist"? Really? It's any of those things to refer to Xeni Jardin as a robot? What the fuck does that have to do with sexism or racism?
posted by dersins at 11:57 PM on July 3, 2008


It's offensive to the robot kind.
posted by UbuRoivas at 12:09 AM on July 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


It's insulting to compare a blogger to a robot. Insulting to the robot.
posted by wendell at 12:27 AM on July 4, 2008


did that really take you more than 18 minutes to type, wendell?
posted by UbuRoivas at 12:30 AM on July 4, 2008


At this point, it takes more than 18 minutes just to load this thread.

I'm posting this from the future!
posted by dersins at 12:34 AM on July 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


I have always believed in never doing anything half-way. When I do a FAIL, it is always an EPIC FAIL.

I'm glad MetaFilter would not allow me to 'clean up' my posting history and most of my past EPIC FAILS are easily accessible. "Unpublishing" is rarely a good idea, unless you're trying to pass yourself off as something you're not (in that case, it's probably a very good idea). The only way to "run away from your past" is to run full-speed into your future. (Geez, that's trite sounding... good thing that isn't grounds for deletion)
posted by wendell at 12:44 AM on July 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


Ubu, I can't post any faster... I have to go and shove more furniture against the front door to keep the angry townspeople out every three or four minutes.
posted by wendell at 12:48 AM on July 4, 2008 [2 favorites]


Shit guys, way to devolve the thread.
posted by cavalier at 2:21 AM on July 4, 2008


way to devolve the thread.

Dude, the third comment in this thread was about dildoes, and the sixth compares Cory Doctorow to one.

This is an improvement.
posted by dersins at 2:35 AM on July 4, 2008 [2 favorites]


has the government issued our jetpacks yet where you are, dersins?
posted by UbuRoivas at 2:38 AM on July 4, 2008


You mean when I am? Yeah, they will have issued them nineteen minutes go. Your time.
posted by dersins at 2:56 AM on July 4, 2008


wait, i'm across the international date line. those jetpacks were issued *yesterday* plus nineteen minutes ago. *FUCK* they'll be out of stock by now!
posted by UbuRoivas at 3:23 AM on July 4, 2008


I would love to come in and harumph about how we could really do without a lot of this noise...but earlier I mentioned Hitler Kittens, so I really can't start with the "too silly, too silly" business.

But lay off the crap about Xeni. As much as she's made it all about her - let's not make any personal attacks. And by that I mean any comparisons, metaphors, similies, etc. etc. that would demean her or her character. I think we already have enough material to work with just from quotes.
posted by batgrlHG at 4:02 AM on July 4, 2008 [3 favorites]


Yes, but they're Apple pancakes so the DRM doesn't count.
Xeni says they're good with the iHam.
posted by lukemeister at 5:29 AM on July 4, 2008


Hitler Kitten.
posted by UbuRoivas at 5:35 AM on July 4, 2008


If someone ever sits down and does a narrative analysis of epic mefi threads, one of the points of discussion therein will probably have to be the identification of the transition to dénouement, and I'm trying to decide exactly when we got there upthread.
posted by cortex at 7:15 AM on July 4, 2008


Then what sort of narrative would we classify this as? Pardon the sexism on that wikipedia page. Like they never heard of woman vs woman.
posted by nomisxid at 8:12 AM on July 4, 2008


Woman vs Self vs Peanut gallery, devolving into Peanut gallery vs Peanut gallery.
posted by Artw at 8:16 AM on July 4, 2008


Please don't devolve anymore. Please don't close this thread. Thanks.
posted by waraw at 8:34 AM on July 4, 2008


the identification of the transition to dénouement, and I'm trying to decide exactly when we got there upthread

breath had the firstest post-OMG comment, IMO.
posted by popechunk at 8:43 AM on July 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


*radar pings for longboat*
posted by sciurus at 9:54 AM on July 4, 2008


cortex,

If you close this thread, valleywag is gonna hear about the whole business with the furries, and it ain't gonna be pretty.
posted by lukemeister at 10:18 AM on July 4, 2008


Heh.

(We don't have a mechanism for closing-but-not-deleting threads in the blue, and we're certainly not deleting this thing, so it's a non-issue.)
posted by cortex at 10:25 AM on July 4, 2008


It was intended as a rhetorical question anyway; just poorly phrased.
posted by spiderwire at 10:42 AM on July 4, 2008


Yeah, I figured as much. One of the great burdens of moderation: occasionally giving straight answers to bent questions. Heh.
posted by cortex at 10:59 AM on July 4, 2008


Update: TNH's "strains of human evil" comment has now been disemvoweled, as well as a few other comments by her.
posted by Seth Finkelstein at 1:37 PM on July 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


I understand the stress and strains of human evil, myself.

And as much as I enjoy the music of DEVO, I don't think "devolve" is the right word for what happens at the tail end of epic threads (or as I like to call them "EPIC TAIL").

It's more of an "evolutionary dead end" or a "wild mutation" or "unnatural selection" or "genetic backwards engineering" or just "chromosome damage".

Besides, DEVO already sued McDonalds over the plastic hats in the happy meal; I don't want those spudboys coming after us.
posted by wendell at 1:51 PM on July 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


And cortex is so much better at giving bent answers to straight questions. And I mean that totally synechdotally, of course.
posted by wendell at 1:53 PM on July 4, 2008


We're about sixty comments ahead of the BB thread, which I take as a mighty victory for the typing abilities of the MeFi crew.
posted by languagehat at 2:20 PM on July 4, 2008


WAT. I thought that thread got closed a day and a half ago. Now I have to waste the 4th of July reading it.

Is this a good thread to point out that Charlie Crist is marrying his beard so he can be McCain's VP choice? No? Oh, sorry.
posted by Justinian at 2:29 PM on July 4, 2008


TNH's "strains of human evil" comment has now been disemvoweled

Wait, BB is practicing auto-disemvowelment?
La révolution dévore ses enfants!
posted by lukemeister at 2:36 PM on July 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


Charlie Crist is marrying his beard

Flip-flopper!
posted by lukemeister at 2:38 PM on July 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


Yea, holy crap, most of TNH's comments after 553 (I believe that was the 'astoundingly stupid' one) have been disemvoweled.

And they've got a few antagonists who keep rehashing the same argument "OMG UNPUBLISH WUTT?!" that's keeping that fire burning.
posted by cavalier at 3:03 PM on July 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


dénouement?

We're not there yet. Maybe the thread is dying out, as the youngin's finishing looting the remaining ideas, but according to my count, one of the principal characters in this drama has yet to take the stage. And he's probably the only one who'll be able to make sense of it all, as the big anti-everything proponent as well as the tone-setter for the group's collective attitude. It's almost like if everyone is waiting for Daddy to come home, as Mommy and Sis have completely lost their minds and have decided to drag all the parlor furniture out onto the front lawn and catch it fire.

Or maybe I'm wrong and he's just a hanger-on who uses BB to promote his tour/book/speakings. In that case, they'd be screwed, and we reached dénouement the moment after everyone read "the statement".
posted by jsavimbi at 3:05 PM on July 4, 2008 [4 favorites]


We're about sixty comments ahead of the BB thread, which I take as a mighty victory for the typing abilities of the MeFi crew.

People complained of being deleted, so maybe they're ahead in the parallel non- Unpublishing universe.

Yea, holy crap, most of TNH's comments after 553 (I believe that was the 'astoundingly stupid' one) have been disemvoweled.

Holy crap. Have Antinuous' comments been disemvoweled?
posted by goo at 3:33 PM on July 4, 2008


Yeah, dersins, knock it off. You know very well that the emperor's clothes are really quite elegant.
posted by Crabby Appleton at 4:16 PM on July 4, 2008


It seems like teh BB thread loads a lot faster. Or that just me?
posted by stinkycheese at 5:49 PM on July 4, 2008


I am very proud to call Teresa Nielsen Hayden a colleague, she's handled this with dignity and sincerity throughout., says Xeni Jardin.

Has this driven Jardin bonkers? I really can't see how anyone could read that thread and see 'dignity and sincerity' in Neilsen Hayden shrieking like a banshee at the folk she's meant to be moderating.
posted by jack_mo at 5:54 PM on July 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


No, it definitely loads faster.

Recent post there by Xeni reads in part:

"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."

Hmm.

So Xeni is not a robot then?
posted by stinkycheese at 6:00 PM on July 4, 2008


I really can't see how anyone could read that thread and see 'dignity and sincerity' in Neilsen Hayden shrieking like a banshee at the folk she's meant to be moderating.

Oh, come on. She's obviously quite sincere.
posted by Chrysostom at 6:07 PM on July 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


Seth Finkelstein"Update: TNH's "strains of human evil" comment has now been disemvoweled, as well as a few other comments by her."

Oh great, how soon until we have the before after screenshots/quotes posted somewhere?
Just when you think it's over...

At this point I'd really like to recommend the RSS feed, load time is insane
posted by batgrlHG at 6:22 PM on July 4, 2008


It could be Xeni's version of "Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job"... then again, after disemvoweling her own comments, TNH does appear a lot more dignified...

"All of us here at Boing Boing are human beings; but she's that and more."
So Xeni is not a robot but Teresa is a cyborg.
posted by wendell at 6:25 PM on July 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


It seems like teh BB thread loads a lot faster. Or that just me?

Well, keep in mind this thread is almost two megabytes of text. I don't know if matt has mod_gzip enabled or not, but that could be one difference.
posted by delmoi at 6:43 PM on July 4, 2008


This whole experience has probably put the When Forum Moderators Ruled the World sequel to bed. So that's something to be thankful about.
posted by maxwelton at 9:12 PM on July 4, 2008


if anyone at BB were a cyborg, we'd see a tedious post about, e.g., somebody jamming an SD card under their fingernail.
posted by boo_radley at 10:13 PM on July 4, 2008


I was three weeks past my due date when my mother showed up for one of her at that point daily checkups. (She'd been bringing her urine with her on the bus from work to Kaiser each day - some sort of test they had to run). The obstetrician, who, as my mother always emphasizes ,provided only prenatal care and was guaranteed not to attend the actual birth, suggested she have an amniocentesis to assess my well being.

These days amniocentesis is performed only fairly early in pregnancy, to determine the sex of a baby and to look for markers of certain genetic disorders, but this doctor wanted an amnio on a 43 week fetus to see whether I'd passed muconium (the tarry black substance that seals the fetal rectum and then passes either after birth as the baby's first stool or in utero - usually if there is some sort of stress that reduces oxygen to the baby. If there was muconium found in the water, he'd order an induction - medical stimulation of labor and birth.

My mom was sent downstairs to x-ray where, after a bit of a wait, a technician photographed me at some (apparently small) risk to my own future fertility. After the pictures were developed, my mother, now waiting in a wheel chair, was brought back upstairs, x-rays in her lap, to the obstetrics and gynecology department where he used them as a guide while inserting a large syringe through my mother's abdominal wall and into her overstretched uterus. After extracting a bit of the precious fluid that held me, he determined that I had probably had some incident of recent hypoxia resulting in the passing of meconium and my mother was brought into labor and delivery where she was administered a pitocin drip.

This bit is a little vague to me. I believe my mother avoided pain medication and I was born around 5 o'clock. My mom doesn't recall much detail about the labor, but she remembers clearly after the birth seeing me: just under my eye, a puncture wound bled profusely and it's long tail, the scratch of the syringe, divided my left cheek in two.
posted by serazin at 12:12 AM on July 5, 2008 [1 favorite]


meconium's epic long tail? Did I get that right?
posted by mwhybark at 12:40 AM on July 5, 2008


So is this another shit metaphor?

These are endtimes for this thread. Soon Cory will rise and lift his hand over the dead links and all will be sorted to Heaven or Hell as Cory deemeth.
posted by CCBC at 1:06 AM on July 5, 2008


Does anyone have a cache or copy of the BB page with TNH's comments intact? That's one I'd like to have around for the memory hole files. Google's cache stops at comment #173, I imagine since they don't need to keep every 3Meg copy of a page.
posted by cavalier at 6:08 AM on July 5, 2008


Well, here's comment no. 581 from TNH. IMHO, if her posts pertain to the moderating of the thread, as this one does, it really ought to stay up (which is to say readable):

#581 posted by Teresa Nielsen Hayden / Moderator Author Profile Page, July 1, 2008 5:55 PM

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.

If you think any of this turns the Boingers into an evil corporate entity ... Lord almighty, I have no idea what to say. The notion is just too bizarre. It's easier to imagine they're shapeshifting aliens.

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 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. In the meantime, the comments kept coming in. That's how it happened. And by the way, there were never all that many of them.

So for that, you'll publicly defame Mark and Xeni and Cory and David? What a model of virtue you must be.

If you think what has happened is evidence of evil intent ... no. Just, no. I still have no idea what to say to an adult who comes to that conclusion. In the meantime, please don't write back to tell me all high-and-mightily that it's your moral judgement that what they did might conceivably possibly slippery-slopily lead to malfeasance, because if they erred, they did so out of kindness. Also because at the moment I'm having real difficulty believing in the depth and resilience of your own moral judgement. It'll pass, I'm sure. I'm just having trouble believing in it right now.

Sincerely,

Teresa Nielsen Hayden


Nice.
posted by stinkycheese at 8:06 AM on July 5, 2008


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.

Compelling. Yet she's still so stupid as to not being able to look through the trees and see the forest. I, for one, may not be a model of virtue, but I know a Pomeranian when I see one, and this one has papers.
posted by jsavimbi at 12:01 PM on July 5, 2008


i just talked with a friend of mine who actually knows VB and had a few interesting stories to tell (she was even able to fill in a few of the redacted names from the VW 'relationship map' for me...do not know them/ not repeating)...apparently, for a sex blogger, she has quite a bit less than the required level of discretion...apparently her loose tongue is what kicked all this off (but who knows/cares?...not really the issue) soooo....

*wraps torch with rags, waits for doctorow* (i'm guessing he's back monday)
posted by sexyrobot at 12:32 PM on July 5, 2008


also...interesting about the disenvoweling of TNH...i wonder who did that.
posted by sexyrobot at 12:34 PM on July 5, 2008


ah, so they're not robots or andoids at all, but shapeshifting aliens?
posted by UbuRoivas at 12:49 PM on July 5, 2008


apparently her loose tongue is what kicked all this off

heh.
posted by UbuRoivas at 12:50 PM on July 5, 2008


Not only did TNH disemvowel her own comments but also the quoted comments she was replying to. Selective disemvowelment is (was?) commonplace on BB, but TNH guts the words of others as well as her own. When I first read that some of her tirades were disemvoweled I thought that was healthy and a sign that TNH was returning to good humor, but after looking at them, I think she still doesn't get it.
posted by CCBC at 1:19 PM on July 5, 2008


apparently her loose tongue is what kicked all this off

inserts gratutious reference to the Long Tail
posted by lukemeister at 1:34 PM on July 5, 2008


Susannah Breslin publicly posted the loose-tongue theory about Violet Blue:

http://reversecowgirlblog.blogspot.com/2008/07/all-im-gonna-say.html

But if VB really did have such a loose tongue, in practice, wouldn't it be obvious what she scandalously revealed? There seems to be some sort of self-refuting paradox there (i.e. you can't be a secret blabbermouth).

It's difficult to figure out what's just people kicking someone who is down, and what might be the "strains of human evil" which cannot be spoken.
posted by Seth Finkelstein at 1:47 PM on July 5, 2008 [3 favorites]


apparently, for a sex blogger, she has quite a bit less than the required level of discretion

Yeah, that's a poorly kept secret. She's said herself she's wished she could post more about her many liaisons.

And I think that's part of why TNH was going so bonkers -- she wants blood, she wants massive retaliation for whatever VB did (and the laundry list is probably pretty long), and meanwhile the rest of the org is saying no, we're going to be above this.

TNH strikes me as someone who is a true loyalist and partisan. Her friends swear by her because she will defend them and support them. But, at the same time, that partisanship can go too far, and you get something like this.

So in a sense, Xeni thought she was doing the right thing -- delete the posts, don't mention it, move on. And it backfired. The rest of the group, for the most part, has held to that spirit of let's remain above it. And with VB, that's probably the right choice.

TNH has been off-message from the beginning, though, and I think her partisan streak is what ultimately undid her. She not only didn't understand the problem and the readership, she didn't understand the people she was moderating. I wouldn't retain her if I was BB. She's better off with her own sandbox than waving her sword like Peter at Gethsemane, tone deaf to the message.
posted by dw at 2:46 PM on July 5, 2008 [2 favorites]


Who are these people?
posted by ericb at 2:59 PM on July 5, 2008


Loose lips sink shipsters!
posted by ericb at 3:00 PM on July 5, 2008 [1 favorite]


I think TNH's problem is that on Making Light, the people that are there are fans of hers, so they're willing to put up with a lot more shit than the boing boing readers, who don't really know her from adam.
posted by empath at 3:06 PM on July 5, 2008


I got disemvowelled over there for suggesting they follow a mefi style moderating policy.
posted by jeblis at 3:10 PM on July 5, 2008


jeblis, that is funny, considering Xeni's earlier comment, although you might have invited disemvowelment depending on how you suggested it. Certainly my short experience attempting to post non-snark on BB suggests that TNH & Co. do not take criticism well.
posted by infinitewindow at 3:41 PM on July 5, 2008


jack_mo writes : I really can't see how anyone could read that thread and see 'dignity and sincerity' in Neilsen Hayden shrieking like a banshee

Metafilter might not be that boyzone-y, but that comment sure is. I don't agree with what she had to say either, but please keep the gendered insults to yourself. Remember? We're better than that.
posted by lunit at 6:17 PM on July 5, 2008


I say this completely seriously and without guile: lunit, you think of 'shrieking like a banshee' as a gendered insult? Maybe I played too much D&D and think more about a banshee as a mythical monster than in a m/f way.

I shall have to be careful about this simile if this is a common perception and I'm off the norm here.
posted by phearlez at 6:54 PM on July 5, 2008 [1 favorite]


phearlez: The mythical monsters were usually female, but the sex isn't set in stone.
posted by stinkycheese at 7:03 PM on July 5, 2008 [1 favorite]




In Irish myth a banshee was a female spirit who wailed if someone was going to die.

But how can you wail... if you have no vowels?
posted by spiderwire at 7:27 PM on July 5, 2008 [8 favorites]


I had no idea that banshees are meant to be exclusively female either, phearlez, but a quick Googling says they definitely are.

My apologies for giving a 'boyzone' impression lunit, but I honestly used the term to mean 'one who shouts madly', and would have said the same if the Boing Boing moderator in question were male. That said, I'm a teensy bit offended by the accusation, especially given the high-and-mighty tone - next time, do a quick scan of a user's comment history here before you allege misogyny, eh?
posted by jack_mo at 7:28 PM on July 5, 2008 [1 favorite]


Hey, sorry about the tone there. I was just surprised that no one had said anything yet, and still a little sensitive because people called Mefi a boyzone in part (presumably) for the collective treatment of TNH and Xeni.

Re: banshee and gender. Try googling banshee and Hillary Clinton. It's one of those words that isn't necessarily always gendered (like "shrill" or "cackle"), but which tends to have icky implications when used to describe a female. Especially a female in a position of relative power. Kindof like calling a black person "articulate."
posted by lunit at 7:58 PM on July 5, 2008 [2 favorites]


The Smartfilter Adult Baby theory: They're sick of being blocked, and were trying to silently cave; the "personal differences between Xeni and Violet" are a smokescreen.

This tinfoil is itchy.
posted by waraw at 8:10 PM on July 5, 2008 [1 favorite]


It's one of those words that isn't necessarily always gendered (like "shrill" or "cackle"), but which tends to have icky implications when used to describe a female.

I know exactly what you mean - 'banshee' just wasn't on my covert slur radar until just now.

people called Mefi a boyzone in part (presumably) for the collective treatment of TNH and Xeni.

You might want to read these (lengthy) MetaTalk discussions: 1, 2, 3.
posted by jack_mo at 8:26 PM on July 5, 2008


I think a comparison to a character as lame as Sean Cassidy is kind of a low blow in and of itself. You might as well call Cory "Aquaman" while you're at it.
posted by cortex at 9:07 PM on July 5, 2008 [2 favorites]


Um, if you think the boyzone misogynistic (which is what those of us can spell call it, boyzone is TigerBeatspeak - /snark but come ON people learn to use the damn dictionary.com, I know I have to but that doesn't mean I'm the only one capable, and my annoyance here is really at Valleyway, bah) call would only be for the word banshee - you've missed some more overt comments. Which were already called out as uncalled for so...yes, it's a lot to read...but skim up a bit more. Having trouble finding them? Yes, that's because there's NOT a vast amount of it. Personal slams to both TNH and Xeni? Yes indeed, but then, they didn't do much to douse those flames. Xeni has all but come out and said "I did this, it's all about me, and my blog, but I can do this and it's personal" - etc. etc. etc. TNH apparently tossed around some words that did everything to fire up the commenters instead of cooling things down. So it's not hugely surprising that people would make personal remarks. One has to be a bit more careful for calling sexism on all personal remarks. This is made doubly more difficult by the fact that Violet Blue was a sex blogger and that this whole blow up seems to center around the relationship she and Xeni had - so potential insult fodder gets ratched WAY THE HELL UP.
Considering what other MeFi threads have gone into? Here everyone seems to just be saying "what the hell" and passing the teapot and cake.

Judging all of MeFi by one thread? Also not a good thing.
What we're doing? We're not judging the BB folk by just what went down in just the Violet Blue Thing thread - we're looking at a pattern of 70 entries being erased and THEN how BB has chosen to explain what they were doing by deletiing them. And of course from there how badly they've been wording their comments.

Thought a summing up might be in order for those not wanting to skim up.
I already babbled back here why I think it matters in terms of internet journalism, so not going back to rehash that hooha.

Oh and if you're looking to find out what Violet Blue actually did to get Xeni up in a huff to delete everything? That's so personal it hasn't even been hinted out. Which is possibly why everyone is still following this. Which is why some of us are still "are the BBers all so clueless that they don't know that the internet loves to take a mystery and run with it?" So look for the meme fun to continue, perhaps only in a conspiracy theory/animated gifs type way.

You might as well call Cory "Aquaman" while you're at it.

Hey hey, don't be hating on the Aquaman now. He has long hair and a hook for a hand now and might possibly come get all....watery and inefectual on you!
posted by batgrlHG at 9:49 PM on July 5, 2008 [3 favorites]


WHY WHY WHY do I keep mistyping it Valleyway???? ValleyWAG, argh!
posted by batgrlHG at 9:50 PM on July 5, 2008


Dammit I meant to spellcheck ineffectual. I am for the lose tonight...
posted by batgrlHG at 9:54 PM on July 5, 2008


I totally agree with batgrlHG.
posted by taz at 12:29 AM on July 6, 2008


er, not about the "lose" part
posted by taz at 12:31 AM on July 6, 2008


I haven't read bOING bOING consistently for years—now I am reading it everyday!
posted by humannaire at 5:07 AM on July 6, 2008


We're going to go over 1,600, aren't we?
posted by languagehat at 8:19 AM on July 6, 2008


You bet your viking booties, man.
posted by cortex at 8:22 AM on July 6, 2008


We're going to go over 1,600, aren't we?

Signs point to yes.
posted by dersins at 8:33 AM on July 6, 2008


If we're ever going to make it to 1600 we're going to need plenty of supplies, good strong supply lines and maybe a flame out.
posted by drezdn at 8:34 AM on July 6, 2008


Susannah Breslin publicly posted the loose-tongue theory about Violet Blue

I'm not going to take a close personal friend of Xeni Jardin and rival sex columnist's words at face value on this.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 8:35 AM on July 6, 2008


I'm going to take 1914 as the over/under on the number of comments ... unless it turns out that redacted is Dick Cheney. Then the sky's the limit!
posted by lukemeister at 9:34 AM on July 6, 2008


1914? Really? With 3 full weeks to go before thread closure? I'm betting the over on that one.
posted by dersins at 10:16 AM on July 6, 2008


It's clear that the proper thing to do is stop at 1984 comments, but orchestrating that would probably prove to be as difficult as than that sisyphean cooter counter.
posted by team lowkey at 10:39 AM on July 6, 2008


than
posted by team lowkey at 10:40 AM on July 6, 2008


In any case, I'd like to congratulate the next commenter on a clean 1600.
posted by cortex at 11:01 AM on July 6, 2008


You like me, you really like me!
posted by popechunk at 11:07 AM on July 6, 2008 [1 favorite]


As long as it's not like that popechunk bast—OH HI.
posted by cortex at 11:09 AM on July 6, 2008 [4 favorites]


In 1602
Violet sailed the ocean blue
Now teh Interwebs R all askew...

I got nothin'
posted by lukemeister at 11:13 AM on July 6, 2008 [1 favorite]


1603
thus falls to me.
posted by stinkycheese at 1:19 PM on July 6, 2008 [1 favorite]


1604! What is it good for?
Absolutely nothin'.
posted by spiderwire at 1:29 PM on July 6, 2008 [1 favorite]


1605 is Alive!
I'm very sorry.
posted by wendell at 1:33 PM on July 6, 2008


Then the devil is 1606, then the devil is 1606, then the devil is 1606... the devil is 1606.
posted by infinitewindow at 1:48 PM on July 6, 2008


And God is 1607!
posted by Dumsnill at 1:52 PM on July 6, 2008


waraw's post contains some mighty interesting links. Seems that in 2006, when BB had a squabble with Smartfilter over being listed as a site with nudity, Xeni fought back by outing the head of Smartfilter as an Adult Baby (I'm certain there's a better term for this but I don't know it). Xeni's faithful ally, Robin to her Batman, was none other than Violet Blue, who claimed to provide expert opinion that Adult Babies were the kind of perv you don't want to have around children. Since Smartfilter was all about protecting children (according to its boss, the guy that was outed), well...

MeFi: covering all the bases from boyzone to babyzone
posted by CCBC at 1:55 PM on July 6, 2008 [3 favorites]


Year 1609 was a common year starting on Thursday of the Gregorian calendar.
posted by ericb at 2:30 PM on July 6, 2008


The tinfoil was making me see things.

VB had two posts on the OMGSECURECOMPUTINGRUNBYDIAPERFETISHIST matter (NSFW obvs). Wired did a roundup of the kerfluffle.

But you can still find anti-SmartFilter stuff in BB as recently as 2/08. If they were really trying to cave I think they'd've backed off of criticism. In other news, gosh it's so much cooler in here without that metal on my head.
posted by waraw at 3:28 PM on July 6, 2008 [1 favorite]


CCBC: That's, um, interesting in a pretty appalling fashion. Fabulous way of lowering my opinion of both parties.
posted by rodgerd at 4:54 PM on July 6, 2008


Mefi Babyzone is a must for the site, much like Yahoo!ligans.
posted by lukemeister at 5:26 PM on July 6, 2008


The New York Times weighs in today.
posted by zippy at 6:58 PM on July 6, 2008 [1 favorite]


The New York Times weighs in today.

What, nothing about how Mefi commenters are smarter and better-looking than BoingBoing commenters?
posted by lukemeister at 7:37 PM on July 6, 2008


Gah, the NYT piece suh-UCKS.

Was Boing Boing deceiving its loyal audience by silently deleting the material, even if no one noticed the absences until a year later? What does it even mean to deceive an audience when it comes to a catalog of one’s personal writings? And does popularity convey different responsibilities to the people who produce a Web site?

Lazily written and misses several points by a wide margin.
posted by waraw at 7:42 PM on July 6, 2008 [1 favorite]


The NYT might want to rethink their 'Poof! You're Unpublished' headline.
posted by lukemeister at 7:51 PM on July 6, 2008 [1 favorite]


What's wrong with "Poof! You're Unpublished."? It might not be a headline for the ages but it doesn't strike me as off-base for this story.
posted by Justinian at 8:50 PM on July 6, 2008


'Poof' has another meaning.
posted by lukemeister at 8:52 PM on July 6, 2008


Well, in one obnoxiously-literal reading, it's false by definition.

I thought the story was fine as such things go—light and brief and missing some of the interesting meat as you'd expect from such things, yes, but it didn't fuck up most of what it did talk about, which is refreshing for mainstream coverage of bloggery. I found myself bracing for boneheaded errors that, like magic, did not actually appear.

So, hey, go NYT. You didn't do terrible here, and that's like 90%.
posted by cortex at 8:55 PM on July 6, 2008


So, hey, go NYT. You didn't do terrible here, and that's like 90%.

If no one on the BB masthead is a trustafarian, that conflict of interest is lifted and the NYT can do a halfway decent job.
posted by maxwelton at 11:09 PM on July 6, 2008


So, hey, go NYT. You didn't do terrible here, and that's like 90%.

really? all they did was rehash a couple of lines from other places. this sounds like the journo made one or two phonecalls and hacked this piece out in under an hour. what self-respecting reporter lets a subject off with a simple "I don't want to talk about the reasons" and doesn't bother publishing? is this in the end a story about a scorned lover abusing her powers to get even?
posted by krautland at 3:04 AM on July 7, 2008 [1 favorite]


'Poof' has another meaning.

Get a life!
posted by caddis at 6:35 AM on July 7, 2008 [1 favorite]


really?

Really. Again, granted: it's short and lacks the detail and bite that would be satisfying to those of us who are down in the mud and interested in a real treatment of the details. But it also didn't badly bungle what details it did cover, and was at least a decent sketch of some of what was at the heart of the conflict.

Read it like you don't know anything about (a) the blogosphere or (b) some of the more complicated issues we've been chewing on the last week. That's who it's for. That's whose reading about "some web page called Boing Boing". In this case, that person may not be getting a very deep education, but at least they aren't being told things that qualify as boneheaded mischaracterization.

That's faint praise, I guess, but mainstream news coverage of net stuff remains a minefield and I take what I can get.
posted by cortex at 7:06 AM on July 7, 2008 [2 favorites]


... reading so many critical comments had led them to reassess the idea of unpublishing, which is explicitly stated as a right the site reserves for the content it publishes. [NYT]

Which was only made explicit on their Policies page in the past week, a good year after the posts were unpublished.
posted by yeti at 7:13 AM on July 7, 2008


mainstream news coverage of net stuff remains a minefield

Is that because print journalists simply cannot comprehend, or refuse to comprehend, a well-established, albeit competing medium? Or is it because they think that their readership are dime store morons who buy the paper because of its stellar fish-wrapping properties?

I find that excuse for shoddy journalism to be unacceptable. The NY Times, along with ever single major news outlet in the world has, and has had for some time, a major internet presence, complete with updated hourly content, interactive forums, live chat, audio and video, subscription services and single-user tailored content. If think for a second that I'm going to believe that the Times is clueless on all matters 'net, you're sadly mistaken.

And as far as Little Noam Cohen goes, he basically got up in front of Ms. Abramson's third grade class and gave himself a copy and paste book report on something he thought would be interesting for show and tell. Kept it short and sweet, with added salaciousness for pornographist in all of us. You'd think he could be arsed to write a piece on how once-edgy blogs have matured into money-making enterprises who need to police their image as not offend the perennially offended, you know who you are, middle America, and have decided that they only way to do so is to treat their readers like dolts. Just like newspapers and broadcast journalism have done. Cohen would've been better served had he just welcomed BB to the club.
posted by jsavimbi at 7:43 AM on July 7, 2008 [1 favorite]


Which was only made explicit on their Policies page in the past week, a good year after the posts were unpublished.

Yeah, that's one of the few things that did actively bother me in the piece. If you want to make the point that, stated or otherwise, BB has the right to remove their content, cool. But it sure wasn't explicit, and you get the feeling that was a point that Xeni wasn't going to go out of her way to make sure the NYT caught.

Is that because print journalists simply cannot comprehend, or refuse to comprehend, a well-established, albeit competing medium? Or is it because they think that their readership are dime store morons who buy the paper because of its stellar fish-wrapping properties?

Or it could be that print journalists aren't experts on every topic and don't always go Woodstein on every article, and so aim more for Good Enough than anything. Which on the one hand sounds a little sad—it's hardly upholding the image of journalist as tireless, uncompromising searcher for truth—but on the other hand is, y'know, realistic. This was a little story on a niche subject, by 95% of the population's account. Assigning resources accordingly makes pragmatic sense.

More and more, that's going to cease to be the case, and I hope that twenty years from now the NYT would be embarrassed to go so light on a net publishing-ethics story on account of it being more deeply relevant to the average joe's lifestyle. But that's not where we are right now, and to most people (you could paint them as morons, or you could paint them as just ordinary citizens—I'm not so misanthropic yet that I don't make a distinction there) this is an odd little foray into some online stuff with which they're unfamiliar.

I maintain my stance of merely "eh".

If think for a second that I'm going to believe that the Times is clueless on all matters 'net, you're sadly mistaken.

Hardly, true. However, that doesn't make them experts, or homogeneously so, on all matters 'net, and for as much as I like the effort they've been putting into making nytimes.com a good electronic face for the paper and their ongoing attempts to make blogging a part of what they do, I think they've still got a long way to go before I'm going to trust them to just seemingly know the internet the way they know e.g. politics.

I don't generally trust science reporting in the paper. Any paper, even the good ones. There's a tremendous amount of detail tied up in any given subdiscipline, and as much as I'd like to think a reporter will do two years of work to be fit to understand what's going on, that won't happen. They're going to approach it as best they can from a position of relative ignorance in a limited timeframe. And that's, well, a weakness of traditional reporting: a model that's generally focused on What Happened isn't well-suited to reporting on Why Things Work.

I'm more hopeful, in that sense, for the future of reporting on internet issues than I am for the future of science reporting, actually. The chances that a broad swatch of both reporters and readers will get it, twenty years from now, seem a lot better for something as ubiquitous and approachable as the internet than they do for scientific research (which has had decades already to not get mangled in reporting, and yet...)
posted by cortex at 8:10 AM on July 7, 2008 [2 favorites]


A broad swatch is a timepiece that is at least two inches in diameter.
posted by cortex at 8:14 AM on July 7, 2008 [2 favorites]


This was a little story on a niche subject, by 95% of the population's account...this is an odd little foray into some online stuff with which they're unfamiliar.

Think about that for a second. Do you mean to tell me that it was necessary for an influential publication to release a hearsay-based article on what boils down to lover's quarrel? Why would they do that?

There is nothing of value in the story itself, the characters or their motivation. Like the boingers, and yourself, the story rates a three of the "eh" scale. Yet the NYT went with it anyway, and for some unknown reason, not a single editor stopped for a second and inquired as to the true nature of the story. No conspiracy in that, just strange that someone with half a brain would not notice what happened, or really wouldn't want to know.

The story is about politics, which according to you is their forte. How Mr. Cohen missed that part and instead decided to insult me with his closed captioning report for the internet impaired is beyond me. If it's not news, don't print it. But if it is, get it right.

I can understand and sympathize with him if he was short one story and needed a quickie to start off his week, but a little hustle would've been appreciated.
posted by jsavimbi at 8:46 AM on July 7, 2008


The story is about politics

The story was published as the latest in what looks like an every-other-week Interesting Internet Stuff column called "Link by Link", in the Media & Advertising subsection of their Business section. I'm not going to say you shouldn't be annoyed that they didn't assign the story the resources you'd have liked to see it assigned—I think this stuff is fascinating, I probably agree with you on that—but by the same token someone could complain that Dave Barry didn't give sufficient care to the facts in his latest Mr. Language Person column.

Not every single thing that news organizations publish is going to be hard-hitting investigative journalism, and (again with the faint praise) puffier shit than this gets published every day.
posted by cortex at 9:02 AM on July 7, 2008 [1 favorite]


jsavimbi writes 'Is that because print journalists simply cannot comprehend, or refuse to comprehend, a well-established, albeit competing medium? Or is it because they think that their readership are dime store morons who buy the paper because of its stellar fish-wrapping properties?'

Or is it that they're faced with the challenging prospect of writing about stuff that a large proportion of their readers genuinely do not understand, even superficially? Admittedly I haven't written about web or technology stuff since the days when you had to carefully explain what a weblog is, but if you're writing for a mainstream publication about this stuff, it is a bloody minefield.

I'm with cortex on this - as a brief introduction to a web controversy, written for an audience that includes folk whose engagement with the medium doesn't go beyond buying books off Amazon, it's not terrible by any means. I'd've focussed more on the politics/hypocrisy angle myself, maybe, and spoken to a neutral expert as well as the principals, but I'm not seeing any reason for your rage.
posted by jack_mo at 9:16 AM on July 7, 2008 [2 favorites]


I agree with cortex as well. I've seen the Times fuck up a lot of stories, and by comparison this is well done. I too am at a loss for jsavimbi's taking it as a personal insult.
posted by languagehat at 10:32 AM on July 7, 2008


Dave Barry didn't give sufficient care to the facts in his latest Mr. Language Person column

If you're going to release nuggets like that out into the wild, please preface it with an alert. I'm shocked. Shocked.

Aside from discovering that I have a $400 phone bill, I'm not raging, but I think I've failed to get my point across that there is no reason why this should couched in the terms of a tech thingy that you, the reader, are simply not going to understand. It's patronizing, and to accept it is to extend it. Regardless of the medium, the story is one of people, not quantum physics, and if an established journalist at a respected publication can't grasp a simple concept like that, then it's my duty to point it out.

I'm not looking for a new gig, but I could've written a better piece during the rain delays yesterday, but part of me kinda thinks (conspiracy theory) that this little pearl landed unsolicited in Mr. Cohen's inbox, and someone needed some content for the ol' Link by Link section. I'll admit that I didn't do any research on context of the column, but I did read it in its entirety and assuming it was coming from the Times, I thought someone actually thought it out before publishing.

And that brings me to my next point: the Times' editorial staff needs their flowchart diagrams updated. If post-breakup passive aggressiveness passes as news, I'm going off the grid. Permanently.
posted by jsavimbi at 10:58 AM on July 7, 2008


Albatross
posted by sciurus at 11:33 AM on July 7, 2008


The specific problems I have with the NYT piece:
1. Ignores the days it took for BB to formulate any type of response at all.
2. Ignores TNH's moderation making the situation for BB significantly worse. While we're at it, ignores that they're calling VB a liar. Though they repeat VB's assertion that she was only recently made aware of the ThisPersonning, they do not bother to mention that TNH says this assertion is a lie.
3. Completely misses the point regarding why BB's readers would consider the ThisPersonning hypocritical.
4. Mentions Disemvowelling without mentioning the complete removal of many comments in the thread (and in other threads, apparently), which is a bigger deal.
5. "...its readers can appear particularly intense. Theirs is the intensity that comes from discovering that, indeed, there are other people who like to create detailed drawings on an Etch-a-Sketch or collect 100-year-old fantasies of what the future might look like or rage at the encroachment of technology companies and the government on personal privacy." This is not only demeaning, it misses the OBVIOUS point that BB's CREATORS are the ones who post the stuff in the first place...
6. Excessively softball questions show a distinct lack of care or understanding of why some people find this interesting. The inference is that we only find it interesting because we're rubbernecking geeks with an axe to grind who throw around "the H-word" too easily. It wouldn't have been THAT hard to write a piece that explains the fascination that I (and others still here) feel.
7. The whole asking-questions-with-no-answer bit that I quoted above just pisses me off.

So yeah. Shitty article.
posted by waraw at 12:16 PM on July 7, 2008 [1 favorite]


'Poof' has another meaning.
Get a life!

*gets a life, goes 'poof', leaves thread*
posted by lukemeister at 4:05 PM on July 7, 2008


On the NY Times article - I'm not sure they gave enough context for the reader who wouldn't have any idea of the site to make a true assessment of what's going on. I mean, to me if Boing Boing had continued to be just a goofy collection of links, this mess wouldn't make an impact - it was the addition of Doctorow's posts on media, censorship, etc. that made this a different issue entirely for me. Because it gave me the expectation that Boing Boing was setting itself up as more than just a goofy blog - it was also trying to provide a monitor of other media content, specifically watching for copyright/DRM/etc. issues. ...wait, is Doctorow even mentioned in the NY Times article? I don't think so - that's interesting in itself.

Many people want to play this as just a personal issue on "just another blog" - to me that's what Xeni is still doing. (I'm still waiting for Doctorow to say something. If he says nothing more when he's back from vacation, that's the other shoe dropping for me.) Until bloggers realize they need to have a bit of integrity - grow up, act like adults, realize that your reputation as a professional is part of your resume - then they really can't say much if mainstream media sees them as fluffy and peripheral. In a real business if two coworkers had an affair and it got the entire company into a PR mess that reflected on the company? A Big deal. How Xeni will fix things is still to be seen - she's certainly not doing a terribly good damage control job at present, but because we're hearing a lot from her it makes it seem as if BB is Xeni's blog, and she is editor. And it's ever more clear that there is no one editor over at BB, they are very much an "everyone does their own thing" place. Because no one's stepping up to say "look, this is not going well, let's get together to try and fix the matter. Let's have a plan this time."
Or maybe they have a plan and this is it.

Meanwhile the NY Times even writing about this? Shows that someone over there has some idea this this may be important, even if it's in a vague "only on the internets" type way. Or it was a slow news day and they wanted some of the Google hit love too.

waraw's #5 is particularly good - hey NY Times, not smart to be insulting those folk who may actually be interested readers of this kind of column. Unless that's a strategy for hit love as well - "hey Fred, I bet if I add this bit of snark we'll get lots of hits from people who have to blog and correct us!"
posted by batgrlHG at 5:00 PM on July 7, 2008 [1 favorite]


Note: am NOT a Doctorow fangrl. But I do think he had highlighted some important issues and news items. In the past.
Also cortex is on the money about science reporting. Always hard to find a trusted resource there.

posted by batgrlHG at 5:05 PM on July 7, 2008


FYI, a blog post of mine current has the #2 spot for a Google search for [violet blue boing boing]
(right below the Boing Boing item itself)

There hasn't been much traffic to the post today - 18 hits, 10 from Google searching today.
So the NYT is not generating tremendous interest in the topic.
posted by Seth Finkelstein at 5:31 PM on July 7, 2008


Mr. Doctorow has been posting on BB the past couple of days, with no mention of the recent ballyhoo. Big hat, no cattle. We'll just do the sensible thing and let this joke die off by itself.
posted by jsavimbi at 7:56 PM on July 7, 2008 [1 favorite]


"Big hat, no cattle."

Yeah I was hoping that something more would be posted today, but yes, his silence speaks volumes.
posted by batgrlHG at 8:28 PM on July 7, 2008


The trouble may have begun at the semi-controversial Survival Research Laboratories presentation at the end of the 5.07 Maker Faire where, if you read the comments below the pictures, Mark Pauline admits that one person got a small 2nd degree burn. Video of the event here. It seems VB was on the receiving end of a lot of flack on the private SRL email list, for she "flames out" at her detractors on her blog on 7.31.07. This is shortly after the last post on BB to mention VB, posted 7.27.07. Although later she will claim to still be a part of SRL, she posts in January that she has left/was expelled from the group for unknown reasons. I don't think it's too huge a leap to guess that these events are at the core of the ThisPersonning.
posted by waraw at 8:38 PM on July 7, 2008 [2 favorites]


But "Poof" is "Foop" spelled backwards.
posted by wendell at 9:02 PM on July 7, 2008


If boing.boing is a private website, what does it matter if they've removed someone's posts. They're entitled, whether we agree with it or not. I belong to a number of forums and many have some very strict posting guidelines, if I break any of those, I know that I'll be banned, that's a price I have to pay. It's someone else's website and they've set up a community based on their own values, if someone doesn't like it, then go start your own.
posted by Fizz at 9:14 PM on July 7, 2008


...swing and a miss.
posted by waraw at 9:23 PM on July 7, 2008


Looks (to me) like a personal spat between xeni and VB prompted xeni to do a rather spiteful delete and nobody else at BB knew anything about it until last week. Now they're trying to figure out how best to circle the wagons w/o throwing her under the bus. They did this with a rather weak "we support TNH completely statement" after she got a lot of flack about her post (and subsequent behavior) on BB's commenting policy. My guess is that the other BB editors wouldn't do this, but now there stuck in a hard spot of trying to defend the actions of a colleague.
posted by jeblis at 9:48 PM on July 7, 2008 [1 favorite]


wendell,

I looked up 'foop' in Urban Dictionary, and I really wish I hadn't.
posted by lukemeister at 10:19 PM on July 7, 2008


waraw writes '3. Completely misses the point regarding why BB's readers would consider the ThisPersonning hypocritical.'

Yeah, on re-reading, that is a major problem with the piece: first time around I read it with that stuff already in the back of my mind, but it absolutely does not make the hypocrisy clear. Especially in the light of your point 5. - as an irregular reader, the political stuff on Boing Boing far outweighs the 'Etch-a-sketch drawing of a steampunk dildo' side of things (even if Jardin herself isn't posting the political stuff, the bylines are barely visible, and it's clearly promoted as a group weblog).
posted by jack_mo at 1:34 AM on July 8, 2008


If boing.boing is a private website, what does it matter if they've removed someone's posts. They're entitled, whether we agree with it or not.

if it were a private website, it would only be about them. they report news from all over the world and, whether they (or you) realize it or not, they are a news site, and they have a responsibility not to attempt to distort the past. period.

on another topic, i wouldn't hold your breath for cory to 'weigh in'...i got pretty flamey on the BB over some issues pertaining to the at&t debacle and though i never got a response, the banner ads for at&t dried up over there immediately afterwards (as far as i've seen, anyway)...seems to me he'd probably handle this the same way...that is, quietly. we might not see the VB posts go back up, or even a return to a more rational policy page (and oh that NYT bit with the...GRRR arrrGGG!!! lies!! the idea of unpublishing, which is explicitly stated as a right the site reserves for the content it publishes. distortion of truth!!! arg! grrr! *blood boils*), but i doubt we'll see anything 'unpublished' anytime soon...or you won't anyway...i'm never going back there, fwiw.

oh, and as far as the whole 'boyzone' issue, yeah...i probably shouldn't have called TNH 'sweetie'...but, in my own defense, i'm gay and from the south...'sweetie' is just the word you use for anyone who's acting like a complete fucking asshole.

also, on a side note, i am truly shocked that the word 'propaganda' hasn't come up yet...shocked, i tell you....
posted by sexyrobot at 1:43 AM on July 8, 2008 [1 favorite]


The Toronto Globe & Mail covers the controversy. This has been up for a few days but no one mentioned it, so I have a duty. Folks can contrast and compare with the NYT (these rags being the same sort of thing, i.e., vehicles for their respective establishments).
posted by CCBC at 2:52 AM on July 8, 2008 [1 favorite]


The G&M article isn't as bad as the NYT but I did find this funny:

The act effectively "disappeared" her from their mutual history.... Another, called Domoni, called it the "death knell of boingboing," expressing further disgust with a refusal to capitalize the blog's name.

...on March 10, 2006, discussing the SmartFilter Adult Baby controversy I linked above. Oops!
posted by waraw at 3:39 AM on July 8, 2008


Fizz opined: If boing.boing is a private website, what does it matter if they've removed someone's posts. They're entitled, whether we agree with it or not.

See, that's exactly what's getting them into trouble: entitlement, or sense thereof.

BB is not a private website. It's a going business concern that relies on its users to click on links and generate ad revenue and goodwill, which in turn can be used to generate more ad revenue. Had they kept it a social blog for the editors concerned, nobody would've cared what was posted, deleted or unposted, as Walter would say. But they decided to enter into an implicit contract with the public by which they would provide a service by means of content, and the public would provide revenue by means of clicking on the links. And by doing so, they also implicitly agreed to conduct themselves in a manner deemed acceptable not only to the public but also acceptable to the very principles which they promote.

It may sound like a stretch, but it's how the internets work. Implicitly.

Xeni, in the midst of an unpalatable private situation, decided to exercise some bad judgment and breached the implicit contract that she had with the customers, changed the terms of service and when confronted with this, decided to engage in what can only be described as egregious behavior towards the very people who enable BB to exist.

Sure, it's all over and done now and VB has ten more readers and BB has lost a couple here and there, but what has suffered most is their reputation and thus their goodwill, especially in an opinionated community that they themselves helped foster. The only thing missing from this story is the holy trinity of American rebirth: humility, contrition and remorse. It's a simple formula that can be engaged in at any time during a crisis, and more often than not it'll either quiet the crazies or at the very least buy you some time of civilized discourse until you can implement a damage control plan to save your ass and get back to business.

Unfortunately for them, the boingers have yet refused to engage in that simple exercise. Quite possible because they still feel entitled.
posted by jsavimbi at 7:31 AM on July 8, 2008 [3 favorites]


expressing further disgust with a refusal to capitalize the blog's name.

That's excellent. I would also like to note that this very MeFi post expresses disgust by only having a single "boing" tag.
posted by languagehat at 7:35 AM on July 8, 2008


And it's uncapitalized!
posted by languagehat at 7:36 AM on July 8, 2008


well, their capital is falling.
posted by UbuRoivas at 7:43 AM on July 8, 2008 [1 favorite]


"... reading so many critical comments had led them to reassess the idea of unpublishing, which is explicitly stated as a right the site reserves for the content it publishes. [NYT]

Which was only made explicit on their Policies page in the past week, a good year after the posts were unpublished."
*

Welcome to the wikipedia age. Whoever edits history last wins!
posted by stagewhisper at 9:03 AM on July 8, 2008 [1 favorite]


Man, the ember's are still stoked here like in the BB thread. Unfortunately I don't think there's another denouement coming. Save for XJ flaming a troll in a BB thread yesterday by labeling the Violet Blue thread as created by "a bunch of drama queens having a fit about it a year later."
posted by cavalier at 9:11 AM on July 8, 2008


That’s real classy from someone who sabotaged their blog on the basis of a hissy fit.
posted by Artw at 9:15 AM on July 8, 2008


Ahem, and while I think it's a little disengeiuous to say that they're at the level of a major news media outlet and they need to keep journalistic integrity.. er... well.. crap, it's still really just a blog, isn't it? I mean, journalistic integrity, I dunno, I'd just hope for some form of "integrity". I don't want to re-hash my comments about it other than to continue the refrain that this is something "old media" did. Not something "new media" did. Still hoping for a statement, but resolved to just cast off BB as "old media" just pretending to be new. Trying not to make a "Wired:Tired" connection to this..
posted by cavalier at 9:15 AM on July 8, 2008


I was just going to post cavalier's link. I didn't think my respect (?) for Xeni could plummet any lower, but the sort of defensive crap she's pulling now (like joking about unpublishing) is way beyond gross.

I think she's just desperately hoping this will all blow over, and she can go back to the same-old same-old.

Meanwhile, is Cory never going to comment on the whole situation?
posted by stinkycheese at 9:38 AM on July 8, 2008


I think Cory's stuck. He didn't do it, but if he comments he either throws his colleague under the bus or ends up sounding hypocritical.
posted by jeblis at 10:21 AM on July 8, 2008 [1 favorite]


Ask not for whom the bOING bOINGs.
posted by ~ at 10:29 AM on July 8, 2008 [1 favorite]


I don't think it's in Cory's best interest to jump into the fray. There haven't been any winners so far, and were I in his shoes, I'd be loathe to be wearing a "me too" look on my face. Maybe it's time for him to figure out just how much his own brand is worth and take a risk on going it alone. Chances are he won't be taken seriously as long as he's associated with this nonsense, so silence is probably his best friend.
posted by jsavimbi at 10:39 AM on July 8, 2008


Of course, next time some other organization “Unpublishes” something embarising and he objects to it he’ll be sucked right in.
posted by Artw at 10:44 AM on July 8, 2008 [1 favorite]


There's a good chance that everyone in his inner circle has convinced him that it's "not a big deal."

Jsavimbi brings up a good point though, if he were to comment on the issue, it would be like throwing some lighter fluid on a fire that is already starting to die down.
posted by drezdn at 10:46 AM on July 8, 2008


Meanwhile, is Cory never going to comment on the whole situation?

He's looking like a big effing coward here.
posted by caddis at 10:52 AM on July 8, 2008 [1 favorite]


TBH It would be a major win for him if he could at least say “I can see why this looks bad”, which none of the others seem able to do.
posted by Artw at 10:59 AM on July 8, 2008


Chances are he won't be taken seriously as long as he's associated with this nonsense,

Or as long as he's not.
posted by dersins at 10:59 AM on July 8, 2008


I don't envy Cory's position. This was Xeni's unilateral decision a while ago and the recent policy/TOS changes happened while he was away. I don't know what sort of editorial control or supervision they give to TNH, but if it's anything like it is here, she's given fairly free reign and there's no official public disciplining and probably that's a decent policy.

I'm sure everyone has talked to everyone and I wouldn't be surprised if I "mistakes were made" post was somehow co-authored in the next week or so, but really what can Cory say? Side with someone? Refute the NYT article (which I agree was a little light but I liken it to the "omg there is an INTERNET virus" articles when what they really mean is that there's a new Microsoft exploit about)? Say "we've got procedures in place so that this doesn't happen again."? Say "we got caught doing the thing we rail against, gee everyone's human?"

My feeling is that he's smart enough and good enough with words to not make something like some of the hamfisted responses we've seen from BB over the past week. He seems, to me, to have a systems view of BB and doesn't seem to be guided by interpersonal pique; he has other enemies to slay. So, as much as I'd like him to come out against the doublespeak that is the whole idea of "unpublishing" -- yes I know how they explained it, no I do not think that's a really good way to present what happened to a mixed audience -- this is really a soft/vulnerable spot for him and if there's going to be a response, it's going to be measured and probably going to take a while. There's really no urgency here, it's really unlikely that anyone's going to get fired or otherwise publicly reprimanded. It's more likely that we'll see something like apology or explanation once that sort of thing can come out without it turning into a 1600 comment thread. Just my guess.
posted by jessamyn at 11:22 AM on July 8, 2008 [3 favorites]


(jessamyn said 'free reign' lol)

I disagree that there's low urgency -- vide the thousands of comments in various forae across the internets. Reputation damage sets like amber around the slow-moving, if only because one facet of the story is now "they pounce on other people's net.ethics problems, but distort and dawdle around their own," which Cory in particular probably knows he can't afford to have live out there as the guiding narrative.

Gosh, it's just like politics, isn't it?
posted by felix at 11:43 AM on July 8, 2008


He's looking like a big effing coward here.

Please tell me what he has to benefit from addressing it. As long as one member of the team is delusional enough to keep thinking that they're just four people working their art* on a blog for fun, I see no reason for him or anyone else to deviate from that notion.

All they have to do is bide their time, get their ducks in a row and make the aforementioned non-apology and announce that one or two of the team members have decided to spend more time with [insert favorite timegobbler here].

All that has to come with an ironclad non-compete/non-disclosure agreement, and as Jessamyn has kindly pointed out, there's no urgency on that. Much to our chagrin.
posted by jsavimbi at 11:47 AM on July 8, 2008


(felix said forae lol)
did I just fall for some kind of trap?
posted by grobstein at 11:58 AM on July 8, 2008


One thing I've noticed with similar incidents. (TNH commenting policy, fark redesign, fark trademark of nsfw, etc.) is that it helps a lot if you give the community a place to discuss with relaxed moderation (similar to metatalk) immediately even if your not ready to respond. Lacking a place to talk you get comments in other threads or other sites.

A little "we'll respond later, please keeps comments here" goes a long way to diffusing a backlash.

Also I think a website has to be willing to give an employee/mod a time-out if they step over a line. (I know they gave Jeff a time-out for his "you'll get over it" comment at Fark)
posted by jeblis at 12:02 PM on July 8, 2008


He's looking like a big effing coward here.
Please tell me what he has to benefit from addressing it.


Doing the courageous thing does not always result in some sort of benefit. Sometimes that's why it takes courage to do so.
posted by grouse at 12:07 PM on July 8, 2008 [4 favorites]


Is there anyone in Seattle who wants to stop by his reading tonight and ask him about it?
posted by Lazlo Hollyfeld at 12:39 PM on July 8, 2008 [1 favorite]


Doing the courageous thing does not always result in some sort of benefit. Sometimes that's why it takes courage to do so.

Courage doesn't pay the bills. Savvy does, and we're way past that point where some half-arsed apology is going to work wonders, especially when it's not just his name alone on the masthead. Sure, there's something about silence that makes me sick, but it's probably better for him in the long run not to make comment hastily because and say something he'll regret. Relationships don't last forever, so sooner or later, Xeni/TNH will be dots in the rear view mirror.

In regards to Fark, having been a TFer for a long time myself until I got bored with the hamhandedness, Drew Curtis had the ability to suffer scorn and ridicule from paying customers behind a firewall all the while fixing the problems on the public side without getting bashed too bad. Also, it's his site and he doesn't have to negotiate with anyone and firing Gogi or Jeff wasn't going to put him in some kind of bind.
posted by jsavimbi at 12:39 PM on July 8, 2008


It's all going to be ok. Because I read upthread that Netflix is having profiles again.
posted by waraw at 1:05 PM on July 8, 2008


Mod note: jessamyn said 'free reign' lol

If BB is anything like the RAINMAN PROOFREADER CENTRAL that MeFi is, my wish is that Cory can keep his mouth shut for as long as humanly possible.

Reputation damage sets like amber around the slow-moving

I wonder about that. I really feel that just like telcos not giving a shit whether you do or do not like their cell phone service, some web properties are big enough that they don't have to care as much about "reputation damage" Maybe I'm wrong here but just like mathowie has a life/world/reputation beyond MeFi (and so do I) so does Cory and maybe this is a case where BB is like "yeah some of you will walk and maybe that's okay with us." I have no idea, but I'm curious to see how it plays out.

no offense to felix particularly
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 1:08 PM on July 8, 2008 [6 favorites]


Metafilter: Rainman Proofreader Central
posted by Artw at 1:11 PM on July 8, 2008


Is there anyone in Seattle who wants to stop by his reading tonight and ask him about it?

Oy, ask him off to the side after the reading is over, I hope. If anybody came to one of my shows and needled me on a metafilter deletion between songs, I think I'd take exception.

Rainman

Trademarks are serious business. My lawyers will be contacting you. Definitely contacting you.
posted by cortex at 1:20 PM on July 8, 2008 [3 favorites]


I think free reign is quite appropriate to describe someone who is driving her fiat through a thread.
posted by found missing at 1:20 PM on July 8, 2008


Overheard at cortex show:

"FREEBIRRRRRD!!!"

"Why did you delete the techno-kitties post, you fascist!!!"

posted by found missing at 1:23 PM on July 8, 2008 [3 favorites]


Huh. "Free reign" has a lot more Google hits than "free rein". I guess no one gives a fuck about reins anymore. Screw you, reins!
posted by mr_roboto at 1:59 PM on July 8, 2008


Oy, ask him off to the side after the reading is over, I hope. If anybody came to one of my shows and needled me on a metafilter deletion between songs, I think I'd take exception.

I'd ask outside the Q&A. Unless it's Mathowie, and during the Q&A we just read him ask.metafilter questions.
posted by mrzarquon at 2:04 PM on July 8, 2008


I wonder about that. I really feel that just like telcos not giving a shit whether you do or do not like their cell phone service, some web properties are big enough that they don't have to care as much about "reputation damage"

Simile and metaphor are the last refuge of the elephant in the room, in my opinion.

As far as I can tell, and I'm relying pretty heavily on Occam's Razor here, Cory's entire life support system revolves around specifically net.fearless.freedom.fighter reputation. If it were just a major web stumble/fuckup as per the kottke micropatronage debacle, then eventually we'd all forget. But one thing the internet otaku battalion is good at is memorializing and detesting apparent outright hypocrisy. You can bet that every single time Cory tries a "my people, to the barricades, we must defend the internet" post again, there will be a small crowd of Anonymouses wearing Guy Fawkes masks and "CAN I HAS UNPUBLISHED LOL" t-shirts fighting for first post.

Cory and BB have a really easy way out here -- all they have to do is put the posts back, say "god, that was dumb. Here's a page full of helpful links to all of the posts ever mentioning Violet Blue. Sorry, Violet. Man, dumb dumb dumb. We're sorry. In fact, here's a website entirely dedicated to saving all the posts we've ever written involving Violet Blue in any way, or authored by Violet Blue. And we're contracting with Google to make sure that it stays up long after the last cockroach has nibbled the last irradiated shred of plant life under the dim glare of our dying sun. Because that is the way the internet should be -- permanent, ultrasurvivable, and the total memory store of all mankind for better or for worse, as we've said all along."

Bam, no more legs for any critics to stand on, and it fades into memory like the kottke incident because it's no longer about deceit and hypocrisy, it's about a squabble that got resolved "the right way" as far as anyone can tell.
posted by felix at 2:04 PM on July 8, 2008 [8 favorites]


I really feel that just like telcos not giving a shit whether you do or do not like their cell phone service, some web properties are big enough that they don't have to care as much about "reputation damage"...

Bedeviled by the Churn, Sprint Tries to Win Back Disgruntled Customers

Sprint, which identified customer service as its biggest problem, ran commercials asking customers to e-mail their complaints.

If Sprint isn't big enough not to care, I doubt that Boing Boing is.
posted by jamjam at 2:06 PM on July 8, 2008


Compared to Sprint, Boing Boing is feeding off of a vastly smaller user base and a vastly more informed and fickle one too I'd bet. You'll never lose *all* your customers/readers/whatevers to a bad reputation, but you can easily lose the smart ones leaving you with a race to the (rarely profitable) bottom. Just look at slashdot. It was on top of the world for a while there, but I haven't been there in months and I don't know anyone who has. Reddit is doing the same thing as we speak, seemingly in the last few months. If you can't keep a core group of people who provide interesting content (comments, links) interested you lose the draw that pulls the far greater masses of read-only users.
posted by Skorgu at 2:26 PM on July 8, 2008


Sorry, Violet. Man, dumb dumb dumb. We're sorry.

Agreed. And I think that's why people are waiting for Cory to come back, some people anyhow. Because Cory, as people imagine him, would never say something stupid like "unpublished" and then defend it. He wouldn't say that because the Internet Archive has a cache of something, that it's okay to remove it from your website. Cory would never say he wanted to take something off the BB website (I think? correct me if I'm wrong) because there was in some way a bandwidth issue with giving bandwidth to unpopular opinions.

All those statements are sort of ridiculous to people who have a deep tech understanding and a net.fearless.freedom.fighter perspective, internet otaku as you say. To me the elephant in the room is that this is the sort of thing that happens to a culture/lifestyle blog where there's personalities and infighting and she said/she said, not something that happens in the rarefied air of pure net.culture debate and us vs. them line drawing. When the vanguardists are revealed, as they so often are, to be mortal and capable of bad judgment, a few different things can happen and I don't think any of them have happened in this instance quite yet.
posted by jessamyn at 2:29 PM on July 8, 2008 [9 favorites]


If BB is anything like the RAINMAN PROOFREADER CENTRAL that MeFi is, my wish is that Cory can keep his mouth shut for as long as humanly possible.

Thus speaks the librarian who corrected an NPR interviewer on air for using "less" instead of "fewer"! (I believe it was NPR. It was certainly a radio interview).
posted by Justinian at 2:30 PM on July 8, 2008 [5 favorites]


If anybody came to one of my shows and needled me on a metafilter deletion between songs, I think I'd take exception.

Don't taze me, bro!
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 2:36 PM on July 8, 2008


One thing I've found surprising in this has been the fairly disinterested objectivity that the metafilter moderators have demonstrated. I keep expecting them to stick up for BB like Doctorow's author friends, because I assume that they all know each other and have solidarity. Instead they just kick back and comment as expert observers, which I appreciate, but it makes me wonder: is the web community really so big that the moderators here don't ever have beers or sit on panels with the principles at BB?
posted by anotherpanacea at 2:56 PM on July 8, 2008


Are you referring to the cabal, which, we are assured by its members, there is none?
posted by found missing at 2:59 PM on July 8, 2008


...the moderators here don't ever have beers or sit on panels with the principles at BB?

They don't. Because they have there own principals.' And RAINMAN PROOFREADERS aplenty behind them.
posted by ericb at 2:59 PM on July 8, 2008


When the vanguardists are revealed, as they so often are, to be mortal and capable of bad judgment, a few different things can happen and I don't think any of them have happened in this instance quite yet.

Indeed. I happen to be reading Oakley Hall's Warlock at the moment, which is specifically and exactly about this problem and how people work through the scenarios, while at the same time being a harrowing reimagining of the Gunfight at the OK Corral mythos. For those who have read this far, highly recommended.
posted by felix at 2:59 PM on July 8, 2008


* 'there own principals' *
posted by ericb at 3:00 PM on July 8, 2008


thanks for the clarification
posted by found missing at 3:02 PM on July 8, 2008


RAINMAN PROOFREADERS

FREE REIGNMAN
posted by anotherpanacea at 3:02 PM on July 8, 2008 [1 favorite]


is the web community really so big that the moderators here don't ever have beers or sit on panels with the principles at BB?

I can't speak for Matt or Jess (though it's rare a month goes by where I don't find out by chance that Matt knows, at least casually, yet another Major Technology/Internet/Media Person, so that's something), but I have all the networking sensibilities of a moss-covered rock. I mostly just have beers with other mefites and I've never even sat through let alone sat on a panel. So my position as detached observer is as more a matter of me being a no-name hermit than it is a reflection of the topography the social web or whatever.

That said, I don't know how much I'd want to react differently even if I was buddies with the BB folks—I can't say that I wouldn't react somewhat differently, but I wouldn't hope to let that color my judgement too much. Just as I see no reason to needlessly personally slag anyone involved here, I don't see that it'd have much value to reflexively personally defend them. Some shit went down here, it's a bit of a fascinating mess, and I'm more interested in the intra- and inter-community dynamic and what has and will yet happen than I am in shaming or hagiographying the folks at the center of it.
posted by cortex at 3:13 PM on July 8, 2008


I keep expecting them to stick up for BB like Doctorow's author friends

And a lot of good it did those guys. I'd find it a little difficult to defend someone's stupidity while at the same time they keep making matters worse and proving you a sucker.
posted by jsavimbi at 3:18 PM on July 8, 2008


a matter of me being a no-name hermit

You may be a hermit, but you've got one of the great names of all time.
posted by anotherpanacea at 3:35 PM on July 8, 2008


Wow, 1700. How far, O Lord?
posted by languagehat at 3:37 PM on July 8, 2008


I would totally buy one of these shirts.
posted by stagewhisper at 3:47 PM on July 8, 2008


If I flag languagehat's comment as offensive, would one of you excellent mods delete it and grant me the privilege of round-numbered-commenter? (No offense, lh, but the internet is serious business.)
posted by anotherpanacea at 3:48 PM on July 8, 2008




Hmmm. What could I expect Doctorow to say at this point? (Oddly I still call him by his last name, because I don't know the guy - while at this point I now seem to call Xeni by her first name, which makes no sense at all.) I think that we've heard so much from and about Xeni - and from the links just shared she's still bouncing about in the comments, making unhelpful "it's all really a joke now, isn't it?" asides - that Doctorow can now just bow out and pretend not to have any responsibility. But actually there is plenty he could still say - if said well - and he is an author, after all. Say = write of course. I'm not going to get all PR and compose it for him, but he could still post something at this point and if done in a manner/tone completely different than the previous post? Could definitely change the mood. Might not win back anyone, so in the end possibly not worth it.

I don't think that their big Violet Blue Thing post has salvaged their reputation - but then, they apparently think it's going to be saved by just pretending all of this never happened - alternate plan, "it's not a big deal, forget it." But true, there's really nothing in it for Doctorow to post if he doesn't want to admit things didn't go well (and stick up for his co-bloggers, loyalty could work well here too), or admit that he has considered Boing Boing as more than just a personal blog - and in fact seen Boing Boing as a way to inform readers about certain causes - causes he considers more important than kitten videos. Since he was gone when it went down and now that he's back and is silent - well, I read that as meaning that he's ok with everything that happened, and that he'd not change any of it. At a later date he can always say that he was just thinking of the group by being silent. But also by not saying something it's almost pushing Xeni even more to the front - making her more the voice of the site and him uncharacteristically quiet. Or perhaps I was wrong in ever thinking that he was more in charge there than the other bloggers - that may have been how he was presented by other media sources, and not accurate in the first place.

Again, to the "they're just another blog" folks (because it's been covered before, way way up there) - no, they didn't want to be just a place to share pudding recipes and the like. That would equate them with any livejournal. Again, the Boing Boingers have been teachers, they've been on NPR, they've been presented as knowing their field. And they want to sway readers to follow their causes, and to believe in the information they post. Look at all of their past content, especially Doctorow's - there is a case there that they wanted to be taken seriously as a resource. Strangely they don't seem to understand that their actions online will have an effect on how seriously people will take them in offline.
posted by batgrlHG at 3:56 PM on July 8, 2008 [1 favorite]


is the web community really so big that the moderators here don't ever have beers or sit on panels with the principles at BB?

I met Cory for the first time on June 29th, just a few weeks ago. He was speaking at a library conference. I do know a lot of internet people but a lot of that is just because I've been doing things on the internet for over a decade. I live in a town of 2000 people, I have beers with exactly no one, most of the time. Being a site admin type seems to me to be a type of job that's really really different depending on the site. I know that the YouTube moderators (yes they exist) do totally different sorts of things than cortex or I do, similarly the Digg folks' jobs bear almost no resemblance to what we do here. Same with Dogster. Same with Fark.

One of the things that was interesting about TNH going to BB is that she went from moderating threads on her own popular site that has a semblance of a community to moderating a site that she wasn't really a central figure in, and that didn't have much community cohesiveness, to my mind. This was because she'd shown herself to be good at moderating, being reasonable, etc. This whole situation has shown, I think, where her stress points lie; things that didn't show up so much when she was doing her thing at Making Light. May or may not matter, but it's definitely thrown into stark relief. So, I'm sympathetic to what is going on at BB because it sucks to be under the big old microscope for something a whole lot of people seem to think was a big screw up/mistake, for Xeni and Teresa as well as Cory and Violet and the other involved moderators. I think a lot of people can sympathize with that whether they've been on this side of the admin panel or not.
posted by jessamyn at 3:57 PM on July 8, 2008 [1 favorite]


'Public' online spaces don't carry speech, rights

Sorry, I swear I will shut up after this, but my sister sent me that same article and said that the headline changed on it while she was reading it.

Original headline was "Rights like free speech don't always extend online".
posted by jessamyn at 4:01 PM on July 8, 2008 [1 favorite]


while at this point I now seem to call Xeni by her first name, which makes no sense at all

Is that sort-of more okay for people with made-up names?
posted by Artw at 4:04 PM on July 8, 2008


Is that sort-of more okay for people with made-up names?

Oh, didn't you know? She likes to imply that she didn't make it up. See the typically (for wikipedia) laughable talk pages (1, 2, 3 )for her wiki entry for some background.
posted by dersins at 4:42 PM on July 8, 2008


Well that's me unpersoned.
posted by Artw at 5:04 PM on July 8, 2008


It's pretty obvious that "Xeni Jardin" is a riff on her original name. I don't have a problem with that. "Stage names" are no big deal. Violet Blue wasn't born with that name either. Why keep the name your parents gave you if you like another name better?
posted by Seth Finkelstein at 5:09 PM on July 8, 2008


Well, if my parents named me James Guckert, and I were in the propaganda business, I'd certainly change it to Jeff Gannon.

I'm sure the whole name thing would bother someone if they actually thought she was anything other than a tag-along hipster who'll probably need to shake her past after the current gig is up. Have we breached minute fourteen yet?
posted by jsavimbi at 5:18 PM on July 8, 2008


If I flag languagehat's comment as offensive, would one of you excellent mods delete it

I think you mean unpublish it.

And I'd totally create a massive internet stink about it, so don't even think about it.
posted by languagehat at 5:23 PM on July 8, 2008


If I didn't want to spare him the embarrassment, I could tell you things about languagehat that would make it clear just how justified I'd be to have told you about those things, but I won't.
posted by cortex at 5:29 PM on July 8, 2008


You see? You see the viciousness, how it starts? I'm staying above it all and letting these people dig their own graves, and I have no idea what it's all about, but I'm available for interviews.
posted by languagehat at 5:32 PM on July 8, 2008


I've just found out from that Wiki nonsense that apparently I've been mentally pronouncing Xeni Jardin totally wrong... good.
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 5:33 PM on July 8, 2008


I might add that I have pictures of cortex with a doughnut. A large doughnut.
posted by languagehat at 5:33 PM on July 8, 2008


I think Xeni Jardin's posts have been the best thing on BoingBoing in recent years.
posted by lukemeister at 5:37 PM on July 8, 2008 [1 favorite]


I think Xeni Jardin's posts have been the best thing on BoingBoing in recent years.


Now that, ladies and gentlemen (and cortex) is how you damn something with faint praise. Well done, lukemeister.
posted by dersins at 5:54 PM on July 8, 2008


Damn you all for making me look, but just recently she’s been posting youtube videos of kittens. Now, if theres ione thing I know it’s YouTube cat videos, and the stuff she’s posting is from the first few videos you get if you search for “kitten”, which is just weak.
posted by Artw at 6:02 PM on July 8, 2008 [2 favorites]


Now, if theres ione thing I know it’s YouTube cat videos, and the stuff she’s posting is from the first few videos you get if you search for “kitten”, which is just weak.

That's... a courageous admission.

I think I can hear the awkward silence over the Internet.
posted by spiderwire at 6:43 PM on July 8, 2008


Perils of having a small child.
posted by Artw at 6:46 PM on July 8, 2008


Ooh, nice save!
posted by spiderwire at 6:51 PM on July 8, 2008 [2 favorites]


I dance dance dance and I dance dance damn you Artw.
posted by Skorgu at 7:06 PM on July 8, 2008


Horrible, isn't it? She loves that one.
posted by Artw at 7:10 PM on July 8, 2008


Metafilter: the awkward silence over the Internet.
posted by ShawnStruck at 7:34 PM on July 8, 2008 [1 favorite]


1726
posted by lukemeister at 7:57 PM on July 8, 2008


1726

Stuffed...dead...rabbits into...her...counter-resetter?
posted by maxwelton at 8:57 PM on July 8, 2008 [1 favorite]


It does seem like an extreme way to get attention.
posted by lukemeister at 9:01 PM on July 8, 2008


how strange the whim came upon her
posted by cortex at 9:14 PM on July 8, 2008 [1 favorite]


Every July, the thoughts of Mefites turn to ... never mind.
posted by lukemeister at 9:18 PM on July 8, 2008


dersins: "Oh, didn't you know? She likes to imply that she didn't make it up. See the typically (for wikipedia) laughable talk pages (1, 2, 3 )for her wiki entry for some background."

Ok, it's probably very nerdcore of me, but I do love a wikipedia talk page if there's snark involved. Those links were much fun.

jessamyn: "Sorry, I swear I will shut up after this, but my sister sent me that same article and said that the headline changed on it while she was reading it. Original headline was "Rights like free speech don't always extend online"."

Damn, that's the AP! Is everything up for edits-while-we-watch now? Am I going to have to start screenshotting everything I link to in the future? Argh!
Seriously, I've only caught news sources doing this a handful of times. I know it's similar to putting out different editions of the same newspaper when edits are required, news breaking, etc. - but changes like that always make me wonder if the editor for that shift was asleep or something.

And randomly - has anyone noticed that kittens keep worming their way into the subject matter here every so often? I sense a conspiracy. Also Artw is evil with those links. Ack.
posted by batgrlHG at 1:20 AM on July 9, 2008


cortex = no-name hermit
We love you, bro! Signed, Isolated Crank.

jessamyn: Being a site admin type seems to me to be a type of job that's really really different depending on the site. I know that the YouTube moderators (yes they exist) do totally different sorts of things than cortex or I do, similarly the Digg folks' jobs bear almost no resemblance to what we do here. Same with Dogster. Same with Fark.
Now that is valuable info! In the same para you say that all mods are not alike (which implies a whole bunch of things about the nature of blogs -- "they're not all alike? OMG!") and, at the same time, indicate that you know about all these mod-type people. So, you mods are all unique, but you socialize, you know all about one another. Hmm... cabal? ...maybe...

and, i got to say, kittens are SO cute! lol! xeni has been asking posters to send links to kitten kuteness (or puppies if you're that way inclined -- no discrimination here) to the bb thread on this matter. that is, the vb thread, not the kittens thread (nor puppies thread). attempt to derail before mod blows again? we'll see...
posted by CCBC at 2:27 AM on July 9, 2008


There is no cabal.
posted by the Cabal at 2:40 AM on July 9, 2008


Thr s cbl! Rmmbr Pphnty! Dn't b slncd!
posted by grouse at 3:31 AM on July 9, 2008 [3 favorites]


skorgu: Compared to Sprint, Boing Boing is feeding off of a vastly smaller user base and a vastly more informed and fickle one too I'd bet. You'll never lose *all* your customers/readers/whatevers to a bad reputation, but you can easily lose the smart ones leaving you with a race to the (rarely profitable) bottom. Just look at slashdot. It was on top of the world for a while there, but I haven't been there in months and I don't know anyone who has. Reddit is doing the same thing as we speak, seemingly in the last few months. If you can't keep a core group of people who provide interesting content (comments, links) interested you lose the draw that pulls the far greater masses of read-only users.

I always had the vague idea that boingboing, slashdot and reddit existed in a different realm from MetaFilter when it comes to popularity, but evidently not.
posted by Kattullus at 4:59 AM on July 9, 2008 [1 favorite]


That's all fine and dandy, but we really know what people are really interested in.
posted by jsavimbi at 5:36 AM on July 9, 2008


In 1737 many important historical events happened, laying the groundwork for the huge events to come in the second half of the century. In North America, the colonists were slowly fermenting resentment of the British, while also trying to convince them to get the French out of their backyard. Several important things were invented, some of which are still in use today!
posted by drezdn at 6:28 AM on July 9, 2008




Albatross!
posted by sciurus at 7:27 AM on July 9, 2008


Well, Cory is happily posting the same old stuff with not even a hint of commentary on the VB situation. Very disappointing but not surprising.

It's easy to be a hardliner on issues when they only apply to other people.
posted by Justinian at 8:05 AM on July 9, 2008 [3 favorites]


That's all fine and dandy, but we really know what people are really interested in.

Kitties!
posted by Artw at 8:27 AM on July 9, 2008 [1 favorite]


No, *you* suck.
posted by Jofus at 8:41 AM on July 9, 2008


I prefer baby-bat-in-bra posts (from BoingBoing, naturally).
posted by lukemeister at 9:13 AM on July 9, 2008


The Big Boinger is referenced:

http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/07/boing_boing_fen.html

"Update 2 am EDT Wednesday: Cory Doctorow notes that the posts were about Violet Blue, but they were not her posts (which is what I said in a couple of places here). Also, I initially said MetaFilter was comparing Boing Boing to Trotsky -- he corrected me to point out that Boing Boing was compared with Stalin, and Violet Blue is Trotsky. Either way, it's a strained metaphor."
posted by Seth Finkelstein at 9:54 AM on July 9, 2008


So he’s big on the old syntactic dingle-dangle as well.

Also – WTF? Do these people really not know their Trotsky from their Stalin? I guess we should be lucky they didn’t throw in a random Lenin.
posted by Artw at 10:00 AM on July 9, 2008


Disclaimer: Teresa and her husband Patrick Nielsen Hayden are my friends, and Boing Boing co-author Cory Doctorow is also a friend, as well as a contributor to InformationWeek. I have enormous respect for them.

"And boy can you ever tell. Could I be any more dismissive? Here, let me go cherry-pick something unflattering, and oversell the "Trotsky" comparison on mefi—where it showed up only in the post title text—while ignoring the gigantic pile of such references in the thread on BoingBoing itself. Heck, I think maybe I'll just avoid discussing the BB thread altogether, except insofar as I offer sympathetic characterizations of the least unflattering stuff the principals said."

Blech.
posted by cortex at 10:05 AM on July 9, 2008 [4 favorites]


Disclaimer: Teresa and her husband Patrick Nielsen Hayden are my friends, and Boing Boing co-author Cory Doctorow is also a friend, as well as a contributor to InformationWeek. I have enormous respect for them.

This coming from a guy that said I post pissy comments on Internet discussion boards. Maybe if we graphed the relationships between internet personalities, journos and outlets, we might be able to fill a single piece of paper. How cozy.
posted by jsavimbi at 10:13 AM on July 9, 2008


Is there anyone in Seattle who wants to stop by his reading tonight and ask him about it?

Late follow-up on that, there's a comment from yesterday afternoon over in the BoingBoing thread, from a Johne Cook:

#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.


Whether that's the reading in question or not, I don't know, and it's not exactly a detailed answer, but it sounds like someone asked him in some capacity.
posted by cortex at 10:50 AM on July 9, 2008


And now TNH is back on the warpath, making snotty comments she'd no doubt disemvowel were they to come from anyone else. And she has just banned people from discussing moderation outside of the moderation thread.

What a massive control freak. I am loving the fact this is one comment she can't touch.

/hammer time
posted by stinkycheese at 11:12 AM on July 9, 2008


Wow, PNH really doesn't go for all that nuanced, assuming the best, balanced interpretation stuff when it's someone he doesn't like, does he?
posted by Artw at 11:34 AM on July 9, 2008


That BB thread opens but won't scroll because it is so monstrous on the machine I'm on. This thread, however, works just fine.
posted by sciurus at 11:39 AM on July 9, 2008


Thanks for that, stinkycheese. As a public service, just in case anything should... happen to that comment, I'll post it here:
Will @1647:

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?

To quote Jim Macdonald, never ask a question unless you're sure you want to hear the answer.

@1648:

Since the boingers are considering changes in policy, I have a serious one now: Drop all politics from the site.

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?

Then, if a post disappears, no one will wonder if it was removed for matters of principle,

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?

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? 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.

Politics are messy.


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.

Perhaps Boingboing should stick to things that make people go boingboing.

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.
I particularly like the bit about the "really beautiful long paragraph I just deleted, on the grounds that its tone was inappropriate." Hahahaha!
posted by languagehat at 11:41 AM on July 9, 2008 [1 favorite]


Ah, I knew Clarion was right about now (given the whole Laptop Theft issue) and I knew Cory was an instructor at Clarion this year, but my idiot brain refused to put those two facts together.

If Doctorow is teaching at Clarion West this year (and it appears he is), that in my mind absolutely excuses him from commenting on this issue in any way, shape, or form until Clarion is over. If anyone doesn't know, Clarion (and Clarion West) is like boot camp for very promising writers. It's intense, non-stop workshopping for weeks.

I wouldn't expect Doctorow to give serious thought to the boing boing explosion until Clarion is over. In fact, I'd say he was doing a major disservice to his students if he were to do so. These people usually quit their jobs to be able to attend, so he should be 100% focused on giving them the best advice and instruction he can offer.

I dunno if I criticized Doctorow for not commenting yet. I don't think so, but I may have. If so I retract it.
posted by Justinian at 11:42 AM on July 9, 2008 [3 favorites]


By the way, where's the moderation guidelines comment thread?
posted by languagehat at 11:43 AM on July 9, 2008


I beleive she means the monster thread that won't load and is actually about Violet Blue. Beware of the leopard.
posted by Artw at 11:45 AM on July 9, 2008


That BB thread opens but won't scroll because it is so monstrous on the machine I'm on. This thread, however, works just fine.

Bad scaling of javascript, I suppose? I've found the BB loadable on all my machines, but it is awfully chunky—making a text selection is a click and drag and wait kind of ordeal, and scrolling can be a bit spotty too.

Live Preview over here makes typing up a comment in this thread feel slightly chunky as well at times, so I wouldn't be surprised if they have a couple thing running over there that they just never tested at a scale of ~1600 comments.
posted by cortex at 11:47 AM on July 9, 2008




By the way, where's the moderation guidelines comment thread?

It is here; I think it was linked once or twice in the big BB thread, but I found it again yesterday as linked from the (now famously liquid) policies page, linked in the second para of the initial Copyright clause page, when I was trying to figure out who to bug about a BB account-management question.
posted by cortex at 11:51 AM on July 9, 2008


I know I said that I wouldn't read BB anymore. But I like BB. For all the steampunk-projectplugging-latetothememe-coolerthanyou stuff, I still like them. So I went to the moderation thread and after creating an account posted the following:

Dear BoingBoing,

I can understand the desire to stick by your moderator, Teresa Nielsen Hayden. It's also plain that she feels the desire to stick by you as well in this time of trouble. However, her actions of late are exacerbating rather than moderating.

Comments such as "Maybe that's why she did it: she was tired of waiting to see whether anyone else would notice", "Dramatize yourself on your own time", "Kiss your ass goodbye", as well as the several comments by her which have been disemvoweled (by who, I wonder), have served to make a tense situation worse. And now, rather than "we're listening," discussion of her moderation has been declared off-topic in any thread but this one.

As a long-time reader of BB (which, since I never got involved in commenting here before, I can't prove) I would rather not be called a "drama queen" for wondering why the site I enjoy and respect for its ideals would seemingly betray those ideals, or wonder why the poisonous atmosphere created by Teresa Nielsen Hayden continues to be endorsed by you. Cognitive dissonance makes my brain ache the way piracetam never did. My brain wants me to give BB up but my heart wants to stay.

Your pal,

waraw
posted by waraw at 11:52 AM on July 9, 2008


languagehat writes 'As a public service, just in case anything should... happen to that comment, I'll post it here'

I'm really surprised that some enterprising reader hasn't set up a 'PermaBoing' site as a result of all this - a site that scrapes Boing Boing at frequent intervals, and republishes the content with wiki-style diffs (using something like this) where necessary.

Their Creative Commons license allows this for posts, and this line from their ever-shifting Policies page suggests it'd be okay for comments as well: 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.. I'm not a copyright wonk, but the 'distribute it' in there seems to imply 'distribute it according to our CC license'?

In the past, someone at Boing Boing would've linked to such a site with good humour, nowadays it'd doubtless just result in another invisible policy change...
posted by jack_mo at 12:31 PM on July 9, 2008


Does she actually realize that on top of 'unpublishing' bandying terms like 'bad faith' around make them sound like some sort of draconian cult?
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 12:32 PM on July 9, 2008


It's probably one of those things that's going to depend a lot on the context and the reader, but I don't see "good faith" and "bad faith" used in this sort of discussion as being particularly weird or having anything to do with cultishiness. I use those phrases myself a fair bit.
posted by cortex at 12:41 PM on July 9, 2008


Oh man. From a user's response to waraw in the moderation thread:
Also, "drama queen" has to be pretty low on the inflammation scale. Can anyone seriously be upset at being called that?
I think this person needs an old-fashioned blazecock pileon.
posted by team lowkey at 1:25 PM on July 9, 2008 [1 favorite]


We haven't had a good Drama Queen explosion in years!
posted by Justinian at 1:45 PM on July 9, 2008


TNH replied. I just... don't know what to say to that. And I have zero interest in getting into an argument with her over there. Shit, I wasn't even talking to her.
posted by waraw at 2:30 PM on July 9, 2008


And it's such a delightfully content-free reply, to boot:
have you noticed that the things you're saying about me are arguably more inflammatory than any of the things you quote me as saying?
"Arguably more inflammatory." Give me a break. Anything is fucking arguable. Dogshit is "arguably" more delicious than cherry pie, but that doesn't make it actually more delicious. I used to have a fairly high opinion of her ability to moderate on-line discussions, but it has become increasingly clear that she is not cut out for it, at least on this scale.
posted by dersins at 2:43 PM on July 9, 2008


Call her a drama queen.
posted by Artw at 2:43 PM on July 9, 2008


My appreciation for our own mods here is going thru the roof, if you know what I mean. And I'm sure you do.
posted by konolia at 2:46 PM on July 9, 2008 [4 favorites]


I don't hink this one has been linked yet,
Blog hits nerve in excising some old posts

"When she deleted the items about Blue a year ago, she said, she did it without consulting her co-editors, just as they all usually publish their blog posts without talking to one another first."
posted by Tenuki at 3:04 PM on July 9, 2008


About that article (Boing Boing Fends Off Censorship Charges, Information Week, Posted by Mitch Wagner, Jul 9, 2008 01:18 AM) Seth Finkelstein commented on - to be fair Wagner gets what happened:

"... Bloggers look to their blogs as personal playgrounds where they can do whatever they want. But they also want to be taken seriously as influential voices on the national scene. And it's tough to reconcile those two principles. When you have only a few readers, you can do whatever you want, but when you have a lot of readers, you're no longer responsible only to yourself. You have a responsibility to the readers too, and if you don't hold up your responsibility, you'll lose those readers.

Boing Boing quite simply screwed up by deleting all of the posts about Violet Blue without an explanation. If there was nothing wrong with the posts, they should have been left in place, even if the Boing Boing creators wished to sever their association with Violet Blue going forward. On the other hand, if Boing Boing believed the posts should not have been published in the first place, then they should have explained what they were doing when removing the posts.

...Because of the issues Boing Boing is identified with, the blog needs to be above reproach, avoiding even the appearance of improper behavior..."


And then he goes on to give examples - he's spot on with all of that. First writer in a major pub that I've seen to get this.

This is the quote mentioned above that is annoying:

"The MetaFilter post compared the incident to the purge of Trotsky, because removing a few posts from a blog is quite similar to founding an empire responsible for the genocide of millions of people."

So yes, yet another person going to make a sweeping comment about the thread without bothering to skim to the end. I think it's clear that we've not been comparing this to genocide. Topics we've covered, not in order of appearance:

1) WTF/would not have expected the BB folk to do something like this
2) Anyone know what VB did?/Xeni, what's up with her?
3) BB - personal blog or blog with a cause?
4) What does this mean for blogging/media/etc.
5) BB and PR - how does a business react to this situation?
6) boyzone misogyny in MetaFilter, where is it and is this thread full of it?
7) Where's Doctorow in all this?
8) Random comments when we assumed story was dying out/kitten references
9) (for whatever I may have missed, fill in blank)

Genocide? Not in there. Unless I've really missed something. But I give Wagner a pass for the good summing up. This is a massively long thing to read all of. (RSS feed ftw!)

Justinian: "If Doctorow is teaching at Clarion West this year (and it appears he is), that in my mind absolutely excuses him from commenting on this issue in any way, shape, or form until Clarion is over. If anyone doesn't know, Clarion (and Clarion West) is like boot camp for very promising writers. It's intense, non-stop workshopping for weeks."

Well...as someone who's been an instructor in college, slogged through grad school, and taken a production workshop that often had us working some 12 hr days (regular classes plus workshop plus filming to finish by deadline) - there are ways to make time for things that are important. (Actually I think almost everyone who's made it through some part of grad school has some kind of "I did long hours and survived" story.) Not to mention he seems to have time now to post on BB. But future gigs/researchers/interviewers will google him - so it should be something he should consider as important. Of course, most of the critiques are on blogs - and also his name hasn't been prominent in this. There are plenty of places that will just look at his publications and for the rest will shrug and ignore it because they'll buy the "it's just a blog." But if it was me? I'd give a damn about my reputation and any written record about me. The teaching gig will be over - the reputation issue could stick around. I'd want to be the one to author my response - not let others make assumptions.

It's definitely good interview fodder for someone writing about Doctorow in the future, and I'm betting we'll see it turn up again.
posted by batgrlHG at 3:07 PM on July 9, 2008 [1 favorite]


"The MetaFilter post compared the incident to the purge of Trotsky, because removing a few posts from a blog is quite similar to founding an empire responsible for the genocide of millions of people."

Oh, for fucks sake, he’s one of those “OMG YOU MENTIONED COMMUNISM WITHOUT MENTIONING ALL THE TERRIBLE GENOCIDES WHY DON’T YOU SAY STALIN WAS AS BAD AS HITLER?” twats isn’t he? That shit is annoying and stupid in every context.
posted by Artw at 3:21 PM on July 9, 2008


Oops I said twat. That was a natural usuage and not me trying to get a rise out of people, honest.
posted by Artw at 3:24 PM on July 9, 2008


1773.
posted by puddleglum at 3:51 PM on July 9, 2008


They did WHAT to tea????!!!
posted by Artw at 4:19 PM on July 9, 2008


They put it in the water. What else are you supposed to do?
posted by dersins at 4:21 PM on July 9, 2008


Too bad we didn't hit this comment number on Friday.
posted by dersins at 4:22 PM on July 9, 2008 [1 favorite]


They put it in the water. What else are you supposed to do?

It wasn’t boiling!!!! There was way too much!!!!

It had fucking SALT in it!!!!!
posted by Artw at 4:29 PM on July 9, 2008


(well, I guess at least I now know why American tea tastes like pish)
posted by Artw at 4:30 PM on July 9, 2008 [1 favorite]


My appreciation for our own mods here is going thru the roof, if you know what I mean. And I'm sure you do.

I'm in agreement with that, but I also think it's kind of weird. A lot of the same people must frequent and comment on both sites yet there doesn't seem to be a widespread problem over here. Could be the moderators' style perhaps, but I'm just guessing.

You also have to discount that boink is more of playground of beautiful minds*, so the cult of personality, and the good and bad that comes with it, is going to be more prevalent there than at MeFi, where community involvement is deeply rooted.
posted by jsavimbi at 4:37 PM on July 9, 2008


Well...as someone who's been an instructor in college, slogged through grad school, and taken a production workshop that often had us working some 12 hr days (regular classes plus workshop plus filming to finish by deadline)

There's a reason I compared it to boot camp rather than college. My understanding is that we're not talking about 12 hour days at Clarion, we're talking about 18+ hour days.
posted by Justinian at 4:45 PM on July 9, 2008 [1 favorite]


Shit, dersins, that one was soo mine. I've been angling for this opportunity for three years. I hope you're happy.

Also: HAI GUYZ I MISS ANYTIN
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 4:47 PM on July 9, 2008


Although if someone has actual experience with Clarion I'd be happy to hear I'm wrong.

...

if we put each sentence in consecutive posts we might break the record!
posted by Justinian at 4:47 PM on July 9, 2008


How the heck do you catch up after a epic thread hiatus? I've been too busy to read the thread the past few hours, and a zillion comment have passed me by. What's the best way to filter the Epic? What'd I miss?
posted by anotherpanacea at 4:55 PM on July 9, 2008


TNH: Zosima's been given the same terms of probation as another commenter we had a while back, who posted endlessly about gun control but completely ignored other conversations: when the number of comments you've posted on other topics equals the number you've posted so far about the Chinese in Tibet, you'll be allowed to go back to talking about your favorite subject.

Uhm, that is FUCKED.
posted by waraw at 5:01 PM on July 9, 2008




Dude, gnfti, you gots to lay off the Domino's. That shit'll kill you stone dead.
posted by dersins at 5:18 PM on July 9, 2008


Let me try to sum up:

VB's stuff is all gone from BB! Why do I care about this again? Hey, this is a little weird. Hmm, no mention of this on BB. Hey, BB is deleting any comments referencing VB. VB says she has no clue. I know the boingers and they are great people. So what? You're a poopyhead. NO YOU'RE A POOPYHEAD. Hey, I was a jerk. Hey, so was I. Hugs. Whoa, BB posted a response but it doesn't say much. It's personal. Maybe it's the trademark VB uses now. BB are hypocrites. Maybe it's a lover's spat. This is a long thread. Valleywag sure is trashy. Whoa, the moderator over there is calling VB a liar. Hey, they're STILL changing stuff and not being forthright about changing! Whoa, XJ said SHIT and then edited it! Hey, they only just changed their unpublish policy! BB is more than just a blog now. Hi Joel. Why don't they get that unpublish is the wrong word to use? Well, it's sort of accurate but still. Gosh the moderator over there is Really Bad at it. Me and my friends aren't gonna read BB anymore. Hey, people are reading us. BB should come clean and here's how. I love you guys. I'm a moderator and this is getting me all moist. Misogyny bad, grr! Boy this thread is long. It's their blog and they can do as they please. Maybe it's fallout from SRL drama. The major media is covering this and they sure do suck at it. This is a long thread. Kittens, wtf. Ooh, Sidhedevil's back! This is a long thread. More major media coverage and it sucks a little less. Cory's still silent. This is a really long thread. Hey, what happened?
posted by waraw at 5:20 PM on July 9, 2008 [10 favorites]


Now I know why Xeni is so high on herself and doesn't have to answer to the little people. There is nothing that I'd rather see less of.

anotherpanacea, just read my posts. Everything else is vague, ill-informed conjecture.
posted by jsavimbi at 5:23 PM on July 9, 2008


If Playboy weren't stuck in the 60s. they'd be looking for the hottest LOLcats on the web.
posted by lukemeister at 6:11 PM on July 9, 2008


http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/webscout/2008/07/one-more-though.html

"Growing into an established media source would seem to come with its own set of grown-up responsibilities. "
posted by Seth Finkelstein at 6:46 PM on July 9, 2008


If Playboy weren't stuck in the 60s. they'd be looking for the hottest LOLcats on the web.

I can haz purple-headed womb ferret?
posted by UbuRoivas at 6:50 PM on July 9, 2008


Well...as someone who's been an instructor in college, slogged through grad school, and taken a production workshop that often had us working some 12 hr days (regular classes plus workshop plus filming to finish by deadline) - there are ways to make time for things that are important.

The friends I've known who've been through Clarion West effectively vanish from the Earth during the workshop. They house the participants in dorms. They're not shut off from the Internet or the outside world, but they really don't even speak to their families much. And the facilitators for the week are on-site the whole time.

It's not like working 12 hour days. It's more like going to a summer camp for sci-fi writers.
posted by dw at 7:14 PM on July 9, 2008 [1 favorite]


media alert update, nyt btw fwiw tia kthx bye
posted by mwhybark at 9:20 PM on July 9, 2008


Scroll up a couple days, mwhybark.
posted by cortex at 9:25 PM on July 9, 2008


OH, days old, never mind
posted by mwhybark at 9:31 PM on July 9, 2008


gawd! is the LAtimes totally incapable of checking a fact? why do they insist on publishing articles based on the input of ONE source....anyway my comment on that last article: (can't even see comments on their site, just the comment box...have they taken a tip from TNH and gone her one better, setting up a chute from the comment box to the round file?) anyways:

The long-standing rule, said Battelle, was that the site's bloggers "can post anything they want, about anything they want, whenever they want without asking permission, and if they want to change those posts or take them down, they can do that too."

except, of course, that it ISN'T a 'long-standing' rule...Xeni Jardin CHANGED their policy page to read that AFTER this thing blew up in her face. That's why people are freaking out. BoingBoing has since completely devolved into a Stalin-era pit of 'unpublishings', 'disenvowelings', comment deletions, and moderator-hurled insults. BB has turned, in the space of just over a week, in the hands of Xeni Jardin and Teresa Neilsen Hayden, from one of few remaining voices of reason into simply 'the least ethical blog on the internet'.
posted by sexyrobot at 10:06 PM on July 9, 2008


Nothing's changed, has it? I mean, we had this tremendous coming together against a common enemy, we felt like a watershed moment, and now what? More like a Watergate moment. Lots of finger pointing, but at the end of the day, no one goes to club Fed.

Same old, same old. Everything's like it was, DRM kittens and brass iPhones. Except we now can't link to BB without a security detail locking down our ISP (and see how long they want you as a customer after a couple of those!), or mention XJ on a blog without Mark or Cory going through our email while we're asked hard questions. I mean, we're worse off than we were before!

The 'net panicked and what seemed like good "terms of use" turns out to be a license to run roughshod over us, special moderation queues and offshore servers means you're gone, not even a "this account is disabled" note, nothing, nada. May as well be dead. Hell, it's worse than being dead, at least dead gets you a dot.

Lessons? Keep your head low, dude. Don't mention vowels. Everyone over there is good at their job, we just can't know everything that goes on, for our own good. Remember that to grow good corn in that cornfield you need lots of fertilizer, the kind with built-in bone meal.

Hey, man, I've got to be going, my pass has almost expired. Fuck if I even saw that cable, man, but I realize I need to be "supervised," it's for my own good. Later.
posted by maxwelton at 10:17 PM on July 9, 2008 [5 favorites]


In 1798, Napoleon invaded Egypt, and in the US the Alien and Sedition Acts made it unlawful to mmmpph mpgph mmphmm.
posted by mwhybark at 10:45 PM on July 9, 2008


I'm gonna party like it's 1799.
posted by wendell at 12:05 AM on July 10, 2008


On behalf of MeFites everywhere, I claim comment number 1800 for all humanity, that we may journey together to bold new horizons in a spirit of peace and unity.

You asshats.
posted by flashboy at 1:46 AM on July 10, 2008


My new band name is Drama Queen Explosion
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 3:07 AM on July 10, 2008


"There's a reason I compared it to boot camp rather than college. My understanding is that we're not talking about 12 hour days at Clarion, we're talking about 18+ hour days."

But the point here is - yes, Doctorow's busy - but he still has time to post on Boing Boing.
I'm pretty sure Doctorow could set aside time in his schedule to compose a heartfelt paragraph. That's all it'd take. He's teaching the class, not taking it, right? That means he can set aside time more easily than his students can. And I've looked over what he's been posting on Boing Boing in the past few days - to me it looks like he's able to make the time should he really feel the matter was important.

Dammit, I keep trying to say something more about the workshop I was in but even though I keep trying to reword this it comes off sounding like "oh yeah well we walked to school in the snow, uphill, barefoot!" which is honestly not what I'm going for. I'm really just trying to be conversational, honest. But this workshop - ugh. Let's just say that we had many 18 hr days of shooting video in there as well, although not three weeks back to back of them, as we had other classes to work on. And I had it very very easy - friends of mine were not only doing that workshop and classes, but also another job, and childcare to manage. Meanwhile our team only had two meltdowns, one injury, and one unnecessary nude scene (as part of the scripted drama). We all lost weight, had little sleep, slept in our cars when it was too much trouble to go home, and became very crazed by the end of it all. Actually if we'd done this today? We'd have just turned the cameras on ourselves and shot it as a reality show. Would have been much easier, and a hellova lot more interesting than our finished product. I REALLY wish I had saved some of the scripts pitched by the students, because no one believes me when I tell them about the content - sounds too over the top to be real. Let's just say that students really should be warned that some kinds of autobiographical information will make their fellow students uncomfortable - and presenting it as fiction usually won't fool anyone. ...Anyway, around all that back story I was just trying to say "yes, I get it, I understand being in a really crazy intense demanding class."
posted by batgrlHG at 3:46 AM on July 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


I think with Clairon, vast amounts of the instructors time is taken up with reading stuff submitted

That said if my major mouthpiece hit it's biggest PR cock-up in history I'd have taken some time out (though as many have said, perhaps deliberate silence was his response)
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 5:00 AM on July 10, 2008


Well he has time to read and correct articles written by his friends about the situation. Maybe he's waiting for all the editors to get together and have a meeting but for the moment it just seems that with his silence he condones everything that happened.
posted by Tenuki at 7:22 AM on July 10, 2008


1805: Battle of Trafalgar. 38 years later, London pigeons are overjoyed.
posted by lukemeister at 8:08 AM on July 10, 2008


1806: On 5 June, Louis Bonaparte is appointed as king of Holland by his brother emperor Napoleon.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 8:17 AM on July 10, 2008


1807: Beethoven's 4th Symphony premieres. Generally considered to be on of his lesser symphonies, its lasting effect on history isn't felt until a stunning reinterpretation is premiered 185 years later.

Mock Trial with J. Reinhold!

It ain't easy bein' white...

posted by SpiffyRob at 9:07 AM on July 10, 2008


Man, check this shit
posted by Artw at 9:55 AM on July 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


SINGULARITY!
posted by Artw at 9:56 AM on July 10, 2008


Wow I'm still amazed at how they delete any comment that is negative towards anything they do. (even unrelated to VB)


As for Cory being too busy


Unfortunately there is a lot of pent up frustration at the moderation policy/VB thing. There's just a negative vibe hanging over BB now and comments like this are just spending any PR karma they have left.
posted by jeblis at 10:29 AM on July 10, 2008


As for Cory being too busy

Well, that just confirms what we've thought all along. What a shite way to go out.
posted by jsavimbi at 11:47 AM on July 10, 2008


1812 was a good period of time to make overtures about.
posted by drezdn at 11:51 AM on July 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


I'm such a cheater.
posted by dersins at 12:50 PM on July 10, 2008




1829 - 1813 = Sweet Sixteen! Set up your brackets!
posted by mwhybark at 12:52 PM on July 10, 2008


whoops, load time fuckery there, so sorry. late is my theme in this thread. 1814.
posted by mwhybark at 12:59 PM on July 10, 2008


And again, for anyone still wondering why we bother to take these folks seriously - because they still want to make semi serious critiques against other media:

Iran: You Suck At Photoshop. July 10, 2008 10:29 AM

"Or perhaps the headline of this post should read, "American media: you suck at fact-checking."

Iran's state-run media agency has been accused before of having digitally manipulated images released to foreign media. This week, as word spread of purported missile tests in Iran, the validity of an image of four missiles shooting into the sky turned out to be photoshopped -- but not before a bunch of big news organizations printed it as legit."


Post's author? Xeni Jardin.

Honestly I'd have thought they'd have wanted to wait a bit before tossing stones at old media, even if she's just repeating what the NYTimes blog already posted.
posted by batgrlHG at 1:01 PM on July 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


oh for god's sake. 1816, not 1814. And now 1817. This post brought to you by the number twelve.
posted by mwhybark at 1:02 PM on July 10, 2008


argh! 1819 and I resign the field!
posted by mwhybark at 1:06 PM on July 10, 2008


Well, after we get to 1829 there'll still be the 2682 comment MetaTalk thread to beat.
posted by Kattullus at 1:09 PM on July 10, 2008


"Or perhaps the headline of this post should read, "American media: you suck at fact-checking."

Well they can always unpublish once they settle on the correct facts.
posted by Tenuki at 1:10 PM on July 10, 2008


So, yeah, uh, I guess there's a hole opening up in the interweb now for a new four or five party group "blog" that reports submitted links, allows for a modest -ahem- comment system, and generally post thought provoking or otherwise "old system" damning links while at the same time providing cute or innocent link breaks. Just now with less hypocrisy and bad attitude.

Uh.. so we need a domain name, and uh, four or five volunteers, and, uhmn.. something like X amount of unique visitors before we can reap rich Federated Media type network banner contracts.

So yeah uh... anyone? Bueller?
posted by cavalier at 1:56 PM on July 10, 2008


there'll still be the 2682 comment MetaTalk thread to beat.

Why would anyone be interested in being second best? Aim high-- 3647 comments high!
posted by dersins at 2:22 PM on July 10, 2008


NARRATIVE

OF THE

SHIPWRECK OF THE BRIG BETSEY,

OF WISCASSET, (MAINE,)

AND

MURDER OF FIVE OF HER CREW,

BY PIRATES,

ON THE COAST OF CUBA, DEC. 1824.

"Our Captain and crew were around the long-boat endeavoring to cut the leashings and right her, while I secured a compass, an axe, a bucket and several oars."

couldn't resist. Shipwrecks! Pirates! Longboats!
posted by mwhybark at 3:02 PM on July 10, 2008


The sansgras thread raises an interesting question, how many MeTa threads have last comments by languagehat? He seems to have a lot of them. I wonder if it's just confirmation bias on my part because I noticed him doing this a while ago, but I see it all the time. I suppose that it shouldn't be surprising given that he's made more comments in the gray than 3 of the 5 mods.
posted by Kattullus at 3:06 PM on July 10, 2008


Confirmation bias. And to prove it, I'm not going to leave the last comment in this thread.
posted by languagehat at 3:18 PM on July 10, 2008


Ah, but this is a MeFi thread, not a MeTa thread. Proves nothing, proves nothing...
posted by Kattullus at 3:25 PM on July 10, 2008


Well, this thread is basically done. I propose no one comment after me so that we don't break the old blue record.
posted by Justinian at 4:05 PM on July 10, 2008


Yeah, we wouldn't want to do that.
posted by dersins at 4:09 PM on July 10, 2008


Or would we?
posted by dersins at 4:09 PM on July 10, 2008


see what i did there?
posted by dersins at 4:10 PM on July 10, 2008


Ted Haggard just called. He said he's "blown away" (literally) that this thread surpassed the one about him.

Although, he's kinda' pissed.

But, that's okay, since he's recently gotten into 'water sports.'
posted by ericb at 4:14 PM on July 10, 2008


At 1832 stories, this thread is a latter day tower of blab-ble.
posted by bunnytricks at 4:33 PM on July 10, 2008


I'm getting haggard just reading all these comments.
posted by lukemeister at 4:41 PM on July 10, 2008 [2 favorites]


Gotta say, I have pretty good "unpublish-dar"--I've sat right here with BB on my monitor, and I didn't even get a ping.
posted by maxwelton at 5:19 PM on July 10, 2008


Alright, people, we're adrift in the bit bucket with little hope of rescue, and as far as I can tell, we have a compass, an axe, another (recursive? self-referencing?) bucket, and some oars.

It's my understanding that L-hat and dersins have survived this crossing in the past, and I would suggest we look to them for leadership and, dare I say it, moderation.

Although there's no evidence for it, I have heard that those in similar circumstances have found other members of the surviving party... disappearing... without a trace! Everyone buddy up, keep a hand on your buddy at ALL TIMES, and under NO CIRCUMSTANCES call out "shark" unless circumstances absolutely require it. Got it?

OK, let's float!
posted by mwhybark at 5:53 PM on July 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


I'm not afraid. Just disheartened. Never did I snark at you, Cory. But you let us down.

.
posted by waraw at 5:55 PM on July 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


mwhybark,

We must not let our crossing become this.
posted by lukemeister at 6:10 PM on July 10, 2008


Uh.. so we need a domain name, ...

BonkBonk?
BunkBunk!

um? BlingBling?

ThudThud?
posted by sexyrobot at 12:43 AM on July 11, 2008


I mean, gosh, there's a backlash? You mean, random sourpusses on the Internet have decided that something I like isn't good?

Oh, just get over yourself, pal
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 2:07 AM on July 11, 2008


1841? Wow.
posted by ersatz at 4:43 AM on July 11, 2008


You think 1841's impressive? Wait until you see 1842.
posted by cillit bang at 6:35 AM on July 11, 2008


so...close...to...1984...
posted by lunit at 9:46 AM on July 11, 2008 [1 favorite]


Oh wow, we've got to do that.
posted by Artw at 9:49 AM on July 11, 2008


Albatross.
posted by sciurus at 9:59 AM on July 11, 2008


Whatever you do, don't shoot it. We could be stuck out here for years.
posted by mwhybark at 10:13 AM on July 11, 2008


1847 was a time of great anticipation for the events to come.
posted by drezdn at 10:23 AM on July 11, 2008


In 1848, the greatest and most humble state entered the union.

Also, there were various revolutions that had no lasting impact aside from providing a backdrop for a good Flashman story.
posted by drezdn at 10:25 AM on July 11, 2008


Well, the 1848 French revolution also provided the backdrop for a much more famous story. Also, the only musical I've ever cried during (admittedly, I was 7 at the time, but still... it has a place in my heart).
posted by Kattullus at 10:29 AM on July 11, 2008


All my 1849 research wasted! Wait, I have a solution!

1850: People reflect on the one year anniversary of the May Uprising, and mail letters using the new French stamp.
posted by drezdn at 10:37 AM on July 11, 2008


I was really proud of myself for making and canning my own blackberry jam last week, but now its staining my teeth purplish black. My question is, should I blame the blackberries or the cast iron pan?

apparently, in 1851 Royal Navy warships attacked Lagos island
posted by serazin at 11:07 AM on July 11, 2008


It was a little before daybreak on the 17th of February, 1852, that we saw through our window a beacon light resting on the apex of Mauna Loa. At first we supposed it to be a planet just setting. In a few minutes we were undeceived by the increasing brilliancy of the light, and by a grand outburst of a fiery column which shot high into the air, sending down a wonderful sheen of light, which illuminated our fields and flashed through our windows. Immediately a burning river came rushing down the side of the mountain at the apparent rate of fifteen to twenty miles an hour. This summit eruption was vivid and vigorous for forty hours, and I was preparing to visit the scene, when all at once the valves closed, and all signs of the eruption disappeared; accordingly I ceased my preparations to ascend the mountain.

I propose we attempt to steer for the smoke column.

Also, blackberries.

MMM, cast iron pan + blackberries + pancakes!
posted by mwhybark at 1:06 PM on July 11, 2008


1853: Vincent Van Gogh, Cecil Rhodes, and John McCain are born.
posted by drezdn at 1:38 PM on July 11, 2008 [1 favorite]


The Wikipedia entry has added a few more sentences to its Violet Blue section.
And the talk sections's gotten a bit longer. And VB's boyfriend has added a comment in there.

Nothing terribly interesting really, but felt I should pop back and do my part to help you brave souls still toiling away at the end of this thread.
posted by batgrlHG at 3:31 PM on July 11, 2008


This is the middle of the thread, batgrlHG!

Next time, bring sammiches and maybe a pizza? And, like, some Dots or Gummi Bears?
posted by mwhybark at 5:03 PM on July 11, 2008 [2 favorites]


This is the middle of the thread, batgrlHG!

That's right - we have only just begun to snark!
- An American in mental recession
posted by lukemeister at 5:08 PM on July 11, 2008


Less than 150 comments until we reach the 21st century.




Will we find Trotsky there?
posted by languagehat at 5:27 PM on July 11, 2008


Who?
posted by drezdn at 6:19 PM on July 11, 2008 [2 favorites]


And one of the Boingers edited the BoingBoing's wikipedia page. Isn't that the equiv. of self linking on Mefi?
posted by drezdn at 6:20 PM on July 11, 2008


It's generally considered a bit of a no no, though theres more latitude in WP:BLP issues and, er, anything else they might get sued over. Pure factual corrections and removing things are always going to be less contentious than, say, adding lots of links to yourself.
posted by Artw at 6:38 PM on July 11, 2008


The Late Unpleasantness begins.
posted by lukemeister at 6:57 PM on July 11, 2008


Ok, I enjoy a good diversion as any of y'all, and the comment = year thing was cute at first, but are we really just going to continue inflating this thread with... well, non hot blog on blog drama action stuff?
posted by cavalier at 8:03 PM on July 11, 2008


Well, over in the BoingBoing thread I, uh, stormed in and, like, totally made some constructive suggestions all up in their faces, and...hell, I dunno.
posted by cortex at 8:09 PM on July 11, 2008


Also, there's a little sidebar discussion on BB moderation over at Will Shetterly's blog.
posted by cortex at 8:11 PM on July 11, 2008


But other than that, Mrs. Lincoln...
posted by cortex at 8:12 PM on July 11, 2008 [1 favorite]


Atlantic Cable!
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 8:29 PM on July 11, 2008 [1 favorite]


Maybe call the small-group blog TrotTrot.
posted by wendell at 8:40 PM on July 11, 2008


If we're counting the comments in this thread as years, that means it was initiated by the death of Christ, right?

And that makes BoingBoing basically like Pontius Pilate, huh?
posted by spiderwire at 8:40 PM on July 11, 2008 [1 favorite]


Be careful with your historical references for the next 50 comments or so... they might be istaken for... gasp... Steampunk!
posted by wendell at 8:41 PM on July 11, 2008 [2 favorites]


Set in the 1870s...
posted by wendell at 8:46 PM on July 11, 2008 [1 favorite]


I was googling around for a good idea when and how to directly reference Trotsky in this historical thread when I saw the following sentence in his Wikipedia page:

Trotsky's great-granddaughter, Nora Volkow (daughter of Esteban Volkov), is currently head of the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Does that boggle your mind as much as it does mine? Or am I just way too easily boggled?
posted by wendell at 8:53 PM on July 11, 2008


they might be istaken for

Is this seat taken?
posted by ericb at 8:54 PM on July 11, 2008


Hey, I was totally off the internet for 30 hours... I'm still a little rusty. Typos happen.

In the Comic Book Characters thread I typed "ARE WHERE'S SCROOGE McDUCK?" instead of "AND WHERE'S SCROOGE McDUCK". Shameful.
posted by wendell at 8:58 PM on July 11, 2008


And for the record, I is taken noplace.
posted by wendell at 8:59 PM on July 11, 2008


Hey, did someone post a link to the Reemvoweler yet?
posted by Kattullus at 9:07 PM on July 11, 2008


Yeah, upthread a ways. I'm quietly working on my own experiment there, but it's extremely rudimentary so far:

orig: Why are you awake, mrz? The real question is why am I awake? It's WAY too early for me to be up. Social activity went okay, then led to sleeping activity, which then led to waking EARLY EARLY.

dis: why r y wk, mrz? th rl qstn s why m wk? t's wy t rly fr m t b p. scl ctvty wnt ky, thn ld t slpng ctvty, whch thn ld t wkng rly rly.

re: why ore ay [wk,] [mrz?] thou rouleau questionee sue whyo omao [wk?] [t's] wy at relay fora mo utu boa [p.] social activity owenite [ky,] thine lede iota sleeping [ctvty,] which ethane oiled tiao waking relay [rly.]


It's just picking random candidates for each reemvoweling, without any attention paid to the likelihood of one candidate over another. My goal is to first incorporate frequency information (pretty easy, and what, I'm guessing, that existing reemver does), and to second incorporate bigram collocation information to improve matching via a touch of context where possible.
posted by cortex at 10:03 PM on July 11, 2008 [2 favorites]


http://www.tinynibbles.com/blogarchives/2008/07/the-accretion-of-little-things.html

"There’s been a ton of media about this all week, and when yesterday’s Columbia piece was published, I decided that I refused to sit quietly without clarifying and correcting the facts."
posted by Seth Finkelstein at 10:23 PM on July 11, 2008 [2 favorites]


Incorporating frequency information for picking good expansion candidates. (All of which was in place before but my code was failing at an epic level because I was trying to read an unopened filehandle and apparently perl was just a-okay with that.)

orig: Why are you awake, mrz? The real question is why am I awake? It's WAY too early for me to be up. Social activity went okay, then led to sleeping activity, which then led to waking EARLY EARLY.

dis: why r y wk , mrz ? th rl qstn s why m wk ? t's wy t rly fr m t b p . scl ctvty wnt ky , thn ld t slpng ctvty , whch thn ld t wkng rly rly .

re: why or you week [,] [mrz] [?] the real question is why me week [?] it's way to early for me to be up [.] social activity want okay [,] than old to sleeping activity [,] which than old to waking early early [.]


Still rough as all get out, and I hope the bigram approach improves the situation, but the idea is there.
posted by cortex at 11:14 PM on July 11, 2008


There were two good links posted here recently that are worth looking at.
cortex posted this: Will Shetterly has criticized TNH's moderation. She responds (comment #10) that he has disappeared one of her comments. "No," he says, "I didn't. I... Wait! Let me check my spam-catcher..." (time passes) "Hello? Theresa? No! Not in my spam-catcher. I swear I never deleted your post. Uh, e-mail me, okay?" Theresa: [silence]

Seth posted a link to Violet Blue's latest blog entry on this topic. It also includes a number of links to other places. And here's a little gem: "I think the best way to see what people really thought is to read the MetaFilter comment thread. It’s longer than Boing Boing’s, and is completely uncensored. It is an actual conversation. In it, the whole bungled cover-up is writ large: MeFi readers catch BB doing a lot of very unsavory things."

Of course, this means MeFites better prepare for War: Oceania is ready to attack!
no, wait! we're oceania and they are... oh, i forget. the bad guys anyway.
posted by CCBC at 12:32 AM on July 12, 2008 [1 favorite]


Kamchatca?
posted by serazin at 1:17 AM on July 12, 2008


Turns out TNH had posted to Will's livejournal rather than his wordpress blog.

I have to admit that trying to follow two different sets of replies to notionally the same blog post would probably confuse me as well.
posted by pharm at 1:24 AM on July 12, 2008


The interesting part of Violet Blue's latest post, for me, is the data on the authorship of unpublished posts: 7.7% of them were published by Doctorow or Pescovitz. You'd imagine they'd both be royally pissed off about that, especially Doctorow, and runs counter to the whole 'Oh, we're just a bunch of hoopy froods doing our own thing, it's not really a group weblog' thing, and makes Jardin look even worse, if that's possible at this point. So does Blue's pretty calm and level-headed response to the insinuations and smear campaign against her.
posted by jack_mo at 3:44 AM on July 12, 2008 [2 favorites]


Of course, this means MeFites better prepare for War

I'm really not that worried about facing steampunk weapons.
posted by lukemeister at 7:55 AM on July 12, 2008


From Violet Blue's blog that CCBC just linked:

"Later, at my publisher’s office, I got a big butch hug. "You know you can’t have a dyke romance without a little dyke drama. You’ve been initiated." She also congratulated me on having the world’s biggest text message breakup."

This reminds me of a lesbian friend of mine trying to explain what it was like dating in a very small population lesbian community. Except that when my friend described it even the more catty drama there sounded a lot more friendly than all this. Or at least by friendly I mean that there was an explanation provided as to why someone was being avoided.

I still don't get the whole way Boing Boing presented this, rereading their post they act with the assumption that they are being the reasonable ones - and that there is some very valid unspoken yet important reason all this had to happen. And....still doesn't fly. Whether I believe VB's version or not. Though her (VB's) whole post certain seems very candid and open. Lots of links there too.

Jack mo: "The interesting part of Violet Blue's latest post, for me, is the data on the authorship of unpublished posts: 7.7% of them were published by Doctorow or Pescovitz."

Wow, now that really is interesting. That means that all of the bloggers do indeed have access (or did) to all the posts on the entire site. I had the silly idea that they'd only have the ability to remove their own work. That means that in theory if any one of them got really crazy they could delete the entire site, should they choose to really take their ball and go home. Or it could be done really easily by accident.

Hmmm. I hadn't read the Columbia Journalism piece.

cortex: "Incorporating frequency information for picking good expansion candidates."

Whoa, cortex is speaking in The Codes! Trippy...
Give us a heads up if anything else happens in that thread. Hey, didn't they mention a few times they were closing that? No?
posted by batgrlHG at 11:15 AM on July 12, 2008 [1 favorite]


Hey, didn't they mention a few times they were closing that?

Only the once, I think, back on the 2nd; Joel was intending to close it, but, if I'm understanding correctly, closing comments also caused the comments themselves to not be visible. Quirk of the default Moveable Type configuration, I guess?
posted by cortex at 11:26 AM on July 12, 2008


spiderwire: And that makes BoingBoing basically like Pontius Pilate, huh?

Mmm, I'm not sure about that, spidey.

So far we have BB singing the role of Christ, MeFi as Herod, and VB as Judas. That leaves the role of Pilate quite open. I tentatively would nominate the NYT, LA Times, et al for that role - there are two pieces begging for a filking, Pilate And Christ, and Trial Before Pilate.

(Please note, the inner-page links on that lyrics page were NF for me.)

The role of Caiaphas has also not yet been cast.
posted by mwhybark at 12:07 PM on July 12, 2008


The 'unpublished' logo on Violet Blue's page is the greatest thing ever.
posted by lukemeister at 12:09 PM on July 12, 2008


Also, VB has a new tidbit in her recent response: "7.7% of the deleted posts were authored and posted by David Pescovitz and Cory Doctorow."

So, what, one each?

I suppose someone should ID the specific posts and try to determine if they were duplicates nuked to avoid repeat posting or if they were a part of the npblshng.
posted by mwhybark at 12:15 PM on July 12, 2008 [1 favorite]


... and returning to my JC Superstar obsession, the uncast dramatis personae in my mind remain as TNH, Cory, and non-blog media.

JCS roles up for grabs notably include Mary Magdalen (I don't know how to love him, for goodness' sake), Caiaphas, Pilate, and mmmmaybe Peter or other non-Judas disciple.
posted by mwhybark at 12:28 PM on July 12, 2008


Oh, and in 1890, I buried my heart at Wounded Knee.
posted by mwhybark at 12:30 PM on July 12, 2008


Thanks for the CJR piece, batgrl—I hadn't seen it either.

Moving forward, Boing Boing’s editors promise to involve readers in the archiving practices of the site.

Uh... right. Anybody taking bets on the likelihood of this?
posted by languagehat at 12:31 PM on July 12, 2008


"archiving practices"

So that's what you call "throwing a tantrum and deleting any reference to your unfriend?”
posted by Tenuki at 12:46 PM on July 12, 2008


How did 1879 pass with no mention of Trotsky again? I'm disappointed with you people.
posted by found missing at 1:01 PM on July 12, 2008


The 'unpublished' logo on Violet Blue's page is the greatest thing ever.

Our own interrobang was on that shit two weeks ago.
posted by cortex at 1:53 PM on July 12, 2008


found missing: who?
posted by mwhybark at 2:04 PM on July 12, 2008


How did 1879 pass with no mention of Trotsky again? I'm disappointed with you people.

Sorry, I was busy fighting other factions.
posted by lukemeister at 2:05 PM on July 12, 2008


Our own interrobang was on that shit two weeks ago.

I missed that. The vacuum cleaner is new, isn't it?
posted by lukemeister at 2:08 PM on July 12, 2008


Also, VB has a new tidbit in her recent response: "7.7% of the deleted posts were authored and posted by David Pescovitz and Cory Doctorow."

So, what, one each?

I suppose someone should ID the specific posts and try to determine if they were duplicates nuked to avoid repeat posting or if they were a part of the npblshng.


I was going to take a look at this, but something more interesting is going on...

There's 6 posts by David and Cory on the spreadsheet that Violet Blue links to in her post.

Of these only two are still missing from the site - Contortionists Galare and Blogger jailed for refusing to hand over video.

Of the remaining four, all of which are now available on boingboing, two are on the list of deleted pages that cillit bang created on 3rd July. The other two aren't on that list. So if cillit bang's list is reliable, two pages have been quietly restored (or 'ununpublished') at some point after 3rd July. If Violet Blue's list is also reliable, two were also ununpublished before then.

All of Xeni's posts mentioning Violet Blue remain deleted, however.

All of which leads to the question: WTF?
posted by xchmp at 2:51 PM on July 12, 2008 [3 favorites]


languagehat: "Thanks for the CJR piece, batgrl—I hadn't seen it either."

I only found that thanks to Seth Finkelstein's heads up about VB's blog post summing up her feelings about the whole thing - she has lots of links there. I'm still wandering in and out of some of them. I liked this blog's explanation and reaction to disemvoweling. Also gives link to re-emvowelling such comments. This whole concept is still odd to me.

Someone mentioned way up there (ah ha, here) that BB is Creative Commons which gives the critics a lot of freedom - has anyone noticed any sites that will be monitoring for unpublishing? I mean, besides just the VB stuff, there might be a media watchdog type role here. I'll do some googling - but there's probably already sites out there that do this kind of thing - I think there are some that cover "old" media, not blogs though.
posted by batgrlHG at 2:53 PM on July 12, 2008


No wonder the blog seemed familiar - cortex linked the will shetterly post already, duh....
posted by batgrlHG at 2:55 PM on July 12, 2008


If BB has indeed quietly restored unpublished posts, the attention that xchmp has now brought to this action may cause BB to again remove those posts. If the BB ruling committee subsequently decides that all such posts should again be restored, we will have a clear case of disreunpublishmentarianism, which everyone knows is the longest word in the English language.
posted by found missing at 3:15 PM on July 12, 2008 [2 favorites]


This just goes on and on! It's true, they ununpublished. Check this out:

In the following page, compare the Google cached version ("Jul 6, 2008 19:11:10 GMT") with the current version. Look at the lower left-hand "older" link on the two pages. The current version links to the "ununpublished" post mentioning VB, the version of July 6 links to the previous post. Which shows that the post mentioning VB had still been unpublished on July 6 but was ununpublished later.
posted by Seth Finkelstein at 4:04 PM on July 12, 2008


Compare the Google cached version ("Jul 9, 2008 15:10:58 GMT") with the current version, again at the lower left-hand "older" link. That puts the ununpublishing at no earlier than July 9.
posted by Seth Finkelstein at 4:19 PM on July 12, 2008


Too bad that Unununium, the official chemical element of Boing Boing, was renamed.
posted by lukemeister at 4:21 PM on July 12, 2008


Hmm ... I'm actually not sure how to square the dates. The rebuild evidence says the posts where ununpublished no earlier than July 9, but those urls in fact don't appear on the list of July 3. I suppose one piece of evidence doesn't mean what it seems to mean (maybe rebuilds were done later, to fix the links?)
posted by Seth Finkelstein at 5:46 PM on July 12, 2008


Attention Charlie Stross: I just bought two of your books to read whilst on the vacay, and looked for some by Cory, but none were on the shelf. Don't stay mad! Speaking for myself, I'm more fascinated and bemused than outraged.

I woulda picked up something by VB too but felt that my wife might have felt concern and displeasure on my hovering around the hot tattooed chick checking out semi-pr0n books in the sexuality aisle.
posted by mwhybark at 6:12 PM on July 12, 2008


Speaking for myself, I'm more fascinated and bemused than outraged.

If they really silently ununpublished those posts, I will have moved solidly into vicarious embarrassment. WTF, indeed.

I called this 'weird' about a million comments ago; much like how I used to call Bush 'not a great President.'
posted by spiderwire at 6:23 PM on July 12, 2008 [1 favorite]


They've definitely been ununpublished.

Google is just now picking up them up and working them into its archive again.

Try searching:

site:boingboing.net "MondoGlobo podcasts"

Right now I see just two hits, neither is the post, both are other items on boingboing.net
(this will change in a few days, so look now - that's how you can tell the posts are new)

Moreover the *cached* copy ( Jul 3, 2008 18:25:01 GMT) of
www.boingboing.net/2006/10/15-week/
doesn't have the post, even though it's showing up in the snippet.
posted by Seth Finkelstein at 6:44 PM on July 12, 2008


For those reading this page in the future -- ahem -- Seth's links above clearly show the cached page as not referencing MondoGlobo, and the current crawl listing MondoGlobo, which is a post by David featuring the words Violet Blue in the body, which has apparently now re-appeared.
posted by cavalier at 7:12 PM on July 12, 2008


1910: Hey, Radon!
posted by anthill at 7:23 PM on July 12, 2008


With the LongBoing Thread entering the Twentieth Century of comments, I think we should begin addressing the issue:

Now that BoingBoing has been taken off the RSS feedlists or daily bookmarks of those of us who appreciate honesty and integrity (I, for one, moved it to the folder with Gawker, DrudgeReport, TMZ and FoxNews), what should take its place?

I enthusiastically recommend Neatorama myself, which is also a small-group blog with off-center pop-culture sensitivites, but with less self-promotion, much less steampunk, its resident high-profile female blogger admits that "Miss Cellania" is not her real name, and I commented in a thread the top Neato guy wrote about Media Consolidation, correcting him and my comment's still there!
posted by wendell at 8:05 PM on July 12, 2008


I rather like Ectoplasmosis!, which reads like BoingBoing would if it were written by cultists of Dagon. As a bonus, Qais Fulton has better taste in stupidly expensive home furnishings than any of the BoingBoing crew.
posted by xchmp at 8:41 PM on July 12, 2008 [1 favorite]


Did I just kill this thread? DAMMIT PEOPLE, we're almost to World War I in comment-years!!!
posted by wendell at 11:32 PM on July 12, 2008




I'm actually liking the Neatorama and Ectoplasmosis links.
Sorry Boing Boing, you are indeed replacable. Except I was spending more time reading MeFi than BB anyhow.

And I'd have thought we'd talked this thread all out - and then I looked at all of Seth Finkelstein's links...now I'm wondering if the unpublishing is the norm and we're all just late to the "wake up an smell the coffee" reality party. I wonder what we'd find if we followed the site for a week to watch what changes. I'm wondering if we might be seeing business as usual.
posted by batgrlHG at 12:03 AM on July 13, 2008


As I noted earlier, batgrlHG, this is the middle of the thread. We have a solid 20 days left, and there are a shoe or two left to drop. All this tapdancing and rowing is just marking time.

The really excellent thing about a longboat is admidships you have room to set up a great 20'x20' dancefloor. I mean if it's the Viking kind, roughly. If it's the Nantucket sleighride variety I'd pretty much suggest skipping the So You Think You Can Dance pseudo-trials. But given the Nielsen numbers I'm pretty sure that's just me.

No sammiches? Damn.
posted by mwhybark at 12:50 AM on July 13, 2008


"As I noted earlier, batgrlHG, this is the middle of the thread."

Oh yes, yes you did, my bad. It's just getting easy to get my bearings confused - I'm going to need a map I think. Just let me know where we're setting up the bivouac, and I promise I'll try and keep up!

I'm sending out for sandwiches. Getting a variety: egg salad, turkey, ham, etc. Or should I just say the hell with it and send for pizza instead?
posted by batgrlHG at 1:08 AM on July 13, 2008


When Jardin finds out that her fellow authors are ununpublishing the Blue-related posts she unpublished, I bet she'll unununpublish them.
posted by jack_mo at 5:54 AM on July 13, 2008 [2 favorites]


I'm going on vacation. If any exciting revelations are going to come out, I'd like to request that they wait a week so I don't miss the action. tia.
posted by cortex at 6:22 AM on July 13, 2008


PAUL BAUSCH IS XENI JARDIN
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 8:47 AM on July 13, 2008


goodnewsfortheinsane,

It took me a while to realize you were talking about JC Superstar. I thought you'd uncovered the most shocking revelation yet.
posted by lukemeister at 9:15 AM on July 13, 2008


Nosferatu
posted by sciurus at 10:36 AM on July 13, 2008


From my travel diary, March 22


One of the things I wanted to do this trip was get
sucked on by a leech. I had heard they would be in
the Australian Rainforest, and I wanted to at least
see one if not actually have one attached. For the
first ten minutes of hiking I was looking everywhere
for them, but I was finally forced to concede that one
would have to find me instead.

Eventually I gave up even on that, and just enjoyed my
hike. Occasionally I wondered if some itch I was
feeling on a patch of bare skin was actually a leech
doing its thing, but alas it never worked out.

After I drove back down to the hotel, I took my shoes
off and -- glory be! -- there was a leech sitting
there. Further inspection showed that he had been
attached through my sock to my ankle, and I had just
peeled him off.

He was cute in his way, and I got picture of him and
the small bite on my ankle.

Now there was a problem. While cute, he definitely
fell into the category of small-things-that-creep. I
generally do fine when I approach these in readiness,
but catching them moving out of the corner of my eye
(as I did in my shoe) freaks me out. So, cute as he
was, it was time to dispose of him.

I didn't think the resort grounds were really the
place to let a leech go, so I tried flushing him. He
clung quite well to the bottom of the bowl, ignoring
the water, and then started to climb his way out.

Feeling more drastic measures were called for, I
attempted to squish him with a wad of toilet paper,
then flush. Non-plussed, he detached himself from the
paper, connected with the side of the bowl, and began
climbing out once more.

This time I took to him with a kitchen knife. He
dodged quite artfully for a bit, but I finally got him
against the side of the bowl with a sharp edge, and
was rewarded with a scarlet billow of my own blood
escaping him.

I flushed then, and off he went.

But now I'm thinking -- did I really mortally wound
him? What if he caught just around the U-bend? Even
now he's working his way back around, just waiting for
me to use the toilet in the middle of the night. And
now he's *angry*.

Not much to be done for it really, other than to count
the days until I leave this hotel room, and perhaps
use the toilet down in reception. My ankle's still
bleeding, maybe I'll flush down some blood as a peace
offering...
posted by tkolar at 10:57 AM on July 13, 2008 [3 favorites]


Here's from one of VB's links. This guy has a porn film company. Xeni unpublished an article about him because it mentioned VB. The guy says:
I spoon fed the information in the post to Boing Boing editor Xeni Jardin. I sent her the link to my post. I sent her the links to the ADT post she quoted, I sent her the link the the Luke Ford post she quote. I gave her the Forbes links. And I put them all in context so it would be easy for her to turn it into a news item. This is how the modern world of media works. You send out notes to gate keepers like Xeni Jardin or Andrew Sullivan, or Richard Corliss, and sometimes you get a mention.
So much for Xeni talking about her "work"!
Until this morning I had regarded Xeni Jardin as a journalist and Boing Boing as a ligitimate media outlet. Now I’m told, “No, I’m an artist who can and will destroy, alter, hide my work as I see fit; and Boing Boing is a personal blog.”

Okay, fine, whatever. Your life, your blog, your call. But I don’t think I’ll be sending over any more “paint” to make your “art,” and certainly don’t expect to interview me for anything.
posted by CCBC at 1:03 PM on July 13, 2008 [3 favorites]


it's not the crime, it's the coverup... am I the only one reminded of that old line? (who would have thought nixon and xeni jardin had anything in common.)

I think we will only be able to get a better idea of what possible motivations XJ might have had for unpublishing deleting all references to VB if one of them decides to tell us about those personal matters nobody thus far has really spelt out but that have been insinuated at length.

XJ isn't going to talk about her personal life but has made clear there was some reason we may not know about because it's personal, which made just that part an element to this story. VB hints at what might have been there but doesn't provide the complete picture. what she does mention repeatedly is that she doesn't know what caused this shitstorm in the first place. I for one consider that a pretty good reason to put everything that has happened between the two out in the open. something will prompt a reaction.

nobody has even hinted at anything other than personal issues between the two that might have possibly triggered this cause of action and were there anything worth disagreeing with I'm fairly certain XJ would have already posted at length about it.

I don't think anything less than talking about what XJ doesn't want to see discussed in public will convince XJ to take a meaningful stance on this issue. XJ is hoping this will all just die down and be forgotten and unless VB takes drastic action that is exactly what is going to happen.

we all know people like secrecy all of a sudden when they are embarrassed. the question is whether XJ has acted this way because she realized her original reasons were petty or because she was uncomfortable with details about her sexuality being public knowledge. or hey, perhaps it's something entirely different. whether we are finally going to learn what it was depends solely on what VB does next.

I wrote this knowing VB reads these comments.
posted by krautland at 5:10 PM on July 13, 2008


who would have thought nixon and xeni jardin had anything in common.

Well, they both have an "x" and a "ni" in their names...
posted by wendell at 5:22 PM on July 13, 2008 [1 favorite]


Don't forget the "ard"!
posted by Sys Rq at 5:28 PM on July 13, 2008 [1 favorite]


I spoon fed the information in the post to Boing Boing editor Xeni Jardin. I sent her the link to my post. I sent her the links to the ADT post she quoted, I sent her the link the the Luke Ford post she quote. I gave her the Forbes links. And I put them all in context so it would be easy for her to turn it into a news item. This is how the modern world of media works.

It's always cute when people think that modern life is somehow so much different and worse than How Things Used To Be.
posted by phearlez at 9:03 PM on July 13, 2008


I don't read it that way at all. Dude wasn't upset with modern life until the post got ++unpublished.
posted by grobstein at 9:22 PM on July 13, 2008 [1 favorite]


Goddamn Herbert Hoover. At least we've learned our lesson and we'll never again let rampant financial speculation ruin economy.
posted by spiderwire at 9:56 PM on July 13, 2008


Ruin our economy. Our economy. Someone has toyed with my Aetheric Communication Device in order to intercept my electrified messages. I suspect the anarchists.
posted by spiderwire at 9:59 PM on July 13, 2008


Oh, crap. Oh, crap. Quick, copyright everything.
posted by spiderwire at 10:03 PM on July 13, 2008


Say, you big ape!
posted by mwhybark at 10:52 PM on July 13, 2008


krautland: I don't think the whatever-it-was that VB may or may not have done is the important factor. What has kept this entire story alive has been the periodic zap that BB has given it. "Clear!" yells Teresa and slaps the paddles onto its chest. VB, I think, is waiting in bemused fascination to see what happens next. (Me, too.) She's said that her life is an open book; anything Xeni says (short of calling her names) is okay. Consider the story as it has unfolded:

1) Xeni unpublishes VB. Not just articles by VB, but any that reference her. Now, if Xeni had said, "That's it! I hate her! I never want to hear the name Violet Blue again!" , well, okay, we can understand that, most of us have had a Final Explosive Break with a lover, friend, relative, employer, employee, or whoever.
2) VB discovers she has been unpublished. "Wha..?" she says, and we can understand that, too.
3) *critical juncture #1* BB readers ask, "Wha..?" and their questions are unpublished. (Incidentally, if we are referring to that button, I think this is the correct usage of the term.) This was a Critical Juncture because this is where Xeni (or someone) should have said, "It's because there was this Final Explosive Break." And folks would say, "Okay, we understand. But we have a few policy questions..." And BB could deal with those.
4)People realize their questions are unpublished and they begin sneaking the terms "violet" and "blue" into their posts. These, too, are unpublished. Now BB looks ridiculous.
5)*critical juncture #2* Teresa Nielsen Hayden loses it. She starts a thread purporting to answer questions. She says VB is a horrible person but she can't tell us why for the good of all concerned. Now this bit of hypocrisy is a Bullshit Moment. There will be more.
6) BB readers say, "Wha..?" and TNH attacks them. She calls them names, disemvowels, or unpublishes them.
7)TNH says, "Look! Here are the unpublishing rules!" It takes but a moment for the blogosphere to discover that the rules have just been written and weren't in place when VB was unpublished. Bullshit Moment. TNH says, "There were only a few VB unpublishings." There were more than 70. BM. The blogosphere (what a handy term, BTW) discovers that 400-odd other BB entries have been unpublished. TNH falls back on BB's right to unpublish, which, by now, is hardly the question. Everyone agrees BB has the right, the question is "Why, when, and how do you exercise it?"
8)More nasty name-calling, more insinuation about VB. *critical juncture #3*Finally Xeni enters and seems to be reasonable. "Well, I tried to do this and that and it wasn't cool and now I'm trying to figure out why." But this is a BM, too. It is all verbiage and no real answer to the questions people have raised. In fact, Xeni pretends not to understand what the questions are. (If I am wrong and she truly is unable to read and comprehend the English language, then I apologize.) Xeni also claims that, first, this is only a blog, albeit a communal one, so "What's the problem, Dudes?"; second, that this is her work that was taken down; third, I think she tries to say that each BB member can do as they will, at least in their own area of the playpen; but, fourth, she does say it was her who done the unpublishing.
9)Some of the comments by TNH, the other mod, and Xeni are edited to remove nastiness. Perhaps this was meant to cool things down but it only serves to bolster the idea that BB is trying to rewrite history and all the 1984 metaphors are so alive at this moment.
10)TNH disemvowels her own nasty comments. Some, like me, thought this might be a sign of returning sanity, but, no...
11)Some of the main BB folk retire to a desert island to consider what to do. No one knows whether Cory is there or on a God-given holiday somewhere that cannot be breached for any reason whatever. Cory Doctorow is important, because he is the guy who has tied BB to Causes Other Than Trivia, Tech, or Sex. He seems to have principles in addition to taste(s). But we have no word from Cory. *critical juncture #4* The desert Island confab produces no perceptible results.
12)Now we have some of VB's unpubbed cites being repubbed. Perhaps David Pescovitz objected to "his work" being removed without his permission. Anyway, what Xeni said about "her work" was clearly a BM.
13) Oh, I know I've left things out -- it wasn't meant to go this long -- but the point is: every day brings something new in this disaster. It has far less to do with whatever happened between VB and Xeni than it does with the continuing failure of BoingBoing to determine what constitutes reasonable policy and their awful failure in communicating with their own supporters. Xeni fucked up -- that seems obvious -- and she is unwilling or unable to deal with it. TNH gave lousy moderation. The other BBers don't seem to know what to do about this.

Here's the big point: I used to go to BoingBoing a lot and still visit there from time to time. It is a site I respect and if I wanted a perspective on DRM or Net censorship or something similar, I'd certainly go there. BoingBoing was an important site. Their failure to deal with this event lessens their importance.
posted by CCBC at 11:53 PM on July 13, 2008 [13 favorites]


Note that whatever the "unpublishing" reason, it doesn't seem to have been "Final Explosive Break". Because if there were such a break, Violet Blue would know it, and it's unlikely TNH would be so, well, immoderate.
The big pusher of the spat theory was the ValleySag blog, and they're a notorious make-stuff-up-for-the-hits site.
posted by Seth Finkelstein at 12:10 AM on July 14, 2008


Of course they're reading this thread -- which, some silliness notwithstanding, has been more civil than the actual BoingBoing thread, and there's plenty of good advice here, particularly from the MeFi mods, that they could have taken.

(e.g. cortex suggested just 50 comments in (12:25 PM on June 30) TNH post some sort of explanation to defuse the situation, which is exactly what was done 700 comments or so later.

We just need to outsource our mods.
posted by spiderwire at 12:40 AM on July 14, 2008


Seth: [...]whatever the "unpublishing" reason, it doesn't seem to have been "Final Explosive Break". Because if there were such a break, Violet Blue would know it, and it's unlikely TNH would be so, well, immoderate.
I don't think that follows. It may have been an FEB for Xeni and not for VB. That is in fact, what I have taken from their hints. But, whatever, it was Xeni who unpublished and it is Xeni who must answer for that. Meanwhile, TNH seems an immoderate partisan -- and I( mean that as a general descriptive.
posted by CCBC at 1:32 AM on July 14, 2008


(misplaced parenthesis there, sorry)
spiderwirePlease, no outsourcing of mods. This is a job that requires both balance and site loyalty. I think this kerfluffle will underline the need for good mods. I said before, I say again, TNH is not a good moderator. I would never hire her. And I wonder how she got her current job: was it through Cory, who has connections there? Anyway, TNH certainly complicated any chance BB could solve this problem -- but she is far from the reason it exists.
posted by CCBC at 1:39 AM on July 14, 2008


14) Xeni tries to win geeks over by using the word "fracking". But she spells it wrong.
posted by AmbroseChapel at 5:35 AM on July 14, 2008


1940: Invasion of Iceland!

nothing else of import happened that year
posted by Kattullus at 6:27 AM on July 14, 2008


I don't think the whatever-it-was that VB may or may not have done is the important factor.

I disagree and it seems to me VB would like to know just what the reason might have been for the initial action on XJ's side. I don't see any other way to prompt her to start saying more than she has.
posted by krautland at 6:40 AM on July 14, 2008


I'm worried that, now that their value is known, our mods will be offered enormous free agent contracts and will bolt to other sites. In the worst-case scenario, they all go to BoingBoing and, having drunk the Kool-Aid, engage in an orgy of disemvowelment of the entire web.
posted by lukemeister at 8:12 AM on July 14, 2008


I'm just imagining cortex's agent interrupting SXSW to announce that cortex will be backing out of his contract with Mefi and will become a free agent mod, courting offers from /., digg, and (if it's still around) plastic.

After a few months, giant donuts will be offered and Cortex will resign with Mefi, but not before we learn that he modded on the side for the Gawker family of blogs.

Hands will be wrung.
posted by drezdn at 8:24 AM on July 14, 2008


Please, no outsourcing of mods.

That was a joke... somewhere upthread. Somewhere.

In other news, our troops have landed on the beaches of Normandy.
posted by spiderwire at 8:49 AM on July 14, 2008


I'm just imagining cortex's agent interrupting SXSW

I'm in talks with his agent to interrupt my session, should either proposal my name is on gets approved.
posted by dw at 8:56 AM on July 14, 2008


My proposal, BTW, is "MetaFilter: Why it rocks while BoingBoing sucks." This will ensure none of you attempt to vote it down.
posted by dw at 8:57 AM on July 14, 2008


And what will it be for you, Mr. Orwell?
posted by Kattullus at 9:08 AM on July 14, 2008 [1 favorite]


A nice cup of tea, dear.
posted by Kattullus at 9:10 AM on July 14, 2008


What bothers me about this "stink" if you will is that any of us misunderstand that bOINGbOING is not a "community" per se but rather a "reality blog."

Most of us are able to discern reality from reality teevee. The difference being one is spontaneous while the other is vetted.

This is like the Coke/New Coke debacle. It only winds up selling more Coke.

In the end, it all comes down to whether or not one has a place for reality entertainment in one's life. Some of us are incapable of tolerating even a little while others need steep doses of it.

bOINGbOING is like webteevee show, with a dependable predictable stable of characters, that some of us guest star on every now and again.

As a result of this thread, I have read bOINGbOING more in the past two weeks than I have since '94 when I worked in the same office with Mark on 3rd Street (at MIGHT).

It just seems the same as it ever was to me, only streamlined and commodified.

Times have changed. If this is what people (still) want, then it will stick around. Otherwise some other webteevee show/reality blog will step up. As it is, I stopped reading bOINGbOING consistently because the fixation with All Things Considered Rad By The Bay Area got wearying. But regardless, I am unable to work up any sort of real grief about the double standard between editorial and editing. In the end, it's infotainment!
posted by humannaire at 9:39 AM on July 14, 2008


I've learned a new word today, "Britanniaware", courtesy of Mr. Orwell himself. Thanks, George.

In the end, it's infotainment!

humannaire, you're comparing apples to oranges. A television drama versus a political advocacy campaign, and how the viewers of one should not get upset when the script deviates. I'm impressed that you're able to conceive the logic binding those two together, but I regret that I remain skeptical of your argument.

Yes, in the end all is infotainment of sorts, but there are subtle differences between lying for the sake of producing a more entertaining outcome and lying because you can't cope with your own reality.
posted by jsavimbi at 10:18 AM on July 14, 2008


MetaFilter: Lying because you can't cope with your own reality.
posted by cavalier at 10:45 AM on July 14, 2008 [1 favorite]


Is there still no word from Mr. Doctorow?
posted by languagehat at 11:36 AM on July 14, 2008


TNH gave lousy moderation.

Welcome to the understatement of the year. TNH's "moderation" was at first gasoline and then nitrous oxide on this particular fire.

I fail to see how TNH was even considered a "great moderator" before this event, and if she is indeed publishing a "how to be a bitchin' mod" guide--well, we'll have to hope the old cliche of "those that can, do, those that can't, teach" has roots in reality.

Or, to put it another, absurdly childish, way:

fl t s hw TNH ws vn cnsdrd "grt mdrtr" bfr ths vnt, nd f sh s ndd pblshng "hw t b btchn' md" gd--wll, w'll hv t hp th ld clch f "ths tht cn, d, ths tht cn't, tch" hs rts n rlity.
posted by maxwelton at 11:37 AM on July 14, 2008 [1 favorite]


I fail to see how TNH was even considered a "great moderator" before this event

Having been in the business of trolling for a good eight or nine years without ever hearing of this person makes me think that the "great" part of the equation was self-applied while the whole "moderator" part is largely exaggerated.
posted by jsavimbi at 12:03 PM on July 14, 2008 [1 favorite]


I suspect that the Big Boinger is disinclined to add yet another chapter to this saga.
posted by Seth Finkelstein at 12:20 PM on July 14, 2008


Interesting that you "never heard of her, but she sucks" people pay no attention to those of us who have known her for years and have a high opinion of her. I guess the chance for snark outweighs actual knowledge.
posted by languagehat at 12:59 PM on July 14, 2008


I guess the chance for snark outweighs actual knowledge.

I guess I should clarify that I'd never heard of her until June 30th, 2008 when she injected herself into the limelight and made sure that everyone within reading distance knew that, aside from being a challenging person, she was way, way in over her head.

My snark is dependent on my knowledge of her qualifications as of that date and if that is any real indication of who she is and what she's about, then I'm all set with her. But it remains interesting that all you highly opinionated, "known her for years" people would disregard those of us who have a bad opinion of her.

But then again, internets + opinions = many / fail.
posted by jsavimbi at 1:27 PM on July 14, 2008


languagehat, for some perspective, the only exposure I've had to TNH has been through her moderation at boingboing. Perhaps she does a fabulous job elsewhere, and bb is the only crappy example of her work, but, man, is it a bad example. Aside from this particular incident, the "disemvoweling" thing alone is enough to mark her (assuming it's her "innovation") as someone not suited to moderating. (Mind, that the people in charge of bb would stand for it says nothing good about them, either.)

But even if she didn't come up with the idea, the willingness to use it as a "moderating" technique demonstrates that she should not be given the job of moderation there. Hell, that kind of childish behavior is what you'd expect if I moderated comments, and someone would have to be insane to allow me to moderate anything.
posted by maxwelton at 1:28 PM on July 14, 2008 [1 favorite]


I guess I should clarify that I'd never heard of her until June 30th, 2008

Yes, I assumed that was what you meant.

But it remains interesting that all you highly opinionated, "known her for years" people would disregard those of us who have a bad opinion of her.

Well, that's childish. Do you take seriously the opinion of somebody who is judging, say, an author you like on the basis of a few sentences, or a friend of yours on the basis of one encounter when your friend was in a bad mood? Yes, more knowledge trumps less knowledge. Surely you don't disagree.

Perhaps she does a fabulous job elsewhere, and bb is the only crappy example of her work, but, man, is it a bad example.

I completely agree, and have said so above; obviously, she is a bad fit for that job. My point is not "oh my, how can people say bad things about TNH, she's perfect," it's "yeah, she's done a crappy job here, but those of us who have known her, online or off-, for years can attest that she's a smart and good person who got in over her head at BB, and it's a little disheartening to see how ready people are to assume anybody who does something they don't like is completely worthless." And no, I'm not saying you have said she's completely worthless, I'm responding to the general tone of comments in this thread by people who know nothing about her aside from this episode.
posted by languagehat at 2:16 PM on July 14, 2008 [1 favorite]


I feel the same way about people who slag off the mods here when one of them does something that momentarily displeases them.
posted by languagehat at 2:17 PM on July 14, 2008


Does boing boing think we will forget? I want my pony!
posted by dirtylittlemonkey at 3:21 PM on July 14, 2008


...and 2000 posts in this thread.
posted by dirtylittlemonkey at 3:22 PM on July 14, 2008


Well, that's childish.

Um, ok, but all I did was type what you said backwards. I guess the same standard doesn't apply when I say it.

Just so we're clear, I wasn't seeking your opinion on anything and I completely disregard, for arguments sake, any claims you make to know more of anything over any one who has posted here. Let's be realistic. That being said, you have your opinion and you're entitled to it, but I have to point out that defending the undefensable has been tried here before and has met with predictable results.

She may be a smart and good person, and I'll take your word for that, but all I have to go on is what I've read, or had a problem reading, on boink and smarts were not something I detected to be on display.
posted by jsavimbi at 3:28 PM on July 14, 2008


jsavimbi: Um, ok, but all I did was type what you said backwards.

I believe that was the childishness languagehat was referring to.
posted by Kattullus at 3:46 PM on July 14, 2008


So what was the deal, exactly?
posted by boo_radley at 5:17 PM on July 14, 2008


boo_radley: So what was the deal, exactly?

Okay, so there were these people, like, on the internet and one of them was all like, hey, I don't like her, and so she was all pfsssshhh! as if! and then the other didn't notice for a while and then she noticed and was all like hey! who the what now what happen! and everyone was like huh?! and then these people were all uh... and everyone went h! wht hppnd t m vwls! and the people were all like yoink! gotcha AEIOUs suckas! shut the fudgehole, ingrates! and everyone was all like thts fckd p... and then the people were all like she's a meany and a liar and I'd tell mommy if my mommy was a big media company and the other one went all like hey! no fair! no fair! and everyone was all floorjawed and then some people kept quiet and everyone was all like why ya don't wanna play? and then there was milk and a banana nut muffin.

That about covers it.
posted by Kattullus at 5:39 PM on July 14, 2008 [4 favorites]


Um, ok, but all I did was type what you said backwards.

Kattullus is right on the money.

I have to point out that defending the undefensable has been tried here before and has met with predictable results.

Where did I "defend the undefensable"? I've said all along that her actions were dumb and unhelpful and she's not doing a good job of moderating. All I've tried to point out is that as a writer and a person (and I trust you will accept that there's more to a person than how they moderate BoingBoing), she's admirable, and while she deserves to take crap for her crappy moderating, she doesn't deserve to be treated as the Evil Overlord.

She may be a smart and good person, and I'll take your word for that

Thanks.
posted by languagehat at 5:39 PM on July 14, 2008


On non-preview: where's my muffin?
posted by languagehat at 5:40 PM on July 14, 2008


Hey cool, I was born this year.
posted by tkolar at 5:52 PM on July 14, 2008


At your age, languagehat, if you don't know where your muffin is, I think you need more help than any one of us is qualified to give....
posted by dersins at 5:54 PM on July 14, 2008


Hey, neat! My favorite year!
posted by dersins at 5:54 PM on July 14, 2008


(Not that one. That one.)
posted by dersins at 5:57 PM on July 14, 2008


.niffum tun ananab a dna klim saw ereht neht dna ?yalp annaw t'nod ay yhw ekil lla saw enoyreve dna teiuq tpek elpoep emos neht dna dewajroolf lla saw enoyreve dna !riaf on !riaf on !yeh ekil lla tnew eno rehto eht dna ynapmoc aidem gib a saw ymmom ym fi ymmom llet d'I dna rail a dna ynaem a s'ehs ekil lla erew elpoep eht neht dna ...p dkcf stht ekil lla saw enoyreve dna !setargni ,elohegduf eht tuhs !sakcus sUOIEA ahctog !knioy ekil lla erew elpoep eht dna !slwv m t dnpph thw !h tnew enoyreve dna ...hu lla erew elpoep eseht neht dna !?huh ekil saw enoyreve dna !neppah tahw won tahw eht ohw !yeh ekil lla saw dna deciton ehs neht dna elihw a rof eciton t'ndid rehto eht neht dna !fi sa !hhhssssfp lla saw ehs os dna ,reh ekil t'nod I ,yeh ,ekil lla saw meht fo eno dna tenretni eht no ,ekil ,elpoep eseht erew ereht os ,yakO
posted by boo_radley at 8:15 PM on July 14, 2008 [1 favorite]


Hey cool, I was born this year.

So was I! Drat, I missed it!

Maybe I can get my kid's birth-year-comments.

Or my great-great-grandkids.
posted by popechunk at 8:55 PM on July 14, 2008


Looks like academia is picking up on the story too:
2. Capitalism and Neocapitalist Feminism

In the works of Spelling, a predominant concept is the distinction between opening and closing. In the case of BoingBoing, Spelling reiterates conceptual narrative; in a sense, the subject (Violet Blue) is interpolated into a that includes truth as a whole.

If one examines conceptual narrative, one is faced with a choice: either accept capitalism or conclude that narrative comes from the masses. Lyotard promotes the use of neocapitalist feminism to analyse sexuality. But in the case of BoingBoing's 'unpublishing', Spelling affirms capitalism.

...

Bataille uses the term ‘neocapitalist feminism’ to denote the role of the reader as participant. In a sense, Scuglia[7] states that we have to choose between capitalism and textual theory.

A number of desituationisms concerning neocapitalist feminism may be found applicable in this case. Thus, if capitalism holds, we have to choose between the structuralist paradigm of expression and posttextual capitalist theory.
Conceptual Narrative and Capitalism

Ludwig R. Abian
Department of Literature, Yale University
Helmut D. C. Brophy
Department of Gender Politics, University of Massachusetts
posted by sciurus at 9:59 AM on July 15, 2008


Metafilter: A number of desituationisms concerning neocapitalist feminism may be found applicable in this case.
posted by Artw at 10:20 AM on July 15, 2008


Conceptual Narrative and Capitalism

Has anyone shot the writer of that article yet? I ask merely for informational purposes.
posted by tkolar at 10:33 AM on July 15, 2008


Only 6 more comments to go. Is cortex at the ready?
posted by team lowkey at 11:00 AM on July 15, 2008


DISCO SUCKS
posted by Sys Rq at 11:19 AM on July 15, 2008


no, you suck. :p
posted by lunit at 11:25 AM on July 15, 2008


The new Battlestar Galactica is a joke. Flying motorcycles? Really?
posted by tkolar at 11:25 AM on July 15, 2008


tkolar: Has anyone shot the writer of that article yet? I ask merely for informational purposes.

I think all will become clear if you click on sciurus' link to the article.
posted by Kattullus at 11:28 AM on July 15, 2008


Also, comment #1984 better not be a rickroll or Big Brother really will have won. On the other hand, #1987 better be a rickroll.
posted by Kattullus at 11:34 AM on July 15, 2008


I think all will become clear if you click on sciurus' link to the article.

Ah. I stopped at reading the URL, but I can guess.
posted by tkolar at 11:35 AM on July 15, 2008


cortex is on vacation. He couldn't deal with 1984.
posted by lukemeister at 11:45 AM on July 15, 2008


I graduated from high school a year ago. Only another couple of years until I drop out of college! Progress!

Also, about this time, thesuper-hot, witty and intelligent freaking former head cheerleader and I had dinner a couple of times as "friends"--or so I thought--later she told me she didn't want to see me because I refused her advances. I am essentially unable to recognize when someone comes on to me. It's a fucking miracle I ever ended up in a relationship at all.
posted by maxwelton at 12:02 PM on July 15, 2008


In 1986, NOTHING HAPPENED. Anyone who tells you differently is a dirty Mets fan.
posted by SpiffyRob at 12:04 PM on July 15, 2008


In 1988, I predicted my own inability to do it right 20 years later.
posted by SpiffyRob at 12:05 PM on July 15, 2008


I just tweaked the output of the PoMo essay generator for the setup on that.
posted by sciurus at 12:09 PM on July 15, 2008


Ooh, and "Back To The Future Part III" just came out.

That's right you sad sacks, there are kids in college who were born after the Back To The Future trilogy finished.
posted by tkolar at 12:19 PM on July 15, 2008


Hey, what's going on here? Have I missed anything?
posted by klausness at 12:23 PM on July 15, 2008


lukemeister: "cortex is on vacation. He couldn't deal with 1984."

Oh man, is that ever a shame. Well, I guess he can always fix it when he gets back. tkolar really dropped the ball there.
posted by team lowkey at 12:30 PM on July 15, 2008


THAT'S RIGHT I APPROVE OF MODS REWRITING HISTORY FOR THE SAKE OF A CHEAP GAG ABOUT MODS REWRITING HISTORY!!! I'M SOOO MUCH MORE META THAN YOU!!!
posted by team lowkey at 12:33 PM on July 15, 2008 [3 favorites]


I'm starting my period at the halloween dance, dressed as a vampire.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 12:54 PM on July 15, 2008


1996: Live in Seattle, break up with girlfriend, melt brakes on my car, have to kick out a roommate for doing stuff I won't discuss here, temp for an insurance company, work in a call center, depressed most of the year.

Next year will be better. I'll move to the UK and meet my future wife. This year, though, was a killer.
posted by dw at 1:02 PM on July 15, 2008


1997 I get my first email address and argue with people on usenet.
posted by drezdn at 1:07 PM on July 15, 2008


Same fuckin' shit, 1998
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 1:30 PM on July 15, 2008


Transgress
Thresholds are crossed,
Characters are impeached.
(used up anyway)
Carried to the crater
On litters of anxious assurance
No real sacrifice.
No helpless apology.
And now, leap to the heat-

Incinerated
Ash-clean
All for the glory of-
Virgin-

Oh, vulgar volcanic event
Got an eruption
Quake, qualm, seep consent
Ground breaks-
Earth shatters-
Tears, rips red.
Won’t admit the pain
Oh but did
And more with it

Aftermist
Sweat in my name
A new pill to take – he is
An insider,
I am an insider,
Amazing
And now we know.


lost my virginity, wrote that. l'olz
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 1:31 PM on July 15, 2008 [5 favorites]


So by now shouldn't they have had enough time to make a very clear statement of policy.
posted by drezdn at 1:31 PM on July 15, 2008


...into the 21st century!
posted by lunit at 1:32 PM on July 15, 2008


Huh, A.V. I was going to go with

September 13, 1999 -- the Moon is hurled out of Earth orbit by a massive explosion in Nuclear Waste Disposal Area 2, where nuclear waste from Earth has been dumped and stored on the dark side of the Moon. The 311 inhabitants of Moonbase Alpha are cut off from Earth, and traveling through the cosmos on an unknown trajectory.

But I think I prefer yours.
posted by tkolar at 1:33 PM on July 15, 2008


Or maybe they did and it was unpublished?
posted by drezdn at 1:33 PM on July 15, 2008


Ambrosia Voyeur - What the fuck did you just do to the moon?
posted by Artw at 1:35 PM on July 15, 2008 [1 favorite]


The first and only Willenium* begins (lasting approx one year).

*The Willenium spanned the gap between one millenium ending and the next beginning, to satisfy people who thought the millenium ended at the end of 1999, but that the new one didn't start until 2001
posted by drezdn at 1:35 PM on July 15, 2008


2006, the beginning of the Wiilenium. Nintendo dominates the home gaming market for 1000 years.
posted by tkolar at 1:43 PM on July 15, 2008 [1 favorite]


Well Swamis, it is almost time to start predicting the future.
posted by caddis at 2:04 PM on July 15, 2008


Barack Obama is elected as the 44th President of the United States.
posted by team lowkey at 2:05 PM on July 15, 2008 [3 favorites]


So... anything happening in the bOINGbOINGbACLE?
posted by Kattullus at 2:14 PM on July 15, 2008


Barack Obama, promising change and an end to disemvowelment, is sworn in with his running mate, Violet Blue.
posted by lukemeister at 2:15 PM on July 15, 2008


Hilarity ensues.
posted by dersins at 2:15 PM on July 15, 2008


2012, our annus horribilis for the financial world.

A number of pro-gold standard anti-government libertarians go on and on about how THEY WERE RIGHT and all that.

In June, President Obama signs the STFU Act, making it legal to trap, kill, and eat any preening doom-and-gloomer. By September, groups are calling on the EPA to declare libertarians an endangered species.
posted by dw at 2:17 PM on July 15, 2008 [2 favorites]


BoingBoing thread finishes downloading.
posted by Artw at 2:17 PM on July 15, 2008 [5 favorites]


Followed the subsequent year by wacky hijinks.
posted by dersins at 2:18 PM on July 15, 2008


2015: SXSW officially cancels its annual conference when the total number of passes bought exceeds the total population of metro Austin. Cisco determines the only way to handle SXSW Interactive wi-fi broadband would be to flood the convention center with so much radiation that it would sterilize anyone attending.

John Dvorak demands SXSW go on anyway, saying "it would benefit everyone."
posted by dw at 2:29 PM on July 15, 2008 [1 favorite]


2016: A 13 year old girl posts a video of herself to YouTube wherein she's naked, singing a Celine Dion horribly off-key, and drinking the urine of her best female friend, who is also naked but in blackface. Then they defecate on an American flag together while reciting dialogue from Star Wars in a fake Chinese accent.

It receives exactly 7 views.

Also in this year, MetaFilter officially dies on September 16 when Dick Cheney dies, which literally melts the servers and brings down Internet traffic on the West Coast for more than two weeks.
posted by dw at 2:42 PM on July 15, 2008 [2 favorites]


2017: The Doctorow/Jardin ticket, having barely slipped past the Zeldman/Kottke ticket for the presidency, begins its campaign to force American industry to convert to steampunk.

Press secretary TNH is fired in July after threatening a reporter with disenvowelment, which is misinterpreted in his native Costa Rica and leads to a declaration of war. Unfortunately, the steam punk AA guns are no match for the Costa Rican air force.

In a final insult, the US must cede the Black Rock Desert to Costa Rica, leading to naked riots and art car bombings in the Bay Area.
posted by dw at 2:42 PM on July 15, 2008 [3 favorites]


The beginning of the 3rd Willenium. Chaos ensues when Hillary Clinton loses in her presidential bid against that guy from the All State commercials.
posted by team lowkey at 2:45 PM on July 15, 2008


You've upended my most cherished assumptions about how many years there are in a Willennium.
posted by grobstein at 4:28 PM on July 15, 2008


I'm Hugh Downs.

I'm Barbara Walters.
posted by Sys Rq at 5:08 PM on July 15, 2008 [1 favorite]


Looking back on the massive shitstorm that was this event, I'm thinking that cellphone probably regrets the second comment in this thread:

What about sensationalism regarding trivial blogoswamp issues?

oops.

Like when I confidently predicted to my sister that TITANIC would bomb at the box office.
posted by Justinian at 5:28 PM on July 15, 2008


Whoa. Sudden burst of serious BoingBoing hate from Jorn Barger, here.
posted by mr_roboto at 10:06 PM on July 15, 2008


Warren Ellis's comment that ticked off Jorn:

no-one’s going to do a better job of being the internet’s copy/paste editors than the BoingBoing crew anyway

At Metafilter, we not only copy and paste, we cut — deeply.
posted by lukemeister at 10:17 PM on July 15, 2008 [2 favorites]


2024: After the Doctorow and Jardin presidencies (the former suffering a tragic cape accident during his term) the precedent for candidates from The Internet is established, and another candidate announces his campaign.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 10:44 PM on July 15, 2008


Oh for fuck's sake, you take a couple days off the internets and like it's suddenly THA FTURE N SHIT.

Where's my jetpack? (3rd tune in stinkyunlinky myspace player)
posted by mwhybark at 1:11 AM on July 16, 2008


So, mr_roboto you think Warren Ellis is just BB hate? I don't think you give the guy his props. Read, in its entirety, the blog entry. Specifically:
One of the few sane responses to this explosion of [web material] production was to assume the role of curator. [...] The two most famous examples of same are Jorn Barger’s Robot Wisdom (est. 1997) — Barger is said to have coined the term "weblog" — and Mark Frauenfelder’s Boing Boing (est. 2000 as a weblog, previously a print magazine est. 1988), co-produced for much of its life by Cory Doctorow, David Pescovitz, and Xeni Jardin. The latter, in particular, has spawned countless imitators, all deeply involved in doing the web-work of 2001-2007 — sorting out all the weird crap that’s out there and re-presenting it in some kind of ordered and aesthetically or politically filtered manner for our consideration.
I think that's an adequate representation of our Cool Guys at BB: Curators.
posted by CCBC at 3:51 AM on July 16, 2008


Sorry, mr_roboto, I misstated in my previous post. I didn't mean (or immediately realize that my comment suggested) that you thought Ellis' comment was BB hate. I wanted to say that Barger had taken off at Ellis on a wrong track. Anyway, these guys are getting toward the root of why this is important and just not more NetSoap. Both Barger and Ellis are worth checking out.
posted by CCBC at 4:01 AM on July 16, 2008


This magnificent thread will occupy pride of place in a many a curator's collection, when all is said and done.

Every thread-shit will be ensconced in the halls of Serious Art and History. Future dissertations will be written on the proper re-emvowellment of particularly telling comments. Celebrities will name their children after our usernames. Schools will debate the proper framing of the great Violet Blue debate of 2008. Economists will ask what role this thread played in the impending market collapse. Conspiracy theorists will find secret codes in the html that foretell the end of the world or name the secret cabal (which does not exist.)

There's nothing for it, my friends. We're living history, right now. Better make it good.
posted by anotherpanacea at 8:08 AM on July 16, 2008 [1 favorite]


Looking back on the massive shitstorm that was this event, I'm thinking that cellphone probably regrets the second comment in this thread

I regret nothing. You people are freaks.
posted by cellphone at 10:59 AM on July 16, 2008 [6 favorites]


And yet you've followed the whole thing, cellphone... tish tish tish

tish tish tish? where the hell did that come from?!
posted by Kattullus at 11:10 AM on July 16, 2008


Tish Tish Tish.
posted by SpiffyRob at 12:56 PM on July 16, 2008


Thanks, SpiffyRob. I used to watch Addams Family as a kid and loved the first Raul Julia movie when it came out. So that's where it comes from, alright.
posted by Kattullus at 1:07 PM on July 16, 2008


Has anyone else noticed that Cory Doctorow has remained silent on the issue post facto post fiction that is going on at BoingBoing?
posted by found missing at 1:22 PM on July 16, 2008


Both Addams Family movies are pretty fantastic, but the second one is incredible in a way that puts most sequels to shame. I'm very, very biased, because I've been involved in summer camps since birth, but Sonnenfeld took a ridiculously contrived idea (morbid family goes to obnoxiously happy summer camp, hilarity ensures!) and turned it into absolute gold.

The core cast members, particularly Raul Julia, Anjelica Huston, and Christopher Lloyd, were vital to the success of of the first film. They're just as good in the second, and when you add the amazing performances of Joan Cusack and Peter Macnicol to the mix, it's a win from start to finish (excluding an unfortunately dated Amy Fischer joke.)

Still, the first one spawned the greatest pinball cabinet of all time, so it's a wash.
posted by SpiffyRob at 1:44 PM on July 16, 2008


I've seen the first Addams Family movie since it came out, but not the second, so my memories of its hokey concept were all I had to go on. I need to get both and have a double bill viewing.
posted by Kattullus at 2:14 PM on July 16, 2008


It probably won't cost you much more than a rental.

And I personally guarantee that you'll walk away satisfied. If not, I'll issue a full refund/trade of an equal-quality 2DVD set. I'm thinking that Wayne's World 1+2 is pretty close.
posted by SpiffyRob at 2:47 PM on July 16, 2008


Man, y'all went weird.

Do continue.
posted by cavalier at 4:45 PM on July 16, 2008


2038: Walmart*, after 27 years with over 80% of the market share of Everything for the bottom 80% of the population (by income/net worth), files for Chapter 23 Bankruptcy with the Federal Business Insurance Corp. (FBIC). The one member of the Walton family still living in the U.S. and associated with the company, Chief Nepotism Officer Binky Walton, makes a statement declaring "there's no money in it anymore" and repeats for the 675th time in 30 years that the asterisky thing in the logo (*) has nothing to do with steroid use.
posted by wendell at 5:11 PM on July 16, 2008


Still, the first one spawned the greatest pinball cabinet of all time,

Oh yes, that and Terminator 2 pinball ate way too many of my quarters back in the early 90's
posted by Tenuki at 5:54 PM on July 16, 2008


Those were good, but FunHouse was the greatest. Did The Addams Family get sampled by Mr. Bungle? I think not.
posted by team lowkey at 8:46 PM on July 16, 2008


I assume that you guys haven't mentioned Attack From Mars for the same reason that people don't always mention Shakespeare when discussing playwrights.
posted by painquale at 10:23 PM on July 16, 2008


For where I stand, there were at least 30 spectacular pins put out by Bally or Midways in the early to mid-nineties. Any sense of which is "best" almost certainly comes down to nostalgia and other personal preferences. Though Addams Family does have the sales numbers to back me up.)

Some of my faves:

Addams Family
Theatre of Magic
Fish Tales
Attack From Mars
Star Trek: TNG

ipdb.org will consume the rest of your day/life if you have any interest in this stuff.

Also, if you like a slightly earlier generation of pins, including FunHouse, make sure to check out Pinball Hall of Fame: The Williams Collection. Fun on all systems, but best on Wii with the motion controls that allow for cabinet shaking. (Including tilts!)
posted by SpiffyRob at 9:28 AM on July 17, 2008


Has anyone else noticed that Cory Doctorow has remained silent on the issue post facto post fiction that is going on at BoingBoing?

I'm outraged that nothing else has happened in regards to the scandal. It's high time someone started spreading rumors, because if we allow this thread to die, the boinker'll have won.

I was Grand Champion on Soprano's for like three years. Stern makes crappy machines but I put a lot of money into that one. Nascar, Elvis and Harley Davidson not so much.
posted by jsavimbi at 11:54 AM on July 17, 2008


Heh. I put Addams Family Values on for my kids just last night in fact, first time any of us had ever seen it. I like Gomez a great deal, but I wasn't too thrilled with Wednesday this time out. All she seemed to get was dour one-liners.

Also, I heard Cory was a punk. Not a fancy brass-plated cyberpunk mind you, just a regular ol' garden-variety bitch-ass punk.
posted by stinkycheese at 1:11 PM on July 17, 2008


Spiffy (et pinball nerds al): ipdb.org would make a great starter for a full-fedged silverball post, nu?
posted by mwhybark at 8:08 PM on July 17, 2008


Lessons Learned.
posted by homunculus at 12:17 PM on July 18, 2008


Xeni speaks.

"Finally, when we did post a response that drew heated comments, we didn't have a way to coordinate with our moderators and join the conversation in a consistent way. We screwed up. And we're sorry."

Also some stuff about adding internal processes for reviewing future deletions and such. No rollback that I noted, no abandoning the "it's private" stuff. So, maybe not that big a change from the last post? Also in skimming the comments I didn't see any immoderate moderation but I must admit I was not taking the time to do a scrub.

Still and all, an apology offerred.
posted by mwhybark at 12:25 PM on July 18, 2008


I think they missed an important lesson that is evident when comparing the BB and MeFi threads. Content-based, emotional moderating drives out dissent and mostly leaves you with sycophantic comments.
posted by found missing at 12:34 PM on July 18, 2008


#78 posted by Cory Doctorow , July 18, 2008 10:23 AM

@67: Xeni speaks for me -- and I'm off for the weekend to celebrate my birthday. AFAIC, if one of my co-eds wants to delete some posts they made, it's jake with me.


Thanks for finally confirming that this has all been jake with you. BB and you are no longer jake with me.
posted by found missing at 12:38 PM on July 18, 2008 [2 favorites]


If you wanna delete/
It's jake with me/
If you're friends with BB/
You're no friend of me...
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 12:41 PM on July 18, 2008 [1 favorite]


Yeah, just noticed that post now. TNH goes a long way to be a "more friendly" moderator throughout the 150+ comments instead of just scrorched dsmvwl, so maybe that was another outcome of the meeting.

The comments also include Mark and Cory, each essentially saying, this post speaks for us, and we're cool with it.

So, essentially, it's going to fade away. And those hundreds of us who noticed and grok'd this as "Boing Boing 86's its Anti Censor/Orwell/Corppspeak Bona Fides", well, we'll still remember it and probably sigh or troll when a new anti censor/orwell post comes up on the site.

They didn't really lose any sustained readership over this, they just lost a huge chunk of brand in some of "our" eyes. I really don't know how to qualify "our" here, because some of us may have already had an axe to grind and utilized this as a stone, and others may be here for the drama but will fade away once the embers have died out.

I think it's kind of shitty, but it's not suprising. I mean, whatever, the financial machine of boing boing won't stop at this rate unless its domain goes awol for 2 months. The cycle works. Readers submit strange links that get posted that attract new readers. Maybe, just maybe the moderation won't be so stifling. Maybe, just maybe, they'll hold off on moral righteous or fight the man speak for awhile. Maybe, just maybe, they'll beat us in that thread for post count. Ok, I can at least count on one of those not happening...
posted by cavalier at 12:54 PM on July 18, 2008 [1 favorite]


Well, it's an apology, which is to be lauded, but it's clear that Boing Boing still doesn't have a clue what happened.
posted by Kattullus at 1:19 PM on July 18, 2008


Thanks for the update, homunculus and mwhybark. I just skimmed the thread, enough to see that
#2 posted by mhains , July 18, 2008 9:04 AM
I still don't understand why you have to explain yourself. It's your site. It's your call.
To whom are you beholden? The Internet cranks?
was followed by lots of sycophantic "#2 got it right!" comments and complacent "Thank you. Means a lot." comments from the moderators. All over now, move along folks, nothing to see here. Ah well, I wasn't hanging out there anyway, so no skin off my ass.
posted by languagehat at 1:23 PM on July 18, 2008


So The Man is still The Man even when he supposedly against The Man

Boing Boing, you mean jake shit to me know
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 1:28 PM on July 18, 2008 [1 favorite]


Yep, Cory just lost a bunch of respect. Cory probably doesn't care about my respect, but he lost it none the less.
posted by Justinian at 1:29 PM on July 18, 2008 [1 favorite]


Ah well, I wasn't hanging out there anyway, so no skin off my ass.

Without being (too) snide, I think you may have something here. I suspect that most — although by no means all — of the people vehemently upset by this whole thing were not particularly big fans of Boing Boing to begin with. (And let me temper that by saying that many of the criticisms heard here or otherwise were spot-on.)

On a meta level let me just add: It is difficult as fuck to try to talk through stuff like this with a group of people when people are judging every move you make with an eye to trip you up. I'm not saying that as an excuse or a complaint or anything, just a point of interest to me personally. Mob dynamics (from everyone, us included!) are funny things. I never foresaw the furor over "unpublish". Didn't even register until people began to pearl up on it. Funny how that happens!

Anyway, I feel uncomfortable talking about this too much on MeFi when we have a perfectly good thread or two of our own to contribute to, especially since I feel like the more I talk the more likely it is that I'll reveal I'm fucking Matt.
posted by Joel Johnson at 1:53 PM on July 18, 2008 [4 favorites]


I suspect that most — although by no means all — of the people vehemently upset by this whole thing were not particularly big fans of Boing Boing to begin with.

That is a convenient thing to suspect.
posted by found missing at 2:06 PM on July 18, 2008 [3 favorites]


Xeni: ...several blogs reported that I had removed a number of my own posts from public view.

Xeni persists in claiming that she only removed her own posts. No mention of the ones by other people that were ununpublished. One of those people, David Pescowitz, is there defending her. Several BBers have mentioned that one post deleted because of a peripheral VB mention was the one describing the London Tube bombing. Some people still aren't happy. Others are trying to soothe or threaten them back into the fold. An undercurrent of anger still exists but TNH, Xeni, and David seem to be trying to keep their responses civil. One person criticized the moderation and suggested TNH be fired. That person was told to take his opinion over to the Moderation Thread because TNH's moderating style has nothing to do with the problem under discussion, whatever that is. So the question of the moment: Can BB maintain civility until all this blows over? Or will someone lose it and blow the whole thing up again? (This has been going on for three weeks, people!)
posted by CCBC at 2:08 PM on July 18, 2008


I think of Teresa's moderation style as strong, very effective medicine that keeps these discussions from becoming as crazy as YouTube's. Yes, there are side-effects but the overall result is overwhelmingly positive.

Wow. That speaks volumes.

Joel Johnson: I used to be a fan of Boing Boing. The reason I stopped going there has a lot to do with comments and moderation. Try not to make convenient assumptions.
posted by languagehat at 2:16 PM on July 18, 2008 [3 favorites]


Well, at least now we know they're just posturing and not really committed to anything but their own self-aggrandizement.
posted by sciurus at 3:02 PM on July 18, 2008 [1 favorite]


They're comparing it to Youtube? To Youtube? That's...


...Hm, actually, that sort of works. Times Book Review it certainly isn't.
posted by subbes at 3:33 PM on July 18, 2008


#260 posted by Xeni Jardin, July 18, 2008 3:33 PM
Woohoo! It's a Friday afternoon troll party up in here! Did somebody say something about potato salad and beer? Takuan, put something on the turntables!!!

The funniest thing to me about the new BB thread (which Joel Johnson calls a perfectly good thread) is that anyone who disagrees with the sycophantoads, or who criticizes the moderator, is labeled as a troll.
posted by found missing at 3:46 PM on July 18, 2008


So, essentially, it's going to fade away.

...sound and fury, signifying nothing.

So The Man is still The Man even when he supposedly against The Man
posted by Snyder at 4:08 PM on July 18, 2008


Mike: Give it up. They don't want to hear it & you did yourself no favours by calling for TNH's head. She's a personal friend of the BB editors & when push comes to shove they're going to circle the wagons, because that's what friends do.

Teresa clearly made things worse, not better -- The fact that she (or another moderator) disemvolled her own posts is an implicit recognition of that fact. I doubt you're going to get any explicit mea culpa however, given that you've started off the discussion in such bombastic terms.
posted by pharm at 4:16 PM on July 18, 2008


I suspect that most — although by no means all — of the people vehemently upset by this whole thing were not particularly big fans of Boing Boing to begin with. (And let me temper that by saying that many of the criticisms heard here or otherwise were spot-on.)

Yeah, temper it all you want, but it still pisses me off. Most of us here had BB in our feeds. BB was a daily reading stop/work timekiller. Many of us are bloggers ourselves. Some of us are in larger blogging concerns that deal with these sorts of issues all the time.

BB did frustrate me before this whole kerfluffle. The neat and the cool and the interesting got... boring. BB wasn't that big a stop for me, yes. But none of that meant I wasn't a fan. I was still a fan. I was just pissy that BB was going through its blog equivalent of Led Zeppelin's Presence, aka The Album Everyone Shook Their Head At.

But this whole event left me with a very sour taste in my mouth. I mean, who was the only winner in this fiasco?

Violet Blue.

And that says a ton to me. It says your organization was so busy trying to get itself on the same page that it left readers in the dark. It says your organization was too busy throwing gasoline bombs (in TNH's case) or being dismissive of any real concerns (in XJ's case) that it left all but the truly hardcore cold. It says your organization is willing to play both sides of the game with the web -- criticize opacity in corporations while embracing your own.

And in the end, it says to me that You Don't Get The Web. And that astounds me. It astounds me that Boing Boing is more like one of these corporations it's supposed to stand against than the collective wants to admit.

So, yeah, Joel. Dismiss me. Say your critics are cranks or trolls (while backing away from it at the same time like it's a talking point you have to say). But know that there is a lot of truth here, and hiding from it won't make it go away.
posted by dw at 4:32 PM on July 18, 2008 [8 favorites]


Damn! you can not take back flags. I just flagged this fantastic. I flagged the wrong post, although this post is pretty fantastic in its own right, but I don't want to see it soiling the front page.
posted by caddis at 5:33 PM on July 18, 2008


Joel Johnson: I never foresaw the furor over "unpublish".

This, and similar statements are the part I Just Don't Get. I know you won't respond but I feel the need to ask anyway. Do you see how, from the outside, silently "unpublishing" contradicts directly and forcefully with image many people have of Boing Boing? How the further censoring of any hint of dissent fueled it? How different the public perception of Boing Boing is from the image of a "personal blog" that you project (and insist on)?

Anyway I was a fan of BB. I rarely missed a post and enjoyed nearly all of it, especially Cory's copyfighting and the general eclectic vibe. But this whole debacle has lowered my opinion of not only BB but also the individuals in it pretty substantially. Please don't fall into the trap of ascribing malice to all dissent, you're alienating at least one actual fan and I can't imagine I'm the only one.
posted by Skorgu at 5:43 PM on July 18, 2008


To be clear I'm *not* saying "how didn't you see it coming?" What I'm really asking is with hindsight can you see how it looked from the outside?
posted by Skorgu at 5:48 PM on July 18, 2008


Wow, I look away a few days and something actually happens! Re: the BB lessons learned post - struck me as odd that Xeni wrote the entire post, going from "I" then shifted into "we":

"We're sorry we didn't communicate more quickly and clearly. We delayed posting in part because I (and we) were trying to avoid something I feared would become a petty, personal online fight that would violate the privacy of parties involved."

Now maybe one of you with wordpress can help me on this, but isn't there a way to make a post that's authored BY BB STAFF or some such newly created author, you know, to show that it's a group thing? Or that the staff could somehow indicate they'd all signed off on this - in the post itself? Just hopping into the comments and saying "yes yes, I agree with all of the above" comes off a bit...well, half assed to me. I'd at least have liked to see something like "we passed around the text of this post via email, because we wanted to be sure it represented all our feelings" - or some such hooha. Instead I'm again feeling that we have Xeni as the Voice here. Which either makes it appear that Xeni's the Editor in charge here or can also appear as "hey, let's shove Xeni out front to continue taking the heat while we scurry away into the comments!" Neither seems like a good image to have when playing damage control.

"When it became clear this strategy wasn't fair to our community, we were in a poor position to respond: a few of the Boingers were on vacation in remote places with their families, making coordinated communication and action difficult. Finally, when we did post a response that drew heated comments, we didn't have a way to coordinate with our moderators and join the conversation in a consistent way."

Wow...people in communication who can't communicate. Just - ouch.
This apology makes it even worse - one or two of them are in remote places - without phones? Or wait, they can only communicate via email? These folk are media professionals? What happens if oh, one of their publishers/employers need to get in touch with them for a more serious matter? Because we - er, I - now have to assume that BB just isn't that important to some of them. This is not making me regain any trust in their methods. Or their judgement. While I wouldn't have called myself a fan of BB, I read it and linked to it. And now I not only have a different opinion of the site, I have a wildly skeptical attitude towards all of its authors - all of whom I now know by name. And I'll now turn that same skepticism towards other publications/media/academic institutions/etc. that hire them in the future.

Calling for someone to be fired never, never gets you an answer to a complaint. People automatically get defensive and can then duck the question. Which is kind of sad, because I'd really like to hear more about "why we honestly thought disemvoweling was a good way to moderate." Um, really, no snark on my part, I'm curious. The logic of it still escapes me.

Meanwhile the next time Doctorow teaches (and I'm sure he will) this will be some great fodder for any smart ass comedic students who get into his class. "Oh Mr. Doctorow? About this paragraph? In my the paper you just graded? Yeah that whole section you were questioning - it's just been unpublished. Can you ungrade that?"
posted by batgrlHG at 5:58 PM on July 18, 2008 [1 favorite]


WCityMike: Your comments were posted while I was writing mine. Slow typer. And that BB thread is so slow to scroll that I probably wasted many minutes that I could have used here (reading your words). I am staggered that takuan is a stealth mod. I thought he/she was just a deranged fan. There was no modding from takuan, just attacks on those who didn't declare allegiance to BB. Incidentally, that comment from Mark Frauenfelder about how he admires Teresa's style is now on the Moderator thread. I don't know if it has been removed from the other thread (and don't have the patience to find out right now). I guess Mark decided to follow the Company Rules about putting all TNH comments in a different thread.
posted by CCBC at 6:05 PM on July 18, 2008


To be clear I'm *not* saying "how didn't you see it coming?" What I'm really asking is with hindsight can you see how it looked from the outside?

No, that was was totally my point. I'm saying that I didn't give the term a second thought before others pointed it out; then I realized how others might perceive it. That is if you're talking about the use of the term "unpublish" instead of "deleted.")

As for the rest, well, I am a little surprised at how much some people were upset over Xeni's decision to remove the posts, but it's not like I don't understand where they're coming from, either. It's just that, all things considered, it didn't (and doesn't) seem like something that is far outside the bounds of internet protocol. But it's possible for me to understand where people are coming from, even agree a little, but not completely agree.

So, yeah, Joel. Dismiss me. Say your critics are cranks or trolls (while backing away from it at the same time like it's a talking point you have to say).

DW, I've never called anyone a crank or troll. (Even the cranks and the trolls.) All I've said is that in my opinion that many or most of the people who are vocally upset about about this seem to have had a middling-to-antagonistic opinion about Boing Boing in the first place. I mean, look at this thread; from the start it was fairly aggro, at least to my occasional-MeFi-reader-but-not-a-regular eye. But maybe I'm wrong about that. Maybe the vocal reflect a silent majority of disconcerted readers. I don't think that's the case based on what I've absorbed, but it's certainly possible.

Your own post, DW, reflects that general tenor. "I used to like Boing Boing, but it got boring."

Anyway, as I said before, I thought that several of the points made on MeFi and by critics in our threads had valid points and have said as much several times. We definitely made mistakes. The way we'll address both removing posts and (god forbid) similar issues in the future is certainly going to be different. But if at the end of the day we don't agree on every point then we just don't agree. I'm not sure there's anywhere to go from there.
posted by Joel Johnson at 9:14 PM on July 18, 2008


Joel: As someone who has been critical of bb in this thread and on Making Light, it seems to me that almost all of this could have been avoided. I think everybody understands what could motivate someone to remove posts about another person. But what caused all of this was the heavy handed, authoritarian crackdown on people asking about the situation or making reference to it or the involved party. And then dismissing, rudely, anyone who said that maybe this wasn't the best way to handle things.

A simple "yes, the posts were removed. It was for personal reasons and I hope people will respect my/our privacy in the matter. Thanks" the second someone noticed the posts were missing would almost certainly have nipped this all in the bud. It was probably that easy.
posted by Justinian at 11:17 PM on July 18, 2008 [1 favorite]


Joel: I second the above post. I have nothing against BB -- in fact I have enjoyed it in the past and recommended it to other people. But there was a lot wrong here and if BB wants to continue to be cool and not just another blog, it needs to pay attention. ( I mean , that's the defense, right? "We're just a blog and..." Oh, no. We're way past that. If blogs are important, BB needs to step up to the plate.)
posted by CCBC at 2:50 AM on July 19, 2008


WCityMike wrote:
Someone e-mailed me something that I (and he) thought was very interesting: BoingBoing has a stealth moderator, Takuan, who, if you look at this latest thread, is just as inflammatory (if not moreso) as TNH. Here's where TNH mentions he's a moderator.


That's, um, pretty surprising. Reading that thread, I had Takuan down as some sort of cheer-leading uber-fan - his comments almost consist entirely of "Shut up, you troll!" and "Look at the posting history of so-and-so, clearly a sock puppet, ha ha!". But I suppose if you set the bar for commenting at 'not as bad as YouTube', that's what you'll get from your moderators.
posted by jack_mo at 5:51 AM on July 19, 2008 [1 favorite]


BatgrlHG: There's no "collective user" mode in which you can publish by default in Wordpress. As you suggest, the workaround would be to create an account that multiple users can access and have "staff" as sender. Simple enough.

Or I guess you could create a "I approve of this message" function much like Mefi's "best answer" that would only be available to mods and show their signing off on a post.

Certainly sounds like a useful feature for any larger blog that needs to have editorial-ish posts.
posted by monocultured at 6:01 AM on July 19, 2008


All I've said is that in my opinion that many or most of the people who are vocally upset about about this seem to have had a middling-to-antagonistic opinion about Boing Boing in the first place. I mean, look at this thread; from the start it was fairly aggro

For christ's sake, it was "aggro" because BoingBoing fucked up! How can you not understand that? A friend of mine once kicked my wife in the ass. I was pretty aggro with him; do you think that was a sign that I must have had a middling-to-antagonistic opinion about him in the first place? You seem unable, despite your affability and apparent willingness to try to understand other people's concerns, to actually grasp what's going on here.

BoingBoing kicked its readers in the ass. If you don't grasp that, you shouldn't bother trying to defend it, because you're wasting your time and ours.
posted by languagehat at 6:05 AM on July 19, 2008 [2 favorites]


2080: Cory Doctorow's latest novel, "It's Jake With Me," is translated into Klingon.
posted by lukemeister at 9:09 AM on July 19, 2008


Joel, I'm a former loyal BB reader. Used to be the first thing I'd read when I woke up in the morning, the white background giving the first jolt of awakeness to the circadian part of my brain. And it would be the first thing I read when I came home, a brief interlude of novelties to help me cool down from the day.

But post-unpublishgate I don't do that anymore, because instead of a fun community of straight-talking self-avowed weirdos, it's become a defensive, unresponsive, media organization undifferentiable from, say, Weblogs, Inc. I went there not because of the content, but because I believed, to some degree, that it was run by friends. I mean, obviously not my actual friends, but someone that I could see myself calling a friend, someone who would listen to me and hear me (which did happen occasionally, pre-comment-system). Because of this event, my perception of the site has gone from "accessible" to "aloof", and that's enough to stop me reading it. (Though, I still read BBG because I don't feel it's been a party to this problem.)

BoingBoing's "us vs them" attitude is going to get it continually kicked in the balls. It shows up in the way they talk about their moderation: "wah there are all these trolls and sockpuppets we have to clean up after", "should I swing the axe and lop of the heads of a few more evil ogres?" (not actual quotes) It shows up in the way they talk about the response of other blogs: "we weren't the ones splashing gasoline around" (actual quote). Both the posts and the comment moderation were pushing the same message at the same time: we're different from you, and we find your presence irritating, remove yourself. This is what differentiates MetaFilter from BB: here, the moderators are on our side, they are playing for our team, we can reach them and they're not going to hide from us.

I know this is just a perception, a je ne sais quois, but damn it, perception is everything on the Internet. There are fucktons of sites that fulfill the same niche as BoingBoing, and it takes me no effort at all to switch from typing "bo"-<autocomplete> to "ne"-<autocomplete>.
posted by breath at 9:36 AM on July 19, 2008 [3 favorites]


2081: In the hands of the Klingons, the novel attains its full stature.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 9:36 AM on July 19, 2008 [1 favorite]


And to my previous comment I add the caveat that I know that it's really hard to not develop an us-vs-them attitude around any thing one is doing -- it's just human nature. But it's possible, and the Boingers are certainly talented enough to pull it off. It's like the Sean Tevis thread -- he shows that he's a winner simply by demonstrating that he can listen.

Joel, you've shown that you can listen, via your participation in this thread, however much disagreement there may be between yourself and others here. But The Fab 4 have largely failed to show that they can listen. The lessons learned post goes part of the way there, in that they're acknowledging that they screwed up. But the fact that it took them 2+ weeks to admit that they fucked up isn't very good on the "we can listen" chart. The decision that they're going to talk to each other before unpublishing (some) things now isn't very high up on the chart, either, because their responsibility is to the reader. Boingers, you're supposed to tell us.
posted by breath at 9:56 AM on July 19, 2008


You have not experienced Cory Doctorow until you have read him in the original Klingon.
posted by grouse at 2:59 PM on July 19, 2008 [3 favorites]


Another sign of the decline of civilization: My local library doesn't have George Orwell's Down and Out in Paris in London, but it does have Cory Doctorow's Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom.
posted by lukemeister at 3:45 PM on July 19, 2008 [1 favorite]


2085: Klingon scholars debate the existence of Cory Doctorow, preferring to assign authorship of his works to a Klingon bard, J'akh Koryo K'woro'khd. The identity of the author remains contentious, dissenters noting that "J'akh" appears to be a Klingon transliteration of "Jake," which features in the title of the novel which establishes Doctorow/K'woro'khd as a force in the realm of Imperial literature.

Records from this time are heavily redacted as a result of the Censorship Wars.

see, Charlie? I'm reading 'em!
posted by mwhybark at 7:19 PM on July 19, 2008






Great. The internet has now crossed its own event horizon. I now officially care not at all about any of this ridiculous clusterfuck; everybody involved has embarrassed themselves more than should even be possible, by design or by accident.

This thread can't be archived soon enough. How wonderfully ironic that it'll be preserved for posterity in the wayback machine archives. Apologies to all involved.
posted by spiderwire at 10:55 PM on July 19, 2008


YouTube: Violet Blue reads comments from this thread

That was good stuff. The jump cuts were a little odd, tho.
posted by ten pounds of inedita at 11:40 PM on July 19, 2008


YouTube: Violet Blue reads comments from this thread

VB has a great T-shirt. Doesn't seem to be on Cafepress yet, though.
(another money-making hint from the internets.)
posted by CCBC at 12:02 AM on July 20, 2008


I'm not a philaterlist! I'm a stamp punk!

Man, I'm so putting flames on my inhaler
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 1:52 AM on July 20, 2008 [1 favorite]


YouTube: Violet Blue reads comments from this thread

Oh hey! I'm on YouTube!

Does that mean I've jumped the snark?
posted by Kattullus at 4:59 AM on July 20, 2008


Joel Johnson, you seem like good people. Kudos to you.
posted by infinitewindow at 9:48 AM on July 20, 2008


The VB youtube video is actually kind of funny.
posted by Justinian at 10:07 AM on July 20, 2008


Agree about the VB video; thanks for posting it, Seth.
posted by languagehat at 11:24 AM on July 20, 2008


And from the BB thread:

#468 posted by takeshi , July 19, 2008 11:19 PM

@ PeaceLove:

...I shouldn't even have to tell you this, but blogs aren't traditional media. ...

No one has the right to demand that bloggers behave like journalists. Suggesting that they should is a much slippier slope, and tantamount to wrongfully making a citizen's arrest based on some warped interpretation of the law. ...

As I see it, Xeni didn't even owe hers an explanation. While you may think it's unprofessional for a blogger to retract their posts, you have no right to demand any kind of accountability. You seem to be mistaking yourself for some kind of arbiter of good taste in online publishing. Sure, you can ask that bloggers adhere to established guidelines, but it's presumptuous. Still, be my guest. China wouldn't have a problem with it.
...

@ Argon:

Your comparison of BoingBoing to "corporations and governments" is all anyone needs to utterly disregard the rest of your self-righteous diatribe.
...

More to the point: you seem to be taking this personally. I advise you to sleep on it. BoingBoing isn't on trial for war crimes, and you're not the Hague.

I've bolded the particularly humorous/appalling bits.
posted by languagehat at 11:28 AM on July 20, 2008


No one has the right to demand that bloggers behave like journalists.

I would hardly expect that bloggers behave like journalists. I have much higher expectations of bloggers.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 11:37 AM on July 20, 2008 [1 favorite]


I'm posting this comment so I won't have to look at that huge one every time I go to Recent Activity.

The fact that it's comment #2100 is entirely irrelevant. I hadn't even noticed it. In fact, I don't know what I'm talking about.
posted by languagehat at 11:55 AM on July 20, 2008


jesus, 7 spartas.
posted by mrzarquon at 1:12 PM on July 20, 2008


Takuan wtf.
posted by cortex at 5:47 PM on July 20, 2008 [1 favorite]


I'm one of those who used to be a BB regular, and I even tried to comment quite a bit. That Takuan and Antinous are mods now is absolutely ridiculous. If there was dissent in the comments, those two would inevitibly hound it out. I had even flagged some more egregious comments that were nothing but inflammatory. TNH replied a bit later that they would calm down once once they "got backup." Figures that it's easier to just let them unpublish whatever makes them mad.
posted by FuManchu at 6:33 PM on July 20, 2008


I've been reading this thread since, well, someone first linked to it. It convinced me to join MetaFilter. I'm increasingly thinking that with the current state of social-networking software, moderators aren't needed at all, but whether or not they are, the ones here do great work.

Um, this is not an invitation to bash Teresa, who I still respect enormously, for all that I think she is wrong like a wrong thing about how to moderate at Boing Boing. But so far as BB's Jr. Moderators are concerned, wtf indeed.
posted by shetterly at 6:47 PM on July 20, 2008


This does seem a lot like GiveWell, doesn't it? A lot of stink, a bit of attention, the rug is lifted, all is swept under it, and no one notices the lump after a week or two.

Guess I wish I was Jake with that. I am Cory with that.
posted by maxwelton at 7:08 PM on July 20, 2008


so question: has BB just totally lost relevance and is now a bunch of twits cackling madily as they play with their toy soldiers, with their furnaces leaking steam and their gauges shattering as their steam dirigible plummets dramatically to the earth?
posted by mrzarquon at 7:12 PM on July 20, 2008 [1 favorite]


Slashdot had a great quote from Tough love: Linux needs more haters: "As Elie Wiesel said, 'the opposite of love is not hate, it is indifference.' LinuxHater really doesn't hate Linux, despite the name. No one takes that much time to point out flaws in a product that they completely loathe and despise."

Everything I can think of to add to that sounds like, "The hammer is my penis," so I'll post this now.
posted by shetterly at 7:34 PM on July 20, 2008


Ha! Hiya, Will.

I'm increasingly thinking that with the current state of social-networking software, moderators aren't needed at all

No! No!

*scrabbles desperately after paycheck*

Or, really, I think the real question is one of figuring out how to make moderation work vs. not where it is needed—there may be situations where moderators per se aren't needed, but there are plenty where they are and I think territory is only going to get bigger over time—and finding a way to match people to position.

And those things—knowing where and how much moderation is needed, knowing how to find the people to do it—isn't something where I think there's anything like clear best practices established yet. One of the challenges there I think is that there are times when you can treat moderation like a commodity, and those may be situations where a system rather than a human might indeed be a good fit; but a lot of situations call for moderation to be a job, not just something tacked on to someone's work- (or play-)load. And the more true that is, the more direct personal challenge comes with making that match between moderator and site, and the more danger there is I think for all involved in finding a way to patch up any problems that emerge.

It's a weird and complicated job.
posted by cortex at 7:57 PM on July 20, 2008 [1 favorite]


wow...so they finally tried to address the issue. again, poorly. i wonder when they're going to realize that the only way this is going to stop being a 'big bad siwwy kerfoofoo' (am i the only one absolutely repulsed by XJ's constant attempts to inject baby talk into a serious discussion of journalistic ethics?) is to REPUBLISH the removed posts and ACTUALLY APOLOGIZE.
posted by sexyrobot at 8:02 PM on July 20, 2008


Takuan wtf.

It's a fine line between FTW and WTF. Well, actually, it isn't.
posted by lukemeister at 8:03 PM on July 20, 2008


also:
#78 POSTED BY CORY DOCTOROW , JULY 18, 2008 10:23 AM
@67: Xeni speaks for me -- and I'm off for the weekend to celebrate my birthday. AFAIC, if one of my co-eds wants to delete some posts they made, it's jake with me.


ew.
posted by sexyrobot at 8:08 PM on July 20, 2008 [1 favorite]


and also, that vb youtube video...genius!
posted by sexyrobot at 8:34 PM on July 20, 2008


"YouTube: Violet Blue reads comments from this thread"

That was kind of fun. And yes, the fact that this thread has now oozed from text into video means its morphing into some bizarre lifeform, completely out of our control.
Cool.

And remember - if you want to link and discuss any comments from Boing Boing? Or text in their posts? Copy the whole dang thing, or it may all go away. I really loved the part that languagehat posted from takeshi (BB Lessons Learned, July 19, 2008 11:19 PM, comment 468) who is apparently a moderator, and thus also Speaks For Boing Boing - and I have to quote again, sorry languagehat, but I just can't help but repost:

"No one has the right to demand that bloggers behave like journalists. Suggesting that they should is a much slippier slope, and tantamount to wrongfully making a citizen's arrest based on some warped interpretation of the law. Fact is: it ain't up to you. These "norms" you seek to establish would inevitably lead to blogs looking a Hell of a lot like traditional media, a thought that turns my stomach. I'm not saying that blogs shouldn't attempt to keep their readers happy. BoingBoing obviously has their readers' interests in mind, even if not all of their editorial decisions have lived up to their public's unrealistic expectations.

No laws were broken... only links. Who's the authority on who can unpublish their own work? At what point does a blog begin to owe its public full transparency? As I see it, Xeni didn't even owe hers an explanation. While you may think it's unprofessional for a blogger to retract their posts, you have no right to demand any kind of accountability. You seem to be mistaking yourself for some kind of arbiter of good taste in online publishing. Sure, you can ask that bloggers adhere to established guidelines, but it's presumptuous. Still, be my guest. China wouldn't have a problem with it."


Ok, here's my problem. You have bloggers and moderators at BB, they all run about presenting grand statements as "we've all signed off on this, we all agree with each other" - fine, then you all have to live with this definition in the future. That's what happens if you don't all learn to write a group statement, and come to a collective understanding of what the hell your business is doing. Takeshi apparently sees this call for BB to have some form of standards as being "restrictive old media" - and that new media of blogging apparently breaks free from all norms. Totally not getting that accountability is there to help the authors and the readers, not to straightjacket any freedoms. By knowing that what was posted 2 hrs or 2 days of 2 years ago will still be there on a site gives us the ability to quote it, to assume that it's going to be a resource. Saying you don't have to but you demand the government not hide away content - I'd say that's the slippery slope you're on.

So BB, if you don't want to play with the grownup Media and have actual standards of posting, fine. Then don't let me see any of your bloggers ever asking for press passes. To anything. You're bloggers? Fine, then get in line behind me at the next event you're "covering." Because if you're not bringing any expertise to the table? Then I can think of many other folks I'd want in that door to report back. Whose words I can look up and be assured that they'll still be there in a few months. In the same form that I originally read them. Of course - from what I know of BB, they dodn't actually cover things, they just post links that were mostly sent in via their readers - so that's probably finger wagging at a group that could care less.

Good call on that comment languagehat, I'm still marveling at the whole comment-blather. It was one thing when a moderator tried to use the wrong tactics to stiffle arguments - this is ponitificating in a way that makes the the site's management seem even less professional. Which I honestly didn't think was possible at this point.
posted by batgrlHG at 9:37 PM on July 20, 2008 [4 favorites]


Wait no, Takuan is the moderator and takeshi just another poster. ...Right? See, BB, this is why it helps to have a Staff page, or an About page... Is there anything like that I'm missing? I'm looking on their main page and find no links... I can find out about Mark, Cory, David, Xeni, and John, and links to all of their works - but now, since I now get the Voice of Boing Boing from both posts and wedged inbetween comments, it makes things a tad confusing not to know who has authority in there...
posted by batgrlHG at 9:51 PM on July 20, 2008 [1 favorite]


Antinous mentioned that getting some kind of "moderator" icon or indicator for folks doing moderation is on their todo (or at least lookinto) list. In the mean time, some sort of explicit note on profile pages might not be a bad idea, though.
posted by cortex at 10:19 PM on July 20, 2008


Cortex, I'll do what I can to protect your paycheck! Even a site experimenting with social-network moderation systems might want a button to click labeled, "In case of emergency, call moderator!" Moderators who try to be peacemakers will always get praise from me.
posted by shetterly at 10:30 PM on July 20, 2008


BB's moderation page lists moderators and doesn't include Takuan, but as WCityMike notes, Takuan seems to have some sort of official status. Maybe he's a Cub Moderator.

Forgive me if this is too much of a side issue, but does BB's handling of the correction for the Amnesty International hoax trouble anyone else? It got me disemvoweled and banned, so if it's only my concern, cool. But it seems emblematic of what happened with Violet Blue and, to me, it's more worrisome. I don't know much about Violet Blue other than I like the way she's responding to The Kerfuffle, but I respect Amnesty International enormously. When Boing Boing promotes things in AI's name that AI denies on its front page, something smells funny.
posted by shetterly at 10:44 PM on July 20, 2008


P.S. I'm not blaming XJ for not checking her sources here. As she says, she's not a journalist, and she thinks of BB as a personal blog. But when Boing Boing puts disinformation on its front page and buries the correction in back, isn't it behaving exactly like the sort of news source that champions of truth and justice and general niceness really dislike?
posted by shetterly at 10:51 PM on July 20, 2008 [4 favorites]


shetterley's comments above led me to seek out this BB thread. Satan tries to suggest that there is a relationship between BB's not recognizing a phony link and earlier behavior (Xeni's using dancing cats vids to draw attention away from the crime at hand). He was disemvowelled. Here's the quote as I have it:W'r tlkng bt dnncng cts whr dntts r dltd frm th rcrds t mk t sm lk ndsrbl ppl nvr vn xstd. BB wldn't knw nythng bt tht rght?

After deciphering the disemvowelling I then had to figure out which post Xeni referred to, since she numbered it differently than the original. But perhaps something was, uh, published that threw off the numbering. There's some to and fro on this and Satan actually manages to get in an undisemvowlled comment. But I want to quote, in full, Xeni's original reply (#9 now, she refers to Satan's post as #6 but it is now #7 -- I dunno):
@#6 Satan, that sort of silly melodrama has no place in this post. If you have something specific and thoughtful to say, you know there's another thread for that. But to answer your question, let's see: torture, forced detention, extrajudicial execution, denial of due process, imprisonment without trial, beatings -- yeah, that's *exactly* like a blog editor taking down some posts she made herself about Hello Kitty dildos, and a bunch of drama queens having a fit about it a year later. Further, which queen created this drama?

Seriously, your comment is offensive.
So that's Xeni's July 7 defense of her actions. Note the BS: Xeni took down posts made by others, not just herself, and they ranged far past Hello Kitty. In fact, at least one of the posts was about defeating censorship, a BB pet topic. Maybe it's been ununpublished now, I don't know. Anyway, someone says: "#6 wsn't ffnsv. Mght hv ht nrv, bt t wsn't ffnsv." which I managed to translate, then Xeni set him straight:
@#12, You are entitled to your opinion, but I find it offensive. The subject matter at hand involves something specific and real; saying that a blogger taking down some of her own work is like torturing or "disappearing" thousands of human beings is offensive to me, and it's also offensive to people who are the victims of such human rights abuses.

This sort of polemic amounts to trolling, no different than invoking Godwin's law. I'd like us to keep the quality of this thread more civil and respectful.

Man! Gut a comment that says "I didn't see the offense" and then pretend to take the high road. Civil. Respectful. All that. Then TNH weighs in:
HarshLanguage, you don't get to announce that Satan's comments weren't offensive when it was already evident that quite a few people were offended by them.

I have never seen the "hit a nerve" trope used as anything but a cheap shot. And if there was a nerve hit, it's the one that twangles when reports of grave human rights abuses are misappropriated by a person who wants to artificially extend a prior argument by pretending that those abuses are comparable to some venial error committed by an opponent.

Satan, your various remarks here on Boing Boing have been tolerated precisely because Xeni didn't consider herself your opponent. She undertook to listen to readers' legitimate complaints, and yours were among them.

Your performance in this thread has been something else again. I know you're going to call me a fascist, or something similar, which frankly doesn't interest me; but the truth is, I wish you well in spite of yourself. I've already talked one prominent liberal blogger out of writing an entry whose sole purpose was to make fun of your remarks here.

If you're only here to pursue your personal (and as far as I can tell groundless) quarrel with Xeni and Boing Boing, you won't be here for long. If you get kicked out, it'll be entirely on account of your bad manners.

That's the deal as it stands. What you do about it is your decision.
Then Shetterley comes in with the apt observation that a lie is a lie. If the photos are faked then they are a lie. People attack Shetterley (who holds his temper) as a concern troll. Baby mods (or whatever they are called) come to the support of Teresa. Some BBers say: "Shetterly has a point." Some say that the mods are name-calling. Anyway, stuff goes on and then it turns out that these are fake photos. Shetterley says, okay, now you need to say so. Junior Mod Antinous (wasn't that the name of the guy who led Penelope's suitors? I think Odysseus sent an arrow through him) says: "I checked the link bona fides before Xeni posted and I'm sure it's cool." Shetterley says: "Antinuous and Xeni, I'm guessing the commenter wasn't from AI, but that seems irrelevant now. What matters is AI thinks this is so important that it posted the disclaimer at the top of the front page of its site. f y hv ny rspct fr , pls mk nw pst t lt ll BB rdrs knw th trth."

Well, the beat goes on. Satan returns for a few bon mots and is suspended from posting. Xeni says, "Well, we don't know for sure it wasn't Amnesty International who did this and even if it wasn't it's all cool, right?"
Which brings us back to Orwell.
posted by CCBC at 1:27 AM on July 21, 2008 [2 favorites]


Sorry, I misquoted Xeni above. The words: "Further, which queen created this drama?" were not in Xeni's post.
My lawyers are ready to take your phone calls.
posted by CCBC at 1:33 AM on July 21, 2008


CCBC, that's quite the recap! Since you included a bit of mine that got disemvoweled, here's what I wrote: "If you have any respect for AI, please make a new post to let all BB readers know the truth."

It points out one of my big problems with disemvoweling: you can't be sure of what's missing. On one of my blogs, a Boing Boing reader guessed that I'd left out a word and had written: "If you have any respect for me, please make a new post to let all BB readers know the truth."

But I knew they didn't have any respect for me. In an earlier discussion about Tibet, I passed along some information at comment #2. Antinous, a moderator, began comment #3 with "Will, That's just a big, fat lie." Other commenters then pointed out that a simple bit of googling showed I was right. If Antinous apologized for calling me a liar, I missed it.

Now, the fact that I remember this shows that it irks, but it doesn't irk much: I learned long ago that if you worry about getting everyone's respect, you'll never deserve anyone's. But I thought Xeni respected Amnesty International, so I mentioned them. Because of the disemvoweling, that was lost entirely.

Okay, this is digressing and easily read as whiny. Maybe I'm just a troll. If so, I have a lot of company at Boing Boing. I would love to know the percentage of people banned and disemvoweled there compared with other popular discussion sites.
posted by shetterly at 2:06 AM on July 21, 2008 [2 favorites]


Will: I don't think you are a troll. Your point (as I take it) was that this was a fake photo pretending to be from Amnesty International and that this neither helped AI nor furthered human rights issues. The hostile reaction from BB really surprised me. The mods actually promoted certain viewpoints while crapping on others. I think moderation at BB has decayed past the point where it should receive life support. The name-calling and promotion of vicious posts from ass-kissers attacking questioners -- this is not moderation.
posted by CCBC at 2:40 AM on July 21, 2008


BTW, the mis-numbering was explained (way down the thread) by an early anonymous post that got held, then accepted and inserted, thus rendering any reply to a numbered post one off.

And, I never thought much about disemvowelling until three weeks ago. Now I am totally opposed to the practice.
posted by CCBC at 2:46 AM on July 21, 2008


Sorry, I misquoted Xeni above. The words: "Further, which queen created this drama?" were not in Xeni's post.

My first reaction, on reading that, is to think "ah, Xeni's been doing some silent post-publication edits again".

And that's the hole they dug themselves when they started messing with the historical record - anyone can say "well it was there a few minutes ago, they must have edited it".

Still, their loss of trust isn't my problem, it's theirs.
posted by Leon at 3:23 AM on July 21, 2008


I'm not blaming XJ for not checking her sources here. As she says, she's not a journalist

Wow, she finally admitted it?
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 4:20 AM on July 21, 2008 [1 favorite]


Wow, she finally admitted it?

Huh, Xeni's Wikipedia page said she had been a journalist.
posted by delmoi at 7:06 AM on July 21, 2008


Hey! You people are talking about BB moderation. That is only allowed in the BB moderation thread -- aka, the free speech corral :)
posted by found missing at 9:30 AM on July 21, 2008


I see none of my incisive comments turned up in that Violet Blue video... Well, she's dead to me know. In fact I'm going to add to my blog, just so I can UNPUBLISH it later.
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 9:35 AM on July 21, 2008 [1 favorite]


Will, your comments about the moderation aren't off-topic, they're very much the heart of the matter. Aren't they? TNH (who from what I've seen rocks in a lot of ways /disclaimer) and the other mods are treating BB as not as their job, but as their Nakama. You may not like the radio operator for Easy Company, but anyone dares to come after him they have to go through you first. When this all broke she posted a tweet that said "@BohemianCoast Today it's especially vile. VB is lying, by the way. My suspicion is that we're under attack by Gawker Media." She entered that thread spoiling for a fight?

What it comes down to is what Antinous posted in the moderation thread: the best way to deal with problem posts is to snark at them: "Our options for moderating are verbal wrangling, disemvoweling and unpublishing. If you consider those options, most people would rather be snarked at than dv'ed." Notice how "verbal wrangling" equals "snarked at" in that comment?

I'm still subscribed to both Boing Boing and Boing Boing Gadgets but from the mod behavior that I've been following on the site for the past couple of weeks you couldn't get me to their comment threads with cash money. This whole incident has shown I don't belong there.

(Also: goodness! Way to go Cortex in that thread!)
posted by mrmorgan at 9:53 AM on July 21, 2008 [1 favorite]


I'm not blaming XJ for not checking her sources here. As she says, she's not a journalist

Wow, she finally admitted it?


Actually, I'm getting more confused about what the Boingers think they are. They run a site where they share information with "more than 2 million unique visitors" according to Federated Media. How many readers checked the back pages to discover that BB had promoted a lie about Amnesty International, I would love to know. The people behind that lie must be very happy about how it's working out so far.

I think BB wants to be a Hipster's Reader's Digest. Whatever it is, I'm not sure anyone should say, "Sometimes I'm a journalist, but when two million people read my corporate/personal blog, I'm not."
posted by shetterly at 10:00 AM on July 21, 2008 [2 favorites]


So, nobody at BB is going to answer cortex's question about Takuan's role? Awesome.
posted by mrmorgan at 10:18 AM on July 21, 2008


OMGZOMG cortex deleted one of mrmorgan's two comments about himself!
posted by Kattullus at 10:27 AM on July 21, 2008


cortex: Also, can someone please clarify Takuan's role re: moderation? [ . . . ] If I'm off the mark -- if you don't have any official responsibilities here, and your comments are strictly those of a commenter -- then I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Takuan: where'd ya come from anyway? Ain't seen you around these parts afore. [ . . . ] what is your intent?

cortex: To read and discuss. What on earth do you think my intent is?

Takuan: to judge and preach perhaps
Bye Bye, Boing Boing.
posted by spiderwire at 10:38 AM on July 21, 2008 [3 favorites]


I hadn't read the BB moderation thread in a while. Cortex, well handled! This, from Antinous, especially struck me:

Naturally, commenters who have been moderated for offensive behavior frequently feel that they've been singled out for their political views.

That would be more plausible if the people they moderate with an iron hand weren't exclusively people who take political views that aren't shared by the moderators. Antinous and Takuan in particular follow the party line of the National Endowment for Democracy and the rightwing groups it sponsors. Which isn't to knock rightwingers. (Everyone's entitled to their beliefs, no matter how insane, ahem.) It just means moderators who moderate based on their political beliefs should be honest about their bias.

mrmorgan, no one will answer that question. Why the silence, I dunno, especially given his own statement on the BB boards about it. Maybe they offered him the job, realized it was a mistake, and are trying to let him out gently.
posted by shetterly at 10:40 AM on July 21, 2008


Kattullus - what?
posted by mrmorgan at 11:05 AM on July 21, 2008


mrmorgan: what?

Just a stupid joke. Your previous comment was doubleposted and (I presume) cortex deleted the double. I thought it was funny, but, in the clear light of 20 minutes later, it's not really all that funny.
posted by Kattullus at 11:27 AM on July 21, 2008


Takuan and Antinous's refusal to confirm or deny the former's status as a moderator does seem pretty strange, especially when Antinous was happily chatting to cortex about other moderation issues over there.
posted by jack_mo at 11:28 AM on July 21, 2008


The funniest thing about all this is that I think that on certain parts of the internet Boing Boing will end up having established "unpublished" as a synonym for "memory holed."
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 11:31 AM on July 21, 2008


Kattullus: oh! Duh.
posted by mrmorgan at 12:09 PM on July 21, 2008


I know, I know, TNH rocks, is awesome, blah blah blah. But how can you look at the mess at BB and still retain a high opinion of her abilities? If I kick my dog from seven until eight every night, but otherwise treat her well the rest of the day, can you ignore the hour of kicking when you assess my ability to be a good pet owner?

There's some weird disconnect here. In any case, everyone at BB looks pretty terrible.
posted by maxwelton at 1:19 PM on July 21, 2008 [1 favorite]


Here is a fascinating (to me) exchange:
takuan(#266): how much you getting paid, satan?
satan(#271): @Takuan How do you mean?
takuan(#272):I mean are you supporting torture for your twisted sexual enjoyment or are you taking dollars or RMB?
satan(#273):[answers with a long serious take on whether torture is ever justified]
takuan(#274):you support torture. You have said so. That is all I need to know.
satan(#275):Takuan, you torture enough people with your writing style.
takuan(#276):and you, you little masochistic worm, you love it and constantly return for more. Crawl! Worm! Admit you crave the lash!
takuan(#277):[posts a link to a South Park rendition of Satan and Saddam Hussein]
antinous(#279): Satan Your comments seem designed to inflame rather than illuminate. I'm suspending your account for a week. If you wish to be reinstated, you can drop us a note at the end of the week.
Got that? The semi-mod calls someone a worm and aims a caricature at him and that someone is then called inflammatory and banned.
BTW, Shetterley was disemvowelled by Avram, not Teresa, Xeni, or Antious. BB is crawling with people who have mod privileges.
posted by CCBC at 1:20 PM on July 21, 2008


Takuan seems to have some sort of official status.

I'm not sure which is worse, the fact itself or their being so coy about it. But if TNH's behavior was unfortunate and she needs to rethink her moderating style, this guy is just an asshole plain and simple, and their tolerating him at all, let alone giving him official status (if in fact they have), gives the lie to their pretense of insisting on high-minded discourse.
posted by languagehat at 1:21 PM on July 21, 2008


Crawl! Worm! Admit you crave the lash!

If someone mentions dumpsters or Diogenes, I'm clearing out my bank account and bracing for the Singularity.
posted by cortex at 1:28 PM on July 21, 2008


One positive thing to come out of this is that I reevaluated my kneejerk dislike of Violet Blue. I'm quite enjoying her stuff now.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 1:44 PM on July 21, 2008 [1 favorite]


Takuan must be performance art. Or satire. Or the first attack of a surrealist AI bent on conquering us all.
posted by Skorgu at 1:49 PM on July 21, 2008


I come back to find out I'm internet famous for twenty seconds in VB's youtubery. Awesome.
posted by waraw at 2:18 PM on July 21, 2008


maxwelton, I've known Teresa for twenty years. She's smart, passionate, and principled. She's also fiercely loyal to the people she considers friends--I think that's what's causing the problems at BoingBoing. She's quick to defend by attacking, which can be a virtue in a friend, and understandable at a personal or an obviously partisan site, but it's not helpful if you're trying to create a community where people can disagree without flames.

I don't know if I've met any of her Lieutenant Moderators. Since we run in similar circles, I might've. My impression is that they're all as combative as Teresa or more so. If I ran Boing Boing, I would fire all of them except Teresa and then team her up with someone like Cortex.
posted by shetterly at 2:44 PM on July 21, 2008


I'm just over here to gape at the big thread. Hi, all.
posted by everichon at 3:33 PM on July 21, 2008


I'm just over here to let will shetterly know that there's a semi-aborted welcome thread about him over in MetaTalk.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 3:40 PM on July 21, 2008


Boing Boing lost my eyeballs when all this started.
That'll cost 'em!
posted by Floydd at 3:52 PM on July 21, 2008


CCBC: "Got that? The semi-mod calls someone a worm and aims a caricature at him and that someone is then called inflammatory and banned. BTW, Shetterley was disemvowelled by Avram, not Teresa, Xeni, or Antious. BB is crawling with people who have mod privileges."

Geez, thank goodness, so I'm not the only one to become confused as to who's a moderator. Apparently it's not just one or two folk, it really is Moderation By Mob? Kind of interesting to watch that work - as long as you aren't actually trying to you know, ask a question over there. I do think shetterly's issue seems worth looking into - seems a bit more serious than the rest of the "it's all personal" hooha. At the very least their style of moderation is sweeping a legit issue/question under the rug, only making them look all the more suspect. When at worst their main flaw may be really bad moderation practices.

fearfulsymmetry: "I see none of my incisive comments turned up in that Violet Blue video"

No worries, I think this thread will have it's own award show soon - if not its own tshirt, key chain, commemorative statue - and I'm sure you'll be mentioned there, fearfulsymmetry. I myself will be nominating the following reference for some award, if only because I'm a classics nerd:

CCBC: "Junior Mod Antinous (wasn't that the name of the guy who led Penelope's suitors? I think Odysseus sent an arrow through him)"

I say we arm all our mods here with bows and arrows. Much more amusing than disemvoweling. And not as much carnage.
Plus great potential for sound effects.
posted by batgrlHG at 3:56 PM on July 21, 2008


Going way way back to the beginning, Xeni should have handled the original drama NOT by just "unpublishing" everything referring to Violet Blue but rather by "unlinking" all the links to Violet Blue in posts where they weren't central to the content, and changing all specific name references to "VB" (or maybe just disemvowel her to "Vlt Bl"? Nah, too ironic.) Yes, it would've taken more time but it might have been a good way to work out whatever anger and/ir frustration XJ had with the "personal issues". It would've kept it on the downlow, been fair to the other people in the posts and made it a helluva lot easier to dismiss if/when VB made a stink.

The assumption that "it didn't get noticed for a year" is totally bogus; many people could have tripped over the memory pothole without blogging about it, and the person most likely to make the discovery public was Violet Blue herself (and the reason it took a year was probably that she was ignoring Xeni just as hard as Xeni was ignoring her) and considering VB is a mostly-self-proclaimed attention whore, the blow-up and the way it happened was just plain inevitable.

Now, the editorial policy toward the FAKE AI ads was inexcusable. If any story deserved unpublishing, and not just correction long after it had slid down the page, it was that one. And how did they come to believe that not 'being jake' with fraudsters using the Amnesty International name was THE SAME as supporting the Chinese Government's human rights violations? That is so simply and obviously WRONG, maybe somebody should slap the BoingBoing brand onto something offensive (but supporting a cause they like) just so see how they enjoy it.

Point of fact: When I read BoingBoing regularly, I almost never read the comments. I had become accustomed to it during the long period when they didn't have comments, and never saw the point since it wasn't a "web community" to me, just some people writing on the web who wouldn't pay any more attention to my response than a syndicated newspaper Op-Ed columnist.

Now, I check out the headlines at the aggregator popurls.com (where I can see the headlines of a lot of other websites I don't want to bother with directly) and click on individual items if I think there's more worth reading than the headline (which happens once every 2-3 days... I think I click on Fark links there more often).
posted by wendell at 3:59 PM on July 21, 2008


Okay, I'm sorry I didn't break that up into 5 separate comments.

Got to support the "LongBoing Thread" (as I, and apparently nobody else likes to call it).
posted by wendell at 4:04 PM on July 21, 2008 [1 favorite]


cortex: To read and discuss. What on earth do you think my intent is?
Takuan: to judge and preach perhaps


Cortex don't preach, I'm in trouble deep
Cortex don't preach, I've been losing sleep
But I made up my mind, I'm keeping my steampunk, oh
I'm gonna keep my steampunk, mmm...
posted by lukemeister at 4:21 PM on July 21, 2008 [2 favorites]


For those wondering what the cortex and Takuan comments refer to - start in the BB moderation thread about here and read down.
Unless of course the comments disappear for some reason.
Someone's saving the page content, right?
posted by batgrlHG at 4:27 PM on July 21, 2008


Maybe they hired Takuan to make Antinous seem more reasonable.
posted by Tenuki at 4:42 PM on July 21, 2008


You know what? It's their sandbox. I just don't like having sand thrown in my eyes.

I'll be over by the slides.
posted by infinitewindow at 5:32 PM on July 21, 2008


you know, maybe YouTube could actually do with some moderators who are actively hostile and abusive towards comment posters.
posted by Artw at 5:50 PM on July 21, 2008


PR News Online weighs in:

Boing Boing’s editors dug in their heels, despite overwhelming evidence that many in the community felt they had failed their expectations for transparency. Their real issue was with Violet Blue, not the community. Posting a note acknowledging what they had done to their blog was necessary, at least from a credibility standpoint. But they probably should have apologized, modified their policies, and moved on with a healthy thick skin. Instead they waded into their forums and defended themselves and attacked their critics. By attacking their critics, both through arguing as well as by using their administrative powers to re-edit their critics’ comments, they gave another audience a reason to perpetuate the conflict.
posted by waraw at 6:15 PM on July 21, 2008 [1 favorite]


YouTube: Violet Blue reads comments from this thread

Nice. That's the funniest thing that's come out of this whole melodrama. It could have used some Young-Hae Chang background music, though.
posted by homunculus at 6:38 PM on July 21, 2008


Violet Blue: much thanks, and a curtsey

"This morning on Adrants, Steve Hall posted about That Boing Boing Thing, specifically the video I made a couple days ago with the same name, where I attempt to explain WTF!? exclusively in the words of MetaFilter commenters. I also try to speak in disemvowel. You will like. Is a humorous salve after the maliciousness* and ongoing, bizarre flippancy. Thank you, Adrants! Also, last night I was cruising FluffyFeets just for, erm, kicks, and came across… my feets! What a terrific compliment, thank you, too!

::blush::

* Update: the “maliciousness” link is now dead. It looks like not long after I linked to TNH’s Twitter post from July 2, she removed it. Good thing I screencapped it, and saved it here."
posted by Seth Finkelstein at 6:46 PM on July 21, 2008


does BB's handling of the correction for the Amnesty International hoax trouble anyone else?

Huh. Yeah, that's the first thing about this I've found really troubling.
posted by homunculus at 6:51 PM on July 21, 2008


Wow, I had no idea this thread was still continuing on.

Joel, as others have expressed, I used to consider myself a fan of BB, and it was one of the first sites I checked to procrastinate every day. This whole debacle left a bad taste in my mouth. Why should I matter? I probably shouldn't. I am no one important, I have no blog of followers; I was simply a reader.

What you should be concerned about is people like BlueAndroid, in the moderator thread, who asks legitimate questions and gets snarked at by Takuan.

Seriously, who is this guy? He must be a mod, as his comments never suffer dsmvllwng, but what a dick. Nice work over there cortex, or nice try. It seems we are beyond getting any answers from the site.
posted by graventy at 7:07 PM on July 21, 2008


Good to see that all the BB parties involved still suck. I don't think they realize that it is impossible to dig yourself out of a hole. You have to fill it with something.
posted by sciurus at 7:46 PM on July 21, 2008 [1 favorite]


I spent a couple hours catching up on this thread tonight.
Just adding to the LongBoing at this point.
posted by lilywing13 at 8:12 PM on July 21, 2008


Here's what's REALLY brilliant about the PR piece that waraw linked up there - the article is about two PR moments. The first example was brought to the attention of the masses by Boing Boing - and Ford, the company in question that was getting bad press, stepped in to resolve the matter. In the second instance - well, that's the Boing Boing instance.

Attention all PR, Mass Comm, Media History, etc. instructors and other interested educators - that PR News story is nicely set up to be used in future lesson plans. Which is just where I'd be featuring it if I was still in that field. First time in ages I've missed teaching collegefolk - that's how perfect an example this is.
posted by batgrlHG at 8:20 PM on July 21, 2008


omg, I miss a few days and the developments are incredible. In a matter of a few days, the notion that BBers are savvy internet thought leaders has been, dare I say, disemboweled. What a mess, and as scirius notes, they are still digging. The exchange with cortex is boggling.

The moderators over there are so impossibly bad I keep expecting to find them outing themselves as Improv Everywhere - "oh hai, we just waz just foolin with ya!" How can the BB principals not only let that situation go on, but endorse it?

Back about 50,000 comments ago, someone linked to a comment from TNH that explained Takuan's status there. I copied it because I found it astounding.

As for Takuan being off balance: yes, he is. He's been officially made an assistant moderator. (That's as opposed to situationally acting as an informal moderator, which any perceptive and responsible Boing Boing commenter is welcome to do, as long as they get it right.) He is consequently feeling obliged to behave himself -- and if you've been reading Boing Boing's comment threads for any length of time, you know how big a change that is.

So by her last statement, it would indicate that he never behaved, and this was reason to give him a responsible role? But also note that any "responsible Boing Boing commenter" can situationally act as an informal moderator "as long as they get it right." Excuse me? What constitutes "getting it right"? No wonder they have such a vociferous ass-kissing peanut gallery if it's a casting call for the next mods.

BB will continue to be hugely popular, but I would think that the way this whole matter has been handled constitutes a jump the shark moment in serious internet circles.
posted by madamjujujive at 8:33 PM on July 21, 2008 [4 favorites]


this guy is just an asshole plain and simple, and their tolerating him at all, let alone giving him official status (if in fact they have), gives the lie to their pretense of insisting on high-minded discourse

To be fair, his internet tough-guy shtick is sort of amusing. I love how quickly he switched from playing coy with that passive-aggressive ol' timey Sheriff response to cortex's good faith effort to just straight out telling everyone how badass he is, without actually backing it up or addressing any real points.
Reminds me off the kid in the third grade who insisted he was a ninja. Only sadder, since I'm guessing Takuan isn't eight years old... although that would explain a lot.

Cheers to cortex for again entering the breach and trying to communicate in a professional and adult manner. Another great example of why this place works and why BoingBoing's been running on nostalgic pityclicks and the fumes of fleeting coolness for god knows how long.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:11 PM on July 21, 2008


I think the image I had of the boingboing editors (as passionate, uber web-savvy, gadget heavy, technology consumers) has been thrown off base. Reading through this thread, I've come to the conclusion that the boingboing editors either didn't know what they were doing or that they just didn't care that much about the blog. Their long delay before responding, the use and defense of the word "unpublish", disemvoweling criticism, antagonistic moderators - these all make it seem like they didn't understand how these things might play out on the Internet and come across as worse than the original deletion of the VB posts. Their excuse that they couldn't respond earlier because they were located in different time zones and on vacation make it seem like they just didn't care that much about the blog, that it was just one of their individual projects among many. They might be surprised at how many of their readers have gadgets to check work emails and respond to work crises when on holiday.
posted by Staggering Jack at 9:36 PM on July 21, 2008 [1 favorite]


shetterly writes "She's smart, passionate, and principled. She's also fiercely loyal to the people she considers friends--I think that's what's causing the problems at BoingBoing. She's quick to defend by attacking, which can be a virtue in a friend, and understandable at a personal or an obviously partisan site, but it's not helpful if you're trying to create a community where people can disagree without flames."

Principled and fiercely loyal are so often in conflict.
posted by Mitheral at 9:36 PM on July 21, 2008


BoingBoing: Running on nostalgic pityclicks and the fumes of fleeting coolness for god knows how long.
posted by ericb at 10:10 PM on July 21, 2008


Holy fucking shit. You guys are still at this?
posted by Caduceus at 10:26 PM on July 21, 2008 [1 favorite]


Stamina, my boy. Like beers through a meetup, so are the comments of our thread.
posted by cortex at 10:33 PM on July 21, 2008 [1 favorite]


Wow, hat's off to you cortex. If takuan had come at me like that, I would've lost it and let him have both barrels. You showed great restraint.
posted by stinkycheese at 11:00 PM on July 21, 2008


Can someone confirm something for me? That post, apparently from Cory, on the "Lessons Learned" thread, is it really from him?

Because I'm just flabbergasted -- after a long long wait during which I, like a lot of people, hoped he would somehow fix this, that's what we get? "Xeni speaks for me"? Xeni deleted his posts for god's sake.

I can't believe it. But if he really posted that, that's the other shoe dropping bigtime. Any possibility of BB clawing back any credibility is 100%, absolutely, definitively over.

The only faint tinge of forgiveness I could muster is that Cory's the father of quite a young baby, and I know from personal experience how that changes your life, your priorities and your ability to think rationally. But still.

What's that Dutch word which means "feeling shame on behalf of someone else"?
posted by AmbroseChapel at 11:07 PM on July 21, 2008 [2 favorites]


I walked out of the comment threads after the initial moderation thread over there. I wasn't willing to hold the BBers responsible for a crappy mod on one thread. But with this vb thing, lack of response, childish attacks, etc., they're off my list of places to visit. Too bad, I remember when it was full of interesting links.
posted by jeblis at 11:50 PM on July 21, 2008


madamejujujive: What constitutes "getting it right"? No wonder they have such a vociferous ass-kissing peanut gallery if it's a casting call for the next mods.
Antinous says:"As you've noticed, we're not Metafilter. The content here is editor-driven rather than user-driven..." I think this is a significant comment.
I leave it to the audience to think it through.
posted by CCBC at 12:15 AM on July 22, 2008 [1 favorite]


From the Boing Boing moderation thread #673
"Comments are never deleted and very rarely unpublished."

So, can someone, who is more expert in Newspeak than I am, please explain the difference between deletion and unpublishing... because, well, to me they are exactly the same thing.
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 3:28 AM on July 22, 2008


I'm surprised by how the moderation is being enacted at this point; it comes off as being pretty rinkydink and silly... basically juvenile.

But to be fair, there are a few factors that should probably be considered, not the least of which is that while MeFi has a $5 barrier to just rushing in and commenting willynilly (isn't it just so much fun to say "willynilly"?), the same is not true at BB, so you can imagine the onslaught of new commenters and the drudgery of trying to sift through all that at this stage of the game. I imagine that the moderators (and crypto-moderators) are pretty punch drunk at this point, and yes, let's face it - over-defensive and tetchy. Their trigger fingers must be numb with fatigue, and they're gunning for the new faces.

I won't name names, but most of you can probably recall a few people who've paid the five clams to join MeFi and were very vocal in criticizing moderation policies and other aspects of the site... and almost everyone who responded to them (not the mods, though, as I recall) were like, "Who the hell are you, and what the fuck do you know, newb?" or perhaps a rather less pointed version of same.

Now, imagine that x 100s, and you can get some idea of what they must be dealing with, and how they must feel about it. Plus the fact that - as far as I can make out - one of the big gears in their moderation strategy is apparently verbal shaming? At least that's the impression I get with all the talk of "wrangling"... and while it may more or less accomplish the desired atmosphere under normal circumstances, it certainly doesn't scale well in a situation like this - and so they are flailing, I think, by trying to stick with that concept. In more intimate circumstances, when there hasn't been a big upset, maybe it serves them better, but at this point they are struggling to deliver their "smack downs" and just come off looking silly. As well, the atmosphere that looms over everything (the whole "unpublishing" thing) means that any real or perceived "disappearing", altering or manipulating of reasonable comments or information is especially sensitive, and they are having rocks thrown at them that are partly guided by other site policy - stuff they really have nothing to do with.

So they are taking most of heat for the whole site, hundreds of seemingly new people are chiming in to tell them they suck, and all their tools are bent or melting in the conflagration: the disemvoweling and deleting are viewed as more of the same that started the whole mess (playing fast and loose with content), and the "wrangling" just ain't gonna cut it when dealing with a group of this size... and they didn't have a Plan B because they weren't expecting the Spanish Inquisition. I think all they can really do here is to play it as cool as possible, answer the questions that they can, try to keep the deletions and disemvoweling to a minimum, abandon the wrangling, and let people have their say. The sooner they do that, the sooner things will begin to calm down a bit.
posted by taz at 3:44 AM on July 22, 2008 [2 favorites]


What's that Dutch word which means "feeling shame on behalf of someone else"?

German: Fremdschämen
posted by sciurus at 4:53 AM on July 22, 2008 [1 favorite]


she [TNH] posted a tweet that said "@BohemianCoast Today it's especially vile. VB is lying, by the way. My suspicion is that we're under attack by Gawker Media." She entered that thread spoiling for a fight?
---
Takuan: where'd ya come from anyway? Ain't seen you around these parts afore. [ . . . ] what is your intent?

cortex: To read and discuss. What on earth do you think my intent is?

Takuan: to judge and preach perhaps
---
takuan(#276):and you, you little masochistic worm, you love it and constantly return for more. Crawl! Worm! Admit you crave the lash!
---
My god, the moderators on that site are CRAAAAZY
posted by delmoi at 7:12 AM on July 22, 2008


Heck yeah. Way to go Cortex for having some restraint there. It's the car wreck that keeps on giving apparently.
posted by cavalier at 7:59 AM on July 22, 2008


To be fair, his internet tough-guy shtick is sort of amusing.

To you, maybe, and obviously to him, but I think you may be in the minority.
posted by languagehat at 7:59 AM on July 22, 2008 [1 favorite]


To you, maybe, and obviously to him, but I think you may be in the minority.

C'mon, he's totally a candidate for the Cut My Hand Off Club. That such febrile cluelessness has apparently been given sanction by what was once an important site that still carries a lot of cachet with some is very funny, especially if one has a pretty low opinion of the 'blogosphere' and its self-appointed movers and shakers to begin with.

Holy fucking shit. You guys are still at this?
I only got one horse in this race, and it's named ROFL LOLS.
Nag keeps coming in first, every time.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:55 AM on July 22, 2008 [2 favorites]


Dang, I was out of the country while the whole BoingBoing thing happened. Cannot process 2100+ comments. Did anybody do a GiveWell-style play-by-play? A Wiki perhaps? Or just a summary somewhere? That would be awesome!
posted by iamkimiam at 9:30 AM on July 22, 2008


iamkimiam -- why read the book when you can watch the movie? (YTL)
posted by elfgirl at 9:36 AM on July 22, 2008 [1 favorite]


Durn wrote: I thought Boing Boing was a website, not a soap opera. How do you people know all this stuff?!

While simultaneously affecting disdain for it?


Nobody's going to read this way down here, but here's a story:

Every week, waiting in the line at the grocery store, I read the covers of all the trashy magazines: Britney does this, Angelina does that. I roll my eyes and think to myself, "What kind of person reads this dreck?"

And then, one week a couple of months ago, I get to the checkout and there's no line. I go right up to the conveyer belt and start unloading. And I'm cranky because I don't get to read the covers. And I realize: I am the kind of person who reads this dreck.

It was humbling, to say the least.
posted by not that girl at 12:06 PM on July 22, 2008 [4 favorites]


Boing Boing's a mystery
Every blogger posts alone
T-N-H calls us trolls
All of MeFi...
Groans.

*Doo ba doo doo*

When you read my post
Disemvowel it
Your site once was good
Nw t's trnd t sht

Cory's steampunk soul
Died a bit it's true
All because Xeni
Fell out of love with Blue
posted by SpiffyRob at 12:24 PM on July 22, 2008 [5 favorites]


Avoiding all speculation, it seems that Ms. Blue sure is litigious. I guess Ben Burch posses a credible threat of violence. Over the internets.
posted by jsavimbi at 12:40 PM on July 22, 2008


Ms Blue's Wikipedia entry is up for deletion... never a dull moment, eh?
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 1:06 PM on July 22, 2008


Woah: that restraining order on Burch is weird. She has no idea what he looks like, but a law enforcement officers found that there was evidence of stalking and a credible threat of violence?
posted by anotherpanacea at 1:35 PM on July 22, 2008


I think the BoingBoing strategy all along was to wait for Blue to do something even more heinous and then sit back and say "See?"

And a restraining order against a "cyberstalker" in another state? That may qualify.

And the Boingers never had a particularly healthy relationship with the whole Blog Comment concept. Maybe they're just leading up to a "We give up. No more comments." announcement.
posted by wendell at 2:40 PM on July 22, 2008


Woah: that restraining order on Burch is weird. She has no idea what he looks like, but a law enforcement officers found that there was evidence of stalking and a credible threat of violence?

She claims in the VW comments that she received "personal threats via e-mail," and that copies of these e-mails should be part of the same packet of documents that VW obtained. That could very well be a credible threat of violence. Wonder why they held them back?
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 3:02 PM on July 22, 2008


So both Xeni and Violet have wikidramas over their obviously made-up names? Woo. I’m thinking that the two of them are actually similar to each other to the point that conflict between them was inevitable.
posted by Artw at 3:21 PM on July 22, 2008


I’m thinking that the two of them are actually similar to each other to the point that conflict between them was inevitable.

Look at me! Look at me!

No. No. No. Look at me! Look at me!
posted by ericb at 3:24 PM on July 22, 2008


"This is my boss, Xeni Jardin - a self-made journalist blogger. She's quite a gal. This is Ms Blue. She's gorgeous. She's one lady who knows how to take care of herself; with a restraining order or three, usually. By the way, my name is Cory. I take care of both of them, which ain't easy; 'cause when they met... it was moider!"
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 4:23 PM on July 22, 2008 [2 favorites]


This is TNH's just-posted reaction to cortex in the BB Lessons Learned thread:

"Josh is [comparative] than [adjective]".

snap!
posted by found missing at 4:47 PM on July 22, 2008


It's pretty open-ended, so I'm not going to take offense. Right now I'm instantiating it as "less than jake".
posted by cortex at 5:15 PM on July 22, 2008 [2 favorites]


Longer TNH:

I'm taking myself off this thread for a while. I can cope with [adjective] [plural noun] like Church, and Josh is [comparative] than [adjective]; but I have temporarily run out of patience with [gerund] [plural noun] who [verb] [pronoun] [prepositional phrase], and [verb] [compound adjective] [preposition] moderation.


Man, she thinks she's a hell of a lot cleverer than she is. Good thing she's taking herself off.
posted by languagehat at 5:17 PM on July 22, 2008 [4 favorites]


I just don't understand why no-one will freakin' say whether Takuan is an official mod or not. Including Takuan. I realize TNH made an offhand comment referring to him as some sort of quasi-official mod, but nobody will just come out and say "Yes, he's a mod" or "No, he's not a mod".

Why is it so hard to get an answer to that question?
posted by Justinian at 5:54 PM on July 22, 2008


Why is it so hard to get an answer to that question?

You can have your answer, but it will be in form of consonants only and placeholders for parts of speech.
posted by found missing at 5:57 PM on July 22, 2008


I just read the Lessons Learned thread. Try to cut Teresa as much slack as you possibly can; she's caught in the middle of the Great Kerfuffle. Maybe when it's all died down, she'll have the chance to reconsider the nature of community moderation.

I've had a few realizations about moderation that sound awfully obvious when typed out, but they clearly didn't apply at Boing Boing, so I'll type 'em:

1. Don't argue. You're a moderator, not a debater.

2. If you fall into an argument, tell the other person you'll give them the last word.

3. Always give people's words the best possible interpretation.

Yeah, it sounds like kindergarten rules, but life's like any art: beginners think they'll get past the basics soon; masters know they never will.
posted by shetterly at 5:58 PM on July 22, 2008 [5 favorites]


I don't think BoingBoing MadLibs would sell well.
posted by subbes at 6:06 PM on July 22, 2008


With TNH taking a timeout, does that mean Antinous and Tekuan will be running the ship?
posted by CCBC at 6:10 PM on July 22, 2008


Right now I'm instantiating it as "less than jake".

Are some of your best friends metalheads?
posted by drezdn at 6:29 PM on July 22, 2008


This thing is still going on?

The sansgras thread raises an interesting question, how many MeTa threads have last comments by languagehat?

Better question: how many MeFi threads have last comments by me?
posted by mrgrimm at 6:36 PM on July 22, 2008


Not this one.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 6:38 PM on July 22, 2008


Christ, what assholes.
posted by sciurus at 7:05 PM on July 22, 2008


So, I went through the latest on the BB Lessons Learned thread. I'm not going to trash TNH. And I notice that both Takuan and Antinous become quiet. In part it seems that this may be because of the criticism from MeFi and the posts from cortex/Josh. There are some comments to this effect on several threads (MehFeh is a name given to this site). If so then I want to remark again on Antinous' statement that: ...we're not Metafilter. The content here is editor-driven rather than user-driven.... Okay. If that's the policy, then that's the policy. But I have the impression that maybe this is Antinous' idea and not BB's. I have the impression that BB doesn't have a policy and is desperately trying to form one. So let's look at this notion. If comments are editor-driven, then they become a further statement from the main blog. It is not user-opinion that's important, but the opinions of reps/employees of the blog. That isn't necessarily a wrong policy, it's just not the one you usually expect. If you do have an editor-driven policy, with deletion/unpublishing/disemvowellment of opposing views, then the suckups will rise to the surface. And, if you grant semi-mod status to the sucks, then pretty soon you drive out all dissent. Which, again, is okay if that's what you want. So, BB, what do you want?
posted by CCBC at 9:03 PM on July 22, 2008


MehFeh is a name given to this site

Pfft, people've been making that joke here for years. They can't even insult with any originality.

I just don't understand why no-one will freakin' say whether Takuan is an official mod or not.

Would you want to claim him?
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:11 PM on July 22, 2008


So, I went through the latest on the BB Lessons Learned thread. I'm not going to trash TNH. And I notice that both Takuan and Antinous become quiet. In part it seems that this may be because of the criticism from MeFi and the posts from cortex/Josh. There are some comments to this effect on several threads (MehFeh is a name given to this site).

You know, the fourth comment on this 2000+ comment thread did call TNH a fascist. It's possible that colored the discussion w/r/t MeFi just a tad more than cortex' comments, which were pretty even-keeled. Just saying.

If so then I want to remark again on Antinous' statement that: ...we're not Metafilter. The content here is editor-driven rather than user-driven.... Okay. If that's the policy, then that's the policy. But I have the impression that maybe this is Antinous' idea and not BB's. I have the impression that BB doesn't have a policy and is desperately trying to form one.

This is really the center of the issue. Comments were not grafted onto MeFi -- they've been the norm here for what, a decade now? There's been lots of time to develop and instantiate community norms, and that shouldn't be taken for granted.

BoingBoing was just the four principals for a long, long time; comments were later stuck on almost as an afterthought, it was (unsurprisingly) disastrous, they were removed, and then turned back on again after an extended hiatus.

That was what, a year ago? That's about as long as Teresa's been there. It's a relatively young yet very, very heavily-trafficked community. It's surprising that there hasn't been a trainwreck already. I mean, there have been some WTF moments at MeFi over the years that were much more mind-boggling than any of this. C'mon, no one even flamed out. All light and no heat.
posted by spiderwire at 9:16 PM on July 22, 2008


Hunh. Apparently my jewel-like comment isn't good enough for Violet Blue to include in her recap. Ah well. At least I learned that "Xeni" isn't pronounced "zennee" but "zjennee". Good to know.

PS: Disemvowelling bad. Cortex good. I check BoingBoing several times a day even now. Never paid any attention to the comments until this. I note that Microsoft now gets a "SPONSOR SHOUT-OUT", which is good I suppose from the take-money-from-the-big-bad-corporation-and-do-some-good perspective, but seems like a wrong note for them. Even with checking BoingBoing several times a day I totally missed the Amnesty International thing. What's that about? Hmmmm. Perhaps I need to start disbelieving what I read, even from sites which have said repeatedly, "Believe me because we are on your side." I guess the "directory of wonderful things" is true, but Cory's harping on transparency and non-corporate-idiocy has rung loud enough for me to think that's what BoingBoing is about. So this whole thing is a wrong note.
posted by bigbigdog at 9:26 PM on July 22, 2008


Well done, all. Well done.
posted by chinston at 9:30 PM on July 22, 2008


#529 posted by Xeni Jardin, July 22, 2008 7:39 PM
Teresa is a wonderful moderator, and a true Boinger. Everyone hating on her here can suck it AFAIC. If I am disemvowelled for being so crass, sobeit.


Aw come on! Nobody will EVER be disemvoweled for being crass toward "BB haters". As long as the defense of the site includes such obvious DISHONESTY (something I have NEVER seen matt, jess or Josh guilty of), then BoingBoing really is no better than Valleywag.

Josh/cortex, don't waste your time over there. The comments on BB exist solely to massage the easily bruised egos of the principal Boingers and not to encourage anything resembling discussion or free speech. That's why I have never bothered commenting there and bother way too much commenting here. (MetaFilter must be doing something terribly wrong; it's encouraging Wendell!!!)
posted by wendell at 9:37 PM on July 22, 2008 [1 favorite]


I'm postibg this over there, but who knows if it will survive:

A couple comments on disemvoweling. It's a clever idea, but in practice it seems to be rather antagonistic. It makes moderation a public show. It's mostly a public display of power. When someone waves their power publicly, people tend to get upset. If a comment is that out of line, just get rid of the whole thing and send an email rather than punish others in the thread by leaving bits that are hard to decipher.

Particularly troublesome is the practice of selective disemvoweling of a comment. In effect you are changing what someone has said. Their words are now taken out of context. Would you selectively delete parts of a person's comment? Better to delete the whole comment.

Like a movie director who has to cut their best shot to make a movie work as a whole, maybe this one is better left on the cutting room floor.
posted by jeblis at 10:36 PM on July 22, 2008


Without explanation, all of Violet Blue's posts the vowels have been removed from Boing Boing!
posted by Lynsey at 10:56 PM on July 22, 2008 [2 favorites]


That is pretty funny.
posted by caddis at 3:36 AM on July 23, 2008


Whoa:
Come to stick pins again, Church? The moderator is not hostile. Transparency has been addressed, frequently and at length. And you've dropped by to sing another verse about how disappointed you are with Boing Boing, even though doing so requires that you ignore what's actually gone down in this thread.

You'll get no fight out of me. I'm too tired, and you have too little substance. Run along now, and find something better to do.
Good thing she's not hostile.
posted by Vidiot at 7:20 AM on July 23, 2008


The mods' comments seem quite appropriate -- even pleasant -- if you read them in the voice of a cartoon villain.
posted by grobstein at 8:16 AM on July 23, 2008 [2 favorites]


I keep wondering about the morality and legality of disemvoweling. Copyright is automatic: when you write something, it's yours. When you offer it to someone's site, they have the right to accept or reject it. But without a contract, do they have the right to change it? Once something has been disemvoweled, in many cases, no one can know exactly what the original said. (See my disemvoweled sentence where nelc guessed I had written "me" instead of "AI", an abbreviation for Amnesty International that I never would've used had I thought what I was saying would bring down the disemvowelers.)

Even if readers do manage to decipher a disemvoweled post perfectly, the post is being deciphered in a context that no writer would choose for their words.

The is especially troubling because we're talking about first publication here. A reader can't check the source of a disemvoweled post--the disemvoweler has destroyed it.
posted by shetterly at 8:34 AM on July 23, 2008


P.S. A little context for my last post. The example of disemvowelment is #248 at XJ's promotion of a hoax about Amnesty International. Nelc's failure to understand that my disemvoweled comment was about Amnesty International is in this livejournal thread.
posted by shetterly at 9:04 AM on July 23, 2008


I totally deemv'd your double comment before I deleted it, Will.
posted by cortex at 10:05 AM on July 23, 2008


crtx, y r th bst mdratr vr!
posted by shetterly at 10:14 AM on July 23, 2008


"oy ire thou beast moderator vore"?! Banned.
posted by cortex at 10:28 AM on July 23, 2008


And it keeps! getting! funnier! Every single comment I read! Not to mention the fact that we're talking about a dead ideal! Now what do you think?!
posted by cavalier at 11:27 AM on July 23, 2008


Hoow aaboouut ooveeeervooweelliing?
posted by Artw at 11:29 AM on July 23, 2008 [1 favorite]


Haw obiot viwal raplicomant?
posted by found missing at 11:33 AM on July 23, 2008


Laten we allemaal de weg!
posted by Artw at 11:37 AM on July 23, 2008


Laten we allemaal de wat weg?

(Sorry.)
posted by rjs at 12:29 PM on July 23, 2008


Ma!yb.e ra?ndo,m punc;tua:tion?
posted by shetterly at 12:36 PM on July 23, 2008


I guess at the end of the day, I'm most disappointed to learn that CD's position on DRM, transparency, etc. isn't actually heart-felt, but is more cynical marketing bullshit. "Do what I say, not what I do" and all that.
posted by maxwelton at 2:33 PM on July 23, 2008 [1 favorite]


Yeh, you just know that ParanoidLinux would run a local crypted caching server so that it could compare current versions of pages pulled over the XNet with historical versions to check for interference from agents of DHS. I guess the moral here is not to trust weblog editors older than 25, as they'll always assume that unpublishing is cool.

(ick now I feel dirty).
posted by bonaldi at 3:26 PM on July 23, 2008


So, did they unpublish Jasmina Tešanović's reports from Belgrade? that's just weird.
posted by Artw at 4:28 PM on July 23, 2008


Fixed link
posted by Artw at 4:36 PM on July 23, 2008


Well, I've had one boinger tell me to suck it, another tell me to quit being a sourpuss, and ThisPerson read my comment to youtube. I feel as though I could've accomplished more, but we'll always have the longboing.
posted by waraw at 4:38 PM on July 23, 2008 [1 favorite]


Try to cut Teresa as much slack as you possibly can; she's caught in the middle of the Great Kerfuffle.

I do. I like her a lot, and she's been helpful to me in the past. But it's very hard for me to understand how she can continue to be so abusive and belligerent after weeks have gone by and you'd think the heat of the moment was long over. If all this has taught her anything, it seems to have been the wrong lesson. She's great at running her own blog (which I liked better when it was hers alone), disastrous at moderating BB.
posted by languagehat at 5:34 PM on July 23, 2008


What this debacle has reminded me more than anything else is the reason I gave up reading blog comments years ago. It's not abusive language, or trolling, or spamming or any of that. It's the unending toadying. 90% of blog comments are just "Oh man, you are so right! Love you! Hang in there, k?".

It's even worse in this instance when there are moderators allegedly trying to keep the noise level down, but leave hundreds of "Get the fuck out of here you idiot trolls! We love Xeni!" That's not noise? That's not rude? That's totally on-topic commenting? And the moderators actually participate in the mud flinging? I guess they are engendering the environment they want to have there, though. No dissent. No "rudeness". Just sycophancy. They're welcome to it.

As a side note; I kinda feel the same way about the "Great post!" or "This is not the best of the web" comments at MeFi. I guess I can see leaving "Great post", but really... the comment threads should be about the topic of the thread. I wish mathowie had gone forward with talk pages for every post back when he was on that jag. I guess he ended up deciding it would be too confusing, interface-wise, but it would be nice to have all editorial comments out of the main thread.
posted by team lowkey at 5:45 PM on July 23, 2008


As a side note; I kinda feel the same way about the "Great post!" or "This is not the best of the web" comments at MeFi. I guess I can see leaving "Great post", but really... the comment threads should be about the topic of the thread.

We do have favorites and flagging, though, which take a lot of this load out of comments. I often use favorites to substitute for "you go girl"-type comments, and I think a lot of people do this.
posted by grobstein at 5:58 PM on July 23, 2008


Well, my tiny little experiment seemed to pan out. Now to share my evil findings:

Hypothesis: Takuan is an "unspoken" mod, but a mod all the same.

Experiment: Watch a few BB threads. Look for an active Takuan, and no active Antinous. Find a place where Antinous is being a poopyhead (bonus! was really just looking for a random comment), call Antinous a poopyhead, wait to see Takuan take action. Hook, line, sinker: I am disemvoweled and chastized by Takuan right after the fact. Well hell I was in the neighborhood, so I called him an asshat, and -- voila! Disemvoweled.

Conclusion: Causation is still not 100%, but I feel pretty strongly that Takuan's a mod.

Also, I think that Antinous and Takuan treat a Moderator status not so much as a librarian (not a swipe, more a swoon), but as have-club-will-use-it sort of geek machismo thing. I am pretty certain they cause as much trolling as they seek to prevent with their antagonistic attitude.

To their credit, I am still allowed to comment on BB. I have to keep saying this because in the old days they just crushed dissent flat out. That's a step forward. It's just so far behind though. I'll still throw a comment here and there where I feel exceptionally strongly about a topic, one way or another, and I'll instinctively try to self-police myself so that if I'm not "agreeing with the party line" I'll take a screenshot or something for my blogdrama files. Seriously, at this point, QuickTopic worked better. I'd hope they just turn the comments off, but they get more than enough sycophants saying "YOU GO GIRL!" that they'll probably see a value in keeping them.

Threads here close in 30 days, no? 7 MORE DAYS! CHOO CHOO!
posted by cavalier at 6:12 PM on July 23, 2008


Uhm, whilst I may admire the sentiment, that's not very nice.
posted by waraw at 6:57 PM on July 23, 2008


languagehat, re "you'd think the heat of the moment was long over." All of them have been in the moment since this thread began. They need vacations badly.

cavalier, since no boinger will answer a question that only calls for a yes or a no, we're free to speculate. My best guess is that Antinous and Takuan are lovers. They share a lot of the same concerns, including a quick defense of organizations funded by the National Endowment for Democracy.
posted by shetterly at 7:15 PM on July 23, 2008 [1 favorite]


They need vacations badly.

Ironically, their poor comportment has been attributed to the fact that they (or at least Cory) are already on vacation.
posted by grobstein at 7:30 PM on July 23, 2008


team lowkey nails it.
posted by stinkycheese at 8:01 PM on July 23, 2008


Fox TV news anchors enjoy plastic coffee

#49 posted by Takuan , July 23, 2008 8:25 PM

Hey Fox! C'mere! I got a protein shake for ya...


Classy.
posted by spiderwire at 8:38 PM on July 23, 2008


Oh gawd, after checking in with the lessons learned and moderation threads over at BB, it is so nice to get back here to our comfortable little home. Jess, matt, cortex, vacapinta, pb, I am going to start trashing you all sometimes just on principle - the principle of keeping mefi from devolving into lock-step sycophancy, because man that stuff is not pretty. They should get rid of comments yesterday, it is doing their "brand" no good whatsoever.

I find it boggling that the key players seem so clueless about their reader base, their fans, and their market. And their PR instincts are so poor that I would suggest this as a strategy going forward: Whatever you are thinking, try the opposite. Hey, it got George a girlfriend and a job with the Yankees.

They seem to default to the idea that anyone without a deep comment history must be a troll, yet that's a ridiculous metric. Mefi has thousands and thousands of regular readers who never comment; those of us who do are just the big mouth tip of the iceberg who enjoy floating around on the surface and creating waves.

What kind of low-level loser trolls would stick with the topic through several weeks and thousands of comments on multiple threads just for the ephemeral thrill of spitting in someone's eye for such a small audience, particularly when that spittle is likely to be instantly disemvoweled, wrangled or unpublished. True, I grant there may be a few die-hard haters, but I think it is far more likely that those who have stuck with it through all these weeks and zillions of comments (and let's face it, beyond the first day or two the titillation quotient has been fairly low), those who are still engaged probably constitute those who truly, truly care - either about BB past, present ,or future, or about some of the broader web issues that have surfaced: transparency; censorship; the role that blogs do, will, or should play; community moderation, etc. etc.

This was an opportunity for BB to rise up from a stumble and shine, truly shine. After a crisis, two roads diverge: integrate or dis-integrate. And the path they have taken has made all the difference.
posted by madamjujujive at 10:00 PM on July 23, 2008 [4 favorites]


I should have broken that last screed into about 10 comments to get the thread count up, whatever was I thinking?
posted by madamjujujive at 10:04 PM on July 23, 2008


artw: No, they did not unpublish her. Some of the links are broken but all the articles seem to be there in the archives.
posted by CCBC at 10:59 PM on July 23, 2008


Well, if any good comes out of this hopefully no one will ever consider TNH an 'expert' on community moderation ever again. Every once in a while I'd see her held up as an example of how to build a communit, of how to mod, etc. Obviously she's not actually any good at it.
posted by delmoi at 11:04 PM on July 23, 2008


I am going to take this opportunity to lament the descent into cliche of that wonderful poem referenced by MJJJ above, "The Road Not Taken" (Robert Frost).

It's a lovely poem, a breath of resignation, regret and self-realization amid the usual evocative description of Frost's beloved New England countryside.

However, after approximately 1.7 million recitals at commencement and graduation addresses, it now evokes an automatic "ugh" among many of the road-more-travelled people who had to listen to it again, and again, and again.

Their loss, I guess. I've read it at least 500 times and still find it fresh.*

* Then again, Salter said (paraphrased) "I used to think Housman was important, though I don't think so any longer." I'm not anywhere near as smart as Salter and still find Housman is important to me, so my opinions on poetry should be treated with caution.
posted by maxwelton at 11:09 PM on July 23, 2008


MaxWelton, this is stupid stuff - come, pipe a tune to dance to, lad.
posted by madamjujujive at 11:40 PM on July 23, 2008 [2 favorites]


oh juju, is your team ploughing some poor lad's post? never ask me whose
posted by CCBC at 12:26 AM on July 24, 2008 [1 favorite]


delmoi, to be fair to Teresa, disemvoweling works okay at Making Light. It bothers me there, but the site reflects its owners' personality. They're editors. With disemvoweling, Teresa gets her revenge on commenters she doesn't like by editing. The Making Light community pretty much know what goes and what doesn't.

But Boing Boing is huge. Its community can't be as narrowly defined as Making Light's. So I don't think the Boingers have to feel any shame for trying the Making Light model. The shame will be if they don't acknowledge that it's time for a new experiment.
posted by shetterly at 12:32 AM on July 24, 2008


But does BB even want a community? Maybe they should go back to having no comments. If this is "just a blog of four people", why even invite comments? Something here hasn't been thought through.
posted by CCBC at 2:16 AM on July 24, 2008


Next year I'll be two and forty.

Sigh.

posted by maxwelton at 3:16 AM on July 24, 2008


Why even invite comments?

My guess? It increases page views. It's one of the big reasons places like Gawker allow them. By allowing comments, people visit the site to comment and then return to see if anyone responded to their comment. Then the increased page views look good to the advertisers.
posted by drezdn at 6:38 AM on July 24, 2008 [1 favorite]


Good point, drezdn, and that would go a long way to explain the holding-our-noses attitude that they give off about the comment section ... and their ridiculously tight controls. Discussion seems like something they don't really want unless it is all of the "this is so cool" or "you guys are so cool" variety. They really don't want to engage in a substantive way and it shows. They are trying too hard to dictate and enforce respect, and losing it in the process. Respect has to be earned. Look at the respect mathowie has earned by allowing and not reacting to or repressing often savage criticism - in the end, he looks confident, reasonable, non-petty, good natured and tolerant.
posted by madamjujujive at 7:54 AM on July 24, 2008 [1 favorite]


Right On!

And waraw, yes, thank you for the hand slap. I didn't say it was pretty, in fact it was rather petty, but gosh darned it felt good to sink to their level for a minute. I'll have to confess later, I imagine.
posted by cavalier at 8:15 AM on July 24, 2008


Boing! Boing! (The mods unpublished me )

I was new and you were phat
All five of you were dressed in black
Unicorns and Cyberpunk
Copyleft, no corporate junk


Boing! Boing! You shot me down
Boing! Boing! My post's not to be found
Boing! Boing! Shhhh...hey what's that sound?
Boing! Boing! The mods unpublished me


Seasons came and changed the time
Teresa went and lost her mind
Xeni had a lover's spat
Now I don't where my vowels are at


Boing! Boing! You shot them down
Boing! Boing! They can't be found
Boing! Boing! Even Violet Blue
Boing! Boing! The mods unpublished you


YoutTube played and MeFi sang
Ask not who for whom the blog rants rang

Now the magics gone, what did you do?
Rainbow colors, we lost two
Steampunk is no longer new
And Microsoft is paying you


Boing! Boing! We shot them down
Boing! Boing! They can't be found
Boing! Boing! Now something else is new
Boing! Boing! We just unpublished you
posted by Poet_Lariat at 8:34 AM on July 24, 2008 [6 favorites]


It appears now that TNH also likes to unpublish her Twittering. Under attack by Gawker Media? Now that's cause for alarm.
posted by jsavimbi at 8:51 AM on July 24, 2008


Thinking one is under attack by Gawker Media is such a weird thing to be paranoid about.
posted by Kattullus at 9:50 AM on July 24, 2008


Is cracked.com still after us?
posted by Artw at 10:12 AM on July 24, 2008


Yeah, why would Gawker even want to do that? What would they have to gain from such a thing? So silly. In other news, it takes thirty seconds for my browser to update my typing in this comment.
posted by waraw at 10:23 AM on July 24, 2008


I am going to take this opportunity to lament the descent into cliche of that wonderful poem referenced by MJJJ above, "The Road Not Taken" (Robert Frost).

It's a lovely poem, a breath of resignation, regret and self-realization amid the usual evocative description of Frost's beloved New England countryside.


Isn't it kind of the opposite?
posted by prefpara at 10:59 AM on July 24, 2008


Konolia was here.

*waves, mails postcard*
posted by konolia at 11:39 AM on July 24, 2008 [1 favorite]


I was pretty upset about that AI thread as well. I kept getting more an more frustrated as that thread continued because they must have disappeared 5-10 of my posts, without any explanation. Apparently new users that disagree with stealth mods are astroturfers as well.

But that's not really why I'm posting her. Given this tendency to unpublish on boingboing and the infrequency of wayback crawls, I thought people might be interested in this:
http://versionista.com
It lets you track changes in web pages and you can track two pages without paying anything. I imagine this could be useful for some web sleuthing in a situation like this. I think if people started tracking BB pages, the mods & editors would be a lot less likely to go hog-wild with the post-hoc editorials
posted by zosima at 12:09 PM on July 24, 2008


Isn't it kind of the opposite?

1. The roads are nearly identical (at the place they diverge) and there's no clear reason to choose one over the other. (Though as for that, the passing there / Had worn them really about the same / And both that morning equally lay / In leaves no step had trodden black.)

2. He wants to travel both, but can't. (Oh, I kept the first for another day! / Yet, knowing how way leads onto way / I doubted if I should ever come back.)

3. He wryly realizes that he will self-mythologize the moment down the line. (And that has made all the difference.)
posted by grobstein at 12:13 PM on July 24, 2008


grobstein: that is indeed my reading, but I don't think that resignation, regret, and self-realization are the dominant ideas. However, I see what you're saying. Also, this thread is really crashing my browser. Wow.
posted by prefpara at 12:23 PM on July 24, 2008


prefpara, grobstein does a better job than I would have done in explaining my interpretation.

One of the reasons it's a great poem is that I, too, shared your point of view when I was a young man and have come to the one I have now I'm firmly middle aged.

I'm looking forward to discovering what the poem means to me when I'm three and sixty, assuming the consumption of tons of HFCS hasn't done me in before then.
posted by maxwelton at 12:32 PM on July 24, 2008


maxwelton: it occurs to me that I didn't actually communicate my point of view, such as it is, except to disagree, which was sort of cryptic of me.

Essentially, it seems to me that it is not clear that the protagonist of the poem (so to speak) is actually aware, wryly or otherwise, of his self-mythologizing. It is possible, and I can see how you might read it that way, but I think it's also possible that Frost's awareness is greater than the awareness of the subject of the poem. That is my minor area of disagreement with grobstein. I disagree with you because resignation, regret, and self-realization are not, to me, the dominant ideas of the poem. I'm having trouble putting it into words, but I see it as an expression of a sort of avuncular, tolerant amusement.
posted by prefpara at 12:47 PM on July 24, 2008


prefpara, on the question of the subject's awareness: what stands out to me is the fact that the poem is told from the time of paths diverging (roughly) rather than the time of the future retelling. That suggests to me that the speaker is projecting illusions he'll have in the future, rather than actually in the grip of those illusions.

But I see that it's not an open-and-shut case.
posted by grobstein at 1:07 PM on July 24, 2008


Some say this thread will end in a flame out,
Some say in tedious erudition.
From what I've tasted throughout
I hold with those who favor flame out.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction erudition
Is also great
For thread abolition.
posted by found missing at 1:21 PM on July 24, 2008 [3 favorites]


Silence binds you;
Dropping it's toast;
Rereads blind you;
You might as well post.
posted by cortex at 2:05 PM on July 24, 2008 [2 favorites]


cortex, pleeeeease tell me your bing ironic.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 2:20 PM on July 24, 2008


About what?
posted by cortex at 3:09 PM on July 24, 2008


Bing was never ironic.
posted by languagehat at 4:45 PM on July 24, 2008


av, did you mean was cortex bing iconic?
posted by madamjujujive at 9:11 PM on July 24, 2008


2280 total comments. 1633 since your most recent comment, last 10 shown below...

Really, how often can you see that? Ooops.
posted by These Premises Are Alarmed at 7:54 AM on July 25, 2008


Really, how often can you see that?

Sometimes*, late at night, I fire up a perl script I wrote that uses a modified version of MarkovFilter to seed a great thousand-comment long thread from the ether, Burroughs-esque caricatures of mefites having grand nonsense arguments with each other over a simulated stretch of hours and days; and I'll read it through, start to finish, and laugh and cry and delete the occasional programmatically-generated double post or over-the-top interpseudouser attack.

And then, when I've finished, I'll sit back in my chair and reflect on it in silence for a while; and as dawn breaks, I'll quietly delete the whole thing, and return, cleansed, to the world of mefi proper.

*which is to say, not ever.
posted by cortex at 8:28 AM on July 25, 2008 [3 favorites]


Probably way too late to make this comment but I was thinking the other day that it's a bit of balancing act to ensure that forum is not too suck-ass but on the other hand not a major slag-fest (like the Guardian's sadly often are.. ."You got paid money to write this" "The Wire! Again!" "Brooker, you're not funny!" etc etc"
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 8:33 AM on July 25, 2008


Brooker has a good response to that.

TBH I suspect that most anonymous comments sections that have been tacked on to popular sites (newspapers, youtube, and the like) are mostly a write-only affair.
posted by Artw at 9:20 AM on July 25, 2008


The anonymous comment thing is actually an interesting sub-topic, re: BB—there's sort of a difference in kind there between accounts and anonymous commenters, and the usefulness of supporting anonymous commentary vs. the cost of handling a separate higher-volatility class of comments is a balance I'm curious how they've approached.

BB accounts are free and self-verifying, so if they didn't allow anony comments at all there'd be a hurdle preventing one-off comments from folks unwilling to set up an account. But it's not a very big hurdle—not as big as the Mefi process that also throws in the $5 as a monetary (and extra-time) factor, and yet we see folks signing up over here at a pretty steady pace every day too.

If part of the goal there is to aim for higher-quality discussion, if at the cost of some of the good (and bad) stuff that would come with a less directed conversational model, it seems like nixing anonymous comments entirely might be worth doing. PR issue, of course: taking away anonymous commentary might cause a fuss in the short term. But encouraging the folks with something to say to just go ahead and sign up might be a good way to reduce some of the noise, some of the mod load (no more anony moderation queue at the moment, for example), and reduce maybe some of the distrust-of-outsiders thing that has reared its head under the circumstances.
posted by cortex at 9:47 AM on July 25, 2008


Hmf. Disemvoweled again (in the Boing Boing moderation thread). If anyone's curious, I restored the vowels on my log. I confess, I'm beginning to think disemvoweling is just funny, but putting rightwing propaganda in front of 2 million readers and hiding the truth in the archives is bugging me more and more.
posted by shetterly at 11:19 AM on July 25, 2008


Artw, good link, and I agree with your suspicion.

Cortex, the web would be a better place without anonymity. At least, for folks in countries with reasonable free speech laws. Maybe sites could have ticky boxes for people who really want to be anonymous, with a list of reasons to tick for why, which could include "I want to be a flaming idjit and not suffer the consequences."
posted by shetterly at 11:31 AM on July 25, 2008


Srry f y lv hr, bt Trs Nlsn Hydn s dck.
posted by found missing at 11:33 AM on July 25, 2008


Cortex, the web would be a better place without anonymity.

Well, that's a big, big topic right there and I can't really agree with the statement as written because it covers way too much ground. There are a lot of problems that come from anonymity, but there's good stuff that comes with it too, and many people who I think of as being not-anonymous (because they are regulars on one site or another and present a consistent and generally non-evasive personal face to the web in their interactions) are nonetheless anonymous to varying degrees compared to, say, someone commenting under their legal name via a well-vetted tied-to-known-human account.

For example: at a glance, I'm less anonymous on BoingBoing than I am here—I'm posting under my real name there, available for googling without a second glance, and my participation started with me saying who I was and where I was coming from and why. Over here, I go under a handle that is, worse yet, a common English (and medical) word. (I've said before that if I could turn back time, I'd have signed up as Josh Millard here instead of "cortex", but in 2001 I never knew I'd be a regular and eventually a mod here. Hindsight, alas. Switching nicks now would be jarring.)

But there are folks here who go by their real name, or have it linked openly in their profiles, who share very little about their personal lives; and folks who mask their identity entirely but share a great deal of detail about their lives, families, experiences, etc. Some of that is a function of the shield of anonymity, but some of it I think is actually part of the definition of functional anonymity—someone who shakes your hand and give you their business card and then doesnt' tell you a thing is playing it closer to the vest in some respects than someone who hides in the shadows and slips you useful, credible information.

Over here, we have the Anonymous Ask Metafilter function specifically because there's some value in letting people ask questions in good faith without disclosing a connection to their (generally) trusted username; on the flip-side, we don't allow anonymous comments—you have to sign up, period. It's one approach to the problem, and it serves MeFi well, but (and this has been part of the discussion over there) I don't mean to suggest that what serves MeFi well is automatically the best solution to general problems. However, I am curious regardless about what the thinking is behind having a (usually unmoderated, I guess?) anonymous comment option for BB rather than, say, a contact form/email for folks who don't want to sign up but want to share something re: the site.
posted by cortex at 11:58 AM on July 25, 2008


Also, I'm wondering if I'm wrong in my impression that anonymous comments were unmoderated prior to the VB blowup and the storm of comments at the beginning of the month.

I feel like I read different text in the comment section at the time than what is there now, which is this:

Warning: Anonymous messages are held for moderation. This could take a (long) while. Or your comment may not be posted at all. Please consider creating an account and logging in. It's fast, free, and we don't spam, ever.

What I'm remembering (and this might just be me misremembering) was something that more explicitly acknowledged the "Wow, it's awfully busy -- we're going to be moderating anonymous comments" sentiment. Even if that was so, though, it might have been more an attempt to underscore the moderation of anony comments rather than an announcement of a switch to moderation of anony comments. So I don't know, and I'm not trusting my memory on it at this point.
posted by cortex at 12:19 PM on July 25, 2008


I'd like to take a moment, cortex, and thank you for making it completely unnecessary for me to post in the Boing Boing Moderation thread by putting this comment (regarding all the "verbal wrangling" by the mods) there: "Personally, I think they should shoot a lot less. I've been (ironically enough) trying not to put out much in the way of "now how I'd do it is..." over here because I don't want to make an overt nuisance of myself on that front, but one of my general reactions to a lot of what I've read is that a lot of value is being assigned to wrangling and deemving in contexts where I honestly don't see them helping near as much as a quick outright removal and dealing with the situation off-channel would....It's not as public, it's not as rhetorically satisfying maybe, but it obviates the issue instead of highlighting it.".

The regulars over there are making it clear that it's fine for the mods to snark or be witty or insult posters as long as they don't start it because, hey, those snotty trolls deserve it. Yuck. The BB regulars love it and, hence, I will never be a BB regular. Cool for them and all I guess.

Noted for the record that the continuing unwillingness to straight up answer if the broken ELIZA-bot they named Takuan is a mod continues to be total bullshit.

On preview: yeah, you're misremembering. They've held anon comments for a long time now.
posted by mrmorgan at 12:37 PM on July 25, 2008


Hmf. Disemvoweled again (in the Boing Boing moderation thread).

A young hack named Teresa there was one,
A failed writer left out of the sun,
So she married into a career,
Editing words they found dear,
And a side job disemvoweling for fun
posted by Poet_Lariat at 12:48 PM on July 25, 2008


Cortex, I agree. Identity is a complex issue, and a handle doesn't need to be linked to a legal identity to be a valid--or in many cases, a more valid--identity. I think I was just answering a question that hadn't been asked: if you have to choose between anonymity and identity, identity's better. So, ignore my brain fart!

Poet_Lariat, not to dis your work, but Teresa's a truly great writer. See here. I second every quote there. She wrote a great essay about forcing the Mormons to excommunicate her... [googling] Ah! It's here.
posted by shetterly at 1:16 PM on July 25, 2008 [1 favorite]


I am curious regardless about what the thinking is behind having a (usually unmoderated, I guess?) anonymous comment option for BB rather than, say, a contact form/email for folks who don't want to sign up but want to share something re: the site.

Rank speculation on my part, but I would guess that might be a reflection of the more comments = more eyeballs thing.

Also, isn't BB on TypePad or MT? If so, held comments are a default option, IIRC.
posted by mwhybark at 1:23 PM on July 25, 2008


there's some value in letting people ask questions in good faith without disclosing a connection to their (generally) trusted username

Or to hide their love of fedoras and strings-free sex.
posted by waraw at 1:32 PM on July 25, 2008


Or to hide their love of fedoras and strings-free sex.

don't judge me
posted by found missing at 2:01 PM on July 25, 2008


Interesting addition on Making Light today. Jim MacDonald is exaggerating for comic effect, but it seems their norm is that moderators (Yog) should be cruel:
a) Sure, there’s freedom of speech. Anyone who wants it can go start their own blog. On Yog’s board, Yog’s whim is law.
b) Yog is an ancient ghod of chaos and evil. And he doesn’t like people very much.
c) Moderation is a subjective art, and the moderator is always right.
d) The moderator may have minions. They need to have a private area where they keep the buckets of Thorazine and the cold-frosty bottles of cow snot.
e) The minions speak with the voice of Yog. Yog backs his minions up.
f) There is always someone awake, and in charge, when Yog isn’t around in person. The minions know who the Duty Yog is.
g) If someone starts off as a spammer, troll, or flamer, he is a spammer, troll, or flamer forever and is liable to instant deletion/banning with no recourse and no appeal.
h) If the moderator ever needs inspiration, he can re-read Jonathan Edwards’ Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God and recall that the posters are sinners and he is Ghod.
i) Rules? In a knife fight? Yog and his minions have standards, but they don’t need to tell the posters, lest some of them attempt to game the system. Attempting to game the system is, all on its own, a deletable offense.
j) ALL CAPS posts are deleted on sight, unread. Mostly ALL CAPS POSTS are ALL CAPS.
k) Anyone who doesn’t space after punctuation marks is insane, and can be deleted/banned on sight.
l) Personal attacks against Yog and his minions are ignored. Personal attacks against anyone else are deletable on sight.
Lots of sense to be sure, but also lots of "My country, right or wrong" there too.
posted by bonehead at 2:11 PM on July 25, 2008


She wrote a great essay about forcing the Mormons to excommunicate her..

(rewrite)

A young lady unpublished by Moroni,,
Vows revenge on all who are phony,
So she red-lines with glee
"Excommunicate me ?! "
I'll disemvowel you! That'll show ye !
posted by Poet_Lariat at 2:14 PM on July 25, 2008 [2 favorites]


Man, I don't know why I keep going back to that BB thread—I guess to see if cortex can keep on keepin' his cool (which, amazingly, he always does). But jeez, the mix of hostility and smugness rankles:

Hagbard to cortex:

If you strip away all of the deletions of hi-jackers and the griefers from your troll-cave over there (and I mean that to be constructive and respectful, so if you react poorly, I'll take offense at your tone)

Christ, what an asshole.

But further evidence that über-asshole Takuan has mod powers:

Takuan has told you that your new mill is no good, but he didn't take your vowels away.
posted by languagehat at 2:21 PM on July 25, 2008


On non-preview: Man, that Yog thing is telling.

Also: 2300!
posted by languagehat at 2:23 PM on July 25, 2008


Breaking into prose for a bit:
Yes, Will, I had seen that piece where Teresa tells how she "forced the Mormons" to excommunicate her. I had forgotten about it until you had reminded me of it.

Two thoughts:

It always makes a nicer story in one's personal narrative to say that they forced someone to make them leave rather than saying they were just thrown out?

Isn't it ironic that someone who was "unpublished" by a community that at one time help and formed her core beliefs, goes on to then form exclusive communities where dissent is not tolerated, openly ridiculed and those who do not share Teresa's core beliefs are excommunicated? (Moderators compared to gods someone said? Really , now)

Teresa's tragic flaw is not that she successfully attempts to regain her power by taking control of the instruments those who rejected her, but rather that she then fall into their very same patterns of oppressing others as she has been oppressed.

And the fact that the Haydens have extremely close ties to the publisher of Cory's book, Tor , I'm sure has nothing to do at all with the brand loyalty that BB has been exhibiting as of late.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 2:43 PM on July 25, 2008


And the two keenest advocates for Boing Boing in this thread are featured authors on the Tor website front page. I think at this point we can safely say that the whole spat has all been a science fiction conspiracy of some sort.
posted by jack_mo at 3:08 PM on July 25, 2008


Poet_Lariat, re second limerick, that's what rewrites are all about!

Regarding Teresa's excommunication, there might've been a tiny bit of streamlining for the sake of telling the story, but I don't doubt the details. Mormons hate excommunicating people. It makes the church look bad, and I think it damns the person to something like eternal disemvowelment. For all that their politics are bizarre, Mormons tend to be really nice people. They wouldn't lightly excommunicate someone.

As for the desire to close ranks, people who feel they've been driven out often do that. We just aren't rational.

Regarding the close ties, Tor publishes me and my wife, too--Patrick is Emma's editor. Though humans are human, in the SF field, people try very hard to separate the personal and professional. Which, okay, is totally impossible to do because of the being-human thing, but we still try, which is more than some groups do.
posted by shetterly at 3:13 PM on July 25, 2008 [1 favorite]


damns the person to something like eternal disemvowelment

Prmths Bnd
posted by found missing at 3:18 PM on July 25, 2008 [1 favorite]


My husband got kicked out of the Mormons years ago. But they can't touch his vowels, no sir!
posted by konolia at 4:34 PM on July 25, 2008


The thread that keeps on giving. Cortex, can you make this thread stay open past the 30 day point? ;)
posted by sciurus at 8:52 PM on July 25, 2008


Oh, lord, I don't think there'd be any good to come of that even if I were inclined to ask pb to code in an exception. A natural, red-blooded 30-day non-stop thread like this is already enough of an outlier as it is.
posted by cortex at 10:32 PM on July 25, 2008


Obviously we start a new fpp to keep it going!

Maybe that would be a bad idea.
posted by pharm at 12:29 AM on July 26, 2008


Oh, lord, I don't think there'd be any good to come of that even if I were inclined to ask pb to code in an exception.

You could just change it and not tell anybody.
posted by spiderwire at 12:56 AM on July 26, 2008


Or we could extend the LongBoing in the same way we had previously kept a couple of longboats floating. Unfortunately, 72928.com, .net, .me and .us have all been registered. We could do 72928.org, or LongBoing.com and all its other TLDs are avalable. Or unpublish.net, .org, .me or .us or disemvowel.(everything but com) can be used.
posted by wendell at 1:49 AM on July 26, 2008


End the thread as usual. We've all had our say. If there are new developments, we can start a new thread (referring back to this one -- as if anyone would read through all this) and it will be faster to load.
posted by CCBC at 2:28 AM on July 26, 2008


Uh, I'd like to hear from Sideshow Mel.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 5:40 AM on July 26, 2008 [1 favorite]


I got this -><- close to registering unpublish.me but at the last minute couldn't justify the US$60 joker wanted...
posted by genehack at 6:05 AM on July 26, 2008 [1 favorite]


I'm tempted to make vb's "someone named krautland..." in her video a ringtone. I mean, I gots to cherish that moment.
posted by krautland at 7:18 AM on July 26, 2008


Well it took slightly less then a month, and here you see the blogosphere continuing on.. so it took only, what, 25 days?
posted by cavalier at 8:13 AM on July 26, 2008


Why won't anybody reveal if Takuan is a mod or not?
posted by jeblis at 11:11 AM on July 26, 2008


They're waiting until August, so we have something almost plausible for a new FPP.
posted by subbes at 11:15 AM on July 26, 2008


Who knew that the slippery slope could actually be visualized?
posted by Poet_Lariat at 12:07 PM on July 26, 2008 [1 favorite]


Heh. That's pretty spectacular.
posted by languagehat at 12:31 PM on July 26, 2008


If a significant portion of the BB readership is college kids that's nothing to worry about. Now if it doesn't spring up in September they've got a problem.
posted by Mitheral at 12:39 PM on July 26, 2008


Yeah, and not to be a bore about local effects, but checking the long view on the various graph tabs suggests more a return to form after an unusually spiky couple of months than a plunge. Also, standard disclaimer about the reliability of Alexa.

Still, as a local effect, yeah, that's a heck of a powerslide.
posted by cortex at 1:09 PM on July 26, 2008


Perhaps you can explain it away as summer vacation, but I sure find myself wanting to frequent BB since this all started. They come off looking like the double talkers they so much love to hate. They can talk the talk, but can't walk the walk. When I do visit and I see one of their now comical complaints about the man or whatever, I just have to leave. Anyway, that was awesome Poet Lariat.
posted by caddis at 1:24 PM on July 26, 2008


I can like talking way down here at the bottom of the thread. Hurrah for metafilter's mighty spelunkers!

A footnote on the legality of disemvowelling: The EFF says, “When a person enters comments on a blog for the purpose of public display, he is probably giving an implied license at least for that display and the incidental copying that goes along with it.” I don't see support for disemvowelling in there.
posted by shetterly at 2:01 PM on July 26, 2008


Weird typo! That should be "I kind of like talking..." Maybe my brain was hearing my childhood accent: "I kin' like talkin'..."
posted by shetterly at 2:03 PM on July 26, 2008


*checks mail, sees postcard from konolia*

qua?
posted by lysdexic at 5:10 PM on July 26, 2008


Tension finds you;
Counting the host;
Timing blinds you;
You want the last post
posted by Poet_Lariat at 8:53 AM on July 27, 2008


I'll probably never in my life have a legit excuse to use the phrase "konolia qua konolia", so I'm going to call this close enough.
posted by cortex at 8:59 AM on July 27, 2008




And you run and you run to catch up with the sun, but it's sinking
Racing around to come up behind you again
The sun is the same in a relative way, but you're older
Shorter of breath and one day closer to death
posted by tkolar at 4:03 PM on July 27, 2008


It would be interesting to know whether comments sections on a blog like bb actually make fiscal sense. How much do they pay TNH compared to how much extra moolah comes in that can be attributed to having a comments section? How much good will is generated vs. how many people find the moderation/comments distasteful enough that they never come back?
posted by maxwelton at 4:38 PM on July 27, 2008


Is this still alive? *Pokes*

CCBC, Antinous may probably be a reference to that guy. There's also an English poem of Pessoa with the same name (Gutenberg displays it worse than paper, but what can you do?).
posted by ersatz at 5:10 PM on July 27, 2008


REPENT ....... THE END IS NIGH ...... REPENT ...... THE END IS NIGH .......

what, is marquee disabled?



*bursts into tears*



I SAID:


repent



the end is nigh


(repeat, imagining me in sandals, djballa, dreddy hair, sandwichboard, etc)
posted by mwhybark at 5:41 PM on July 27, 2008


Hilarious: on BB front page today Cory says "I just launched two new channels that Boing Boing readers might enjoy: Free Culture TV is all videos about free culture and the copyfight. "

It's like Tivo but with less vowels.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 6:04 PM on July 27, 2008


This thread needs a counter.
posted by jeblis at 10:35 PM on July 27, 2008


on BB front page today Cory says "I just launched two new channels that Boing Boing readers might enjoy: Free Culture TV is all videos about free culture and the copyfight. "

Released under a Creative Elites license, since the Creative Commons are turning into a mob from BB's perspective.
posted by lukemeister at 1:02 AM on July 28, 2008 [2 favorites]


Ersatz: Yeah, someone else kinked to that Antinous Wikipedia article about, oh, a thousand posts back. What I don't get is why anyone would want to name himself after a scumbag like Antinous. I thought I must be missing some obscure classical allusion or other (like maybe Antinous is the hero of some little-known poem, the Nostoi for instance) but if that were the case, someone on MeFi would know about it and post their knowledge. So, this guy knowingly calls himself after one of literature's biggest slimeball. Either that, or he is a complete ignoramus. Or both. I mean, I don't want to go hating on the dude, but...
posted by CCBC at 1:08 AM on July 28, 2008


Oops, sorry, Ersatz, I thought you linked to the Wikipedia article about Penelope's suitors. But, assuming you have it right, why would he name himself after Hadrian's bum-boy? Well, okay, I can think of possible reasons, but...
posted by CCBC at 1:13 AM on July 28, 2008


Well if one aspires to be remembered the legacy bits from the wiki link might explain it. "Antinous is one of the best-preserved faces from the ancient world." There are worst things that could happen to the vain.
posted by Mitheral at 1:19 AM on July 28, 2008


Okay, and he was made a god. But still, when you come right down to it, he was a teenage sex slave who didn't know how to swim (or killed himself or was sacrificed). Now what about that causes a person who believes himself to be intelligent to take his name? I understand people taking the names of serial killers or war criminals or supreme villains, borrowing the identity of the strong and ruthless, but this kid was a punk.
posted by CCBC at 3:35 AM on July 28, 2008


I think you may be worrying to death something that's not so much worth the energy; handles are handles, and people choose them for all sorts of reasons, which are most the time way less instructive than you're trying to work out.

I was not hoping anyone would mistake me for the outer surface of the brain, back in 2001, for example. It was just a thing, at the time, in a certain context.

You also seem to be discounting the possibility of irony as an agent in the decision.
posted by cortex at 7:02 AM on July 28, 2008


I understand people taking the names of serial killers or war criminals or supreme villains, borrowing the identity of the strong and ruthless, but this kid was a punk.

Or the kid could have just misspelled Antonius (as in Marcus) which actually would make a lot more sense. But I concur with cortex - whatever.

I am just about convinced the the mods there are actually just the bbers in bad personality drag and I'm just about convinced that Takuan is actually Doctorow having a bit of "fun". If that seems far out then I believe several comments upthread about Doctorow's moderation technique pre TNH would be especially interesting.

Whatever you believe of TNH's personal policies on moderation (and I don't think a great deal of them) , it still does not make sense for her , within the context of those policies, for her to allow a moderator to run rogue like that (and no doubt here that Takuan is a mod). No analog of this behavior exists on her own site. Why would she allow this?

And why would the BBers, regardless of TNH's wishes , allow something like Takuan on their site. It's bad for business. It's bad for everyone.

So the only theory which makes sense to me is that Takuan (and perhaps some other mods) is a place where Doctorow thinks he can act out with impunity. Heaven knows I understand the need for a bit of primal screaming from time to time. But at what cost.

it's only a theory but could be backed up if someone wanted to write a script to scrape all of Takuans posting times for the past 30 days or so and compare them to known down times for Doctorow (such as when he was at Clarion, or teaching a class or at a book signing or something). It would not surprise me if a correlation could be found.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 9:02 AM on July 28, 2008


I would be tickled if someone looked into the Doctorow-Takuan theory, but I don't think it's likely at all. I just think Teresa and the Boingers have devised a commenting environment where the best moderators are those who exhibit sycophancy and a bitter distrust of outsiders. All of the mods are like that, to some extent, including Teresa, so we don't need some loopy conspiracy theory to explain why Takuan is like that too.
posted by grobstein at 9:20 AM on July 28, 2008


This thread needs a counter.

"Good morning, sir. Welcome to the National Cheese Emporium."
posted by mwhybark at 9:54 AM on July 28, 2008 [1 favorite]


Hi! Is this the thread to post complaints about MetaFilter's moderation policy?
posted by jeblis at 10:03 AM on July 28, 2008


*resists urge to respond with disemvoweled Monty Python quote*
posted by cortex at 10:05 AM on July 28, 2008


Cn w hv yr lvr, thn?
posted by lukemeister at 10:29 AM on July 28, 2008 [1 favorite]


Poet_Lariat writes "it still does not make sense for her , within the context of those policies, for her to allow a moderator to run rogue like that (and no doubt here that Takuan is a mod). No analog of this behavior exists on her own site. Why would she allow this?

"And why would the BBers, regardless of TNH's wishes , allow something like Takuan on their site. It's bad for business. It's bad for everyone."


There is always the ever popular blackmail and/or lover theory of batshitinsane behaviour toleration.
posted by Mitheral at 10:32 AM on July 28, 2008


To be followed by a spectacular unpublishing upon the inevitable break up?
posted by Artw at 10:37 AM on July 28, 2008


Is this the thread to post complaints about MetaFilter's moderation policy?

No, I'm sorry. This is abuse.
posted by elfgirl at 12:54 PM on July 28, 2008 [2 favorites]


h! Nw w s th vlnc nhrnt n th sstm!!
posted by Justinian at 3:51 PM on July 28, 2008 [4 favorites]


cortex:I think you may be worrying to death something that's not so much worth the energy; handles are handles, and people choose them for all sorts of reasons, which are most the time way less instructive than you're trying to work out.
All right, but speaking of not-worth-the-energy, this is the VB/BB thread, right?
I was not hoping anyone would mistake me for the outer surface of the brain, back in 2001, for example. It was just a thing, at the time, in a certain context.
Uh-huh.
You also seem to be discounting the possibility of irony as an agent in the decision.
I never discount irony. I was looking for it in this Antinous handle thing, but I'm going to quit now because it's not worth the energy.
BTW, the moderator in question has confirmed that his "namesake" was, indeed, Hadrian's favorite.
posted by CCBC at 6:06 PM on July 28, 2008


All right, but speaking of not-worth-the-energy, this is the VB/BB thread, right?

Ah, the sword, she has two edges. Do not let me keep your from your beanplating if it makes you happy. It just seemed a bit like trying to imply something ill about someone by knocking out an incomplete set of defenses, but that may not be what you were after at all; my apologize if I was off the mark there.
posted by cortex at 6:11 PM on July 28, 2008


MY APOLOGIZE. MY VERY SORRY! MY CONJUGATING.
posted by cortex at 6:13 PM on July 28, 2008 [6 favorites]


OOer! Some lurvly mud over 'ere now!
posted by mwhybark at 8:21 PM on July 28, 2008


So, does the mefi 30-day limit mean this thread closes at 9:58 am on July 30? Part of me wants to slip away now, pretending I have shreds of dignity left to carry off. The other part wants to be here with champagne and party favors for the departure of a darn fine thread.
posted by shetterly at 10:51 PM on July 28, 2008


Bestest peanut gallery evah.
posted by Artw at 10:57 PM on July 28, 2008


On retrospect, I no longer care.
posted by jeblis at 11:20 PM on July 28, 2008


It's like Tivo but with less vowels.

so, TV, then.
posted by Snyder at 12:02 AM on July 29, 2008 [5 favorites]


BBTV's latest post deals with a 10,000 year mechanical clock from the Long Now Foundation. Apparently, if we write the present year as 02008, we will think deep thoughts. I doubt it, though the additional digit will be useful for this comment thread.
posted by lukemeister at 6:45 AM on July 29, 2008


Here's a very recent BB thread where someone comments, their comment is disemvoweled (by TNH?) and then Mark comes in and quotes the original comment to make a joke. WTF. Talk about a wonky system.
posted by stinkycheese at 7:49 AM on July 29, 2008


Long Now Foundation is looooooooooooooong.
posted by SpiffyRob at 8:06 AM on July 29, 2008 [1 favorite]


in the year 9595
I'm kinda wondering if man's gonna be alive
he's taken everything this old earth can give
and he ain't put back nothing...

now it's been 10,000 years
man has cried a billion tears
for what he never knew
now man's reign is through

but through the eternal night
the twinkling of starlight
so very far away
maybe it's only yesterday...
posted by Artw at 8:14 AM on July 29, 2008


We can make to post 2525 though, can't we?
posted by Artw at 8:15 AM on July 29, 2008


Hooray for sensationalism regarding trivial blogoswamp issues!
posted by waraw at 8:44 AM on July 29, 2008


Here's a very recent BB thread where someone comments, their comment is disemvoweled (by TNH?) and then Mark comes in and quotes the original comment to make a joke. WTF.

WTF indeed, but also, I can't figure out why the original comment was dsmvwld. I know you're not allowed to talk politics in nonpolitical threads, but this is a political thread. On the other hand, my grasp of all things BB is admittedly shaky.

We can make to post 2525 though, can't we?

Only if conversation gets a lot livelier, which would probably require either startling new developments or a flame war. You cat-declawing, latte-drinking, circumcising asshat.
posted by languagehat at 8:49 AM on July 29, 2008 [1 favorite]


In the post 2525....
Only if conversation MAN gets a lot livelier
if woman can survive
they may find...
posted by Artw at 8:59 AM on July 29, 2008


There was a recent (May? June?) amendment to the BB mod policy thread specifically calling out as a no-no the invocation of a presidential candidate in a thread where said candidate was not mentioned in the post itself. The prohibition to extend through the actual election, I think.

So it seems like hewing to a temporary stated policy. Sort of a shakily specific thing in practice (Is Hillary a candidate anymore? Is invoking Dubya okay because he's a lame duck now? Is the emv'd-qoute+deemv'd-original dance kosher or just an error?), but we've had election-year pendulum swings in post acceptability over here too, so I can understand the motivation.
posted by cortex at 9:03 AM on July 29, 2008


So the year 3535 will be all about electionfilter?
posted by Artw at 9:11 AM on July 29, 2008


Someone in the BB moderation thread just compared BB moderation to behavior observed in the Stanford Prison experiment.
posted by found missing at 9:29 AM on July 29, 2008


To recap for future webstorians one of the primary lessons learned, Cory Doctorow has revealed himself only to be in this for the jake.
posted by found missing at 9:42 AM on July 29, 2008


Gggl Rn Pl!
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 9:47 AM on July 29, 2008


Maybe BB mods have to make their quota. It's a hard life running speed traps on the information highway.
posted by shetterly at 10:05 AM on July 29, 2008


Can I just say that I'll never appear in this thread again?
posted by RakDaddy at 4:27 PM on July 29, 2008


No, I'm sorry, there isn't time.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 4:47 PM on July 29, 2008 [1 favorite]


This thread made me feel like a real mefite for the first time, though I'm sure that's illusory.
posted by waraw at 5:06 PM on July 29, 2008


We've long hours left together, one and all. Break out the marshmallows.
posted by cortex at 5:07 PM on July 29, 2008


This thread has yet to crash my browser.
posted by These Premises Are Alarmed at 5:21 PM on July 29, 2008


I suppose I should include my name in one epic thread.
posted by mindless progress at 5:27 PM on July 29, 2008


I don't like marshmallows. Gelatinous villains! Squishing, always squishing. And I don't like that marshmallow creme stuff, either. What the hell is that stuff anyway?
posted by cgc373 at 5:27 PM on July 29, 2008


Goddamn delicious is what it is.
posted by boo_radley at 5:31 PM on July 29, 2008


I made smores a few nights ago, and made the misake of putting the chocolate in the oven with the crackers and marshmallow, and the coclate got all melty and marshmallos, not so much. It was still delicious.
posted by Snyder at 6:05 PM on July 29, 2008


ahh...the happy ending:

Who knew that the slippery slope could actually be visualized?

the punchline:

Someone in the BB moderation thread just compared BB moderation to behavior observed in the Stanford Prison experiment.

and the setup for the sequel:

We can make to post 2525 though, can't we?
Only if conversation gets a lot livelier, which would probably require either startling new developments or a flame war. You cat-declawing, latte-drinking, circumcising asshat.


...waitaminnit, were you talking to me? you...you...NAZI!

[ROLL CREDITS]
posted by sexyrobot at 6:35 PM on July 29, 2008


tick, tick, tick...
posted by jeblis at 7:12 PM on July 29, 2008


Vaguely on topic - I made the mistake of actually opening a BB comment thread earlier and was amazed - they've now expanded even to dsmvwlng single phrases within a message. It's creepy, and was enough to discourage me from my small inclination to post a message.
posted by phearlez at 7:31 PM on July 29, 2008


How fucking weird is it that you supposedly pronouce "Xeni" "Jenny?"

Does that mean I used to occasionally watch Jenna, Warrior Princess.
posted by maxwelton at 7:36 PM on July 29, 2008


I believe you're mistaken. It is spelled "Xeni", but it is pronounced "throat-warbler mangrove"
posted by found missing at 8:49 PM on July 29, 2008 [1 favorite]


Oh, Jenny. Oh I say, we are grand, aren't we? Jenny. Oh, oh--No more buttered scones for me, mater; I'm off to play the grahnd piahno. Pardon me while I fly my aeroplane.
posted by Sys Rq at 9:22 PM on July 29, 2008 [1 favorite]


ts sd t s ths clssc thrd wndng dwn - sgh!
posted by madamjujujive at 11:35 PM on July 29, 2008


bt cn't w mk 2400??
posted by madamjujujive at 11:39 PM on July 29, 2008


W cn mk t. Bt y mst hv fth. Lt s pry.
posted by homunculus at 12:15 AM on July 30, 2008


found missing wrote: Someone in the BB moderation thread just compared BB moderation to behavior observed in the Stanford Prison experiment.

The response? Disemvowelling the comment and banning the user. Probably done by a moderator wearing mirrored sunglasses and twirling a baton.

It's not a bad point of comparison, in fact - the huiliation and belittling of commenters by the lesser moderators, the imaginative punishments invented to enforce rules changed according to the moderators' whim, Neilson Hayden's experiments in comment moderation invalidated by her active participation...
posted by jack_mo at 12:20 AM on July 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


Actually, they disemvowelled all of the user's comments, not just the supposedly offensive one. Nuts.
posted by jack_mo at 12:22 AM on July 30, 2008


Re Stanford... don't forget adding new rules as the went along
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 2:51 AM on July 30, 2008


ur al gay. lolz.





Yes, that is the extent of my contribution to this epic thread. Well, that and unsubscribing from the BB feed, but that's neither here nor there, in the end.
posted by shiu mai baby at 4:21 AM on July 30, 2008


Well, it's been a fun ride folks.
posted by sciurus at 4:59 AM on July 30, 2008


How fucking weird is it that you supposedly pronouce "Xeni" "Jenny?"

Well, I've long assumed that her real name is actually Jennifer Garden.

Using some slightly circuitous logic, I decided that anybody who chooses such a lame pun for her nom de souris probably isn't worth reading anyway.
posted by UbuRoivas at 5:10 AM on July 30, 2008


Al Gay sounds like a particularly formidable cell-based middle-eastern terror organization that specializes in redecorating.

And on that note, I'm leaving this party with both Lucy Lawless and Rene O'Connor.
posted by maxwelton at 5:11 AM on July 30, 2008


Enola Gay sounds like a particularly formidable atom-based western terror organization that specializes in extreme redecorating.
posted by UbuRoivas at 5:19 AM on July 30, 2008


Alright folks! Now that the night is ending and the sun of thread-closing is rising beyond the horizon so it's time to gather round, everybody, and listen to some words of wisdom.

Don't eat the yellow snow.

Now you've all learned something.
posted by Kattullus at 5:24 AM on July 30, 2008


what's snow?
posted by UbuRoivas at 5:32 AM on July 30, 2008


wow, having looked it up in the dictionary, you icelanders have a word for everything!

i bet you also have one hundred words for "sitting around bored shitless for nine months of the year inventing new words for that white stuff which is the only thing you can see when you try to look out of the window"

still, it would be pretty punk to use this yellow snow in your steam gizmos. in fact, a yellow snow steampunk dildo would be especially apt.
posted by UbuRoivas at 5:40 AM on July 30, 2008


Will I dream?
posted by Skorgu at 5:47 AM on July 30, 2008 [3 favorites]


to sleep, perchance to dream
of dildos, empowr'd by steam
posted by UbuRoivas at 5:49 AM on July 30, 2008 [3 favorites]


In six months will this be forgotten? I really wonder. I even wonder if it should be.
posted by waraw at 6:09 AM on July 30, 2008


THE RHYMING COUPLET MEANS IT'S THE END!!!

sheesh.
posted by UbuRoivas at 6:13 AM on July 30, 2008


last post!
posted by lysdexic at 6:14 AM on July 30, 2008


Or not.

I never get to answer the phone!
posted by lysdexic at 6:15 AM on July 30, 2008


Shut up and get on the cart.
posted by elfgirl at 6:21 AM on July 30, 2008


'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This thread is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-THREAD!!
posted by lysdexic at 6:30 AM on July 30, 2008


Shut up, you MeFite! You MeFites, all you do is type, and type, and say "let me tell you something" and "I just wanna say." Well, this thread is dead now, so shut up!
posted by UbuRoivas at 6:38 AM on July 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
posted by Chrysostom at 6:39 AM on July 30, 2008


This is dildos.
posted by goo at 6:41 AM on July 30, 2008


The rest is silence.

[Dies]
posted by UbuRoivas at 6:44 AM on July 30, 2008


Mama take this badge off me.
posted by cortex at 6:55 AM on July 30, 2008


Enter Ghost of Thread

KATTULLUS
Peace, break thee off; look, where it comes again!

GOO
In the same figure, like the thread that's dead.

KATTULLUS
Thou art a scholar; post to it, Chrysostom.

GOO
Looks it not like the thread? Comment it, Chrystostom.

CHRYSTOSTOM
Most like: it harrows me with fear and wonder.

GOO
It would be posted to.

KATTULLUS
Troll it, Chrystostom.

CHRYSTOSTOM
What art thou that post'st this time of night,
Together with that blue and nerdlike form
In which the majesty of buried BoingBoing
Did sometimes march? by cabal I charge thee, speak!

KATTULLUS
It is offended.

GOO
See, it stalks away!

CHRYSTOSTOM
Stay! speak, speak! I charge thee, speak!

Exit Ghost of Thread

KATTULLUS
'Tis gone, and will not answer.
posted by UbuRoivas at 6:58 AM on July 30, 2008 [6 favorites]


Too late,my time has come,
Sends shivers down my spine-
Bodys aching all the time,
Goodbye everybody-Ive got to go-
Gotta leave you all behind and face the truth-
Mama ooo- (any way the wind blows)
I dont want to die,
I sometimes wish I'd never been read at all
posted by lysdexic at 7:02 AM on July 30, 2008


A thread with many knots ties itself,
when the city of bards trembles like a stmpnk dildo, it concludes,
The balding woman of the west is humbled,
Through pettiness, the duchess falls from her bouncing steed

--Nostradamus, Century X, Quatrain 11
posted by bunnytricks at 7:06 AM on July 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


The moderators pissin' off and Mefi's missin' the sanity that we once saw
I've got a Hello Kitty dildo, a duct tape billfold, and rubbing our commenters raw
I've got --boing boing-- fsssss steampunk.
I've got --boing boing-- fsssss steampunk.
I've got --boing boing-- fsssss steampunk.
posted by SpiffyRob at 7:14 AM on July 30, 2008


Just for old times' sake.
posted by elfgirl at 7:20 AM on July 30, 2008


Boing boing

Chick! Chicka-chicka!

Ur boing boing

Chick! Chicka-chicka!
posted by goo at 7:21 AM on July 30, 2008


This is the end
Beautiful friend
This is the end
My only friend, the end
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 7:22 AM on July 30, 2008


Alas! Forbidden!
403 leaves me in anguish.
elfgirl, you lie!
posted by lysdexic at 7:23 AM on July 30, 2008


not really, elfgirl, but it's the only phrase that would fit
posted by lysdexic at 7:24 AM on July 30, 2008


I just want to tell you all good luck. We're all counting on you.
posted by dw at 8:03 AM on July 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


I just read this url on the bathroom wall and it said "for a good time, go here and post LAST!"
posted by phearlez at 8:04 AM on July 30, 2008


Between the policy
And the practice
Between the instinct
And the speech-act
Falls the Community

For thine is the website

Between the spec
And the implementation
Between the emotion
And the unpublish
Falls the Community

The now is very long

Between the preview
And the post
Between the drafting
And the approval
Between the offense
And the snark
Falls the Community

For thine is the website

For thine is
The site is
For thine is the

This is the way the thread ends
This is the way the thread ends
This is the way the thread ends
Not with a bang but a whimper

posted by cortex at 8:05 AM on July 30, 2008 [3 favorites]



Artw writes "We can make to post 2525 though, can't we?"

A couple hours to go, maybe we will make 2525.
posted by Mitheral at 8:08 AM on July 30, 2008


elfgirl writes "Just for old times' sake."

A 403? Not quite as thrilling as I hoped.
posted by Mitheral at 8:14 AM on July 30, 2008


And I saw a new internets and a new MetaFilter: for the first internets and the first MetaFilter were passed away; and there was no more Boing Boing.

And I, cortex, saw the holy thread, new 72928, coming down from mathowie out of heaven, prepared as an oversharing sex blogger adorned for her openly-married husband.

And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of mathowie is with men, and he will post with them, and they shall be his users, and mathowie himself shall be with them, and be their mathowie.

And mathowie shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more LOLing, neither disenvoweling, nor unpublishing, neither shall there be any more banhammering: for the former things are passed away.

And he that sat upon his Herman Miller Aeron chair said, Behold, I make all things new AMIRITE. And he said unto me and jessamyn, Moderate: for these words are made of win....
posted by dw at 8:22 AM on July 30, 2008 [3 favorites]


We are METAFILTER, blog of blogs!
Look upon our works, ye mighty,
As we jump up and down and jiggle them.
posted by Artw at 8:37 AM on July 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


Well, I've long assumed that her real name is actually Jennifer Garden.

Terrible confession: on some old thread I speculated that her "real" name was Jenny Gardner, which apparently partially sparked this Wikipedia discussion. It was kind a dick move the more I think about it, if a trivial one.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 8:39 AM on July 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


Trying out
posted by lysdexic at 8:42 AM on July 30, 2008


This multi tab thing
posted by lysdexic at 8:43 AM on July 30, 2008


I don't know how well
posted by lysdexic at 8:43 AM on July 30, 2008


It's gonna work
posted by lysdexic at 8:43 AM on July 30, 2008


Huh. It works for me.

Trying again because this thread needs a bunny, dammit.
posted by elfgirl at 8:45 AM on July 30, 2008


oh, sorry. forgot myself
posted by lysdexic at 8:47 AM on July 30, 2008


What will the end be like? What comes after?
posted by Falconetti at 8:48 AM on July 30, 2008


Well, at least I've picked up the phrase "nom de souris," so this thread has not been wasted.
posted by languagehat at 8:49 AM on July 30, 2008


Success?
posted by SpiffyRob at 8:53 AM on July 30, 2008


First you get the boingboing,
then you get the comments,
then you get the longboat.
posted by cortex at 8:53 AM on July 30, 2008


Mild, pleasant amnesia.

Disemvoweled: mld, plsnt mns

Reemvoweled: Mold, plus an atom anus.

What?
posted by SpiffyRob at 8:57 AM on July 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


"ls! pr Yrik. knw hm wll."
posted by ericb at 8:58 AM on July 30, 2008


*checks watch*

8:58. One hour, people.

Bring only what you can carry. Just the necessities. If you don't need it, leave it; if you can't carry it, you don't need it.

Turn off the the circuit breakers. Put out any candles. No reason to let this place burn down after we've left.

Finish up your phone calls. Say your goodbyes. We'll all find each other on the other side, so don't tarry now. If you haven't eaten, do so.

And please go before you go.
posted by cortex at 8:58 AM on July 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


The final hour is upon us!

REPENT, SINNER!
posted by Kattullus at 8:58 AM on July 30, 2008


T minus one hour!
posted by Sys Rq at 8:58 AM on July 30, 2008


Because I could not stop for this thread
It kindly stopped for me
posted by found missing at 9:01 AM on July 30, 2008


Then Falconetti said: "What is there to relate about Thread-end? I have never heard tell of this before."

And languagehat said: "There are many and great tidings to tell about it. First will come the winter called Boingvetr. Snow will drive from all quarters, there will be hard frosts and biting winds; the sun will be no use. There will be three such winters on end with no summer between. Before that, however, there other winters will pass accompanied by great wars throughout the whole world. Boingers will kill each other for the sake of gain, and no one will spare father or son in manslaughter or in incest. As it says in the Steampunk Vision:

Boingers will fight
and kill each other,
siblings
do incest;
men will know misery,
adulteries be multiplied,
an axe-age, a sword-age,
shields will be cloven,
a wind-age, a wolf-age,
before the world's ruin.

Then will occur what will seem a great piece of news, the wolf will swallow the sun and that will seem a great disaster to men. Then another wolf will seize the moon and that one too will do great harm. The stars will disappear from heaven. Then this will come to pass, the whole surface of the earth and the mountains will tremble so violently that trees will be uprooted from the ground, mountains will crash down, and all fetters and bonds will be snapped and severed. The wolf Astro Zombie 3 will get loose then. The sea will lash against the land because the Miðgarð Spammer is writhing in giant fury trying to come ashore. At that time, too, the ship known as Naglfar will become free. It is made of dead men's nails, so it is worth warning you that, if anyone dies with his nails uncut, he will greatly increase the material for that ship which both gods and men devoutly hope will take a long time building. In this tidal wave, however, Naglfar will be launched.

When these things are happening, mathowie will stand up and blow a great blast on the horn Recumbent and awaken all the mods and they will hold an assembly. Then cortex will ride to jessamyn's spring and ask jessamyn's advice for himself and his company. The ash MetaFilter will tremble and nothing in heaven or earth will be free from fear."

Any more questions?
posted by languagehat at 9:04 AM on July 30, 2008 [7 favorites]


It's getting dark. I'm scared.

Hold me.
posted by stinkycheese at 9:04 AM on July 30, 2008


elfgirl writes "Huh. It works for me. "

The site is blocking metafilter.com as a referer.
posted by Mitheral at 9:05 AM on July 30, 2008


Accoring to Wikipedia , "Mr. Turnkey", gave Zager and Evans’ followup single to "In the Year 2525", which was a song about a rapist who nails his own wrist to the wall as punishment for his crime, was NOT a success. Weird.
posted by Artw at 9:07 AM on July 30, 2008


Jim Carrey is Cory Doctorow in...
The Eternal Sunshine of the Vowelless Mind.

A thread by Charlie Kaufman
posted by cortex at 9:07 AM on July 30, 2008


I was thinking about doing a Breakfast Club post-hoc thing here but I realized that I did the same thing in the Sans Quoi thread, and I don't want to overexercise Mr. Hughes like that.
posted by cortex at 9:11 AM on July 30, 2008


Listen, I didn't want to mention this, but BoingBoing has been removing vowels from comments on their site.
posted by found missing at 9:11 AM on July 30, 2008


From BB's latest post -

Sponsorship note: The BBtv crew wishes to thank Microsoft for underwriting this episode, and generously supporting the launch of the "BBtv World" series.
posted by stinkycheese at 9:12 AM on July 30, 2008


Wait! You won't believe this, they've also been removing old posts from their site, possibly because of a love spat.
posted by found missing at 9:14 AM on July 30, 2008


You know, I think "Little Deaths and the Big Boing Theory" would be a great name for a trashy, veering tabloid novelization of this whole thing.
posted by cortex at 9:14 AM on July 30, 2008


The site is blocking metafilter.com as a referer.

It's almost as if they'd had problems with that before.
posted by elfgirl at 9:14 AM on July 30, 2008


No worries, I'm sure Cory Doctorow will step in and clean up this hypocritical behavior.
posted by found missing at 9:16 AM on July 30, 2008


OMG BUNNIES!
posted by bunnytricks at 9:16 AM on July 30, 2008


It'd be rightly poorly received, and abandoned after the first printing; but a few years later, Tarantino would pick up the option and make it into a giant.
posted by cortex at 9:16 AM on July 30, 2008


Holy cow. Are you sitting down? Turns out that this has all been "jake" with Cory Doctorow.
posted by found missing at 9:17 AM on July 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


Tarantino would pick up the option and make it into a giant.

OMG! "Kill Bill Vol. III - BB's Revenge"
posted by lysdexic at 9:18 AM on July 30, 2008


Shall we leave the last word to Xeni?

Sir, you are a douche. Seriously, I'm not gonna tackle your comments in detail because everything you've said is wrong. You're here to fling poo at something produced with sincerity and enthusiasm, and that is classic internet bully behavior. If you have something constructive to say, do come back when you've changed your attitude, but otherwise: bugger off. You're wasting my pixels.
posted by stinkycheese at 9:19 AM on July 30, 2008


A couple of careers would be made; a couple of lawsuits filed. The soundtrack would break sales records, the DVD too.

The mysterious Puzo-ian author of the novel, an unknown with the implausible name "Desi M. Vowell" would, after much coy drama, be revealed as none other than a pseudonymous Jason Kottke.
posted by cortex at 9:20 AM on July 30, 2008


Any more questions?

Is there any popcorn left?
posted by rtha at 9:22 AM on July 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


To be fair, I can see why Xeni reacted so strongly. Here is what the douche said:

"Why ds ths lv n ftrtst f dlbrt, cntrvd hyp?"
posted by found missing at 9:23 AM on July 30, 2008


In an interview with ET, Mr. Kottke would reveal that his next project is "a really exciting recontextualization of traditional notions about home popcorn preparation".
posted by cortex at 9:23 AM on July 30, 2008


People, aren't we ignoring the fact that 'y' is sometimes a vowel???
posted by found missing at 9:27 AM on July 30, 2008


As far as I can tell, the commenter was comparing someone to Dilbert.
posted by found missing at 9:28 AM on July 30, 2008


ALBATROSS
posted by sciurus at 9:28 AM on July 30, 2008


Decades later, Kottke's son Brian would, with a collaborator, write a series of prequels to the original "Little Deaths" books, which would be snapped up in volume by readers so hungry for more of the story of the engimatic "Via Mwah'blue" that they were willing to ignore the decline in auctorial strength of the new hand-me-down novels.
posted by cortex at 9:29 AM on July 30, 2008


People, aren't we ignoring the fact that 'y' is sometimes a vowel???

Well, so is 'w', but I don't see anyone pulling those out.

ftr, the word was 'hwl', borrowed from Welsh. It was in the dictionary, so it's a word!
posted by lysdexic at 9:30 AM on July 30, 2008


7 for the seven years it seemed this thread did last
2 for the two new members who put BB on blast (not so much Joel, but it was nice he came!)
9 for nine celebrities who since gave up the ghost
2 for two brave commenters with plus-one hundred posts
8 for eight system reboots each time I load this thread

God speed, you blessed Bng Bng post. What will I read instead?
posted by SpiffyRob at 9:30 AM on July 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


The last minutes are here. This thread is metastasizing and filling up my Recent Activity.

*puts on Viking helmet, stares fearlessly at the horizon, waits for the ship known as Naglfar*
posted by languagehat at 9:36 AM on July 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


The Sci-Fi Channel would later film an eight-hour holoplay of the original book, for which the principal actors would spend several weeks in speech training to prepare themselves for the phonetic challenge of the source material's unusually consonant-rich dialogue. Comparisons between the new production and Tarantino's by-then-classic "flat holo" would lead to strikingly heated discussions across the Qwest/Mitsubishi Global Intertubes, prompting discussions of creative new Moderatron heuristics.
posted by cortex at 9:38 AM on July 30, 2008


...give my wife my love....

....then nothing moorrrrrrrreeeeee...
posted by shiu mai baby at 9:38 AM on July 30, 2008


A post on the subject to movies.BoingBoing.biz.personalblog.tld, with a hat tip to fad-blogger and California governor Barack "Slirtzface" Obama III, would later be removed from the site after it was revealed by an octogenarian Nick Denton that Slirtzface had described the later Brian Doctorow novels as "crp n crp crckr" during a private campaign fundraiser.
posted by cortex at 9:43 AM on July 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


In moments, a bit will flip and this thread will lock. While it may be frozen to our senses, have faith my friends! It's gone to a better place, where a chorus of angels will continue to righteously snark in its chambers.
posted by bunnytricks at 9:43 AM on July 30, 2008


Then, the robots would come.
posted by cortex at 9:46 AM on July 30, 2008


It's here! Naglfar is here! I can feel the ash MetaFilter trembling, but I don't care, because I'm getting on board. See you suckers in Valhalla!
posted by languagehat at 9:46 AM on July 30, 2008


This thread is where I am a dead Viking.
posted by found missing at 9:48 AM on July 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


Vicious, unfeeling automatons, self-constructed from the discarded electronic effluvia of a billion obsolete laptops and cellphones and prototype holobrators; a shambling, speechless horde shining in a thousand metal and plastic colors as they tore up the landscape: red, and white; violet and blue.
posted by cortex at 9:49 AM on July 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


Was nothing real?

You were real. That's what made you so good to watch. There is no more truth out there than there is in the world I created for you. The same lies, the same deceit. But in my world, you have nothing to fear.

posted by elfgirl at 9:49 AM on July 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


*sniff* Bye, thread, bye! As the struggle for a free and open internet continues--and it will continue--the name, Boing Boing Finds 21st Century Trotsky?, will be dear in the hearts of those who love history. And freedom. And snark. Bye!
posted by shetterly at 9:49 AM on July 30, 2008


I see it more like Erlkönig.

Schubert lived in some gloomy times, man.
posted by SpiffyRob at 9:49 AM on July 30, 2008


(Helpful hint for aspiring trash-fi writers: everything is more futuristic if you put "holo" in front of it.)
posted by cortex at 9:50 AM on July 30, 2008


nd n the nd

th lv tk

s ql t th lv

y mk
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 9:51 AM on July 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


This threat should have stopped at 1738. I don't think it was properly appreciated. It was on the right day and everything, and it was about type! Vowels! Benjamin Franklin is/not Doctorow!
posted by Mngo at 9:52 AM on July 30, 2008


(For example, if I'd reworked my Eliot riff earlier this morning as a vamp on futuristic display technologies as an analog for the classic ghost story? And called it The Holo Men? I'd actually be rich right now.)
posted by cortex at 9:52 AM on July 30, 2008


2500
posted by languagehat at 9:53 AM on July 30, 2008


Andy on the nad
The lava took
Sequel to thy lava
You mook.
posted by SpiffyRob at 9:54 AM on July 30, 2008


Burhanistan wishes he could be here, but he's on his blackberry now, which can't load the thread. I light a pyre in his name.
posted by languagehat at 9:55 AM on July 30, 2008


I refuse to be the last comment in this thread.
posted by found missing at 9:56 AM on July 30, 2008


If we can get ten additional comments in five minutes, I promise I won't give your children copies of the "Boingers in Banana Hammocks" charity calendar.

July is so hot it burns your very essence and makes you pray for eye cancer. Cory and his fucking papercraft inflatable fist... and the weird rococo nipple tats. (shudder)
posted by bunnytricks at 9:56 AM on July 30, 2008


Gosh darned it. I tried for like the past 10 minutes to catch up on this thread, but every passive passive or passive aggressive passive body language I could give to that office mate wouldn't work -- he clung to my line of sight and my ears like only that office mate can.

Alas, now he's gone, and here, mere minutes from the closing! I think!

<3 to all, and to all a good night!
posted by cavalier at 9:56 AM on July 30, 2008


DoingDoing, the bell tolls for thee
posted by Rumple at 9:56 AM on July 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


someone said there was popcorn here?
posted by gingerbeer at 9:56 AM on July 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


To the holo hallowed halls of hullabaloo!
posted by SpiffyRob at 9:57 AM on July 30, 2008


THE LIGHT! THE LIGHT IT BLINDS ME! I AM DISINTEGRATING! FRST TH VWLS ND NW

.
posted by Kattullus at 9:57 AM on July 30, 2008


One spring morning in the year 2525, a young G'hre Larson-Watterson will publish a seminal one-panel strip featuring an android dreaming of two electric deer, one observing the RFID-tag-shaped blotch on the chestplate of the other and noting, flatly, "Holo've a birthmark, HAL."

The publishers of The New Yorker, which by then would have been refactored into a monthly caption-contest anthology with sex ads in the back, would react by announcing later that day that the publication "can't top that shit" and would be shutting down immediately.
posted by cortex at 9:57 AM on July 30, 2008


*poof*
posted by elfgirl at 9:57 AM on July 30, 2008


And I'm totally disappointed that nobody trolled commented on that Orwell post they just made. Like LOL UNPUBLISH DIARIES AMIRITE?

Jake. What the hell does that even mean?
posted by cavalier at 9:58 AM on July 30, 2008


I'm confused. Am I dead? Is the thread closed? Momma, is that you?
posted by anotherpanacea at 4:25 AM on July 31, 2008


Nope... not dead. But then what?
posted by anotherpanacea at 4:33 AM on July 31, 2008


wht?
posted by danOstuporStar at 4:40 AM on July 31, 2008


It was then that he realized that though he was alive, and the thread was open, but that all the rest of the world was gone. Every last one of them had been burned to a crisp in the Great Conflagrating Boing. He was alone. He carefully picked his way through the rubble, stirring one pile of ashes after another, wondering where to go, what to do, but ultimately he returned to the open thread and sat down, waiting for death to come and finish the destruction of his race....

A little while later, he realized that death was unlikely to come very soon at all, so he stood up and stretched. "Well," he thought to himself. "Things may look bad, right? But at least I 'ave me health." He snickered. Noticing a can of beans on the floor, he kicked it across the room, then decided to go exploring.

THE END... or is it?
posted by anotherpanacea at 4:41 AM on July 31, 2008 [1 favorite]


CREDULOUS DIMWITS
posted by anotherpanacea at 4:42 AM on July 31, 2008


These comments.... they're coming FROM INSIDE THE THREAD!!!
posted by anotherpanacea at 4:45 AM on July 31, 2008 [2 favorites]


hello.
posted by Partial Law at 5:30 AM on July 31, 2008


OMGZOMBIETHREAD
posted by flashboy at 6:27 AM on July 31, 2008


2525
posted by found missing at 6:31 AM on July 31, 2008


Huh. Quick in SQL measurements of month-by-interval? Threads from early on June 30th are open as well.
posted by cortex at 7:04 AM on July 31, 2008


hey, lions are laying down with lambs!
posted by found missing at 7:14 AM on July 31, 2008


It's alive. It's ALIVE!
posted by nooneyouknow at 7:18 AM on July 31, 2008


Wait-- why am I in the shower?
posted by elfgirl at 7:19 AM on July 31, 2008


THE POSTS ARE COMING FROM INSIDE THE QUERY ENGINE!
posted by ardgedee at 7:21 AM on July 31, 2008


I'm not sure this is going to be jake with Cory
posted by found missing at 7:54 AM on July 31, 2008


Quirk. The word I was going for was quirk.
posted by cortex at 7:57 AM on July 31, 2008


what what

WE ARE IN BOINGNAROK

L-HAT, QUICK, THE SCRIPTURES
posted by mwhybark at 7:57 AM on July 31, 2008 [2 favorites]


Though if Matt dumped some Nestle Quik in the SQL box, that might explain some things.
posted by cortex at 7:58 AM on July 31, 2008


I AM SO CONFUSED I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO THINK OR FEEL PLEASE HOPE
posted by waraw at 8:00 AM on July 31, 2008 [1 favorite]


(also, cortex, the thread was for-real closed yesterday when I posted the Meta thread. which implies something, I suppose.)
posted by mwhybark at 8:10 AM on July 31, 2008


the thread was for-real closed yesterday when I posted the Meta thread. which implies something, I suppose.

THE POST-END TIMES ARE NIGH!

VERILY I SAY UNTO YOU: THE MAN-WHORE OF BOING BOING WILL LIE DOWN WITH LAMBS AND WHEN HE GETS UP THEY SHALL ALL HAVE HAD THEIR NECKS BROKEN. AND THE NUMBER OF THAT BEAST SHALL BE 72928 AND ALL WHO SEE IT WILL TREMBLE.

THE MIRACULOUS RESURRECTION OF A THREAD SHALL BE KNOWN TO ALL AND THOUGH THEY DENY IT WITH DATABASE QUIPS THEY SHALL RECOGNIZE THE LORD'S HAND IN IT. THE HOSTS SHALL DESCEND AND MAKE SPORT OF HUMAN MISERY AND SPECULATE ENDLESSLY ABOUT SEXBLOGGER THREESOMES. IT WILL AMOUNT TO NOTHING. THE SWAMP SWALLOWS ALL HOPE.
posted by anotherpanacea at 8:17 AM on July 31, 2008 [1 favorite]


Maybe this is the universe making some wry comment on my posting of that comic-book Tibetan Book of the Dead the other day. We've all been damned to a short stint in the Preta Loka.
posted by cortex at 8:20 AM on July 31, 2008


(also, cortex, the thread was for-real closed yesterday when I posted the Meta thread. which implies something, I suppose.)

Yeah, I know. I really do think it's a silly SQL time-interval issue, something (note my wildly waving hands) like this:

Post goes up at 9:58 on June 30th. Time passes; eventually we get to the morning of July 30th. At 9:57, it has been less than "a month" since the post went up, so it's still open. At 9:59, it has been more than "a month", so the thread is closed. We all stretch, look around in mild embarrassment, and return to our jobs, our wives and children. End of an era.

Then...

July 31st rolls around. It's 12:01, and someone checks the thread. (Apparently this didn't actually happen until 4:25 or so, but same diff). Now, July 31st would be one month after June 31st, and June 31st comes after June 30th, so this shouldn't matter at all, except, WAIT A GODDAM MINUTE: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS JUNE 31ST!

So, well, what? Huh? Okay: SQL is trying to cover it's ass here and come up with a plausible explanation for what "a month" prior to July 31st is.

SQL: "It sure isn't June 31st, right? Okay, then, well...it's...a month earlier? Yeah? July 31st is the last day of the month, so, uh, uh, wait, look, June 30th is the last day of THAT month, so June 30th must be a month before July 31st!"

"Yeah! Okay! June 30th is a month before July 31st! And today is July 31st, and it's not, uh, 9:59 yet, so...that thread is still open!"

Note here that SQL is a fucking SPACECASE by this line of reasoning, and that the result is that threads on weird shorter-month/longer-month end-of-month cusps like this should in theory all be affected by it. But who would notice, normally?

And in fact, paging back and forward, you can see that other threads ARE open.
posted by cortex at 8:34 AM on July 31, 2008 [5 favorites]


This is the oldest open one I could find, offhand. All the threads from then forward appear to be open.

I think the one prior to that was open the first time I loaded it, but I did not post in it and could be wrong. It is closed now.
posted by mwhybark at 8:49 AM on July 31, 2008


So... (wait for it)


The trouble in the thread is caused by problems with dating.

A ha ha ha ha! That's private!
posted by mwhybark at 8:56 AM on July 31, 2008 [1 favorite]


That open thread did close at its' creation time occurrence today, 8:59. So we have about 45 minutes of revenant time.

THANK YOU WOTAN MAY YOU REGAIN YOUR EYEBALL
posted by mwhybark at 9:18 AM on July 31, 2008


WOTAN CLAN AIN'T NOTHIN TO ESQUE WITH
posted by cortex at 9:32 AM on July 31, 2008


It's getting dark
Too dark for me to see
posted by cortex at 9:49 AM on July 31, 2008


So, this is heaven, then, the far side of eternity, with a definite beginning but an unlimited future?
posted by anotherpanacea at 9:50 AM on July 31, 2008


I hear the wings of Hugin and Mugin astir on the breeze, my vkngs!
posted by mwhybark at 9:50 AM on July 31, 2008


*waves from Valhalla*
posted by languagehat at 9:51 AM on July 31, 2008 [1 favorite]


*valhalla back"
posted by yhbc at 9:53 AM on July 31, 2008 [1 favorite]


(Apparently this didn't actually happen until 4:25 or so, but same diff)

Wait... 4:25 server time is when I checked the thread. Are you saying I have the touch of kings and can resurrect the dead? Because that's just silly.

It's much more likely that the Sky-Mauler merely used me as an instrument of his terrible and awesome will. I'm just a vessel, man; Ragnarok is inexorable.
posted by anotherpanacea at 9:55 AM on July 31, 2008


t nds! t nds!
posted by mwhybark at 9:56 AM on July 31, 2008


This damn thing better stay dead this time.
posted by cortex at 9:58 AM on July 31, 2008 [8 favorites]


« Older Jerzy Duda-Gracz   |   Journal of Footballing History Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments