It's an interesting time to be a new user on Hubski. Overall I find the site design and tenor of conversation to be really appealling. But I've also noticed some issues that seem to have been coming to a head recently. It looks like a lot of that has to do to what degree this is(n't) a Reddit alternative and how the culture of the userbase differs. From my perspective, a lot of what degrades the quality of exchange across the Internet, especially Reddit, has been spurious claims to violation of free speech, which too often go unchallenged. Here's a few articles that demonstrate how "free speech" is misappropriated these days:
- http://jezebel.com/5985635/an-idiots-guide-to-free-speech
- http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech#Imaginary_rights_relating_to_freedom_of_speech
- http://popehat.com/2009/07/01/speech-is-tyranny/
Bonus: an article published yesterday about how freedom of speech debates have been playing out over the past few decades: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/08/10/the-hell-you-say
Highlight:
- For many modern free-speech advocates, the First Amendment is irrelevant: their main target is not repressive laws but shifting norms and values.
My read is that no one on Hubski feels our cyclical peccadilloes are about freedom of speech. The founders at team hubski are staunchly free speech and the fact that there are no moderators on here says a lot about individual determinism. The problems we face all have to do with kindness of speech, not freedom of speech. I think we'd all also agree that you should be "allowed" to be as nasty as you want, but that everyone else should have the tools to not have to listen to you. This is where we're lagging - we don't have adequate controls to provide everyone the "nastiness filter" they want, when they want it. The gap between "you're a dick" and "your dickishness has caused you to disappear from everyone's feed" is large enough that several valued community members have fallen into it.
On Hubski we have a sort of guaranteed freedom of speech granted by the staff. It's not terribly dissimilar to freedom of speech protected by government. What seems to me to be lacking in places is the culture of free speech. It's certainly more prevalent here than many places, but there's most definitely a subsection of this site that's trying to block out content that they don't agree with. That's their right and they impact themselves more than anything, but they're still participating in that culture of shutting out dissent rather than using the generally amicable atmosphere to have a conversation where everyone isn't just nodding their heads or trying to bite one another's off. Personally, so far my experience with these people has been that they take disagreement as offense and respond as if I'd insulted them. They're a minority of the site's users, but they most certainly impact the atmosphere even when they remove themselves from portions of it.
Ah I saw those suggestions as more of relationship builder in the sense that I would take more care in knowing who I was talking to rather than simply responding to a comment. It was to stop the whole generalizing issue, but I see how that could work to close that gap.
I really think Hubski does need some form of moderators though. Now, that doesn't mean Reddit-style moderators. The Poster and Viewer/Commenter should have full access if they are in agreement. But, say, the most active N users in any given tag (or hierarchical group of tags - we probably need that formalized more than the "related tags" section of the tags page) should be automatically suggested as "moderators" with the power to flag something as "unconstructive" - of course users could opt-out from individual moderators. Also, Hubski needs to have a clearer policy for illegal content. One of the recent controversial threads posted was blatant Libel, and I could still access it 24 hours after the fact.
The options are then that either we normalize actual harassment, or we give up and join min and 8bit. Neither of these are going to be good for the site in the long run. Letting sewage sit around and propagate will also kill the whole point of the site, because the point will no longer be visible.
I hope this isn't a serious reply. The point is that you're the moderator. You found a loophole earlier, and it will be fixed soon. After that, the only way that posts like the one in question will be seen is if people go looking for them. Is that "letting sewage sit around and propagate"? I'd call it pretty goddam responsive, but I guess some people are always going to piss and moan.
Fixing filtering is great, yes. But that's only fine and wonderful for those of us who haven't just hopped into a pot of hot water. We didn't just explore the site for the first time to be greeted to someone posting about feminists deserving to be whipped in #feminism, or as per yesterday actually harassing other users in #hubski where it's still 3rd and the oldest post on the front page is almost a month old. That's going to be there for a month unless all y'all start tagging more things #hubski. And that's providing he doesn't have an encore planned. I don't think the answer lies in hoping that people won't click "more". I genuinely worry about the people we never get to meet because of that. I worry about it because we have lost wonderful people. And I also worry about the people we gain because of it. I worry about that because we lost great people to those who felt asshattery is allowed here because it literally is as he demonstrates. People should nope out at the sight of that. We shouldn't expect them to ignore warning signs. After all, the Internet's favorite response to "that's terrible" is "go away you don't belong here". Here it's "just wait it out". He's been here for 3 months. I don't know if I'll last that long. But yeah, in the mean time it's nice that I will see less of him. I really am glad for you if this hasn't been your experience of the Internet. I'm not that lucky.
I think part of the problem is the filtering model means I lose out too. Most people who aren't following Grendel won't repost his stuff. And he has tons of followers. So if I filter all of the Team Sexist Racist Crazytown, yes I'm in a safe bubble from the hate speech. I'm also going to miss out on quite a lot of content, which hubski doesn't have a ton of right now. Look at the active users in the community tab. Look at grendels followers. Yeesh. It's the same thing that happened on reddit. I had to avoid the hate subs, obviously. But eventually I had to unsub from the defaults, as the hate subs actively campaign there. Then as they grew to a more majority opinion, the few subs that were supposed to be safe were invaded, and I left the site. That's exactly what the hate subs wanted, and I'm pretty sure what Grendel wants as well. If grendel continues to recruit, which I believe is his main goal here, yes he is punished by being ignored, but I'm punished by missing out on lots of content, more and more as his popularity grows. I have a few ideas of things that would help. I think the community should be able to remove tags from a post. If he wasn't allowed to spam feminism with the exact opposite it would help keep him isolated. It would help prevent users from thinking his manipulative behavior represents whichever tag he is currently abusing.
I also think the proposed user tagging would help. If I can tag his followers as "possibly crazy" it would help avoid getting drawn in by trolling. I think if the site as a whole comes up with some smart ways to minimize his damage then he's done hubski users a lot of good. To me, he's a bug, an edge case, and it's just a matter of finding the right policy to deal with his exploitation. But if the answer is "ignore it" I'm concerned what that means for my future here.
He is an edge case, but it's been an instructive one. One of our oldest, most followed users quit because he was harassing her. It led to the 'block' feature, but sadly, a day too late. His most recent vitriol led to filtering more from the community page. This motherfucker is a terrorist, making everyone who enjoys this site spend way too much time on him. It's useful though, because you hope that it gets easier the more shit you see. Suggestions to deal with this type of user are always welcome. Your idea about untagging is interesting, but how would it work?
I think the problem is the hubski bar analogy falls apart when people are pushing an agenda. He isnt here to participate, he never comments unless its to argue about his hate topics. The problem is, in a bar, everyone would notice that he's in a dark corner of the room, smelling a bit off, with no one talking to him. No one goes up to that guy. On hubski, it just looks like no one is commenting on his posts. Normal users don't see whats wrong with him until he has a toxic day, and even then they might miss it. So how do we show people his stink waves? It seems like there should be some way to let the community know "yes this person is talking, but our silence is not agreement". On way would be to show how many people have muted someone for a particular topic. I don't want to be hurtful though, or create a negative experience for controversial tags. Another way would be letting people untag his posts, kicking him out of the room so to speak. Either a hubwheel of "offensive" or "controversial" gives users a warning when viewing content, or deletes the tag entirely. Yes we can filter "spam" or "trolling", but I think it would be better if this was baked into the site itself. If a new users checks out hubski and sees a skull and crossbones next to a post, it sets expectations pretty effectively. It also lets normal users know "hey, this guy is a controversial figure, silence is not agreement". I feel a little weird proposing suggestions, I know I'm a hubski rookie. But I don't want to be negative and just whine about things I don't like without offering suggestions. So I'm very open to criticism or disagreement on this one.
My first idea as I read this thread further was the red hubwheel, but it came to me soon after that it can, too, be abused. Perhaps not as heavily, since I haven't noticed trolling in such quantities on Hubski, but still, it's the opportunity I'm uncomfortable with. Test run, perhaps, with saving the data if it proceeds to a feature state?a hubwheel of "offensive" or "controversial"
Throwin' ideas at the wall: If I click to remove a tag it will stay but if someone else does it independently then it will be removed. Add/remove people as you see fit. If I follow a tag give me the ability to correct mislabeled posts for that tag i.e. if something is posted under #feminism and #mensrights and I follow feminism then give me the ability to change that tag only, since I follow it. Make me give up a badge to remove a tag / all tags on a post regardless of anything else. Other topic: I'm still for even harsher functioning of the block function and think it should completely remove that person from my Hubski experience by additionally making it so I flat out don't see their comments on other peoples posts or anywhere else.
This is why I so strongly believe we need moderation/curation. But let's consider the problem from a different perspective: what if tags did not exist? If tags did not exist, we would only be able to find new content by following people. This is how real life has worked for millions of years, so our ingrained social rules will probably. Now, it's obviously implausible to directly follow everyone who might post content on a subject you're interested in, or even follow everyone who is close enough to share it. Which is where a degree of implicit trust comes in. Some magic formula (left as an exercise for the reader) takes into account indirect follow chains and (to a lesser degree) simple share/upvote chains. New users can still enter this ecosystem. As soon as someone upvotes one of their comments, they gain a little implicit trust so other people can see their post. Now the only question is: where do tags fit in? I'm sure everyone claims that they are useful, but how? Unlike subreddits, tags are not the primary way I discover content (for me at least). And most of the tags I do see in my feed I added because I saw people I follow posting in them. I think that tags are only useful as a way to filter posts that I'm already seeing for the sake of seeing a longer history. --- Yes, I am aware that this will lead to a bit of a walled garden effect. But, remember that it only removes the visibility of posts, not comments (unless you block them of course).
I'm going to be honest here (and please, this isn't anything personal against you) but I have no interest in a discussion about tags right now so I'm going to leave you with a history of tags and all that good stuff to provide some background information and other discussion. Also, if you look at previous discussions you might notice a bit of a difference in attitude and vibe going back compared to now.
I would just like to point out that "following" grendel does not mean "agreeing" with grendel. Sometimes I like to read things I disagree with; is that some sort of crime or moral shortcoming in your book? I like to read contrarian points of view, even if it means rejecting 85% of it as sexist, racist or otherwise worthless smut. It is true though, his spat with fanficguy is immature, and he should probably feel embarrassed by it; I'm not sure why you guys keep taking his bait there.
Where do you get crime from? Little hyperbolic don't you think? Grendel isn't here to participate in the community. He's here to campaign. It's why he blocks everyone who disagrees with him. His hate-riddled anti-women posts aren't interesting or original, and I do think less of anyone who follows him, yourself included. As for why he's worth discussing, because more will come. And if enough angry, sad people like him take over the site, it will probably stop being one I'm a part of. So he is an interesting case study, and hopefully helps hubski harden itself against future legions of idiots.
Yes, it was a little hyperbolic, but again, my point is that just because I follow him, doesn't mean I agree with everything he posts or says, and I don't think it's morally wrong to expose oneself to conflicting or even hateful ideas; those are the kind of ideas that make me angry and impassioned. If we want to extend the "mold" metaphor here, I like to think of myself someone who studies all the different kinds of mold, who can tell the different species apart, and perhaps even identify the difference between mold and just really ugly wallpaper. Back in high school, I used to spend a lot of time seeking out Christians on the internet with hateful opinions against gay people (I'm gay, btw), trying to understand where they were coming from, sometimes arguing against them. It was often futile, but occasionally I would find people who could still hold a respectful discussion, and I'd like to think that I (and the people I engaged with) grew from those experiences. In college, I would often listen to this preacher who would come on campus to preach "Christianity," but really it was mostly sexism, racism, bigotry, and anti-intellectualism; one of my favorite pastimes was standing there between classes and listening to him, sometimes arguing with his supporters. I liked to hear the arguments, seeing which ones were strong, which ones were weak, sometimes laughing at the angry ones who would just shout an obscenity in response. It wasn't for everyone, my partner hated even being around him, which is just different strokes for different folks. Sure, on one hand he was getting the audience and attention that he craved, and even the negativity he received probably only served to reinforce some deep-seated persecution complex, but I think in the long run, he only hurt his cause. If you want to tar me for following him, or not blocking him, or for being a white cis male, by all means, go right ahead, I'll be the last person to stop you. For the record, I'm in favor of making it more public when someone has a bunch of people blocked or muted, so we can see the people who carefully curate echo chambers in their posts. This idea has been discussed and the admins seem to have good reasons for not implementing it, so perhaps there are different solutions.
You say you follow him to expand awareness, or keep enemies close kinda thing. I get that. I lurked MRA back when I used reddit. This is different. He trolls a tag, posting things that are exactly opposite of that tag on purpose to rile and offend. Then you share it. You've not only given him the soapbox he wants, but you've actually propagated it around to people who follow you. And worst of all, I see no actual shares of any feminism related content. You say you follow a contrarian viewpoint, but all the evidence points to exactly the opposite. You were the 3rd person I filtered on hubski. I took you off that list recently because it seemed like you'd chilled out, but after this discussion I'm going to take a break for a bit. I'm not going to mute you because I don't want to force you out of my posts, but please don't make me reconsider that. I'll check back in a while and maybe in the future we can get along better. In the meantime, why not try following users like tla instead of toxic jerks? From your debate style and post history, I think there's a lot more you could learn there. or for being a white cis male
C'mon dude. Not cool. I have no problem with white guys, why is that information even relevant? This is the same baiting as the crime comment. Stop it.
Right, but c'mon, it's your right to block or filter whoever you want for whatever reason you want. I'm not saying you in particular have a problem with white cis males, but if someone did, they're within their rights to act on it. That is the framework this site gives you. You don't have to listen to someone you don't like if it bothers you that much. I'm not sure what you mean here. Am I supposed to share posts I find offensive? I may read it, I may comment on it, but if I don't think it's worthwhile to propagate it, I won't share it to those who follow me. The only soapbox he has is the one he makes for himself. I have my own soapbox and it is mine, not his or yours. If you don't like the stuff grendel shares, filter him. If you don't like what I share, filter me. If you don't like what either of us share, then filter us both! Is this rocket science, or am I just taking crazy pills!? If you want to go through and filter everyone who follows grendel, then be my guest. Hell, I'd recommend filtering everyone who follows someone who follows grendel, just to be safe since you sound particularly thin skinned. Can't be too safe these days, but that's up to you, obviously. Go right ahead and filter me, don't let my contributions to this site annoy you if that's the way you feel. If you want to mute me because you don't like what I have to say or how I say it, I won't feel offended, and you shouldn't feel bad. I'm honest about my opinions and I know there is always something I can learn from other people; I never allow myself to make rude insults, but apparently that rubs some people the wrong way. I try not to judge other people and tell them what they can learn, I'd rather focus on what I can learn, but that's just me. The three tla posts I can see in her or his profile (petski fluff, shitstirring, and Hillary propaganda from WSJ) do not inspire me to follow that person yet, though. C'mon dude. Not cool. I have no problem with white guys, why is that information even relevant? This is the same baiting as the crime comment. Stop it.
And worst of all, I see no actual shares of any feminism related content. You say you follow a contrarian viewpoint, but all the evidence points to exactly the opposite.
You were the 3rd person I filtered on hubski. I took you off that list recently because it seemed like you'd chilled out, but after this discussion I'm going to take a break for a bit. I'm not going to mute you because I don't want to force you out of my posts, but please don't make me reconsider that. I'll check back in a while and maybe in the future we can get along better. In the meantime, why not try following users like tla instead of toxic jerks? From your debate style and post history, I think there's a lot more you could learn there.
Out of curiosity, I looked at who follows Grendel and what I realized is that most of the people that follow him at the moment are people who came during either the whole fat people hate banning episode or the Ellen Pao firing and a good number of those people don't really posted on Hubski anymore. They posted a couple of things their first day or two and then didn't post again. It's seems like it's basically Grendel and himself right now as he doesn't really have people who actually support him. Also for the record, I have disagreed with Grendel many times but he has yet to block me as he replied to me yesterday.
Have you convinced grendel of this yet? I'm pretty sure he doesn't believe you're doing that since you follow him. And since as I understand it, following outranks filtering, I get to look for him in follow lists before I decide to follow anyone. He isn't and won't be. He'll go even further past the line next time. He continually escalates his abhorrent behavior. Because he's making me reluctant to tell people about hubski.I would just like to point out that "following" grendel does not mean "agreeing" with grendel.
even if it means rejecting 85% of it as sexist, racist or otherwise worthless smut
he should probably feel embarrassed by it
I'm not sure why you guys keep taking his bait there.
Why do I need to convince grendel of anything? Hubski is not like reddit, we are all individuals here, not part of some imagined grendel-hivemind. It's something I struggled with when transitioning from reddit as well; if you read or post in a particular subreddit, you're engaging with this amorphous blob of pseudonymous users in a giant peanut gallery, which makes it hard to really pick out and get to know individuals; reddit-culture is like chan-culture, it thrives on that dissociative anonymity. Sure, you can treat people like subreddits, but you're really doing the hubski model a big disservice if you do. You're free to follow, unfollow, block, filter, whatever, for any reason you want. Curate your feed; don't be lazy then complain about about the community because of your own laziness. I'm pretty sure if you have someone blocked, even if someone you follow shares their post, it will not appear in your feed. I know I have particular tags blocked, and even if the people I follow post and share content with that tag, it does not appear for me. So? He acts a fool with idle shitstirring and drama-starting; if he does it repeatedly and it pollutes my feed enough, I'll unfollow or filter him, like you should have done a long time ago. If you do already have him blocked/filtered, then I'm inclined to say it's a bug that you're still seeing his content. Trolling posts like that thrive on a big breathless reaction like this. QQ. There's a person on the internet who's an asshole! I don't recommend the internet to friends. Have you convinced grendel of this yet?
I'm pretty sure he doesn't believe you're doing that since you follow him. And since as I understand it, following outranks filtering, I get to look for him in follow lists before I decide to follow anyone.
He isn't and won't be. He'll go even further past the line next time. He continually escalates his abhorrent behavior.
Because he's making me reluctant to tell people about hubski.
So he'll fuck off and stop shitting the place up. He isn't going away because he thinks his echo chamber of followers love him. He loves the echo chamber he's building. He thinks he's accepted because people in his echo chamber of followers and people who he hasn't muted tell him he is. Literally. And then they go outside his echo chamber all inspired by him to protest feminism and black lives matter and explain how white man is the most oppressed. Containing a toxic spill isn't possible if people walk through it. This is a social problem with a social solution. But we are attempting to rely on technology instead, and it's backfiring. We can filter? Wow why didn't anyone say so... oh, wait, they did. I did filter him. I've said so before. Repeatedly. He's been filtered since the day I made a hubski account. But I still can't escape his shit. He keeps showing up ANYWAY. ("Hmm, I don't remember that thread" click "FFFFUUUUUUUUU"). He keeps showing up when I look at people's user pages and look at their recent comments and end up on his threads; OP doesn't get listed in "crafty · link · parent · +! · post: What freedom of speech isn't" He keeps showing up on community when people telling him off gets upvoted. OP also doesn't show up in "kleinbl00 · link · parent · +! · post: It's a White Man's Internet" He keeps getting in my way because all y'all keep giving him the attention he's trolling for. The latest one I didn't even have to click on the thread, I just went to the community page. The title was enough. And I also already knew what it was about because I saw the triggering conversation in my chatter. Don't. Blame. ME. Why should I have to not click on links on hubski because it might be a stealth blocked person? It's kinda defeating the point, yo. I keep mentioning all this. I don't blame the hubski team for not keeping up, there are a lot of issues to deal with. I mentioned it all back a month ago and was told to just wait it out. I've mentioned it since. I mentioned it the other day. I get told it can't be fixed if I don't mention it. Sure when I do mention it I get thanked and that's nice. But I also get shit piled on me in the most amazingly condescending way, and told I'm fucking lazy, or told to be quiet and wait it out. Doge forbid I get angry about it. No wonder others are nervous about pointing stuff out. Get off my back. Nice strawman. I can't recommend hubski as a chimpire-free alternative to reddit when it is heading for the exact same problem. It only takes one Cat Piss Man to ruin a place this small, and ours is malicious to boot. It's literally killing my experience of hubski, why would I invite others to experience the same? And you. You're part of that experience. Congrats.Why do I need to convince grendel of anything?
like you should have done a long time ago
I don't recommend the internet to friends
The user you're responding to is completely full of it. He spreads the anti-feminism stuff around and his comment history is full of pro-troll posts. I know you're frustrated that these people exist and are so active here, but I think the Hubski team is working on it. Keep in mind you have double his followers, the Hubski community is overwhelmingly more interesting in what you have to say then people like him. I don't think there is much point talking to someone who is so completely nutty. He's not going to cave, or suddenly learn how to handle an intelligent conversation. I'm not going to tell you not to get mad, or not to hold users to a higher standard. I'm just posting so you know you aren't alone, and that users like him won't matter much in the long run. Hang in there lady.
I'll keep it short and sweet because, frankly, I don't think this: is correct. It's not me that is giving him all this attention, I don't really care about the guy. He posted a couple interesting articles, I commented on/shared a small fraction of them; it is other people, people like you, this entire recent round of reddit diaspora, that is starting and perpetuating the issue on both sides; hubski was a much nicer place before all of you people showed up. I don't think I've ever said anything racist or sexist, and if I have, I would make a genuine apology for it, but you people are an unrelenting mob, who refuse to stop complaining about one person. At any rate, good luck on your personal crusade, and with all due respect, don't hesitate to filter me, I wouldn't want to negatively impact your delicate sensibilities. By the way, it is my personal opinion that dem dank maymays deserve to stay on reddit, but hey, to each her own, right? y'all keep giving him the attention he's trolling for.
I've been on this site a whole lot longer than you have, and I've only run into toxic users a handful of times. I simply don't see them, because I don't follow them. I can passively filter out low quality users by following a carefully selected group of other discerning users. In an extreme case, I can actively filter out negative users, although I have yet to need these tools.
So those of us who have been here a while don't use #feminism. We use #grrlski. This has two obvious problems: 1) Neither thenewgreen or I can remember if it's two rs or 3. 2) It's a long damn way from obvious. I've harped at length about the fact that our tag nomenclature is entirely folklore-dependent... but the fact remains, it's a higher-quality tag.
Or that rule is not known, or feminism is now used as a pejorative tag against users you don't like to invite trolling. The community tagged this one feminism, not me, for example.
Edit: Looks like you don't see community tags until you actually go to the post. Intentional?
The thing is, it's a real issue that probably happens more often than we know. On a previous social site I was on, small and intimate like Hubski is, someone posted some really stupid shit. The guy who owned and operated the site ending up having a very long and uncomfortable visit with the secret service. When you own and run sites like this, the risks and liability are very real, as are the potential legal consequences.
Implication isn't enough. An actual plan of action, and following through on that, is what's necessary. The illegal content is still accessible, through publicly visible links. Indirect link: https://hubski.com/pub?id=259010
I've always worries that sites like Hubski would be the target of SLAPP Lawsuits instead of personal lawsuits, but now I think there might be a real risk for both.
Oh, no. Don't get me wrong. The fact that new tools are being invented and implemented so swiftly show that the issue is indeed not being ignored. If I had to guess though, I don't think mk and co. have decided to implement them and then just leave it at that. I'm sure behind the scenes they're looking at the impact such tools are having not only on the situation, but on the site dynamics as well. I'm sure questions are being asked such as "How effective are they?" "Do they have unintended consequnces?" "Is a more direct action needed?" "Where are lines drawn?" On and on. I have to say, I find the staff of Hubski are currently in an unenviable position and I wish them all the best and offer what little support and encouragement I have to offer in the position I'm in as a casual user. The fact is though, the hate train has left the station and keeps chugging on. I feel like I've joined this site at an interesting time in its history.
I wish I had some idea of what you are trying to say. I don't know that Hubski really needs to to spend it's time policing "blatant libel." Without a link I have no idea what you are referencing. Otherwise I don't have any idea of what kind of "Illegal Content" you are talking about. In the U.S. where hubski is hosted (maybe?) there is almost no liability over what users post here for the site itself. Flagging people as "unconstructive" sounds pretty creepy. One mans ceiling is another mans floor.. I'd say that if you find someone unconstructive enough you should apply the moderation tools that are provided for you.
Did you not see the "XXX is a pedophile and rapist" thread? That's libel. It's not Hubski's responsibility to check every post for such content. It is Hubski's responsibility to have a way of reporting it and responding to legitimate reports with removal. The whole "no liability" thing applies only if the site has a policy in place for removal. Hubski does not have one; ergo it has full liability.
I wish I had followed up on this earlier. You never did explain the legal basis for your claim that Hubski has liability for the speech of a user. Under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act Hubski has no liability for comments made by the user. The legal remedy for getting a comment removed is by judicial action after a claim of libel has been successfully proven in a court of law. Good luck getting a libel claim out of what Grendel said. His statement was offensive and false but I do think think a reasonable person could consider it anything other than reckless rhetoric only used to be provocative and inflammatory. I wish you wouldn't try to make specious, threatening legal statements as a way of censoring content you don't like. It's thuggish and deceitful.
Being offensive and (knowingly or negligently) false is sufficient for libel against a non-celebrity. Only for celebrities (including public officials, etc.) is it necessary to prove that it wasn't just rhetoric. But I think this fits under "defamation per se" which makes it always count anyway. Section 230 only applies immunity within civil law. In some states, libel can be criminal; harassment can be criminal even at the federal level. I am not a lawyer, but I know that investigating this issue could be costly. Additionally, the offensive user is certainly still liable under civil libel law, which may give Hubski the obligation to reveal his identity during discovery. Is violating anonymity something that Hubski is prepared to do? (Granted, this may still apply even if Hubski does act to take it down, but it is less likely) Remember that even if a lawsuit is ultimately shown to be unfounded, it can still have significant up-front costs. (This is less true in countries other than the United States, but most other countries do make ISPs clearly responsible for libel that they don't remove once they are informed). Finally - absolute domination of free speech is not an ideal goal. Humans are irrational, especially in social circumstances, so the "it is always better to know" theory does not apply. One negative instance can drown out thousands of positive instances; this sort of accusation, even unfounded, can severely effect the ability to apply for a job. If Hubski wants to become a center for hatred and harassment, then by all means leave it accessible. If it wants to become a center for free speech, a clear and enforced policy for "this kind of speech is not protected" is absolutely necessary.Good luck getting a libel claim out of what Grendel said. His statement was offensive and false but I do think think a reasonable person could consider it anything other than reckless rhetoric only used to be provocative and inflammatory.
I don't know what sufficient for libel means in this context but if you mean that you will win a libel suit if someone because someone engaged in reckless rhetoric against you think again. You are either making shit up or uniformed about the state of libel law. The statement in question seems to clearly be within the "rhetorical hyperbole" exception. Please name the copyright or criminal exception that you think these statements fall under in which Hubski could find its self criminally libel. I can only assume you bring this up to muddy the water, it's baseless as far as the site goes but you don't seem concerned with making arguments that make sense so much as making any argument you can in order to silence people you don't like. If I had a magic wand I would have silenced Grendel, instead I used moderation tools. There is a whole bunch of legal that would have to happen before this would be an issue, but I'm pretty sure that Hubski would do what they had to. I don't really have a problem with the wheels of justice turning in an appropriate and legal manner. In this specific case the person being slandered doesn't seem to give a damn and the information should have no impact on his daily life as he is protected by his own anonymity. If you have a Hubski example where this could realistically be an issue that would be pursued in an American court bring it on, otherwise keep putting up pro-censorship arguments that have no basis in reality. Anyone can sue anyone for just about anything anytime. It's a good argument for censorship like not leaving your house because you could get hit by a car is a good argument for becoming a hermit. Section 230 and various state anti-SLAPP laws offer a great deal of protection for the site. As far as other countries, thanks for more bullshit arguments that have no merit other than to try and install a censorship regime on Hubski. Hubski is in the U.S., American courts have consistently told foreign governments to SUCK IT as far as enforcing their fascist judgments in the U.S. Maybe Hubski's vast European or N. Korean assets could be put at risk but I doubt it. This is why we have defamation law. No reason to make up a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo or tell outright lies in an attempt to frighten Hubski into complying with your version of civility or appropriate discourse. Use the moderation tools or delete your account. Personally I think it's important to not delete things like the Grendel outburst which started this whole thing. It's a maker to be referenced when he seduces his next sad lonely white guy into racist misogyny. Make him own that shit. I'm sure you don't feel that way, you'd rather live in the safe bubble of a child or a European. Stop making up legal bullshit, it's disrespectful and manipulative, anyone who is vaguely acquainted with defamation law can do nothing but think less of you.Being offensive and (knowingly or negligently) false is sufficient for libel against a non-celebrity. Only for celebrities (including public officials, etc.) is it necessary to prove that it wasn't just rhetoric. But I think this fits under "defamation per se" which makes it always count anyway.
Section 230 only applies immunity within civil law. In some states, libel can be criminal; harassment can be criminal even at the federal level. I am not a lawyer, but I know that investigating this issue could be costly.
Additionally, the offensive user is certainly still liable under civil libel law, which may give Hubski the obligation to reveal his identity during discovery. Is violating anonymity something that Hubski is prepared to do? (Granted, this may still apply even if Hubski does act to take it down, but it is less likely)
Remember that even if a lawsuit is ultimately shown to be unfounded, it can still have significant up-front costs. (This is less true in countries other than the United States, but most other countries do make ISPs clearly responsible for libel that they don't remove once they are informed).
Finally - absolute domination of free speech is not an ideal goal. Humans are irrational, especially in social circumstances, so the "it is always better to know" theory does not apply. One negative instance can drown out thousands of positive instances; this sort of accusation, even unfounded, can severely effect the ability to apply for a job.
Uh, what name calling? What irrelevant hyperbole? You made a bunch of untrue statements in favor of establishing a censorship regime here on Hubski. I went through and addressed the things you either misunderstand or are purposely lying about and gave my honest opinion that trying to establish censorship via deception is creepy and not appreciated. Funny thing is Grendel likes to end his "arguments" the exact same way you are.
I didn't see that post. I'm interested in your legal theory that websites need to parse out what is third party libel and what is not so as to remove it. It would be a nice blank check for anyone to get anything negative written about them taken down. I'd like to see an explanation of how this works. Please explain how websites are supposed to determine what is "legitimate" libel and more about their obligation to take such material down.
IMO it is important that people be able to discuss unpopular ideas and to share unpopular viewpoints. Many of the beliefs that are commonly held to be acceptable today were once unpopular. Also, if you haven't challenged your ideas, you likely haven't thought them through very well, which is an intellectual failing. However, as kleinbl00 states, it matters how you communicate your ideas, for if you aren't willing to respect your audience, then your audience has little reason to listen to you. Of course, it is difficult to feel respect for those that hold some beliefs, particularly those that do not respect other groups of people a priori. For example, if someone proclaims to hate obese people, should I be expected to speak to them respectfully? Some might argue that if a person is unwilling to give respect to a group of people, then they do not deserve to be given respect in turn, even from those they do treat with respect. IMHO this is a mistake. I do not believe it is fruitful to engage ignorance with a lack of respect, and I think there is plenty of evidence to support this. Furthermore, I don't want ignorance to pull me into combative exchanges where the outcome is not in question. I'd much rather be someone that seeks to understand the cause of the ignorance, and when possible, someone that works to reduce it. I know that I have been ignorant, and continue to be ignorant. I know that the path to reducing my ignorance depends in part upon other people. I am concerned about the extent to which political correctness and trigger warnings have stifled intellectual discourse. IMO the very concept of microaggression is microaggressive. Not one of us is without fault, and no one can understand or anticipate the complete spectra of perception that our words might elicit. To be intellectually curious means to be not so tender that words are dangerous regardless of their context. In regards to Hubski, I am interested in creating fertile ground for thoughtful conversation. The actual topics being discussed are not unimportant, but the quality of the exchanges are of primary importance. To the extent that the parties involved are willing to tolerate combativeness or a lack of politeness, I am not concerned with the tenor of exchanges. However, if someone does not want to be a part of a conversation, or doesn't want to read it, they should have that option. Our goal has been and will continue to be to provide fertile ground for thoughtful conversation. The freedom to discuss most any topic is an important element of that formula. However, IMHO the boundaries of the definition of freedom of speech aren't as interesting as many people make it out to be, and I am not interested in exploring the finer points of those boundaries to the significant expense of our primary goal.
Free speech doesn't just mean the first amendment. The first amendment is a law protecting free speech in the context of government intervention. It protects us from legal recourse for expressing our opinions and ensures that we're not censored in public arenas. Public schools have frequently been the subject of free speech cases. Why do we do this? Well it's a pretty basic idea that we probably shouldn't be locking people up for what they say, but as you can see our own free speech laws go beyond that. They're geared not only at guaranteeing legal safety to speakers, but at preventing censorship. That would seem to go beyond merely ensuring that people are able to speak without going to jail, there seems to be some other motivation here. That motivation is the acknowledgement that the free exchange of ideas leads to socially positive outcomes. Issues are raised and discussed even when they might seem heretical or silly to contemporary thinkers. We have educational institutions where we're protected against censorship and the right to protest peacefully in public without molestation. That's not the only place free speech exists, though. That idea that free exchange is socially positive is carried into other places as well. You might have heard of the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Blue Ribbon Campaign. I don't think it gets as much attention as it once did, but this was a pretty big deal when I first got online in the late 90s. You'd see these little Blue Ribbon banners plastered across half the sites on the internet and 90% of geocities. A lot of what they did was securing legal free speech online, but another part of it was encouraging the culture of free speech. You can certainly be in favor of legal free speech but not in favor of a culture of free speech, but pretending the later doesn't exist isn't an argument, it's just nonsense. Personally, I'm not terribly concerned with what people are allowed to say or do on reddit. If anything reddit becoming more restrictive might cause its userbase to fragment, leading to a more decentralized internet (a good thing). I am concerned with professors who are censored with title ix charges for things like not putting trigger warnings in their syllabus. I am concerned with blackballing and anti-competitive business practices (like threatening to pull your product if someone else's is picked up), on any grounds, but especially on ideological grounds. I am concerned when one of the cleanest comedians of our era feels like crowds have gotten too PC. I am concerned when social fear of ideological backlash is to the point that Boston's Museum of Fine Arts shuts down kimono Wednesdays for fear of offending people who apparently have no idea how Japan sees foreigners wearing kimono. When we're at a point when people are walking around on eggshells and you can lose your job for making a joke about USB dongles to your friend at a tech conference, yeah, I'm a little worried about the cultural climate regarding the idea of free speech. When people are openly mocking the very idea of free speech, that's not a positive trend.
The hubbub around Boston's Museum of Fine Arts was particularly distressing, mostly because the protesters completely ignored what the Japanese (as you said) and Japanese-Americans had to say about the matter. This article gives a pretty good run down of the issue, I think. Importantly, it notes that the kimono isn't really standard ware in Japan, so people perhaps don't necessarily associate it with Japanese culture in the same way that people in India still see the sari, for example. I mean, that's not to say that there aren't problems with cultural appropriation in certain places - the UK has a few 'holi' festivals that really boil down to a bunch of drunk rich kids running around throwing colors at each other, and I definitely take issue with that, but yeah, protesting wearing the kimono is a tad strange when the Japanese have historically been pretty OK with that. Especially when you consider that there are many, many other Orientalist aspects through which we look at Japanese culture that people often just outright ignore.
Personally, I think that it's a pretty terrible thing in general that cultural exchange is being discouraged at all. There seems to be this push for segregation and separation happening that's pretty opposed to any historical bonding of peoples. We entangle our cultures and develop bonds by sharing with one another and adapting ideas from one culture to another. Why is this more offensive than, say, secularizing holidays like Christmas or Easter?the UK has a few 'holi' festivals that really boil down to a bunch of drunk rich kids running around throwing colors at each other, and I definitely take issue with that
Cultural exchange is incredibly important, most definitely - but I'd probably postulate that for a lot of people it's important for them to retain their 'self'. For many people in an increasingly globalized world, it's important to stick to their traditions. Not necessarily close them out to other people, sure, but to make sure that at least the exchange is being dealt with in a respectful and culturally appropriate manner. Well I think the difference probably stems with the fact that Christmas and Easter are Western traditions in and of themselves - and heck, Christmas is not, to my knowledge, even seen by many Christians as important as other religious holidays. Easter is a different story, sure, but then you don't really see Good Friday becoming secularized. And, in fairness, I'm not hugely supportive of how commercialized the two holidays have become - the secularization is fine. Heck, Japan followed the West's lead since the 70s and 80s and also vaguely celebrates Christmas in its secular and commercial form. But for Western culture to take a festival that is still seen as hugely important to a very prominent religious culture and not just 'secularizing' it (that in itself isn't my problem with it) but commercializing it in a fashion where the entire original meaning behind that day and festival is lost is a bit strange to me. The events I'm referring to are literally an excuse for college kids to go out and have a rave party, basically. That doesn't seem to me to be a good 'cultural exchange'. If you had an event based around Holi that articulated its importance to Hinduism and maybe was even a bit educational? Sure, that would be pretty good. I wouldn't be supportive of Ramadan becoming a flash dieting trend or Tibetan debating being shown on ESPN either, for that matter. Orientalism is most certainly a problem, but it doesn't have to be the necessary product of cultural exchange. It is just important that all parties understand their relative positions on the global stage when considering exchanging cultural ideas and practices. Also I would probably posit that it all depends on how the culture that is being 'borrowed' views the interaction, which again relates to Orientalism and Said's point about taking in account the socio-political standing of each of the nations in play. Japan's fine with kimonos, sure - would they be so happy if we started a sport that consisted of nose-diving jets while shouting 'Banzai!'? Probably not.
Yeah, we have these people in Western cultures too. They're religious fundamentalists, nationalists, and white supremacists. Why do these beliefs suddenly become admirable when it's from another culture? That is secularizing it, though. You're not going to retain the original religious significance of the holiday because secularization is exactly that, removing the religion from it. Generally, as per Christmas and Easter, we replace that with commerce. Travel, feasting, presents, all of these help to fuel the economy. Easter was pretty religiously important before we went all hippitus hoppitus with it. Why not? What's wrong with college kids having a rave party? Why does cultural exchange have to be somber? If I meditate does it have to be to attain religious enlightenment or can I do it to relieve my depression and anxiety? Who on Earth goes to an educational event? People like parties more than museums. Getting drunk and tossing colored dyes at one another is probably a better introduction to Hinduism for a lot of people than some dull lecture or somber religious ritual. Japanese Buddhists are allowed to drink alcohol, while Indian Buddhists consider it to be a distraction from the Noble Eightfold Path. Are Japanese Buddhists inappropriately culturally appropriating Buddhism from India because they drink? But what you're doing here is comparing the half-assed barely educated borrowing of culture with actively attempting to offend people. We all know exactly why your later example would be offensive, that's why you picked it. It'd be impossible to come up with that scenario without knowing you're playing with a touchy subject. That's not nearly the same as having a drunk Holi party, or having some white people in an afrobeat band, or enjoying or adopting music, food, or artistic styles from other cultures. I think the issue here, really, is that our own culture is being seen as banal or even not a culture at all and other cultures are being exoticized.Cultural exchange is incredibly important, most definitely - but I'd probably postulate that for a lot of people it's important for them to retain their 'self'. For many people in an increasingly globalized world, it's important to stick to their traditions.
But for Western culture to take a festival that is still seen as hugely important to a very prominent religious culture and not just 'secularizing' it (that in itself isn't my problem with it) but commercializing it in a fashion where the entire original meaning behind that day and festival is lost is a bit strange to me.
The events I'm referring to are literally an excuse for college kids to go out and have a rave party, basically. That doesn't seem to me to be a good 'cultural exchange'.
If you had an event based around Holi that articulated its importance to Hinduism and maybe was even a bit educational?
Japan's fine with kimonos, sure - would they be so happy if we started a sport that consisted of nose-diving jets while shouting 'Banzai!'? Probably not.
I am afraid that I simply cannot continue the discourse with you simply because we have pretty vastly different viewpoints - this isn't a bad thing and I don't mean to slight you at all. But I don't see much point in continually locking horns on the topic, so we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one! I'll just say my final piece and that'll be it from me I'm afraid. I admit I picked an exaggerated example - it was to accentuate my point. Is it alright to take the piss out of a culture one way but then not the other? Tokkoutai was a horrible part of Japanese history and a very nuanced issue, but it was, even briefly, part of Japanese culture. Japanese Buddhists are not inappropriately culturally appropriating Buddhism from India because Japanese Buddhism is a product of hundreds and hundreds of years of cultural blending with native Japanese practices. As I recall, there was quite a bit of discussion amongst Buddhist scholars - throughout this process of cultural contact - as to the validity of this in Japan. But the point remains that they were Buddhists. Kids going to a Holi rave aren't Hindu. And people do go to educational events - you'd be utterly daft to ignore that. And if you think for a second that people would actually understand anything significant about the festival through the parties that I am talking about (I mean - have you ever been to one of these? I have. I live in the UK. No one is learning shit about Hinduism and many people don't even know what Holi is) then I really don't know what to say. Cultural exchange doesn't have to be somber but it most have a modicum of respect. Buddhist scholars in Japan had centuries of discourse to define their traditions and even today there are wide divergences. Secularization =/= commercialization necessarily. Many Japanese traditions no longer carry any religious significance to the population. A few have become further commercialized. But many are still carried out not religiously or with any commercial purpose, but out of a sense of cultural duty and tradition. They have, in a sense, become secular traditions. Those do exist. And in many countries, for that matter. And I'll say it again - what about Good Friday? That is perhaps the most important date in Western Christendom. That has yet to be commercialized. Or secularized. Why? Holi ranks in a very similar fashion in India. And that still doesn't necessarily refute my point - it's alright when a culture chooses to take that step. Western Christendom conceived of Christmas as a potential religious festival, and the West commercialized it. It cannot then go and commercialize other culture's festivals and traditions for its own sake, though, without the cultural in question being accomodating to that desire. Therein lies the difference between cultural appropriation and cultural transfer. Ultimately, the West (largely America and the UK) has a global presence in terms of culture in the way that many countries and cultures do not. I have lived in about 7 countries - most of them outside what people might consider the traditional Western sphere. The amount of impact that the US has in particular cannot be downplayed. You thus can't really treat America and say Tibet or Namibia in the same light in terms of cultural exchange. An event hosted by a museum to invite people to take part in those cultures and to grow in understanding of them (this doesn't have to be dull. Must everything be a fucking party, anyway?) is different than, like I said, having an ESPN event of a Tibetan style debate. Imagine two frat-boys dressed in orange robes and with Tibetan prayer wheels, except instead of discussing Buddhist theology they discuss the best college basketball team. That's akin to a Holi rave, as I see it. As such, nations and cultures are not on equal stature at times. And thus cultural exchanges must bear this in mind. It must also bear in mind proximity. We live in a globalized world but it remains a large world. Nations are still seen as an 'Other'. Hinduism, probably much more than many other major religions, is seen as an 'Other' in the West precisely because not a lot of people know much about it besides the Kama Sutra and idols. This is what Said was talking about. That's what Orientalization is about. For you to compare white supremacy in, for example, the States, to people getting riled up when they see their culture having a disservice done to them, is a bit strange to me, because it ignores the overwhelming cultural power of the 'West' versus smaller and less prominent cultures. Even if you don't agree that's the case on a global stage (and that is just my opinion - it isn't a fact, of course) it certainly is the case in Western countries themselves. Which is what we were initially discussing - English people, in the UK, using a Hindu festival that they aren't familiar with, to have a party. One last, relevant example. My old university had an event every now and then that invited people to come to a formal dinner based on a theme. One theme, once, was Hinduism, As a theme. There had never been a Christianity theme, nor a Polish theme nor a German theme. (There had been, though, an 'African' theme and a 'Chinese' theme) You know what happened? You had a lot of people dressing up as Hindu gods and putting on brown and blue (!) face. It had a lot of people seriously rail against it. Most of these people, like me, were of Indian origin. Hell, I'm not even Hindu, but it seemed to me to be a bit of a spit in the face that in the country and culture that had invaded and colonized India for so long (this was in the UK) a majority of white English kids wished to interact with the culture in the same, destructive way. The people in my school that stood up to this practice did so because they didn't think it was right. Not because they hated free speech. Have a good weekend, anyway!
I think the current format is modeled as best as possible to emulate the way that we self-moderate in real life. We call people who are abuse their freedom to pollute our ears assholes, we shun them, and eventually we don't have to hear from them any more. I don't know about anyone else, but this works pretty well for me, both in personal and (pseudo)anonymous social situations. And remember, you don't have the right to like what you hear.