Gawker's Adrian Chen and the moderators of Reddit have both behaved equally poorly in this affair. I don't agree with either of their actions. The way it has worked out is OK though because hopefully, the 'frontier justice' will be enough people will not be pushing for more laws to curtail our free speech rights even more. That may still happen though -- this is not over. That's on reason why I refuse to jump on the cheering 'lynch mob' bandwagon. I don't like where it's headed.
Outing people in order to punish them for their free speech is wrong -- this would be very easy to see if ViolentAcrez were a political dissenter. The fact that he is using his free speech to invade women's sense of privacy does mean that he kind of deserves it, but that still doesn't make it right. There are lots of people I know who deserve a punch in the face, but that doesn't make it 'right' to actually punch them in the face.
What is it about this issue that makes it impossible for so many to see it clearly? If you want to cheer on the dude for punching out the asshole in a bar, because he deserved it for being such an asshole, then fine, but don't pretend it's therefore 'right' to punch people out in bars.
Techdirt, you've *almost* got this one right. You were so close, but alas, you've made one mistake.
Outing people who have specifically chosen to be anonymous is ethically wrong. Posting Creepshots is also ethically wrong. While delivering one as a consequence of the other may fulfil some romantic notion of poetic or frontier justice, in civilised society, we don't live by frontier justice. In civilised society, we are supposed to believe that two wrongs don't make a right. Didn't your parents ever teach you this?
If I witness some guy calling a woman a whore for no reason, I'd be pissed off at their perfectly legal action, but I would not (nor would I condone) calling that guy a n----r as some kind of revenge. Though he might deserve it; though he might have relinquished his expectation not to be called a racist name: I would still be wrong to call him that name.
Yes, free speech laws do not guarantee no consequences -- that's why what Adrian Chen and Gawker did is legal, and free speech too, but that doesn't make it right to destroy anonymity in order to force those consequences.
Let me be clear: I'm glad ViolentAcrez was stopped and I feel not one bit of sympathy over him losing his job. But cannot stand up and say that the way this was achieved, was 'ethical', anymore than I can stand up and say Creepshots are ethical.
Both actions are legal. Both are free speech. Both are wrong.
If you wish to cheer on the outing of this individual anyway, I can certainly see your point of view, but I will not join you for the same reason I would not join you in answering misogyny with racism, or 'fighting fire with fire' or any of that flawed moral reasoning that we normally have no trouble detecting when there isn't a moral panic going on. 8)
I'm guess solidarity against the copyright trolls is not the really first priority for somebody who names themselves 'okdeadhead' and that their main concern is more like solidarity against anyone who does not agree that the Grateful Dead are the greatest thing that ever happened.
The key word in your argument is 'where unnecessary'. There is simply no other good solution to the problem of posting a link in a character-limited space.
Techdirt you have fumbled this story. Rather than disproving something few people would actually believe, maybe a better lede would have been that this is the most politically disturbing data point yet -- by far -- in the ongoing tale of Facebook liking things against the user's will.
Facebook's automatic like system is now even distorting the picture of political allegiances online: that's the story here, not debunking some ridiculous Mitt-sion Impossible scenario.
(1) All web links are vulnerable to future breakage. However, we obviously cannot dispense with web links, because they are the only way to exchange references on the web.
(2) All shortened links are vulnerable to future breakage. However, we obviously cannot dispense with shortened links, because they are the only way to exchange references on the shortened web.
In order to convince me there is something wrong with using shortened links, you have to convince that statement (2) is false, despite the fact that statement (1) is obviously true.
"complaints from Iranian officials" ≠ "Iranians protest"
I would never have come here to read this article if the headline hadn't implied falsely that ordinary Iranian citizens had mounted a protest. Which means that essentially you tricked me into loading this page.
The anti-sex and anti-pornography crowd can't suppress their hated material legally, so they use anti-prostitution to try to stomp on the services with sex-based classifieds. Once you realise this, it all makes perfect sense. The crusaders *simply don't care* about stopping prostitution. That is just a stalking horse. Just like the censors *don't really care* about child pornography -- that's not their issue. Censorship is their issue.
I'm acquiring a habit of skipping the first three paragraphs of almost every Techdirt article, making a beeline for the blockquote, and just reading the paragraph of two after that. Is that wrong?
Well, *I'll* bet half the people you have seen writing 'LOL' could have written circles around you in complete grammatical sentence form, had they so desired... ROFL
This is just the whole printer / ink cartridge market approach warmed over. I believe Gilette invented it with their razors and blades. I can't believe people are talking about it "make money when you use it" like it's new and brilliant.
Facebook apologised for censoring the cartoon in the first place, not for New Yorker's copyright maximalism. Nobody has apologised for that so what are you on about.
Not to champion cynicism or anything, but it simply isn't true that votes trump lobbyists; not when the candidates refuse to differentiate themselves on issues the voters care about -- which is precisely the situation that arises when the same powerful lobbies are playing all sides.
Awful. The new Canadian copyright law is awful. It wouldn't matter if they set anybody can copy whatever they wish in a free-for-all, because the presence of DRM entirely cancels every other right set for in the bill. This is a shell game -- a pure tapdance. Next they'll say that everyone gets a million dollars but only if the person who already owns the million dollars doesn't want to put a stamped-it, double-locksies on it.
On the post: Reddit, Trolling, Doxxing, Free Speech & Anonymity: Whoo Boy, Is This Stuff Complicated
Re: Gawker...
On the post: Reddit, Trolling, Doxxing, Free Speech & Anonymity: Whoo Boy, Is This Stuff Complicated
Re: Re: Moral reasoning can be a tricky thing
What is it about this issue that makes it impossible for so many to see it clearly? If you want to cheer on the dude for punching out the asshole in a bar, because he deserved it for being such an asshole, then fine, but don't pretend it's therefore 'right' to punch people out in bars.
On the post: Reddit, Trolling, Doxxing, Free Speech & Anonymity: Whoo Boy, Is This Stuff Complicated
Moral reasoning can be a tricky thing
Outing people who have specifically chosen to be anonymous is ethically wrong. Posting Creepshots is also ethically wrong. While delivering one as a consequence of the other may fulfil some romantic notion of poetic or frontier justice, in civilised society, we don't live by frontier justice. In civilised society, we are supposed to believe that two wrongs don't make a right. Didn't your parents ever teach you this?
If I witness some guy calling a woman a whore for no reason, I'd be pissed off at their perfectly legal action, but I would not (nor would I condone) calling that guy a n----r as some kind of revenge. Though he might deserve it; though he might have relinquished his expectation not to be called a racist name: I would still be wrong to call him that name.
Yes, free speech laws do not guarantee no consequences -- that's why what Adrian Chen and Gawker did is legal, and free speech too, but that doesn't make it right to destroy anonymity in order to force those consequences.
Let me be clear: I'm glad ViolentAcrez was stopped and I feel not one bit of sympathy over him losing his job. But cannot stand up and say that the way this was achieved, was 'ethical', anymore than I can stand up and say Creepshots are ethical.
Both actions are legal. Both are free speech. Both are wrong.
If you wish to cheer on the outing of this individual anyway, I can certainly see your point of view, but I will not join you for the same reason I would not join you in answering misogyny with racism, or 'fighting fire with fire' or any of that flawed moral reasoning that we normally have no trouble detecting when there isn't a moral panic going on. 8)
On the post: Next Time Someone Suggests Piracy Will Kill Music, Remind Them That Music Survived The Last Ice Age
Re: Re: RE: Piracy Will Kill Music
On the post: Cloud Computing To Save Europe, Or Just Iceland?
Re: Re: I don't understand...
So, 7 then? I'm thinking 7.
On the post: 'Human Error' Briefly Kills All Shortened Twitter Links
Re: Re:
On the post: No, Mitt Romney Didn't Personally Hack Your Facebook
Facebook's automatic like system is now even distorting the picture of political allegiances online: that's the story here, not debunking some ridiculous Mitt-sion Impossible scenario.
On the post: Harvard Business Review Continues To Innovate On The eBook Front; Offers 'Shared Pricing' On Recent Publication
On the post: 'Human Error' Briefly Kills All Shortened Twitter Links
Re:
http://t.co/123456 ?
or...
http://199.59.148.12/123456 ?
I'll give you some time to figure it out.
On the post: 'Human Error' Briefly Kills All Shortened Twitter Links
(2) All shortened links are vulnerable to future breakage. However, we obviously cannot dispense with shortened links, because they are the only way to exchange references on the shortened web.
In order to convince me there is something wrong with using shortened links, you have to convince that statement (2) is false, despite the fact that statement (1) is obviously true.
Good luck with that.
On the post: Iranians Protest Leads To The Return Of Gmail
I would never have come here to read this article if the headline hadn't implied falsely that ordinary Iranian citizens had mounted a protest. Which means that essentially you tricked me into loading this page.
On the post: UN: We Don't Want To Take Over The Internet... Just Fundamentally Change How It Works
Re: Re:
On the post: Oh Look: Police Can Use Backpage.com To Track Down, Arrest & Convict Pimps & Prostitutes
On the post: UN: We Don't Want To Take Over The Internet... Just Fundamentally Change How It Works
On the post: NYTimes Columnist Explains How He Torrented 'The Bourne Identity' Because It Wasn't Available... Then Sent A Check
Re: Re: Re: Re: Weird
On the post: Judge Orders Woman To Delete Her Facebook Page For Typing LOL About Her DUI
Re: Childish
On the post: This Goes Beyond Tablets: Apple, Amazon & Google Are Betting On Economic Philosophies
On the post: New Yorker Demands Licensing Fee To Repost 'Nipplegate' Comic On Facebook
Re: Non-Story?
On the post: Your Cynicism About Lobbyists Only Helps The Lobbyists Win
On the post: Is The Tide Turning On Bad Copyright Laws?
Next >>