[HoosierDaddy]

If half of the things I've read about her are true, then yes she should be impacted. Actions have consequences, even on the internet.

[blackzoid]

Agree to disagree then.

[Illuyankas]

I assume they mean 'report the harassers to the police and not the press' when they say 'no "outing"', anyway.

[amphibian]

It looks a lot like she shat on people who were close to her own niche as an emerging writer. This is kind of like the cuckoo pushing the other fledgelings out of the nest.

I think her outing is a good thing, as it went into the illegal and the intentionally business damaging.

[Morgoth]

blackzoid, on 29 October 2014 - 10:16 PM, said:

Agree to disagree then.

You disagree that your actions on the internett should have consequences? Or to something else?

If you're trying to use anonymity as a shield to allow you to be an asshole and a bully, I think the only right action is to out that person.

[worry]

Yah as far as I can tell, she wasn't "doxxed" -- which would be a problem -- but was merely de-anonymized by a colleague. If a popular author was identified as a virulent poster on Stormfront, and the real name was connected to the screen name by someone who knew (rather than by an invasion of privacy), I'd have no issue with that either (and would leave the impact on their career up to discerning customers). In fact, someone in my area who is running for Town Council was just outed as a "former" neo-Nazi -- and while I despise everybody running for council here, I find this particular information valuable and indeed hope it affects his (public) career.

[blackzoid]

Morgoth, on 30 October 2014 - 07:02 AM, said:

You disagree that your actions on the internett should have consequences? Or to something else?

If you're trying to use anonymity as a shield to allow you to be an asshole and a bully, I think the only right action is to out that person.

Not wanting to get too deep into this, but I dont like the concept of the internet now becoming the "pernament record" of all our faults. And the fact that the internet never forgets. We all go through extremely stupid periods in our lives, should these consequences be with her for the rest of her life?

From what I see these days, the "self-policing" of the internet isnt that far away from doxxing and gleeful internet mob justice for my likng. So I am just wary in calling this a triumph.

This post has been edited by blackzoid: 30 October 2014 - 11:29 AM

[Morgoth]

I think people should be expected to behave on the internet as they would in normal life, and that the consequences should be the same for not doing so.

Ergo: If you act the asshole on the internet you should expect to be revealed as an asshole in the same way you would had you acted that way in real life.

[blackzoid]

I'm not sure if its that simple. The internet can become a "consequences-multiplier"as it were. In real life, if someone abused people to their face, that person responds (or not). Or gets a few immediate people on side. On the internet, via the power of communication and tech its a lot easier to rope in very many others onto one persons side. And unlike the insult in real life, the blog post or whatever is always out there, stirring up trouble.

Internet communication seems to be, somewhat, more dangerious/less free on the part of the speaker then real life. So the safest thing is now to stay silent on the internet/become a lurker. Thats my viewpoint.

Of course, it is then worrying when false statements are attributed to you on the internet (not happened here it seems)

This post has been edited by blackzoid: 30 October 2014 - 12:43 PM

[Morgoth]

If you act an asshole in the real world the only people that care are the people directly affected and perhaps the rest of your local community. The more famous you are the more People will care. A major personality will be shamed as an assohle in the national press.

On the internet it works pretty much in the same way. Unless you allow anonimity to be a shield.

My opinion is that being an asshole on the internet should have the same consequence as being an asshole in real life. Mainly as the seperation between net and real life become less and less.. well.. real.

I'd argue that there's no reason to fear being vocal on the net. You know, as long as you're not being an asshole.

[blackzoid]

Morgoth, on 30 October 2014 - 01:17 PM, said:

I'd argue that there's no reason to fear being vocal on the net. You know, as long as you're not being an asshole.

Thats my personal problem right there. That there is a caveat for web speech and that the threat of "shaming" exists at all. To be an asshole is not a moral crime I think. (Though different countries have different legal standards of course, so she may be charged on that).

I suspect we will have to agree to disagree on this because I am very much in favour of web anonymity (shield or not) and probably steer closer to the right on the scale of relative freedom of speech/online bullying than you may.

This post has been edited by blackzoid: 30 October 2014 - 01:28 PM

[Morgoth]

The right on the scale? Are we seperating this into political divides now? If that is the direction from which you are approaching this debate I fear the main issue here is that you do not fully understand what freedom of speech is.

Incidentally, being an asshole is a moral "crime" in most cultures I would think, though rarely a legale crime. Or do you claim to come from a place where being an asshole is considered a neutral, or even positive, description?

[amphibian]

Benjanun wasn't doxxed or exposed in a way that invited harm. All of the places that I looked at refrained from allowing people to post her physical address or start in on her family/friends.

I lean much closer to Morgoth. Yes, many people say or do regrettable things on the Internet and having it follow them around forever isn't awesome. But that's ok, as there should be consequences in form of timely verbal push back to doing the wrong thing - just as there are in real life. I don't think these trolls get counter trolled or harrassed much if at all. It's almost entirely one way.

[blackzoid]

Morgoth, on 30 October 2014 - 01:55 PM, said:

The right on the scale? Are we seperating this into political divides now? If that is the direction from which you are approaching this debate I fear the main issue here is that you do not fully understand what freedom of speech is.

Incidentally, being an asshole is a moral "crime" in most cultures I would think, though rarely a legale crime. Or do you claim to come from a place where being an asshole is considered a neutral, or even positive, description?

I'm not really wanting to get into this but ya, I meant "right" as in the left-right political divide. (Or being more down if you use that political compass authoriterian/liberterian angle)

Let me just summarise the ensuing coming argument in order to save us lots of time, as I sense that you seem to want to argue against someone and are starting to go down the path of putting words in my mouth (claiming to come from a place etc)

1: Yes, I do include Full Freedom of Speech as being inclusive of Hate Speech and insults/assholeishness. I presume (and correct me if I am wrong), you disagree. Full freedom of speech as never been enacted in any society as that society would then fall apart (probably). So we have horse-trading of rights vis-a-vis free speech versus bullying. And not everyone agrees on where those limits are set.

2: No, I dont believe been an asshole should be a moral crime in most cultures. You disagree.

3: I dont believe that shaming (or shaming as an offensive tactic in general) of assholes is a good thing if the crime is not at a full "legal" level. You (I presume) disagree.

We are probably not going to change each other's opinions on this. So lets agree to disagree.

This post has been edited by blackzoid: 30 October 2014 - 02:59 PM

[acesn8s]

blackzoid, on 30 October 2014 - 02:55 PM, said:

Morgoth, on 30 October 2014 - 01:55 PM, said:

The right on the scale? Are we seperating this into political divides now? If that is the direction from which you are approaching this debate I fear the main issue here is that you do not fully understand what freedom of speech is.

Incidentally, being an asshole is a moral "crime" in most cultures I would think, though rarely a legale crime. Or do you claim to come from a place where being an asshole is considered a neutral, or even positive, description?

I'm not really wanting to get into this but ya, I meant "right" as in the left-right political divide. (Or being more down if you use that political compass authoriterian/liberterian angle)

Let me just summarise the ensuing coming argument in order to save us lots of time, as I sense that you seem to want to argue against someone and are starting to go down the path of putting words in my mouth (claiming to come from a place etc)

1: Yes, I do include Full Freedom of Speech as being inclusive of Hate Speech and insults/assholeishness. I presume (and correct me if I am wrong), you disagree. Full freedom of speech as never been enacted in any society as that society would then fall apart (probably). So we have horse-trading of rights vis-a-vis free speech versus bullying. And not everyone agrees on where those limits are set.

2: No, I dont believe been an asshole should be a moral crime in most cultures. You disagree.

3: I dont believe that shaming (or shaming as an offensive tactic in general) of assholes is a good thing if the crime is not at a full "legal" level. You (I presume) disagree.

We are probably not going to change each other's opinions on this. So lets agree to disagree.

I don't believe any of us are advocating for governmental punishment or censorship. I do support the personal boycott of her product based on how my personal moral compass points. There's also a subset of people who strongly feel that anyone purchasing her books are, in a sense, supporting her actions. I am not in that camp.

[QuickTidal]

I would just like to point out that the evidence presented (and linked on that one LJ page, and through archival examples on the blog that have not been deleted [the Mark Lawrence non-review for example]) points/proves not just "a stupid period"...but 10-12 years of constant vitriolic verbal abuse (be it on LJ, the Blog, and Twitter). That's not simply a "period". That's a pattern.

I can't even remotely bring myself to buy the whole new SFF author "personality" for a second. There was too much of the old persona present for too long, and coupling that with the deleting/scrubbing that went on...well I just can't buy it.

I agree that someone's name and location should not be "doxxed" (that's a new word I learned this month), as that's not at all cool. But it appears this was a little different I think. From what the editor guy said she was in on revealing the connection between the writer and reviewer persona's to "get out ahead of it" since a few authors knew who she was and it sounds like might have been telling publishers not to publish her? At least that what he claims was going on.

Here's the part that really I think bothers me. With some of what the person said on her review site or her twitter account, would say Bakker or Lawrence feel SAFE sitting on a panel with the newly minted author personality? Think about this for a second. Lawrence has already mentioned (over on the ASOIAF forums and twitter) how her review talks about how she stole the book, didn't read it, and then attacks his character as a person and brings his kids into it as well. Does he get to feel unsafe now because she thinks she had the right to threaten him because of assumptions she made about his work (never mind that she attacks the personality of an author because she didn't like his work)? I can't see that as something he'd want/should go through as a person who had done nothing to deserve her bile other than pen a book she assumed she didn't like.

For me she sits on the same shelf with OSC, or Vox Day, or John C. Wright and other assholes whose work I will never ever buy. I have no issues with her being published, or having a career in writing. But as a reader/consumer I get to reserve judgement on that product and whether or not to buy it. If asked about her by a friend who has read her work or was considering reading it, I also get to tell them what I know of the sordid past and allow them to make up their own minds as well.

[Illuyankas]

Glad to know I can just send every one of blackzoid's family members, friends, acquaintances and business partners a constant stream of messages accusing blackzoid of being racist, sexist, homophobic and bigoted and he'd be totally fine with this. Free speech.

(ps you are free to say stuff but you are not free of the consequences, also I'm interested in your views regarding racial slurs and free speech)

[Slow Ben]

Illuyankas, on 30 October 2014 - 03:35 PM, said:

(ps you are free to say stuff but you are not free of the consequences,

Word.

[blackzoid]

Illuyankas, on 30 October 2014 - 03:35 PM, said:

Glad to know I can just send every one of blackzoid's family members, friends, acquaintances and business partners a constant stream of messages accusing blackzoid of being racist, sexist, homophobic and bigoted and he'd be totally fine with this. Free speech.

(ps you are free to say stuff but you are not free of the consequences, also I'm interested in your views regarding racial slurs and free speech)

Are you really interested in my views? Or do you want to just put me on the target range and say "evil!"
My views, as quite clearly expressed previously, is that society would fall apart in the case of total free speech. I said I leaned away from Morgoths position as regards internet speech, not that I am 180 degrees in the opposite position. Since been an "asshole" is not a legal term I believe, I am not comfortable with naming and shaming this woman for what she said. I'm fine with personal boycotts as thats a consumer choice. But campaigns against her are something I dont support.

This post has been edited by blackzoid: 30 October 2014 - 03:52 PM

[Illuyankas]

I want to know where the line is for you. Is it racial slurs? Hate speech? Death threats? At which point do you put your foot down and say 'this is now legally too abusive'?